Document ID: USCG-2017-0903-0011
Agency: uscg
Document Type: Rule
Title: Great Lakes Pilotage Rates- 2018 Annual Review and Revisions to Methodology
Posted Date: 2018-06-05T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 5, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26162-26193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11969]

[[Page 26161]]

Vol. 83

Tuesday,

No. 108

June 5, 2018

Part II

Department of Homeland Security

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

Coast Guard

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

46 CFR Parts 401 and 404

 Great Lakes Pilotage Rates--2018 Annual Review and Revisions to 
Methodology; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2018 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 26162]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 401 and 404

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0903]
RIN 1625-AC40

Great Lakes Pilotage Rates--2018 Annual Review and Revisions to 
Methodology

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960, the 
Coast Guard is establishing new base pilotage rates and surcharges for 
the 2018 shipping season. Additionally, the Coast Guard is making 
several changes to the Great Lakes pilotage ratemaking methodology. 
These additional changes include creating clear delineation between the 
Coast Guard's annual rate adjustments and the Coast Guard's requirement 
to conduct a full ratemaking every 5 years; the adoption of a revised 
compensation benchmark; reorganization of the text regarding the 
staffing model for calculating the number of pilots needed; and certain 
editorial changes.

DATES: This rule will be effective July 5, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document, 
call or email Mr. Todd Haviland, Director, Great Lakes Pilotage, 
Commandant (CG-WWM-2), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-2037, email 
[email protected], or fax 202-372-1914.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Abbreviations
II. Executive Summary
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Background and Comment Topics
V. Discussion of Comments and Changes to Methodology
    A. Rationale for Change in Compensation Benchmark
    1. Challenges With Canadian Comparison
    2. Comparison With U.S. Pilotage Associations
    B. Revised Compensation Benchmark Issues
    1. Use of AMO 2015 Aggregate Rate
    2. Overtime Compensation
    3. Calculation of Number of Days in Pay
    C. Inflation Adjustment Factor for Adjustment Years
    D. Staffing Model Relocation and Calculations
    E. Working Capital Fund Basis and Use
    F. Use of 10-Year Traffic Baseline
    G. Calculation of Surcharges and Incorporation Into Operating 
Costs
    H. Other Issues Relating to Pilotage Oversight
    1. Unnecessary Pilot Orders for Use of Tugs
    2. Mechanisms To Prevent or Discourage Delays
    3. Delays Related to Labor Disputes
    4. Over-Realization of Revenues
VI. Discussion of Rate Adjustments
    A. Step 1--Recognition of Operating Expenses
    B. Step 2--Projection of Operating Expenses
    C. Step 3--Estimate Number of Working Pilots
    D. Step 4--Determine Target Pilot Compensation
    E. Step 5--Calculate Working Capital Fund
    F. Step 6--Calculate Revenue Needed
    G. Step 7--Calculate Initial Base Rates
    H. Step 8--Calculate Average Weighting Factors by Area
    I. Step 9--Calculate Revised Base Rates
    J. Step 10--Review and Finalize Rates
    K. Surcharges
VII. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment

I. Abbreviations

AMO American Maritime Officers Union
CATEX Unique Categorical Exclusions for the U.S. Coast Guard
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CPA Certified public accountant
CPI Consumer Price Index
DHS Department of Homeland Security
ECI Employment Cost Index
FOMC Federal Open Market Committee
FR Federal Register
GLPA Great Lakes Pilotage Authority (Canadian)
GLPAC Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee
GLPMS Great Lakes Pilotage Management System
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PCE Personal Consumption Expenditures
RA Regulatory analysis
SBA Small Business Administration
Sec.  Section Symbol
The Act Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Executive Summary

    Pursuant to the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960 (``the Act''),\1\ 
the Coast Guard regulates pilotage for oceangoing vessels on the Great 
Lakes--including setting the rates for pilotage services and adjusting 
them on an annual basis. The rates, which in the 2017 shipping year 
ranged from $218 to $601 per pilot hour (depending on the specific area 
where pilotage service is provided), are paid by shippers to pilot 
associations. The three pilot associations that are the exclusive 
source of United States registered pilots on the Great Lakes use this 
revenue to cover operating expenses, maintain infrastructure, 
compensate working pilots, and train new pilots. We have developed a 
ratemaking methodology in accordance with our statutory requirements 
and regulations. Our ratemaking methodology calculates the revenue 
needed for each pilotage association (including operating expenses, 
compensation, and infrastructure needs), and then divides that amount 
by the expected shipping traffic over the course of the year to produce 
an hourly rate. This process is currently effected through a 10-step 
methodology and supplemented with surcharges, which are explained in 
detail in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on January 
18, 2018.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 46 U.S.C. Chapter 93; Public Law 86-555, 74 Stat. 259, as 
amended.
    \2\ Great Lakes Pilotage Rates--2018 Annual Review and Revisions 
to Methodology, 83 FR 2581, January 18, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this final rule, the Coast Guard is modifying the ratemaking 
methodology and establishing new pilotage rates for 2018 based on the 
new methodology. The modifications to the ratemaking methodology 
consist of a new compensation benchmark, updates and revisions to 
annually adjusted figures such as inflation rates and traffic volumes, 
organizational changes, and clarifications. In this final rule, we are 
establishing a new compensation benchmark based on input from the 
American Maritime Officers Union (AMO) 2015 contracts. Also, based on 
comments to the proposed rule that the Coast Guard received, we are 
changing the inflation adjustment index from the Consumer Price Index 
(CPI) to the Employment Cost Index (ECI). Additionally, from an 
organizational standpoint, we are moving, but not changing, the 
requirements of the staffing model from their current location in title 
46 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 404.103 (as part of ``Step 
3'' of the ratemaking process), to the general regulations governing 
pilotage in 46 CFR 401.220(a). For clarification purposes, we are 
setting forth separate regulatory paragraphs detailing the differences 
between how we undertake an annual adjustment of the pilotage rates, 
and a

[[Page 26163]]

full reassessment of the rates, which must be undertaken once every 5 
years.
    As part of our annual review, we are setting new rates for the 2018 
shipping season. Based on the ratemaking model discussed in this final 
rule, we are establishing the rates shown in Table 1.

                           Table 1--Previous and New Pilotage Rates on the Great Lakes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Final 2017     Proposed 2018      Final 2018
               Area                            Name             pilotage rate    pilotage  rate   pilotage rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District One: Designated..........  St. Lawrence River.......              601              622              653
District One: Undesignated........  Lake Ontario.............              408              424              435
District Two: Undesignated........  Lake Erie................              429              454              497
District Two: Designated..........  Navigable waters from                  580              553              593
                                     Southeast Shoal to Port
                                     Huron, MI.
District Three: Undesignated......  Lakes Huron, Michigan,                 218              253              271
                                     and Superior.
District Three: Designated........  St. Mary's River.........              514              517              600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule is not economically significant under Executive 
Order 12866. This rule impacts 49 U.S. Great Lakes pilots, 7 applicant 
pilots, 3 pilot associations, and the owners and operators of 
approximately 215 oceangoing vessels that transit the Great Lakes 
annually. The estimated overall annual regulatory economic impact of 
this rate change is a net increase of $2,830,061 in payments made by 
shippers from the 2017 shipping season. Because we must review, and, if 
necessary, adjust rates each year, we analyze these as single year 
costs and do not annualize them over 10 years. This rule does not 
affect the Coast Guard's budget or increase Federal spending. In 
Section VII of this preamble, we discuss the regulatory impact analyses 
of this final rule.

III. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis of this final rule is the Great Lakes Pilotage Act 
of 1960 (``the Act''), which requires U.S. vessels operating ``on 
register'' and foreign merchant vessels to use U.S. or Canadian 
registered pilots while transiting the U.S. waters of the St. Lawrence 
Seaway and the Great Lakes system.\3\ For the U.S. Registered Great 
Lakes Pilots (``pilots''), the Act requires the Secretary to 
``prescribe by regulation rates and charges for pilotage services, 
giving consideration to the public interest and the costs of providing 
the services.'' \4\ The Act requires that rates be established or 
reviewed and adjusted each year, not later than March 1. The Act also 
requires that base rates be established by a full ratemaking at least 
once every 5 years, and in years when base rates are not established, 
they must be reviewed and, if necessary, adjusted. The Secretary's 
duties and authority under the Act have been delegated to the Coast 
Guard.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 46 U.S.C. 9301(2) and 9302(a)(1).
    \4\ See 46 U.S.C. 9303(f).
    \5\ Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Delegation No. 0170.1, 
para. II (92.f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule establishes new changes to the methodology in 
projecting pilotage rates, as well as revised pilotage rates and 
surcharges. Our goals for this and future rates are to ensure safe, 
efficient, and reliable pilotage services on the Great Lakes, and to 
provide adequate funds to maintain infrastructure. Additionally, we 
believe that the new methodology will increase transparency and 
predictability in the ratemaking process and help complete annual rate 
adjustments in a timely manner.

IV. Background and Comment Topics

    Pursuant to the Act, the Coast Guard, in conjunction with the 
Canadian Great Lakes Pilotage Authority (GLPA), regulates shipping 
practices and pilotage rates on the Great Lakes. Under Coast Guard 
regulations, all U.S. vessels sailing on register, and all non-
Canadian, foreign merchant vessels (often referred to as ``salties''), 
are required to engage U.S. or Canadian pilots during their transit 
through regulated waters. United States and Canadian ``lakers,'' which 
account for most commercial shipping on the Great Lakes, are not 
subject to the Act.\6\ Generally, vessels are assigned a U.S. or 
Canadian pilot depending on the order in which they transit a 
particular area of the Great Lakes, and do not choose the pilot they 
receive. If a vessel is assigned a U.S. pilot, that pilot will be 
assigned by the pilotage association responsible for the particular 
district in which the vessel is operating, and the vessel operator will 
pay the pilotage association for the pilotage services. For a more 
thorough summary of the background of Great Lakes Pilotage, see the 
summary in the 2018 pilotage rate NPRM (2018 NPRM).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 46 U.S.C. 9302. A ``laker'' is a commercial cargo vessel 
especially designed for, and generally limited to, use on the Great 
Lakes.
    \7\ 83 FR 2581, at 2583.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ratemaking methodology, currently outlined in 46 CFR 404.101 
through 404.110, consists of 10 steps that are designed to account for 
the revenues needed and total traffic expected in each district. The 
result is an hourly rate (determined separately for each of the areas 
administered by the Coast Guard).
    Steps 1 and 2 of the ratemaking methodology concern accounting for 
the operating expenses of the pilotage associations. In Step 1, 
``Recognize previous operating expenses'' (Sec.  404.101), the Coast 
Guard reviews audited operating expenses from each of the three 
pilotage associations. This number forms the baseline amount that each 
association is budgeted. In Step 2, ``Project operating expenses, 
adjusting for inflation or deflation'' (Sec.  404.102), we develop the 
2018 projected operating expenses. To do this, we apply inflation 
adjustors for 3 years to the operating expense baseline received in 
Step 1. The inflation factors used in Step 2 are multiplied by the 
baseline from Step 1. These inflation factors are from the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics CPI for the Midwest Region, or, if those factors were 
not available, from the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) median 
economic projections for Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) 
inflation (See Section V.C. for a policy discussion about inflation 
adjustments). This step produces the total operating expenses for each 
area and district. We did not receive comments on the operating 
expenses portion of the methodology this year.
    In Step 3, ``Determine number of pilots needed'' (Sec.  404.103), 
the Coast Guard calculates how many pilots are needed for each 
district. To do this, we employ a ``staffing model,'' described in 
Sec.  404.103(a) through (c), to estimate how

[[Page 26164]]

many pilots would be needed to handle shipping at the start and close 
of the season. This number is helpful in providing guidance to the 
Director of the Coast Guard Great Lakes Pilotage Office in approving an 
appropriate number of credentials for pilots.
    For the purpose of the ratemaking calculation, the Coast Guard 
determines the number of working pilots provided by the pilotage 
associations (see Sec.  404.103(d)), which is what we use to determine 
how many pilots need to be compensated via the pilotage fees collected. 
We compare that number against the number provided by the staffing 
model, and we use the lesser of the two as the final result for Step 3.
    In Step 4, ``Determine target pilot compensation benchmark'' (Sec.  
404.104), the Coast Guard determines the revenue needed for pilot 
compensation in each area and district. This step contains two 
processes. In the first process, we calculate the total compensation 
for each pilot using a ``compensation benchmark.'' In the 2018 NPRM, we 
proposed using a new benchmark based on the AMO-provided daily 
aggregate rates for first mates. We received numerous comments on the 
propriety and accuracy of that figure, which are addressed in the 
discussion below. We also proposed a system for adjusting that 
benchmark for inflation in future years. With regard to that proposal, 
we received comments on how to best account for inflation, which we 
address in Section V.C of this preamble.
    Next, the Coast Guard multiplies the individual pilot compensation 
by the number of working pilots for each area and district (from Step 
3), producing a figure for total pilot compensation. Because pilots are 
paid by the associations, but the costs of pilotage are divided up by 
area for accounting purposes, we assign a certain number of pilots for 
the designated areas and a certain number of pilots for the 
undesignated areas to determine the revenues needed for each area.
    In Step 5, ``Project working capital fund'' (Sec.  404.105), we 
calculate a return on investment by adding the total operating expenses 
(from Step 2) and the total pilot compensation (from Step 4), and 
multiplying that figure by the preceding year's average annual rate of 
return for new issues of high-grade corporate securities. This figure 
constitutes the ``working capital fund'' for each area and district. We 
received comments on the calculation and use of the working capital 
fund, which we address in Section V.E of this preamble.
    In Step 6, ``Project needed revenue'' (Sec.  404.106), we add up 
the totals produced by the preceding steps. For each area and district, 
we add the projected operating expense (from Step 2), the total pilot 
compensation (from Step 4), and the working capital fund contribution 
(from Step 5). The total figure, calculated separately for each area 
and district, is the ``revenue needed.''
    In Step 7, ``Calculate initial base rates'' (Sec.  404.107), we 
calculate an hourly pilotage rate to cover the revenue needed (from 
Step 6). We first calculate the 10-year traffic average for each area. 
Next, we divide the revenue needed in each area (from Step 6) by the 
10-year traffic average to produce an initial base rate. We received 
comments on the propriety of the 10-year average traffic baseline 
figure, which we address in Section V.F of this preamble.
    An additional element, the ``weighting factor,'' is required under 
Sec.  401.400. Pursuant to that section, ships pay a multiple of the 
``base rate'' as calculated in Step 7 by a factor ranging from 1.0 (for 
the smallest ships, or ``Class I'' vessels) to 1.45 (for the largest 
ships, or ``Class IV'' vessels). Because this significantly increases 
the revenue collected, we need to account for the added revenue 
produced by the weighting factors to ensure that the formula doesn't 
require shippers to overpay for pilotage services.
    In Step 8, ``Calculate average weighting factors by area'' (Sec.  
404.108), we calculate how much extra revenue, as a percentage of total 
revenue, has historically been produced by the weighting factors in 
each area. We do this by using a historical average of applied 
weighting factors for each year since 2014 (the first year the current 
weighting factors were applied).
    In Step 9, ``Calculate revised base rates'' (Sec.  404.109), we 
modify the base rates by accounting for the extra revenue generated by 
the weighting factors. We do this by dividing the initial pilotage rate 
for each area (from Step 7) by the corresponding average weighting 
factor (from Step 8), to produce a revised rate.
    In Step 10, ``Review and finalize rates'' (Sec.  404.110), often 
referred to informally as ``director's discretion,'' we review the 
revised base rates (from Step 9) to ensure that they meet the goals set 
forth in the Act and 46 CFR 404.1(a), which include promoting 
efficient, safe, and reliable pilotage service on the Great Lakes; 
generating sufficient revenue for each pilotage association to 
reimburse necessary and reasonable operating expenses; fairly 
compensating pilots who are trained and rested; and providing 
appropriate profit to allow for infrastructure improvements. Because we 
want to be as transparent as possible in our ratemaking procedure, we 
use this step sparingly to adjust rates. The Coast Guard is not using 
this discretion in this final rule.
    Finally, after the base rates are set, under Sec.  401.401 the 
Coast Guard considers whether surcharges are necessary this year. 
Currently, we use surcharges to allow the pilotage associations to 
collect extra money to pay for the training of new pilots, rather than 
incorporating training costs into the overall ``revenue needed'' that 
is used in the calculation of the base rates. In recent years, the 
Coast Guard has allocated $150,000 per applicant pilot to be collected 
via surcharges. This amount is calculated as a percentage of total 
revenue for each district, and that percentage is applied to each bill. 
When the total amount of the surcharge has been collected, the pilot 
associations are prohibited from collecting further surcharges. Thus, 
in years where traffic is heavier than expected, shippers that employ 
pilots early in the season could pay more than shippers that employ 
pilots later in the season, after the surcharge cap has been met. We 
received comments on the method by which surcharges are collected and 
on the amounts collected, which we address in Section V.G of this 
preamble.

V. Discussion of Comments and Changes to Methodology

    In response to the January 18, 2018, NPRM, we received five 
substantive comment letters. We received three comment letters from 
organizations representing pilot associations on the Great Lakes: One 
comment from the president of the Western Great Lakes Pilots 
Association,\8\ one comment from the president of the St. Lawrence 
Seaway Pilots' Association,\9\ and one comment from the law firm K&L 
Gates, which represents the interests of the three Great Lakes pilot 
associations.\10\ We received one comment from the law firm Thompson 
Coburn, which represents the interests of the Shipping Federation of 
Canada, the American Great Lakes Ports Association, and the United 
States Great Lakes Shipping Association (hereinafter ``Industry 
commenters'').\11\ Additionally, we received one comment from the 
AMO.\12\ Each of these commenters touched on numerous issues, and so 
for each

[[Page 26165]]

response below, we note which commenters raised the specific points 
being addressed. In situations where multiple commenters raised similar 
issues, we attempt to provide one response to those issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Docket number USCG-2017-0903-0004, available at 
www.regulations.gov.
    \9\ Docket number USCG-2017-0903-0007, available at 
www.regulations.gov.
    \10\ Docket number USCG-2017-0903-0006, available at 
www.regulations.gov.
    \11\ Docket number USCG-2017-0903-0008, available at 
www.regulations.gov.
    \12\ Docket number USCG-2017-0903-0005, available at 
www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, the issues raised by the commenters fell into eight 
categories. The most substantive comments were in regard to the issue 
of the proposed interim compensation benchmark, which we address in 
Sections V.A and B of this preamble. We also received comments on the 
proper measure of inflation by which to adjust compensation figures 
annually. Other parts of the ratemaking methodology were raised by 
commenters as well, including questions regarding the placement and 
application of the staffing model used to calculate the needed number 
of pilots, the amount and application of the working capital fund 
charges, the use of a 10-year average to calculate expected vessel 
traffic, and the collection and calculation of surcharges. Finally, 
commenters raised a variety of pilotage issues not directly related to 
calculating the 2018 shipping rates. We address each of these items in 
the subsections that follow.

A. Rationale for Change in Compensation Benchmark

    The most substantive change proposed in the 2018 NPRM was the 
change in the benchmark compensation model, with the proposed switch 
from using the GLPA as a baseline to the ``interim benchmark,'' which 
uses the AMO \13\ 2015 aggregated wage and benefit information. In the 
NPRM, we stated that we proposed this change because, pursuant to 
litigation \14\ filed by the industry, a court had found that the Coast 
Guard ``failed to justify'' \15\ its decision to apply a 10-percent 
addition to the Canadian GLPA benchmark, and thus was arbitrary and 
capricious.\16\ As this opinion was handed down in November 2017, the 
Coast Guard noted that ``there is a need for an interim benchmark level 
to be developed on short notice and with limited time to gather new 
data.'' \17\ We based the new benchmark on data provided by the AMO 
regarding its contract for first mates on the Great Lakes in the 2011 
to 2015 period. We used the information from 2015, adjusting it for 
inflation to an equivalent 2018 rate, because it was the most recent 
publically-available information to which we had access. We stated that 
we proposed to use this benchmark to calculate compensation until we 
identify another suitable standard. We are currently conducting a 
comprehensive, multi-year analysis of pilot compensation that we hope 
will inform a new benchmark. This study will not be available before 
the 2020 ratemaking proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ We note that in the NPRM, we referred to the American 
Maritime Officers Union as the ``AMOU'', but in their comments, they 
referred to themselves as ``AMO''. We use their preferred acronym in 
this document except when citing direct quotes that use other 
terminology.
    \14\ American Great Lakes Ports Association, et al., v. Admiral 
Paul F. Zukunft, Civil Action No. 16-1019, D.C. District Court, 
November 3, 2017.
    \15\ American Great Lakes Ports Association, et al., v. Admiral 
Paul F. Zukunft, Civil Action No. 16-1019, D.C. District Court, 
November 3, 2017, p. 5.
    \16\ 83 FR 2581, at 2587.
    \17\ 83 FR 2581, at 2588.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nearly all commenters made arguments regarding the proposal to 
change the compensation benchmark. Many commenters stated that the 
Coast Guard should not have stopped using the Canadian compensation 
benchmark, but simply should have reanalyzed and adjusted the ten-
percent increase it applied to account for health and pension 
differences. Alternatively, some commenters suggested that instead of 
using Canadian GLPA or AMO comparative information to establish a 
benchmark, the Coast Guard should use the benefit and salary 
information for other U.S. pilotage associations. We address these 
issues below.
1. Challenges With Canadian Comparison
    In the 2016 ratemaking, the Coast Guard originally established a 
benchmark for target pilot compensation based on the total compensation 
of Canadian GLPA.\18\ We chose the GLPA because ``Canadian GLPA pilots 
provide service that is almost identical to the service provided by 
U.S. Great Lakes Pilots.'' \19\ To calculate this benchmark, we started 
with the 2013 Canadian GLPA salaries, which we calculated to be 
$273,145 in Canadian dollars, or $255,037 U.S.\20\ We then inflated 
that amount using Midwest CPI-U data for 2014 and 2015, and Federal 
Reserve inflation data for 2016, to arrive at an inflation-adjusted 
figure of $267,534.\21\ Next, to match average annual wage increases of 
GLPA pilots, we applied an additional 3.5 percent annual real wage 
increase factor for each of the 3 years, to arrive at $296,467 as the 
final equivalent compensation figure for 2016.\22\ Finally, we 
increased that figure by an additional 10 percent to address the 
``difference in status between GLPA employees and independent U.S. 
pilots,'' \23\ for a final ``GLPA plus 10 percent'' benchmark figure of 
$326,114. While we were not certain that a 10 percent adjustment for 
these differences was appropriate, we did note that the figure had been 
cited in a July 2014 Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee (GLPAC) 
meeting as balancing the different status of the U.S. and GLPA pilots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In this final rule, we refer to the U.S. dollar equivalent 
of the combined wages and benefits of Canadian Great Lakes pilots, 
using the conversion methodology described above, as the ``Canadian 
benchmark,'' although we did not use that terminology in the 2016 
ratemaking documents.
    \19\ Great Lakes Pilotage Rates--2016 Annual Review and Changes 
to Methodology, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (September 10, 2015), 
80 FR 54484, at 54497.
    \20\ See 81 FR 11908, at 11933 to determine how we arrived at 
2013 compensation. We then converted that number to U.S. dollars at 
the 2013 exchange rate of 1.071 CAD to USD.
    \21\ See 81 FR 11908, at 11933, Figure 19.
    \22\ See 81 FR 11908, at 11933, Figure 21.
    \23\ 80 FR 54484, at 54498. This referred to the fact that 
``GLPA pilots are Canadian government employees and therefore have 
guaranteed minimum compensation with increases for high-traffic 
periods, retirement, healthcare and vacation benefits, and limited 
professional liability. In addition, GLPA pilots have guaranteed 
time off while U.S. pilots must be available for service throughout 
the shipping season and without any guaranteed time off.'' See 80 FR 
54484, at 54497.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This GLPA-plus-10-percent benchmark of $326,114 formed the basis 
for our target compensation until the 2017 memorandum opinion \24\ 
found it to be arbitrary and capricious and in violation of the 
Administrative Procedure Act. Specifically, the court found that 
certain statements made at the 2014 GLPAC meeting did not constitute an 
adequate basis for the 10-percent adjustment.\25\ Based on the 2017 
memorandum opinion, in the 2018 NPRM, we proposed adopting the interim 
benchmark, based on AMO information.\26\ However, several commenters 
suggested that we had not responded appropriately to the court's 2017 
opinion. These commenters argued that because the court found that only 
the 10-percent increase was arbitrary and capricious, the Coast Guard 
should replace only that portion. One commenter stated that ``all the 
Coast Guard needs to do is return to the administrative record for the 
2016 rulemaking, analyze the multiple comments in support of a 25- to 
37-percent adjustment, and explain its reasoning for the adjustment it 
determines is most appropriate.\27\ Another commenter stated that the 
court ``require[d] the Coast Guard to reconsider more carefully the 
pilots'

[[Page 26166]]

position that the Canadian benchmark compensation should be increased 
by 25 to 37 percent to account for differences between the two pilotage 
groups, particularly the government health care and pensions received 
by the Canadians.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ American Great Lakes Ports Association, et al., v. Admiral 
Paul F. Zukunft, Civil Action No. 16-1019, D.C. District Court, 
November 3, 2017, p. 25.
    \25\ American Great Lakes Ports Association, et al., v. Admiral 
Paul F. Zukunft, Civil Action No. 16-1019, D.C. District Court, 
November 3, 2017, p. 25.
    \26\ 83 FR 2581, at 2587-88.
    \27\ USCG-2017-0903-0004, p. 3.
    \28\ USCG-2017-0903-0006, p. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We agree with the commenters that the court found only the 10-
percent addition to be unjustified, and that the Coast Guard would 
legally be able to propose using the GLPA wages and benefits as a 
starting point to develop a revised benchmark. Indeed, when considering 
a revised benchmark for the 2018 ratemaking, we did reanalyze GLPA 
compensation. To update our information regarding the value of the 
Canadian benchmark, we analyzed the 2016 GLPA annual report to 
calculate a new average total compensation figure. Using that 
information, and applying the same methodology as we did in the 2016 
ratemaking, we calculated that the 2016 GLPA pilot average compensation 
was $235,136.\29\ Next, we inflated that amount using 2017 ECI data and 
2018 Federal Reserve PCE inflation data,\30\ to arrive at an inflation-
adjusted figure of $247,510. Finally, we applied an additional 3.5 
percent annual real wage increase factor for the 2 years, to match the 
calculation we performed in 2016 for annual wage increases of GLPA 
pilots, to arrive at a final $265,139 equivalent compensation figure 
for 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ We performed the 2016 calculation as follows: We used 2016 
pilot compensation from the GLPA (available in the docket as USCG-
2017-0903) to derive the average Canadian pilot compensation of 
approximately $324,252 CAD. To do so, we divided $17,769,000 total 
wages and benefits by 54.8 pilots. We then converted that number to 
U.S. dollars at the 2016 exchange rate of 1.379 CAD to USD, to 
derive a figure of $235,136.
    \30\ ECI for ``total compensation for private industry workers, 
transportation and material moving,'' for 12 months ended in 
December, is found in Table 5 (p. 71) of the following: https://www.bls.gov/web/eci/echistrynaics.pdf. ECI for 2017 is 3.3 percent. 
PCE inflation for 2018 is 1.9 percent, see https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcminutes20171213ep.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comparing the previously calculated $312,069 (without the 10-
percent increase, in 2018 dollars \31\) Canadian GLP total compensation 
with the $265,139 (in 2018 dollars) Canadian GLP compensation 
calculated in 2018--using the same methodology--reveals a substantial 
problem with using GLPA compensation as a benchmark for U.S. 
pilots.\32\ Specifically, the exchange rate between the U.S. and 
Canadian dollars underwent a shift of over 25 percent in 3 years, which 
caused the benchmark to shift substantially as well. An analysis of the 
U.S. to Canadian exchange rates reveals that this rate can fluctuate 
substantially, as shown using IRS data \33\ in Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ This figure is the $296,467 we calculated in 2016, inflated 
to 2018 dollars using the ECI and PCE inflation.
    \32\ If we then added 10 percent, the resultant figure would be 
$291,653.
    \33\ This information is available at: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/yearly-average-currency-exchange-rates.

                                  Table 2--U.S./Canadian Dollar Exchange Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Year                  2012          2013          2014          2015          2016          2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange Rate (USD/CAD).....        1.040         1.071         1.149         1.329         1.379         1.350
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This fluctuation reveals a fundamental challenge with using the 
GLPA compensation as a benchmark. If we were to continue to use it, we 
would have to adjust it every 5 years using the current exchange rate. 
As shown, doing so could lead to very substantial fluctuations in the 
benchmark, which would not relate to economic conditions in the United 
States or to the state of the U.S. labor market. Such an increase in 
volatility would be counter to the Coast Guard's goals of rate and 
compensation stability and promoting recruitment and retention of 
qualified United States registered pilots.
    We note that two commenters representing pilotage associations 
argued that the Coast Guard should not have abandoned the Canadian GLPA 
compensation benchmark, because using the interim benchmark resulted in 
a proposed lower level of compensation.\34\ One commenter stated that 
one problem with using the proposed revised benchmark is that it 
``reduces the compensation target by at least $20,000 relative to 
retaining the GLPA benchmark and adjusting it for another year of 
inflation--resulting in the very ``substantial volatility regarding 
compensation'' that the Coast Guard says it wants to avoid . . . .'' 
\35\ We note two flaws with this argument. First, as shown above, 
continuing to use the GLPA benchmark would have resulted in a 
significant decrease in target compensation, even below the level 
derived from the interim benchmark. Second, the Coast Guard believes 
the commenters misinterpret the issue of volatility. The fact that the 
target compensation can decrease when it is re-benchmarked is a feature 
of the system. It would hardly be fair if, upon a showing that the 
relevant compensation level had decreased, the Coast Guard resorted to 
a new benchmark as part of a scheme to keep compensation rising. We 
hope to reduce volatility by selecting a relatively stable compensation 
benchmark, but may still reduce target compensation and rates when 
warranted by the data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ USCG-2017-0903-0004, p. 5; USCG-2017-0903-0006, p. 8.
    \35\ USCG-2017-0903-0004, p. 5. Emphasis in original.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the court's opinion, the Coast Guard has also 
considered the commenters' assertions that we should re-analyze the 
2016 comments on the ``adjustment factor'' that is applied to GLPA 
rates, and simply use that number, rather than use the interim 
compensation benchmark. One commenter suggested that the Coast Guard 
should ``analyze the multiple comments in support of a 25%-37% 
adjustment, and explain its reasoning for the adjustment it determines 
is most appropriate.'' \36\ Another commenter asserted the D.C. 
District Court, in its 2017 opinion, ``require[d] the Coast Guard to 
reconsider more carefully the pilot's position that the Canadian 
benchmark compensation should be increased by 25-37% to account for 
differences between the two pilotage groups, particularly the 
government health care and pensions received by Canadians.'' \37\ We 
note that the court itself not only suggested that the Coast Guard 
should have more closely analyzed the pilots' comments, but also 
suggested we consider the option of, ``as the shipping industry 
suggested, foregoing an adjustment altogether.'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ USCG-2017-0903-0004, p. 3.
    \37\ USCG-2017-0903-0006, p. 5.
    \38\ American Great Lakes Ports Association, et al., v. Admiral 
Paul F. Zukunft, Civil Action No. 16-1019, D.C. District Court, 
November 3, 2017, p. 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In analyzing those comments, we found little evidence or data to 
warrant the substantial adjustments to arrive at the 25- and 37-percent 
figures suggested by the commenters. The 25-percent figure, suggested 
by the Great Lakes

[[Page 26167]]

Pilots,\39\ was not based on specific information, but instead was 
simply asserted in light of the listing of 10 general differences 
between U.S. and Canadian pilots (e.g., ``Canadian pilots receive 
healthcare benefits as government employees. American pilots pay for 
their own healthcare.'' \40\) In the comment by the International 
Organization of Masters, Mates, and Pilots, which produced the figure 
of 37 percent, we found several questionable assumptions.\41\ First, as 
noted in the 2016 final rule, the mathematical basis of adding a 37-
percent premium to the Canadian compensation level in order to arrive 
at an equivalent level of compensation for a U.S. pilot requires 
increasing the salary proportion of the component by 15 percent to 
account for a purported cost of living differential between Detroit, 
Michigan, and Windsor, Ontario, resulting in an additional $35,156 in 
salary. As we noted in the 2016 final rule, ``we do not think the 15 
percent COLA differential between Detroit, MI and Windsor, ON is 
relevant--a single comparison point should not be utilized to establish 
the regional comparison.'' \42\ The commenter also makes the assumption 
that to match $49,716 in Canadian benefits, which includes health 
insurance, pension benefits, and tax ``true-ups,'' among other items, 
would require U.S. pilots be paid an additional $118,741 (which 
includes $43,231 in health insurance costs and $53,000 in pension 
contributions). We do not believe that taxation differences should be 
taken into account when determining whether compensation is equivalent 
for several reasons. First, taxation varies over time and by specific 
locality within both the U.S. and Canada. Second, services are received 
in exchange for taxes, and it would be unfair to pay an individual more 
to compensate for taxes that pay for services they receive. Finally, we 
note that tax policy is under the control of neither the USCG nor the 
GLPA, but we could control whether the pre-tax compensation is similar. 
We also do not accept the commenter's assertion that the pension costs 
require such a tremendous increase in compensation. Given that there is 
a mathematical basis of pension contributions (i.e., there is no reason 
a properly-funded monetary pension should cost more in the United 
States than it does in Canada), we do not believe these calculations 
are sound. In this particular instance, the commenter stated that 
``[f]or pension costs if we had used the MMP pension plan contribution 
rate of 18% of wages plus a 5% IRAP the cost would be $61,992. But the 
IRS has a cap on the contribution for self-employed individuals at 
$53,000 and we will use that number.'' \43\ However, the commenter did 
not assert whether the Canadian pension plan is similar to the MMP 
pension plan, rendering it impossible to understand why the 
contributions needed to fund the two plans are so different.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ This comment is available at www.regulations.gov, docket 
number USCG-2015-0497-0052.
    \40\ USCG-2015-0497-0052, p.16. We note that health benefits 
were included in the estimate of Canadian compensation used to 
create the benchmark.
    \41\ This comment is available at www.regulations.gov, docket 
number USCG-2015-0497-0038.
    \42\ 81 FR 11908, at 11915.
    \43\ USCG-2015-0497-0038, p.5. Acronyms were undefined in 
original comment, internal citations to U.S. statutes omitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our analysis of the substantial changes in the exchange 
rate, and the uncertainty regarding the correct comparison of the 
Canadian and U.S. compensation systems, we decided not to continue 
using the GLPA information as a compensation benchmark. Instead, as 
described below, we believe that a comparison with a U.S. system is a 
better interim benchmark until the Coast Guard can complete its 
compensation study.
2. Comparison With U.S. Pilotage Associations
    Several commenters also repeated a request that, instead of basing 
our compensation benchmark on Canadian pilots or U.S. mates, we should 
instead base it on a figure derived from the compensation of other U.S. 
pilotage organizations. One commenter argued that ``many pilots are 
comparably regulated in other U.S. jurisdictions and their rates and 
compensation set in open and evidence-based proceedings. The Coast 
Guard has never provided a convincing rationale for its failure to 
consider or adopt a benchmark based on the compensation of other U.S. 
pilots.'' \44\ The commenter also provided examples of other U.S. pilot 
compensation, which it noted were considerably higher than any 
benchmark the Coast Guard had used in the past. The AMO, on whose 
contracts the proposed interim benchmark was based, argued that, rather 
than using AMO contracts with U.S. shipping companies as a basis to 
determine the target rate of compensation, ``it would make considerably 
more sense for the Coast Guard to use publicly available information on 
the compensation levels for other independent compulsory pilots 
throughout the United States.'' \45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ USCG-2017-0903-0006, p. 6.
    \45\ USCG-2017-0903-0005, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we agree with the commenters that the final compensation 
information of some other U.S. pilots is publicly available, we are 
not, at this time, convinced that it is the best benchmark. We note 
that there are over 60 pilotage associations in the U.S., with huge 
variations in pay structure and levels. For example, in some of our 
research involving pilot compensation, we found that pilot compensation 
levels that ranged from a low of $173,554 annually \46\ to a high of 
$758,922.\47\ Such a wide range does not provide sufficient information 
about the proper compensation of Great Lakes pilots on its own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/lacity/jobs/1823743/port-pilot-5151?keywords=port%20pilot&pagetype=jobOpportunitiesJobs.
    \47\ See ``NOBRA 2017 Income Disclosure,'' docket # USCG-2017-
0903-0009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, we do not have sufficient, reliable information 
regarding how the baseline average compensation levels of other U.S. 
pilotage associations are set, only information on the rate changes 
from year to year. While the final compensation levels are public, the 
methods by which those compensation levels were benchmarked (as opposed 
to adjusted on a year-by-year basis) is not apparent. As we mention 
above, the Coast Guard continues to study the compensation structures 
of other pilotage systems as part of our comprehensive study, and in 
the course of that study, has reached out to numerous pilot 
associations and shipping interests as to how compensation levels and 
shipping rates are determined, but would certainly welcome input on how 
compensation is set and what factors contribute to that determination.
    Further, as noted in the 2018 NPRM, the Coast Guard commissioned a 
study to better understand the direct and secondary impacts of the U.S. 
pilotage charges. The report is titled ``Analysis of the Great Lakes 
Pilotage Costs on Great Lakes Shipping and the Potential Impact of 
Increases in U.S. Pilotage Charges'' \48\ and assessed the baseline 
economic conditions of maritime commerce on the Great Lakes, quantified 
the cost of operating vessels on the Great Lakes, compared the cost of 
foreign trade on the Great Lakes to other modes of transportation and 
coastal ports, and assessed the impact of changes in

[[Page 26168]]

pilotage rates to the Great Lakes shipping industry, including 
surrounding ports. This study demonstrated that pilotage costs play a 
role in determining the amount of cargo shipped on the Great Lakes. 
Because the Coast Guard considers the impact of shipping costs on Great 
Lakes pilotage as part of its ratemaking considerations, this study 
provided evidence that large increases in pilotage rates could 
negatively affect shipping on the Great Lakes. While we recognize that 
the study itself is not a comprehensive analysis of all economic 
factors, it is one factor that the Coast Guard considered when setting 
rates for shipping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ ``Analysis of Great Lakes Pilotage Costs on Great Lakes 
Shipping and the Potential Impact of Increases in U.S. Pilotage 
Charges,'' prepared by John C. Martin Associates, LLC, June 28, 2017 
(hereinafter the ``2017 Pilotage Cost Analysis'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess the potential impact of the U.S. pilotage charges on the 
competitive cost position of the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway System 
and the associated impact on tonnage moving via the Great Lakes ports, 
the 2017 Pilotage Cost Analysis considered the actual increases in 
pilotage charges between 2015 and 2016, and assuming numerous other 
economic factors remained constant,\49\ projected potential impacts in 
the event that similar increases in U.S. pilotage charges were to occur 
in the following year. While the 2017 rates did not actually increase 
in accordance with the model's assumption, and thus the projected 
impacts did not actually occur, the study provides evidence of the 
Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway System's sensitivity to changes in the 
cost of U.S. pilotage, as a percentage of total voyage costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ This study is a single sector analysis, which means it 
assumes that numerous other factors that affect the cost of 
international shipping in the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway System 
are held constant. If the other factors or sectors were not held 
constant, but instead were allowed to fluctuate as they actually do, 
it is likely that the impact from changing pilotage rates would be 
different. It is important to note that the results of a single 
sector analysis should not be interpreted as a full regional or 
national impact analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2017 Pilotage Cost Analysis is informative to our ratemaking 
process and supports the notion that there is an upper limit to the 
amount that can be charged for pilotage services before shippers 
consider diverting cargo to other locations or other modes of 
transportation. As pilot compensation costs constitute the bulk of the 
input into pilotage fees, the Coast Guard continues to carefully 
consider the direct and secondary impacts of our annual rate 
adjustments.

B. Revised Compensation Benchmark Issues

    In the preceding subsections, we described why we did not continue 
to use the Canadian GLPA data or data from the other U.S. pilotage 
associations as the basis for the interim compensation benchmark in the 
2018 NPRM. In this section, we respond to comments regarding our choice 
to use the 2015 AMO contract information as the basis for the 
compensation benchmark instead. We received several comments on the AMO 
contract information's validity and how to implement it, which we 
address in several subsections that follow. In the first subsection, we 
address why we chose the 2015 rate. In the second subsection, we 
discuss comments from the AMO about the application of overtime 
compensation to the daily aggregate rate. Finally, in the third 
subsection, we address industry comments regarding the application of 
the daily aggregate rate to the 270-day shipping season on the Great 
Lakes.
1. Use of AMO 2015 Aggregate Rate
    In addition to suggestions that we continue using the Canadian GLPA 
compensation as a benchmark or that we base our compensation on those 
of other U.S. pilotage associations, we received several comments 
specifically regarding our decision to make use of the AMO aggregate 
daily rates from 2015 (note this is separate from the discussion of 
comments, in Section V.B.2., regarding how to apply the AMO aggregate 
daily rates). A discussion of the comments regarding use of AMO 2015 
aggregate rates and our responses follows.
    One commenter supported the use of AMO data, stating that this 
approach was ``a more rational approach to identification of some 
analogous field of endeavor against which to test the reasonableness of 
pilot compensation levels.'' \50\ The commenter also stated that 
comparisons with AMO members aboard U.S.-flag vessels avoid 
difficulties, identified above in Section V.A.2, in trying to develop 
comparisons across countries. However, the commenter criticized the 
Coast Guard's acceptance of the AMO's decision to withhold contract 
information and obtain compensation data from other sources, and stated 
that the commenters ``lack information necessary to validate the stated 
'daily aggregate rates' identified in the NPRM.'' \51\ In response, we 
note that (1) we do not have the authority to compel anyone to provide 
confidential contract information; (2) we have been working to obtain 
other compensation data, and have commissioned a comprehensive review 
of that data; and (3) it may be possible for shipping industry 
personnel to acquire data about AMO contracts with shipping companies 
on their own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ USCG-2017-0903-0008, p. 4.
    \51\ USCG-2017-0903-0008, p. 5, footnote 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter argued that basing the compensation on the 2015 AMO 
data was inappropriate. The commenter stated that ``the use of old, 
disputed, extrapolated AMOU data does not adhere to the Coast Guard's 
own regulations (as proposed) in 404.104,'' \52\ which state that the 
Coast Guard will set a compensation benchmark after considering the 
most relevant currently available non-proprietary information. The 
commenter argued that the information is old (it is from October 2013), 
irrelevant (stating that it relates to laker-masters, not pilots), and 
proprietary (as actual data from 2018 is not available), and thus 
should not be used as a basis for pilot compensation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ USCG-2017-0903-0004, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We disagree with the commenter, and believe that the data supplied 
in the October 4, 2013, letter from the AMO describing aggregate daily 
rates,\53\ meets the standard in 46 CFR 404.104 of being the ``most 
relevant currently-available non-proprietary information'' for the 
reasons described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ We refer to this document as the ``AMO letter,'' which is 
available at www.regulations.gov, docket number USCG-2013-0534-0007. 
For a discussion about how the information from the 2013 AMO letter 
was extrapolated to derive the 2015 baseline compensation figures, 
see Section VII of the 2018 NPRM, entitled ``Revised Compensation 
Benchmark,'' 83 FR 2581, at 2587.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, we believe that the data in the AMO letter is the `most 
relevant' information. Notwithstanding AMO's statement that ``. . . the 
AMO is disappointed to learn that the U.S. Coast Guard is again 
attempting to rely on the use [of] AMO contracts with U.S. shipping 
companies on the Great Lakes as a basis to determine the `target rate 
of compensation' for U.S.-registered pilots on the Great Lakes,'' for 
the reasons described in the NPRM,\54\ we believe that it provides a 
highly relevant gauge for how much experienced mariners working on the 
Great Lakes are compensated. While AMO's position on the matter are 
certainly highly relevant, we still believe that the compensation of 
U.S. masters on Great Lakes ships provides a useful proxy for the 
compensation of U.S. pilots on Great Lakes ships, and the interim 
benchmark methodology is an effective manner to translate the AMO 
figure into a useable number for the latter. The interim benchmark is 
based on the idea that a Great Lakes pilot should earn, on average, 
about 1.5 times the salary of a

[[Page 26169]]

first mate,\55\ given the demanding nature of Great Lakes pilotage work 
and the experience required. On that basis, the AMO data--which 
describes what a first mate earns for a day of work--is highly 
relevant, and perhaps the most relevant piece of information 
possible.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See Section entitled ``Revised Compensation Benchmark'', 83 
FR 2581, 2587-2590.
    \55\ For a full discussion of how the interim benchmark was 
derived, see 83 FR 2581, at 2587-2590.
    \56\ We also note that the commenters' assertion that the AMO 
data relates to `laker-masters' is incorrect; it relates to first 
mates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, we believe that the data in the AMO letter is currently-
available. We interpret this term to mean ``available at the current 
time.'' As the letter has been posted in the public docket for years 
and is still available, we believe it meets the definition of 
``currently available.'' The purpose of this provision is to prohibit 
the use of data that is in existence but not available for public 
release.
    Finally, we believe the data in the AMO letter is non-proprietary. 
While the AMO asserts that the underlying contract data is proprietary, 
and so we did not rely on that information in setting the interim 
benchmark, the AMO has publically released the daily aggregate 
compensation figure. Indeed, the commenter cites language from our 2016 
pilotage rates NPRM (2016 NPRM), the year the AMO stopped making its 
information publically available, saying ``the union now regards that 
data as proprietary and will no longer disclose it [emphasis added].'' 
\57\ We consider this an acknowledgement that the earlier data, which 
we are using, is not proprietary information. We note that there are 
other non-proprietary sources of information, and simply noting that a 
data source is non-proprietary does not mean that it necessarily 
provides information that the Coast Guard is obligated to incorporate 
into its ratemaking calculations. For example, several pilotage 
organizations also provided overall information about pilot 
compensation without explaining the factors that went into that 
information, but for the reasons described above in Section V.A.2., we 
did not use that information to determine the target compensation for 
Great Lakes pilots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ USCG-2017-0903-0004, p. 5, citing 80 FR 54484.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Overtime Compensation
    In the 2018 NPRM, we used the public figures provided by AMO for 
its 2014 compensation rate, expressed as a daily aggregate rate, to 
determine the target compensation figure for the interim compensation 
benchmark. These figures were provided by AMO in its letter to the 
Coast Guard in 2013, and represented the most current information we 
had to implement this method of computing a benchmark. However, in its 
comments on the 2018 NPRM, the AMO indicated that the information it 
provided in the 2013 letter was incomplete. Specifically, it stated 
that the daily aggregate rates the Coast Guard is using to determine 
the benchmark compensation do not take into account ``standard overtime 
compensation that is consistently earned by U.S. merchant mariners 
under AMO contracts.'' \58\ The AMO stated that the average overtime 
for a U.S. credentialed chief mate under AMO contracts is 40 hours per 
month, which at the 2018 hourly pay rate would be $60.07 per hour, or 
$21,625 for a 9-month period. This was also stated by the pilot 
associations, which stated that ``this `overtime' compensation is 
planned and expected (by both the shipping companies and the AMO 
merchant mariners) [as] part of the AMO-negotiated compensation 
package, and represents a guaranteed payment [emphasis added], for an 
average of 40 hours per month or more, for overtime work (including 
clerical work) that is expected and intended each mate will perform.'' 
\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ USCG-2017-0903-0005, p. 2.
    \59\ USCG-2017-0903-0006, pp. 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The information on guaranteed overtime is new to the Coast Guard. 
In the past, when we based our compensation rates on the daily 
aggregate rates provided by the AMO, guaranteed overtime was not 
included in those calculations. Nor was information on guaranteed 
overtime provided to the Coast Guard by the AMO in the ``settlement 
agreements'' from 2011,\60\ which listed factors that go into the daily 
aggregate wages. These factors included wages, medical plan 
contributions, and pension plan contributions. We used this information 
to validate the daily aggregate rates provided in the 2013 AMO 
letter.\61\ However, this formula did not include a guaranteed overtime 
bonus. We note the footnote in the shipping industry's comment that 
they ``lack information necessary to validate the stated `daily 
aggregate rates' identified in the NPRM and submit that the underlying 
calculation of those rates should have been explained. . . .'' \62\ The 
Coast Guard agrees that it would be better to have incorporated the new 
information into the daily aggregate rates at the proposed rule stage. 
However, we cannot now ignore highly relevant information simply 
because it was not apparent at the beginning of the rulemaking process, 
and we further note that the Coast Guard has been criticized for not 
using AMO data provided during the course of the rulemaking process in 
the past.\63\ Because it is our goal to base our target compensation on 
the actual compensation of mates under the AMO contract, we believe it 
is appropriate to include the guaranteed overtime in the daily 
aggregate rates. We note that the use of ``overtime'' as part of the 
AMO contract terms does not mean there is overtime compensation for 
U.S. pilots, and shippers only pay for actual hours worked at the 
levels proscribed in the regulatory text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ These settlement agreements, between the AMO, Key Lakes, 
and Mittal Steel (Agreements ``A'' and ``B'', respectively), are not 
public information. Therefore, we cannot publicly reveal detailed 
information about their contents.
    \61\ See 83 FR 2581, at 2588. The formula to derive the 
aggregate daily rate multiplies the wage (including weekend, 
holiday, and bonus days) by 1.5, adds a 5-percent 401k contribution, 
and adds the medical plan and pension plan contributions.
    \62\ USCG-2017-0903-0008, p. 5, footnote 5.
    \63\ See St. Lawrence Seaway Pilots Association, Inc., et al. v. 
United States Coast Guard, No. 14-cv-392, (D.D.C., March 27, 2015), 
p. 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have modified the overtime number provided by the AMO to account 
for the fact that they provided 2018 information. As stated in the 2018 
NPRM, we are basing the target compensation on the 2015 AMO contract 
information, which contains the last information that is publically 
available, and using an inflation index to arrive at a comparable 2018 
rate. Because our rates are based on 2015 information, and not 2018 
information, we are not using the 2.5 percent annual wage adjustment 
figures from 2015 through 2018 that the AMO provides and the Great 
Lakes Pilots reiterate, even though they assert that those are the 
actual wage increases. While this may be true, it is not relevant for 
the purposes of determining the 2015 daily aggregate rate. As stated 
above in this section, in order to base the compensation on 2015 rates, 
we are adjusting the 2015 rates for inflation to reach a 2018 rather 
than tracking contract permutations. To incorporate the 2018 average 
overtime figure, we first deflated the hourly overtime rate to 2015, 
using the 2.5 percent annual rate \64\ provided by the AMO, to derive 
its 2015 value, which is $55.68. We then broke down the 40 hours per 
month of overtime into a daily average of 80 minutes over 30 days (or 
one and one third hours per day), to arrive a total value of $74.24 
($55.68 x 1.3333) in

[[Page 26170]]

overtime compensation per day. We then added that value to the provided 
daily aggregate rates to provide revised daily aggregate rates of 
$1,216.30 for Agreement A, and $1,198.96 for Agreement B.\65\ From that 
point, the calculations are similar to those performed in the NPRM, as 
shown in Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ While the 2.5 percent rate is not relevant for calculating 
the 2018 aggregate total, it is appropriate for translating the AMO-
provided 2018 dollar figure to an actual 2015 figure, as that was 
the actual amount by which it was inflated, per the AMO.
    \65\ $1,142.06 + $74.24 = $1,216.30 for Agreement A; $1,124.72 + 
$74.24 = $1,198.96 for Agreement B.

                               Table 3--Calculation of Seasonal Rates by Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Seasonal compensation
                                                                      Aggregate daily   (aggregate daily  rate x
                                                                            rate                  270)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreement A........................................................          $1,216.30                  $328,401
Agreement B........................................................           1,198.96                   323,719
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, we apportion the compensation provided by each agreement 
according to the percentage of tonnage represented by companies under 
each agreement. As shown in Table 4, approximately 70 percent of cargo 
was carried under the Agreement A contract, while approximately 30 
percent of cargo was carried under the Agreement B contract.

                                   Table 4--Weighted Average of Each Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Percentage of tonnage
                                                                          Tonnage            (total tonnage/
                                                                                               1,215,811)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreement A........................................................            361,385                29.7237811
Agreement B........................................................            854,426                70.2762189
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
    Total tonnage..................................................          1,215,811                    100.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, we develop an average of compensation based on the total 
compensation under the two contracts, weighting each contract by its 
percentage of total tonnage, as shown in Table 5. Based on this 
calculation, we developed a figure of $325,110 for total compensation 
in 2015.

                                  Table 5--Calculation of Averaged Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Weighted compensation
                                                                       Percentage of    (seasonal compensation x
                                                                          tonnage        percentage of tonnage)
                                                                                                (rounded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreement A--weighted..............................................         29.7237811                   $97,613
Agreement B--weighted..............................................         70.2762189                   227,497
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
    Total Compensation (Agreement A + B)...........................             100.00                   325,110
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Calculation of Number of Days in Pay
    As stated above, in the NPRM, we proposed to set the compensation 
benchmark by multiplying the aggregate daily rate by 270, the number of 
days in the shipping season, to derive a ``seasonal average 
compensation figure.'' \66\ Industry commenters argued that the use of 
the 270-day figure was inappropriate. They stated that, while ``in past 
ratemaking proceedings [the Coast Guard] has used the 270-day 
assumption as a basis for extrapolating AMOU compensation data to pilot 
compensation . . . the Coast Guard has since (see 2016 final rule) 
imposed mandatory rest periods on pilots that limit their working days 
each month and has imposed on rate payers additional costs attributable 
to increased staffing levels that are, in large part, attributable to 
mandatory rest periods.'' \67\ The industry commenters suggest that, 
instead of multiplying the daily aggregate rate by 270, the aggregate 
rate should be multiplied by only 200, given that the AMO figures are 
tied to working days and that Great Lakes pilots are only expected to 
work 200 days.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ 83 FR 2581, at 2589.
    \67\ USCG-2017-0903-0008, p. 5, footnote 7.
    \68\ USCG-2017-0903-0008, p. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Coast Guard notes that the industry commenters have 
mischaracterized the 10 days of rest that we have incorporated into the 
staffing model. Unlike Canadian pilots, AMO mates, or other U.S. 
pilots, United States registered pilots do not have guaranteed days off 
during the shipping season. Instead, Great Lakes pilots are expected to 
be on call and available for work each day during the entire 270-day 
season. However, it is our goal that when pilot demand is not at its 
highest level (during the 7 months that are not the opening or closing 
of the season), pilots are able to rest for 10 days, and we have set 
the number of pilots so that there are approximately \1/3\ more pilots 
than necessary to handle traffic during these times, allowing an 
average pilot 10 days of rest during an average non-peak traffic month. 
As we noted in the 2016 NPRM when we proposed this system, ``we propose 
building into our base seasonal work standard only 200 workdays per 
pilot per season. The 70-day difference should facilitate a 10-day 
recuperative rest period for each pilot in each of the seven months 
(mid-April to mid-November) between peak traffic periods.'' \69\ As we 
noted in that document, ``our goal is to regulate the pilotage system 
to maximize the likelihood [emphasis added] for

[[Page 26171]]

providing the full 10 days per month.'' \70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ 80 FR 54484, at 54490.
    \70\ 80 FR 54484, at 54490, footnote 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The industry commenters suggest that, like AMO mates, Great Lakes 
pilots should be compensated only for days that they are actually 
expected to work, and thus that the aggregate daily wage be multiplied 
by 200, rather than 270. This calculation would mean that Great Lakes 
pilots would receive zero compensation for being ``on call'' during 
those additional 70 days of the season.\71\ On the other hand, we 
recognize that multiplying the aggregate daily wage by 270 means that 
Great Lakes pilots would receive full compensation for days on call, 
even if the system is designed so that they are not expected to work 
for those days. While neither number is perfect, we acknowledge that 
this is a consequence of using the AMO compensation model, which has a 
sharp delineation between guaranteed days worked and guaranteed days 
off, and of applying it to the Great Lakes pilots, where a day on the 
tour-de-roll may not correlate to a day actively undertaking pilotage 
duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Or longer, as some recent shipping seasons have lasted 
longer than 270 days due to changes in ice patterns on the Great 
Lakes. For example, we note that the 2017 shipping season in 
District 1 lasted 296 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard's mission in regulating pilotage on the Great Lakes 
is to ``promote safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage service on the 
Great Lakes.'' \72\ However, there is a natural balancing in this 
mission. To promote safe pilotage, the Coast Guard strives to attract 
the most experienced pilots, and to attract sufficient numbers, so that 
each vessel assigned a pilot is assured an experienced, well-rested 
pilot. To promote reliable pilotage, we must ensure there are 
sufficient numbers of pilots so that a rested pilot is available for 
duty at the required location at the required time, even in periods 
where traffic is more than expected. Both of these goals recommend that 
we hire more pilots, and ensure competitive compensation, thus 
advocating for higher pilotage rates. On the other hand, the promotion 
of efficient pilotage pulls in the opposite direction. We can lower 
pilotage rates by more efficiently utilizing a lower number of pilots--
moving them around more, or giving them less rest--with the 
understanding that this may result in less reliable service when 
traffic is higher than predicted. Similarly, we can lower 
compensation--improving efficiency by hiring less experienced pilots 
who will work for less compensation--with the understanding that this 
could have consequences for safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See 46 CFR 404.1(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we believe that the industry commenters' suggestion of 
multiplying the aggregate daily wage by 200, rather than 270, has 
merit, we have decided that in the interests of recruiting and 
retaining a suitable number of experienced pilots, a multiplier of 270 
is the preferable course of action. While we have considered the 
argument that it would be more efficient to pay pilots less or have 
fewer of them to generate lower shipping rates, we believe the effect 
on safety and reliability warrant a multiplier of 270. In the past, 
when compensation levels were lower, the pilot associations asserted 
that they had trouble attracting and retaining qualified pilots, and we 
believe offering higher compensation will help the pilot associations 
attract and retain higher numbers of more experienced pilots. 
Furthermore, we continue to note that the Great Lakes pilots' target 
compensation is within the range compensation of other U.S. pilotage 
associations (although we note we are still gathering data as to how 
the compensation and tariff levels of other U.S. pilotage associations 
are set). We also note that our economic analysis of shipping on the 
Great Lakes, discussed above, demonstrates that pilotage costs remain 
low enough to enable a robust trade of commodities.
    Additionally, we point to an issue raised by commenters as an 
additional reason to ensure that safety and reliability are emphasized 
in the Coast Guard's analysis of Great Lakes pilotage. One commenter 
noted that cruise ships are becoming an increasingly important source 
of business on the Great Lakes, and that unlike cargo ships, which can 
weather delays with relatively little impact, cruise ships are severely 
impacted by delays as they cannot keep to their schedules.\73\ We 
believe that with cruise ships becoming a large share of business, the 
need to minimize delays by having an adequate number of pilots grows in 
importance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ USCG-2017-0903-0004, p. 11. We note that the commenter also 
requested that the Coast Guard adjust its regulations to allow 
pilots to give priority to cruise ships for this reason. While such 
a request is outside the scope of the ratemaking procedure, we will 
give the idea consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Inflation Adjustment Factor for Adjustment Years

    In the NPRM, we proposed that in non-benchmark years, the target 
compensation for Great Lakes pilots be increased by an inflation factor 
to promote predictability and increase the efficiency of the ratemaking 
process. All commenters who discussed this issue were supportive of an 
automatic increase for inflation. However, several commenters 
recommended that the inflation benchmark used was inappropriate. While 
we proposed to use the CPI for the Midwest Region,\74\ several 
commenters recommended different inflation adjustments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Specifically, we proposed to use the Midwest Region CPI or 
the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) median economic projections 
for Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) inflation. The PCE 
figure would be used for years where CPI data is not available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter questioned why the Coast Guard expected the CPI for 
the Midwest Region to track actual AMO wage increases year after year, 
and stated that the AMO contract increased wages at 3 percent per 
year.\75\ Another commenter argued that the Coast Guard's method of 
``guessing at current AMOU compensation'' using the CPI was inherently 
flawed.\76\ In response, we note that the NPRM never proposed that the 
compensation rate should track yearly increases in the AMO rate, and 
that its intent was to set a compensation benchmark at a rate derived 
from the 2015 AMO rate, and then increase that rate by an inflation 
factor. The Coast Guard explicitly stated that the goal was not to 
track AMO rates developed after 2015,\77\ and thus believes the 
commenters' suggestions are not warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ USCG-2017-0903-0006, p. 9.
    \76\ USCG-2017-0903-0004, p. 7.
    \77\ See 83 FR 2581, at 2588.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters suggested that instead of adjusting the 
compensation benchmark by the CPI, we should instead adjust it by the 
ECI for the transportation and material moving sector.\78\ One 
commenter noted that ``the [ECI] is the more relevant index because 
unlike the CPI, it tracks the parameter we're talking about: employment 
cost in the transportation sector.'' \79\ We agree with the commenters 
that, for the purposes of inflating compensation costs, the ECI 
provides a better gauge of compensation inflation than the CPI does. 
Our goal is to promote recruitment and retention of skilled pilots, and 
that goal is undermined if the wages of Great Lakes pilots increase 
less than the wages of other skilled maritime professionals in the 
transportation sector as the result of an inflationary gauge that was 
not as accurate as possible. Thus, we have substituted the ECI for the 
CPI in our annual inflation adjustor for target compensation. We note 
that this logic does not apply to the increase in

[[Page 26172]]

operating costs, for which we will continue to use CPI as the benchmark 
for inflation, because the ECI measures the change in the cost of 
labor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ USCG-2017-0903-0004, p. 9; USCG-2017-0903-0007.
    \79\ USCG-2017-0903-0004, p. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we note that in instances where BLS ECI or CPI inflation 
data is not available, the Coast Guard has historically used the FOMC 
median PCE estimates. We have included language to that extent in the 
language for 46 CFR 404.102 and 404.104, respectively, to make the 
process more transparent. We note that we did not include this as 
proposed language in the NPRM, but given that the particular 
inflationary gauges used in the rule have been raised as a serious 
issue in comments, believe that being more explicit about the exact 
figures used in the calculations of both the NPRM and final rule is a 
logical outgrowth of that issue.

D. Staffing Model Relocation and Calculations

    In the NPRM, we proposed to relocate the staffing model regulations 
from 46 CFR 404.103(a) through (c) to 46 CFR 401.220(a). We did not 
propose making any modification to the text of the staffing model. We 
stated that the rationale for moving the text was to improve the 
clarity of the regulations and simplify the process for preparing the 
annual rulemaking documents. Noting that, under the current 
organizational scheme, ``Ratemaking Step 3'' produces two sets of pilot 
numbers (one produced by the staffing model and a different one used in 
the ratemaking calculation), the staffing model text should be moved to 
part 401, where other pilotage inputs that inform the ratemaking 
process, but are not part of the annual calculation, are located.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ 83 FR 2581, at 2586.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We received one comment from a pilotage organization that protested 
this organizational change. The commenter argued that this proposal 
allows the Director of Great Lakes Pilotage to conduct the calculations 
whenever he or she believes it is necessary, which could allow long 
periods of neglect.\81\ We note that, if the commenter believes the 
staffing levels are being neglected, the commenter is able to raise 
this concern in the many public forums, such as GLPAC meetings, that 
are available for input into the ratemaking process. We also note that 
analyzing the number of pilots required is not a process currently 
conducted once per year, but something that is continuously done. It is 
similar to the system for determining the number of applicant pilots, 
which, while it informs the methodology, is not part of it. Instead, 
those regulations are located in Sec.  401.211 of the Great Lakes 
Pilotage Regulations. We believe placing the staffing model text in 
part 401 is the best way to ensure transparency in the regulations, and 
makes clear that it is the number of working pilots that we authorize 
in the regulations--which may not correspond to the number generated by 
the staffing model--that is the relevant value for establishing 
pilotage rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ USCG-2017-0903-0004, p.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter stated that the Coast Guard had miscalculated the 
number of pilots needed in Districts One and Two, and that we should 
add an additional pilot to each of those Districts pursuant to the 
staffing model. In the calculations for those Districts, we determined 
that 17.25 and 15.41 pilots were needed, which we rounded down to 17 
and 15, respectively.\82\ The commenter argued that ``the [staffing] 
model contemplates additional duties of the Association Presidents as a 
basis for rounding pilot numbers. It is entirely nonsensical to round 
down to account for extra workload and duties.'' \83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ 82 FR 41466, at 41480, Table 6. For District 3, we 
calculated 21.55 pilots, which was rounded up to 22.
    \83\ USCG-2017-0903-0007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We disagree with the commenter's analysis, and believe that the 
commenter is referring to a rounding convention that was applicable to 
a different staffing model. We did state, in the 2017 pilotage rates 
NPRM, that ``[i]n all districts, when the calculation results in a 
fraction of a pilot, we round pilot numbers up to the nearest whole 
pilot. We do this to avoid shortening our demand calculation and also 
to compensate for the role of the district presidents as both working 
pilots and representatives of their associations.'' \84\ However, that 
statement was made in regard to a proposal to switch from a ``peak 
staffing model'' to an ``average staffing model.'' The proposed average 
staffing model, which, based on comments we received, was never 
finalized, derived the number of pilots from their average workload 
during the year. Because a pilot association has responsibilities 
beyond pilotage, which takes up some of each pilot's time, the Coast 
Guard proposed to round up to account for those responsibilities. 
However, this situation does not apply to the staffing model currently 
used, which is based on the number of pilots needed at the beginning 
and close of the season, when traffic is highest and treacherous 
conditions often require double pilotage. Under the current staffing 
model, during the first and last months of the season, we expect all 
pilots to focus on pilotage duties, while allowing an average of 10 
days of rest for pilots during the remaining 7 months. Pilot 
association presidents can undertake their administrative 
responsibilities during this time, so there is no need to round up, and 
a traditional rounding system can be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ 81 FR 72011, at 72015-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Working Capital Fund Basis and Use

    One commenter suggested that the Coast Guard eliminate the working 
capital fund, or alternatively, that the Coast Guard promulgate 
regulations that segregate the working capital funds and govern their 
use, and prevent their distribution as compensation. While we did not 
propose any modifications to the calculation or use of working capital 
funds and are not incorporating them into the 2018 ratemaking procedure 
at this late stage, we do believe that some of the ideas expressed by 
the commenter merit discussion.
    First, we discuss the commenter's argument that the value of the 
working capital fund ``appears to be an entirely arbitrary `adder' that 
bears no clear relationship to its supposed function or nomenclature.'' 
\85\ The commenter stated that ``the term `working capital' is commonly 
understood to be a balance sheet measure that is the difference between 
current assets and current liabilities.'' The commenter also stated 
that the relationship between the amount of money collected pursuant to 
Step 5 of the ratemaking process and the infrastructure costs of the 
District is unclear. Finally, the commenter raised the point that, in 
the past, surcharges had been used to fund infrastructure improvements, 
and there should be a mechanism to ensure that it is used for that 
purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ USCG-2017-0903-0008, p. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2016 NPRM, we discussed both the purpose of the working 
capital fund as well as its name.\86\ In our discussion of why we 
proposed to change the name of this step from ``return on investment'' 
to ``working capital fund,'' we stated that ``the intent of [this 
section of the ratemaking methodology is] to provide the pilots with 
working capital for future expenses associated with capital 
improvements, technology investments, and future training needs, with 
the goal of eliminating the need for surcharges [emphasis added].'' 
\87\ We also agree that there may be merit in a mechanism to ensure 
that the funds are set aside for future projects, and will investigate 
the need for such regulation and how to best effect it. We encourage 
commenters

[[Page 26173]]

to engage with the Coast Guard on this issue with additional 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ 81 FR 72011, at 72017.
    \87\ 81 FR 72011, at 72017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter also suggested that the amount of money collected by 
the working capital fund calculation was incorrect, and that the Coast 
Guard should re-evaluate what is the working capital fund's function 
and relationship to pilot-compensation. However, the commenter did not 
suggest an alternative value for the fund. In the 2017 final rule, we 
stated that the fund ``is structured so that the pilot associations can 
demonstrate credit worthiness when seeking funds from a financial 
institution for needed infrastructure projects, and those projects can 
produce a return on investment at a rate commensurate to repay a 
financial institution.'' \88\ Because the purpose of the working 
capital fund is that the pilot associations can demonstrate credit 
worthiness when seeking funds from a financial institution for needed 
infrastructure projects, the value of the working capital fund 
contribution is tied to pilot association revenue and prevailing 
corporate interest rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ 82 FR 41466, at 41484.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Separate from the amount of the working capital fund, the commenter 
suggested that the use of money collected as part of the working 
capital fund be clearly bounded, and any unspent money should be 
segregated and carried forward from year to year, and not be 
distributed as compensation.\89\ The commenter stated that a number of 
surcharges have been imposed on rate payers over the years for specific 
capital projects and expenses, and so the purpose of the working 
capital fund is unclear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ USCG-2017-0903-0008, p. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since 2016, when the ratemaking methodology was updated, we have 
not used surcharges to finance infrastructure improvements or 
maintenance, only to train new pilots. The purpose of the working 
capital fund is to demonstrate that pilots can achieve a return on 
investment, and thus have the ability to acquire loans to finance 
needed capital improvements. In the event that loans are taken out for 
this purpose, we would expect the working capital funds to be used to 
finance those loans, and so we would not permit the financing expenses 
to be counted as operating expenses.
    Currently, there are no requirements for how money collected under 
this provision is spent or distributed. However, we agree that the idea 
has merit. We believe that the money is meant to secure the financing 
for infrastructure improvements, and should not be used as 
compensation. While we believe that this ratemaking proceeding is not 
the proper venue to determine whether and how the Coast Guard could or 
should implement some limitations on the use of working capital fund 
money, we will take the idea under advisement.

F. Use of 10-Year Traffic Baseline

    One issue raised by industry commenters concerns the use of a 10-
year moving average to calculate average traffic. The commenters noted 
that ``the 10-year average is depressed by the significant reduction of 
traffic that occurred in the 2008-2013 period,'' \90\ which was caused 
by the global recession of 2008 and 2009. Noting that in years since 
2013, traffic has been substantially higher, the commenters assert that 
``it [is] rational to assume that 2018 hours will be generally 
comparable to levels in the 2014-2017 period.'' \91\ If those traffic 
numbers are reached, then actual revenue would be substantially higher 
than the ``revenue needed'' under Step 7 of the ratemaking methodology, 
and pilots will exceed their target compensation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ USCG-2017-0903-0008, p. 6.
    \91\ USCG-2017-0903-0008, p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To rectify this, the industry commenters recommend that instead of 
using a 10-year average traffic volume to calculate revenue needed, the 
Coast Guard should use a 3-year period instead. This would result in 
substantially lower shipping costs, as the total revenue needed 
($22,438,782, as identified in Step 7 of the NPRM \92\) would be 
divided by 51,607 hours of traffic, rather than the 43,384 hours of 
traffic using the 10-year average. Applying this change would lower the 
average rate across all areas from $517.21 per hour to $434.80 per 
hour, a reduction of approximately 16 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ 83 FR 2581, at 2595. This figure is derived by adding the 
totals from Tables 20, 21, and 22. Note that it does not include 
revenues from surcharges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters assert that a 3-year traffic average convention would 
make more sense than a 10-year average, as the Coast Guard's other 
parts of the ratemaking methodology that feed into the ``Revenue 
Needed'' use more recent data.\93\ The commenters note that operating 
expenses, used in Step 1 of the ratemaking methodology, are based on 
data that is 3 years old, and staffing levels, used in Step 3 of the 
ratemaking methodology, are based on current year data. The industry 
commenters assert that ``the Coast Guard's chronic underestimation of 
revenue in 2014-2016 . . . is [partly] caused by asymmetry in the time 
span of data in the Revenue Needed and Time on Task data in Step 7.'' 
\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ We note that ``revenue needed'' is determined by adding 
operating expenses, pilot compensation, and working capital fund 
contributions, and then dividing by total number of hours. These 
numbers are calculated on an area-by-area basis.
    \94\ USCG-2017-0903-0008, p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we agree that, for the purposes of the 2018 calculations, 
hourly pilotage rates would be lower if we used a 3-year window, we do 
not believe that this argument is convincing. Given a normal 
distribution of traffic, approximately 5 years out of every 10 will 
have traffic above the 10-year average level, and approximately 5 will 
have traffic below it. We note that traffic volumes on the Great Lakes 
can vary significantly from year to year, and a 10-year average is a 
good way to smooth out variations in traffic caused by global economic 
conditions. Industry commenters provide data showing actual traffic 
numbers from 2007 through 2016; those numbers clearly demonstrate that 
traffic can dramatically change from one year to the next.\95\ We do 
not see this as support for the industry's assertion that it would be 
rational to assume 2018 hours will be generally comparable to the 2014 
through 2017 period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ See, e.g., the change from 2009 to 2010, increasing by over 
50% from 28,201 hours to 43,960 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unlike operating expenses, which do not have wide swings from year 
to year, and pilot staffing levels, which can be determined with a high 
degree of precision, traffic averages are the hardest part of the 
ratemaking inputs to predict. Using a 3-year average would lead to 
dramatic swings from year to year, while a 10-year average smooths out 
those transitions. For that reason, we have decided to continue using 
the 10-year average in our calculations. With regard to the idea that, 
in 2018, this number may underestimate traffic, we note that in some 
years, the use of the 10-year average overestimated traffic.

G. Calculation of Surcharges and Incorporation Into Operating Costs

    In the NPRM, we proposed to add surcharges totaling $1,050,000 to 
subsidize the training of seven applicant pilots. This was based on the 
fact that there are seven apprentice pilots, and we use the figure of 
$150,000 as an estimate for the total training costs of a pilot (this 
includes a stipend). In their comments, industry commenters noted that 
they support adequate training for pilot trainees, but stated that 
``the content and cost of all elements of the training program must be 
put to a

[[Page 26174]]

process of public review.'' \96\ The commenter asserted that this 
element of the NPRM should be withdrawn and a supplemental NPRM should 
be issued to permit public comment on the elements of a training 
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ USCG-2017-0903-0008, p. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We disagree that industry commenters have not had a chance to 
comment on the propriety of the $150,000 figure. This amount has been 
used each year since 2016, without change. In the 2016 NPRM, when it 
was introduced, we discussed the basis for that figure. We stated that 
``[b]ased on historic pilot costs, the stipend, per diem, and training 
costs for each applicant pilot are approximately $150,000.'' \97\ More 
detail is provided in the financial reports submitted by pilotage 
associations. For example, the 2016 financial reports submitted by the 
pilotage associations \98\ contain the following line items for 
applicant pilots:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ 80 FR 54484, at 54500.
    \98\ Available at www.regulations.gov, docket number USCG-2016-
0268.

 Salaries--Applicant Pilots
 Benefits--Applicant Pilots
 Housing Allowance--Applicant Pilots
 Subsistence/Travel--Applicant Pilots
 Training--Applicant Pilots
 Payroll Taxes--Applicant Pilots

    If it is unclear, the purpose of using surcharges to cover 
anticipated pilotage costs, instead of operating expenses, is so that 
retiring pilots do not have to pay costs that they will be unable to 
recoup, as operating expenses are factored into the ratemaking 
calculations only after a 3-year delay.
    We also note that while the $150,000 figure is an approximation of 
the amount required to train a new pilot, the number is ultimately 
balanced with the actual cost through the modifications of operating 
expenses. This means that pilotage associations will provide audited 
information relating to pilotage training costs each year as part of 
the public ratemaking process. Because operating expenses are analyzed 
using a 3-year delay (see Step 1 of the ratemaking process), and 2016 
was the first year we authorized a surcharge for training applicant 
pilots, these figures will become subject to public review beginning 
with the 2019 ratemaking. When actual operating expenses are provided, 
pilotage associations will be able to add to their operating costs any 
expenditures that exceeded the $150,000 collected surcharge. Similarly, 
if they did not spend that much, the excess monies will be deducted 
from their authorized operating expenses. In this way, ratepayers will 
never pay more or less than the actual cost incurred to train a new 
pilot. We note that this would not cause any additional paperwork 
costs, because pilot organizations already provide the Coast Guard with 
their operating expenses on a yearly basis. As we noted in Section 
VII.D below, this rule will not change the burden in the collection 
currently approved by OMB under OMB Control Number 1625-0086.
    While the current $150,000 surcharge practice began only in 2016, 
the process of providing money up front for training, and then 
balancing that later through the accounting of operating expenses, is 
one we have used in the past. For example, in 2014, we authorized a 3 
percent surcharge in District One to recoup $48,995 in expenses that 
the association incurred for training.\99\ However, because realized 
traffic in 2014 exceeded projections (and at the time, there was no 
mechanism to prevent the over collection of surcharges), we note that 
the pilot association collected $146,424.01.\100\ The amount of the 
2014 surcharge that exceeded actual training costs was deducted from 
operating expenses in the next 2 years. In the 2015 final rule, for 
example, we disallowed the $48,314 ``pilot training'' item from the 
operating expenses, because pilot training expenses are deducted from 
surcharges.\101\ We made a further ``surcharge adjustment'' in the 2016 
operating expenses to deduct for the remaining amount of $97,429.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ Great Lakes Pilotage Rates--2014 Annual Review and 
Adjustment, final rule, 79 FR 12084, at 12088 (March 4, 2014).
    \100\ See 81 FR 11908 at 11929, Figure 8, footnote.
    \101\ Great Lakes Pilotage Rates--2015 Annual Review and 
Adjustment, final rule, 80 FR 10365, at 10370, Table 2 (February 26, 
2015).
    \102\ 81 FR 11908, at 11929, Figure 8. In the footnote to the 
table, we noted that ``the adjustment represents the difference 
between the collected amount and the authorized amount of $48,995 
authorized in the 2014 final rule.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also received a comment from a pilotage organization relating to 
the surcharge provision. Specifically, the commenter argued that, in 
some instances, pilot associations do not collect the full amount of 
the authorized surcharge during the shipping season. The commenter 
pointed out that, because the 2017 rates did not become effective until 
later in the season, the pilot associations did not collect the 
entirety of the authorized sum. Noting that there is a provision to 
stop collecting surcharges when the authorized amount is reached, the 
commenter requested that the Coast Guard revise 46 CFR 401.401 to 
``protect the pilots from surcharge under-generation in the same way it 
protects users from surcharge over-generation.'' \103\ We do not 
believe such a mechanism is necessary at this time, and again point to 
the mechanism above where collected surcharges and audited training 
expenditures are ultimately balanced via adjustment to the operating 
expenses. In the case where the collected surcharges did not cover the 
actual cost of training a pilot, either because the surcharge was too 
low or it was not collected, the pilot association would be able to 
include any extra expenses in their allowable operating expenses 3 
years later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ USCG-2017-0903-0004, p. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Other Issues Relating to Pilotage Oversight

    We received several comments from the shipping industry that did 
not relate to the specific ratemaking in this rule, but touched on 
areas regulated by the Coast Guard. While we are unable to make changes 
to the regulations in this final rule due to the fact that the scope of 
the NPRM covered only the proposed 2018 adjustments to pilotage rates, 
we acknowledge that some of these matters are important issues and 
should be addressed in the appropriate forum.
1. Unnecessary Pilot Orders for Use of Tugs
    One comment concerned situations in which vessel masters or owners 
disagreed with pilots on the matter of whether extra tugs were 
required. The commenter asserted that there has been a sharp increase 
in ``questionable pilot tug callouts'' \104\ and requested that the 
Coast Guard implement a procedure whereby protests over these callouts 
can be registered with the Captain of the Port or District Commander. 
The commenter further requested that, if the tug is ruled unnecessary, 
the relevant pilot association be required to reimburse the vessel 
owner for the costs of the tug callout. At this time, there is no 
mechanism by which a vessel owner can contest such a charge, but we 
would welcome additional discussion of this issue at an appropriate 
venue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ USCG-2017-0903-0008, p. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Mechanisms To Prevent or Discourage Delays
    Industry commenters also raised concerns that they were 
experiencing significant charges for pilotage attributable to time on 
board vessels that are not in active navigation, but are delayed by 
issues beyond the control of the vessel. These issues included items 
such as congestion, lack of available pilots at a change point, and 
unavailability of pilot boats. The commenters made two suggestions: (1)

[[Page 26175]]

The Coast Guard should forbid pilotage charges when vessels are not 
under active navigation; or (2) the Coast Guard should develop a 
separate, lower rate structure for pilot charges in these 
circumstances, possibly including a cap or limit for situations where 
the vessel is stopped at anchor. The commenters also noted that these 
charges are particularly significant in the parts of the season before 
May 1 and after November 30.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ USCG-2017-0903-0008, pp. 8 and 9. The commenter also 
stated that in 2016, the Coast Guard removed a $250/hour limitation 
on certain charges, but we are uncertain to what the commenter is 
referring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that existing regulations in Sec.  401.420 speak to these 
situations. In situations where a delay occurs, a pilotage association 
cannot charge for pilotage if the delay is caused by the pilotage 
association or the pilot (such as in the situation of a lack of a pilot 
boat). Delays caused by weather are, however, charged to the vessel 
before May 1 or after November 30. We disagree with the commenters that 
this provision should be changed. During these ``peak'' periods of the 
season, pilot time is a scarce resource, and we want to encourage the 
most efficient use of the pilot's time. There is a risk of delay when 
using the Great Lakes during parts of the year where delays caused by 
ice is common, and we want shippers, who decide when to use the Great 
Lakes, to incorporate the risks of those delays into their business 
decisions. Excluding fees for weather delays, at times when weather is 
a known risk, encourages inefficient use of pilot time and puts 
pressure on the system to increase the number of pilots, thus 
increasing rates for all.
3. Delays Related to Labor Disputes
    Industry commenters also raised the issue of delays caused by labor 
disputes. The commenters stated that there were incidents in which 
pilots delayed vessel operations, citing pickets or demonstrations by 
labor interests at terminal facilities being used by a vessel required 
by law to use pilot services.\106\ The commenters requested that the 
Coast Guard establish mechanisms to require pilot associations to 
reimburse the vessel operator for any delay costs associated with these 
actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ USCG-2017-0903-0008, p. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that there is currently no specific regulation that 
would require or enable the Coast Guard to impose monetary or damages 
for delays associated with a pilot or pilot association refusing 
service to a vessel based on labor protests. If a vessel operator 
believes this situation is occurring, he or she may use the procedures 
in Sec.  401.510, ``Operation without registered pilots,'' to determine 
the best course of action. If an owner or operator believes he or she 
has accrued monetary damages from an improper delay, that person may 
wish to pursue those claims in a civil venue.
4. Over-Realization of Revenues
    Industry commenters raise the issue of over-realization of revenues 
on the part of the pilot associations, and said the Coast Guard is 
failing to give this matter sufficient attention in the NPRM. The 
commenters argued that high U.S. pilotage rates had an adverse effect 
on the economy, and were substantively higher than Canadian rates for 
similar routes.
    We note that, while we did not write at length on the issue of 
over-realization of revenues in the NPRM, it is because it is not a 
highly salient issue at this time. In the past, over-realization of 
revenues was caused by two factors, as the industry commenters note in 
their remarks: The lack of incorporation of weighting factor fees into 
the ratemaking methodology (revised per the suggestion of industry 
commenters), and a traffic level higher than the 10-year average. As we 
stated earlier in this preamble, higher traffic than expected 
translating into more revenues than expected is a feature of the pay-
for-service economic model on the Great Lakes, not a shortcoming of the 
methodology. Furthermore, we note that, contrary to the commenter's 
assertion, we have considered the secondary economic impact of pilotage 
rates--the 2017 Pilotage Cost Analysis the commenters cite being an 
example of how we analyze them. The results of the study are clear: 
although pilotage rates have by necessity increased substantially 
(given our focus on increasing the number of pilots and their 
compensation to encourage recruitment and retention), they have not 
increased to levels that threaten the economic viability of Great Lakes 
shipping.

VI. Discussion of Rate Adjustments

    Having made the adjustments to the ratemaking methodology and 
inputs as described in the previous section, in this section, we 
discuss the revised 2018 ratemaking model used to derive the new 
pilotage rates. We note that several of the inputs have changed from 
the NPRM because this final rule was developed in 2018, and so various 
data points have been updated to include 2017 data that has become 
available. These changes include a revision of the Moody's rate for 
corporate securities, in Step 5, a revision to the 10-year average 
traffic figures, in Step 7, and a revision of the average weighting 
factors, in Step 8. Several inflation factors have been similarly 
adjusted to incorporate 2017 data and revised estimates. We have 
provided citations to all relevant data, where possible.

A. Step 1--Recognition of Operating Expenses

    Step 1 in our ratemaking methodology requires that the Coast Guard 
review and recognize the previous year's operating expenses (Sec.  
404.101). To do this, we begin by reviewing the independent 
accountant's financial reports for each association's 2015 expenses and 
revenues.\107\ For accounting purposes, the financial reports divide 
expenses into designated and undesignated areas. In certain instances, 
for example, costs are applied to the undesignated or designated area 
based on where they were actually accrued. For example, costs for 
``Applicant pilot license insurance'' in District One are assigned 
entirely to the undesignated areas, as applicant pilots work 
exclusively in those areas. For costs that accrued to the pilot 
associations generally, for example, insurance, the cost is divided 
between the designated and undesignated areas on a pro rata basis. The 
recognized operating expenses for the three districts are shown in 
Tables 6 through 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ These reports are available in the docket for this 
rulemaking (see https://www.regulations.gov, Docket # USCG-2017-
0903).

[[Page 26176]]

                               Table 6--2015 Recognized Expenses for District One
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   District One
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                    Designated     Undesignated
                   Reported expenses for 2015                    --------------------------------
                                                                   St. Lawrence                        Total
                                                                       River       Lake Ontario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Expenses:
    Other Pilotage Costs:
        Pilot subsistence/travel................................        $344,718        $267,669        $612,387
        Applicant Pilot subsistence/travel......................          59,992          88,313         148,305
        License insurance.......................................          26,976          26,976          53,952
        Applicant Pilot license insurance.......................               0           2,271           2,271
        Payroll taxes...........................................          97,531          61,656         159,187
        Applicant Pilot payroll taxes...........................           8,200          12,583          20,783
        Other...................................................           5,679           5,341          11,020
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Total other pilotage costs..........................         543,096         464,809       1,007,905
    Pilot Boat and Dispatch Costs:
        Pilot boat expense......................................         134,400         106,064         240,464
        Dispatch expense........................................               0               0               0
        Payroll taxes...........................................           9,688           7,645          17,333
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Total pilot and dispatch costs......................         144,088         113,709         257,797
    Administrative Expenses:
        Legal--general counsel..................................          12,388           9,733          22,121
        Legal--shared counsel (K&L Gates).......................             904             710           1,614
        Legal--USCG litigation..................................               0               0               0
        Insurance...............................................          16,261          12,832          29,093
        Employee benefits.......................................           8,752           6,907          15,659
        Payroll taxes...........................................           5,628           4,441          10,069
        Other taxes.............................................           9,447           7,455          16,902
        Travel..................................................             795             627           1,422
        Depreciation/auto leasing/other.........................          55,850          31,763          87,613
        Interest................................................          12,337           9,736          22,073
        Dues and subscriptions..................................          15,867          15,513          31,380
        Utilities...............................................           9,573             461          10,034
        Salaries................................................          56,126          44,291         100,417
        Accounting/Professional fees............................           5,254           4,146           9,400
        Pilot Training..........................................               0               0               0
        Applicant Pilot training................................               0               0               0
        Other...................................................           9,118           6,446          15,564
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Total Administrative Expenses.......................         218,300         155,061         373,361
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                Total Operating Expenses (Other Costs + Pilot            905,484         733,579       1,639,063
                 Boats + Admin).................................
Adjustments (Independent certified public accountant (CPA)):
    Pilot subsistence/travel....................................               0          -2,943          -2,943
    Payroll taxes...............................................               0               0               0
    Applicant Pilot payroll taxes...............................               0               0               0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total CPA Adjustments...................................               0          -2,943          -2,943
Adjustments (Director):
    Legal--general counsel (corrected number)...................             904             710           1,614
    Legal--general counsel (corrected number)...................         -12,388          -9,733         -22,121
    Legal--shared counsel (K&L Gates) (corrected number)........          12,388           9,733          22,121
    Legal--shared counsel (K&L Gates) (corrected number)........            -904            -710          -1,614
    Legal--shared counsel--3% lobbying fee (K&L Gates)..........            -371            -292            -663
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total Director's Adjustments............................            -371            -292            -663
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Total Operating Expenses (OpEx + Adjustments).......         905,113         730,344       1,635,457
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Table 7--2015 Recognized Expenses for District Two
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   District Two
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                   Undesignated     Designated
                   Reported expenses for 2015                    --------------------------------
                                                                                    SES to Port        Total
                                                                     Lake Erie         Huron
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Expenses:
    Other Pilotage Costs:
        Pilot subsistence/travel................................        $163,276        $244,915        $408,191

[[Page 26177]]

 
        Applicant Pilot subsistence/travel......................               0               0               0
        License insurance.......................................           6,798          10,196          16,994
        Applicant Pilot license insurance.......................               0               0               0
        Payroll taxes...........................................          53,242          79,863         133,105
        Applicant Pilot payroll taxes...........................               0               0               0
        Other...................................................             457             686           1,143
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Total other pilotage costs..........................         223,773         335,660         559,433
    Pilot Boat and Dispatch Costs:
        Pilot boat expense......................................         175,331         262,997         438,328
        Dispatch expense........................................           9,000          13,500          22,500
        Employee benefits.......................................          74,855         112,282         187,137
        Payroll taxes...........................................           9,724          14,585          24,309
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Total pilot and dispatch costs......................         268,910         403,364         672,274
    Administrative Expenses:
        Legal--general counsel..................................          10,282          15,422          25,704
        Legal--shared counsel (K&L Gates).......................           8,346          12,520          20,866
        Legal--USCG litigation..................................               0               0               0
        Office rent.............................................          26,275          39,413          65,688
        Insurance...............................................          10,618          15,926          26,544
        Employee benefits.......................................          23,930          35,896          59,826
        Workman's compensation--pilots..........................          47,636          71,453         119,089
        Payroll taxes...........................................           5,428           8,141          13,569
        Other taxes.............................................          29,220          43,830          73,050
        Depreciation/auto leasing/other.........................          19,757          29,636          49,393
        Interest................................................           4,159           6,238          10,397
        APA Dues................................................          11,827          17,741          29,568
        Utilities...............................................          15,850          23,775          39,625
        Salaries................................................          51,365          77,048         128,413
        Accounting/Professional fees............................          10,721          16,081          26,802
        Pilot Training..........................................               0               0               0
        Other...................................................          11,775          17,662          29,437
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Total Administrative Expenses.......................         287,189         430,782         717,971
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                Total Operating Expenses (Other Costs + Pilot            779,872       1,169,806       1,949,678
                 Boats + Admin).................................
Adjustments (Independent CPA):
    Pilot boat costs............................................            -444            -666          -1,110
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total CPA Adjustments...................................            -444            -666          -1,110
Adjustments (Director):
    Legal--shared counsel 3% lobbying fee (K&L Gates)...........            -250            -376            -626
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total Director's Adjustments............................            -250            -376            -626
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Total Operating Expenses (OpEx + Adjustments).......         779,178       1,168,764       1,947,942
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Table 8--2015 Recognized Expenses for District Three
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  District Three
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                   Undesignated     Designated
                                                                 --------------------------------
                   Reported expenses for 2015                       Lakes Huron
                                                                   and Michigan     St. Mary's         Total
                                                                     and Lake          River
                                                                     Superior
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Expenses:
    Other Pilotage Costs:
        Pilot subsistence/travel................................        $457,393        $152,465        $609,858
        Applicant pilot subsistence/travel......................               0  ..............               0
        License insurance.......................................          16,803           5,601          22,404
        Payroll taxes...........................................         160,509          53,503         214,012
        Applicant pilot payroll taxes...........................               0  ..............               0
        Other...................................................           1,546             515           2,061
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------

[[Page 26178]]

 
            Total other pilotage costs..........................         636,251         212,084         848,335
    Pilot Boat and Dispatch Costs:
        Pilot boat costs........................................         488,246         162,748         650,994
        Dispatch costs..........................................         128,620          42,873         171,493
        Employee benefits.......................................          12,983           4,327          17,310
        Payroll taxes...........................................          14,201           4,734          18,935
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Total pilot and dispatch costs......................         644,050         214,682         858,732
    Administrative Expenses:
        Legal--general counsel..................................          16,798           5,599          22,397
        Legal--shared counsel (K&L Gates).......................          18,011           6,004          24,015
        Legal--USCG litigation..................................               0  ..............               0
        Office rent.............................................           6,372           2,124           8,496
        Insurance...............................................          12,227           4,076          16,303
        Employee benefits.......................................          93,646          31,215         124,861
        Payroll Taxes...........................................           9,963           3,321          13,284
        Other taxes.............................................           1,333             445           1,778
        Depreciation/auto leasing/other.........................          29,111           9,703          38,814
        Interest................................................           3,397           1,132           4,529
        APA Dues................................................          22,736           7,579          30,315
        Utilities...............................................          32,716          10,906          43,622
        Salaries................................................          84,075          28,025         112,100
        Accounting/Professional fees............................          19,696           6,565          26,261
        Pilot Training..........................................          26,664           8,888          35,552
        Other...................................................          25,228           8,409          33,637
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Total Administrative Expenses.......................         401,973         133,991         535,964
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                Total Operating Expenses (Other Costs + Pilot          1,682,274         560,757       2,243,031
                 Boats + Admin).................................
Adjustments (Independent CPA):
    Pilot subsistence/Travel....................................         -67,933         -22,645         -90,578
    Payroll taxes...............................................         -14,175          -4,725         -18,901
    Other expenses..............................................          -4,058          -1,353          -5,411
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total CPA Adjustments...................................         -86,166         -28,723        -114,890
Adjustments (Director):
    Legal--shared counsel 3% lobbying fee (K&L Gates)...........            -540            -180            -720
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total Director's Adjustments............................            -540            -180            -720
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Total Operating Expenses (OpEx + Adjustments).......       1,595,565         531,854       2,127,420
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Values may not sum due to rounding. District 3 provided the Coast Guard data for Areas 6, 7, and 8. However,
  the Coast Guard combined areas 6 and 8 to present the operating expenses by designated and undesignated areas.

B. Step 2--Projection of operating expenses

    Having ascertained the recognized 2015 operating expenses in Step 
1, the next step is to estimate the current year's operating expenses 
by adjusting those expenses for inflation over the 3-year period. The 
Coast Guard calculated inflation using the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
data from the CPI for the Midwest Region of the United States \108\ and 
reports from the FOMC median economic projections for PCE 
inflation.\109\ Based on that information, the calculations for Step 2 
for all three districts are shown in Tables 9 through 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ Annual average CPI for 2017, 2016, and 2015 is 229.874, 
226.115, and 224.21, respectively. Operating expenses were updated 
to 2016 using 0.8% and to 2017 using 1.7%, as shown in the last 
column of the table found at https://www.bls.gov/regions/midwest/data/consumerpriceindexhistorical_midwest_table.pdf.
    \109\ Operating expenses were updated to 2018 using the median 
PCE inflation for 2018 found in Table 1: Economic projections of 
Federal Reserve Board members and Federal Reserve Bank presidents, 
under their individual assessments of projected appropriate monetary 
policy, December 2017. Available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcminutes20171213ep.htm.

                              Table 9--Adjusted Operating Expenses for District One
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Designated     Undesignated        Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Operating Expenses (Step 1)...............................        $905,113        $730,344      $1,635,457
2016 Inflation Modification (@0.8%).............................           7,241           5,843          13,084

[[Page 26179]]

 
2017 Inflation Modification (@1.7%).............................          15,510          12,515          28,025
2018 Inflation Modification (@1.9%).............................          17,629          14,225          31,854
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Adjusted 2018 Operating Expenses............................         945,493         762,927       1,708,420
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Table 10--Adjusted Operating Expenses for District Two
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Undesignated     Designated         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Operating Expenses (Step 1)...............................        $779,178      $1,168,764      $1,947,942
2016 Inflation Modification (@0.8%).............................           6,233           9,350          15,583
2017 Inflation Modification (@1.7%).............................          13,352          20,028          33,380
2018 Inflation Modification (@1.9%).............................          15,176          22,765          37,941
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Adjusted 2018 Operating Expenses................................         813,939       1,220,907       2,034,846
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Table 11--Adjusted Operating Expenses for District Three
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Undesignated     Designated         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Operating Expenses (Step 1)...............................      $1,595,565        $531,854      $2,127,420
2016 Inflation Modification (@0.8%).............................          12,765           4,255          17,020
2017 Inflation Modification (@1.7%).............................          27,342           9,114          36,456
2018 Inflation Modification (@1.9%).............................          31,078          10,359          41,437
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Adjusted 2018 Operating Expenses................................       1,666,750         555,582       2,222,333
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Values may not sum due to rounding. District 3 provided the Coast Guard data for Areas 6, 7, and 8. However,
  the Coast Guard combined areas 6 and 8 to present the operating expenses by designated and undesignated areas.

C. Step 3--Estimate Number of Working Pilots

    In accordance with the proposed text in Sec.  404.103, we estimated 
the number of working pilots in each district. Based on input from the 
Saint Lawrence Seaway Pilots Association, we estimate that there will 
be 17 working pilots in 2018 in District One. Based on input from the 
Lakes Pilots Association, we estimate there will be 14 working pilots 
in 2018 in District Two. Based on input from the Western Great Lakes 
Pilots Association, we estimate there will be 18 working pilots in 2018 
in District Three.
    Furthermore, based on the staffing model employed to develop the 
total number of pilots needed, we assign a certain number of pilots to 
designated waters, and a certain number to undesignated waters. These 
numbers are used to determine the amount of revenue needed in their 
respective areas.

                                           Table 12--Authorized Pilots
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     District
                                                                   District  One   District  Two       Three
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum number of pilots (per Sec.   401.220(a)) \110\..........              17              15              22
2018 Authorized pilots (total)..................................              17              14              18
Pilots assigned to designated areas.............................              10               7               4
Pilots assigned to undesignated areas...........................               7               7              14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Step 4--Determine Target Pilot Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ For a detailed calculation, see 82 FR 41466, Table 6 at 
41480 (August 31, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Step 4, we determine the total pilot compensation for each area. 
Because we are conducting a ``full ratemaking'' this year, we follow 
the procedure outlined in the revised paragraph (a) of Sec.  404.104, 
which requires us to develop a benchmark after considering the most 
relevant currently available nonproprietary information. The 
compensation benchmark for 2018 is $352,485 per pilot. We derived this 
figure by using the number we calculated for the 2015 AMO rate 
($325,110), and then adjusting for inflation to arrive at the interim 
benchmark number for 2018, using the ECI and PCE inflation indexes as 
discussed in Section VI.C. The calculations are shown in Table 13.

[[Page 26180]]

       Table 13--Calculation of 2018 Target Compensation Benchmark
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Inflation  (%)      Target
                                               \111\       compensation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 AMO Pilot Compensation.............  ..............        $325,110
2016 Inflation Adjustment (2016 ECI)....             3.0         334,863
2017 Inflation Adjustment (2017 ECI)....             3.3         345,913
2018 Inflation Adjustment (2018 PCE)....             1.9         352,485
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, we certify that the number of pilots estimated for 2018 is 
less than or equal to the number permitted under the staffing model in 
Sec.  401.220(a). The staffing model suggests that the number of pilots 
needed is 17 pilots for District One, 15 pilots for District Two, and 
22 pilots for District Three,\112\ which is greater than or equal to 
the numbers of working pilots provided by the pilot associations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ ECI for total compensation, for private industry workers, 
Transportation and material moving, percent changes for 12 months 
ended in December, found in Table 5 (p. 71) of the following: 
https://www.bls.gov/web/eci/echistrynaics.pdf. Median PCE inflation 
can be found at https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcminutes20171213ep.htm.
    \112\ See Table 6 of the 2017 final rule, 82 FR 41466 at 41480. 
The methodology of the staffing model is discussed at length in the 
final rule (see pages 41476-41480 for a detailed analysis of the 
calculations).
    \113\ We note that the policy discussion of this issue is 
located in Section V (``Discussion of Comments and Changes to 
Methodology''), above. The specific discussion about the working 
capital fund is located in Section V.E.
    \114\ Moody's Seasoned Aaa Corporate Bond Yield, average of 2017 
monthly data (not seasonally adjusted), located at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AAA. The Coast Guard uses the most recent 
complete year of data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, in accordance with proposed Sec.  404.104(c), we use the 
revised target individual compensation level to derive the total pilot 
compensation by multiplying the individual target compensation by the 
estimated number of working pilots for each district, as shown in 
Tables 14 through 16.

                              Table 14--Target Pilot Compensation for District One
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Designated     Undesignated        Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Pilot Compensation.......................................        $352,485        $352,485        $352,485
Number of Pilots................................................              10               7              17
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Target Pilot Compensation.............................      $3,524,850      $2,467,395      $5,992,245
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Table 15--Target Pilot Compensation for District Two
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Undesignated     Designated         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Pilot Compensation.......................................        $352,485        $352,485        $352,485
Number of Pilots................................................               7               7              14
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Target Pilot Compensation.............................       2,467,395       2,467,395       4,934,790
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Table 16--Target Pilot Compensation for District Three
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Undesignated     Designated         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Pilot Compensation.......................................        $352,485        $352,485        $352,485
Number of Pilots................................................              14               4              18
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Target Pilot Compensation.............................      $4,934,790      $1,409,940      $6,344,730
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Step 5--Calculate Working Capital Fund

    Next, we calculate the working capital fund revenues needed for 
each area.\113\ First, we add the figures for projected operating 
expenses and total pilot compensation for each area. Then, we find the 
preceding year's average annual rate of return for new issues of high 
grade corporate securities. Using Moody's data, that number is 3.74 
percent.\114\ By multiplying the two figures, we get the working 
capital fund contribution for each area, as shown in Tables 17 through 
19.

                          Table 17--Working Capital Fund Contribution for District One
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Designated     Undesignated        Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted Operating Expenses (Step 2)............................        $945,493        $762,927      $1,708,420
Total Target Pilot Compensation (Step 4)........................       3,524,850       2,467,395       5,992,245
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total 2018 Expenses.........................................       4,470,343       3,230,322       7,700,665
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 26181]]

 
Working Capital Fund (3.74%)....................................         167,191         120,814         288,005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Table 18--Working Capital Fund Contribution for District Two
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Undesignated     Designated         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted Operating Expenses (Step 2)............................        $813,939      $1,220,907      $2,034,846
Total Target Pilot Compensation (Step 4)........................       2,467,395       2,467,395       4,934,790
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total 2018 Expenses.........................................       3,281,334       3,688,302       6,969,636
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Working Capital Fund (3.74%)....................................         122,722         137,942         260,664
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Table 19--Working Capital Fund Contribution for District Three
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Undesignated     Designated         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted Operating Expenses (Step 2)............................      $1,666,750        $555,582      $2,222,332
Total Target Pilot Compensation (Step 4)........................       4,934,790       1,409,940       6,344,730
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total 2018 Expenses.........................................       6,601,540       1,965,522       8,567,062
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Working Capital Fund (3.74%)....................................         246,898          73,511         320,409
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Step 6--Calculate Revenue Needed

    In Step 6, we add up all the expenses accrued to derive the total 
revenue needed for each area. These expenses include the projected 
operating expenses (from Step 2), the total pilot compensation (from 
Step 4), and the working capital fund contribution (from Step 5). The 
calculations are shown in Tables 20 through 22.

                                    Table 20--Revenue Needed for District One
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Designated     Undesignated        Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted Operating Expenses (Step 2)............................        $945,493        $762,927      $1,708,420
Total Target Pilot Compensation (Step 4)........................       3,524,850       2,467,395       5,992,245
Working Capital Fund (Step 5)...................................         167,191         120,814         288,005
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Revenue Needed........................................       4,637,534       3,351,136       7,988,670
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                    Table 21--Revenue Needed for District Two
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Undesignated     Designated         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted Operating Expenses (Step 2)............................        $813,939      $1,220,907      $2,034,846
Total Target Pilot Compensation (Step 4)........................       2,467,395       2,467,395       4,934,790
Working Capital Fund (Step 5)...................................         122,722         137,942         260,664
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Revenue Needed........................................       3,404,056       3,826,244       7,230,300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   Table 22--Revenue Needed for District Three
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Undesignated     Designated         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted Operating Expenses (Step 2)............................      $1,666,750        $555,582      $2,222,333
Total Target Pilot Compensation (Step 4)........................       4,934,790       1,409,940       6,344,730
Working Capital Fund (Step 5)...................................         246,898          73,511         320,409
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Revenue Needed........................................       6,848,438       2,039,033       8,887,472
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Step 7--Calculate Initial Base Rates

    Having determined the revenue needed for each area in the previous 
six steps, we divide that number by the expected number of hours of 
traffic to develop an hourly rate. Step 7 is a two-part process. In the 
first part, we calculate the 10-year average of traffic in each 
district. Because we are calculating separate figures for designated 
and undesignated waters, there are two parts for each calculation. The 
calculations are shown in Tables 23 through 25.

[[Page 26182]]

                 Table 23--Time on Task for District One
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Designated     Undesignated
                  Year                         hours           hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017....................................           7,605           8,679
2016....................................           5,434           6,217
2015....................................           5,743           6,667
2014....................................           6,810           6,853
2013....................................           5,864           5,529
2012....................................           4,771           5,121
2011....................................           5,045           5,377
2010....................................           4,839           5,649
2009....................................           3,511           3,947
2008....................................           5,829           5,298
Average.................................           5,545           5,934
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Table 24--Time on Task for District Two
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Undesignated     Designated
                  Year                         hours           hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017....................................           5,139           6,074
2016....................................           6,425           5,615
2015....................................           6,535           5,967
2014....................................           7,856           7,001
2013....................................           4,603           4,750
2012....................................           3,848           3,922
2011....................................           3,708           3,680
2010....................................           5,565           5,235
2009....................................           3,386           3,017
2008....................................           4,844           3,956
Average.................................           5,191           4,922
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Table 25--Time on Task for District Three
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Undesignated     Designated
                  Year                         hours           hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017....................................          26,183           3,798
2016....................................          23,421           2,769
2015....................................          22,824           2,696
2014....................................          25,833           3,835
2013....................................          17,115           2,631
2012....................................          15,906           2,163
2011....................................          16,012           1,678
2010....................................          20,211           2,461
2009....................................          12,520           1,820
2008....................................          14,287           2,286
Average.................................          19,431           2,614
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, we derive the initial hourly rate by dividing the revenue 
needed by the average number of hours for each area. This produces an 
initial rate required to produce the revenue needed for each area, 
assuming the amount of traffic is as expected. The calculations for 
each area are shown in Tables 26 through 28.

              Table 26--Rate Calculations for District One
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Designated     Undesignated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue needed (Step 6).................      $4,637,534      $3,351,136
Average time on task (hours)............           5,545           5,934
Initial rate............................            $836            $565
------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Table 27--Rate Calculations for District Two
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Undesignated     Designated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue needed (Step 6).................      $3,404,056      $3,826,244
Average time on task (hours)............           5,191           4,922
Initial rate............................            $656            $777
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 26183]]

             Table 28--Rate Calculations for District Three
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Undesignated     Designated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue needed (Step 6).................      $6,848,438      $2,039,033
Average time on task (hours)............          19,431           2,614
Initial rate............................            $352            $780
------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Step 8--Calculate Average Weighting Factors by Area

    In this step, we calculate the average weighting factor for each 
designated and undesignated area. We collect the weighting factors, set 
forth in 46 CFR 401.400, for each vessel trip. Using this database, we 
calculate the average weighting factor for each area using the data 
from each vessel transit from 2014 onward, as shown in Tables 29 
through 34.

                                  Table 29--Average Weighting Factor for Area 1
                                            [District 1, designated]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of       Weighting       Weighted
                        Vessel class/year                            transits         factor         transits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1 (2014)..................................................              31               1              31
Class 1 (2015)..................................................              41               1              41
Class 1 (2016)..................................................              31               1              31
Class 1 (2017)..................................................              28               1              28
Class 2 (2014)..................................................             285            1.15          327.75
Class 2 (2015)..................................................             295            1.15          339.25
Class 2 (2016)..................................................             185            1.15          212.75
Class 2 (2017)..................................................             352            1.15           404.8
Class 3 (2014)..................................................              50             1.3              65
Class 3 (2015)..................................................              28             1.3            36.4
Class 3 (2016)..................................................              50             1.3              65
Class 3 (2017)..................................................              67             1.3            87.1
Class 4 (2014)..................................................             271            1.45          392.95
Class 4 (2015)..................................................             251            1.45          363.95
Class 4 (2016)..................................................             214            1.45           310.3
Class 4 (2017)..................................................             285            1.45          413.25
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................           2,464  ..............         3,149.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average weighting factor (weighted transits/number of transits).  ..............            1.28  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  Table 30--Average Weighting Factor for Area 2
                                           [District 1, undesignated]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of       Weighting       Weighted
                        Vessel class/year                            transits         factor         transits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1 (2014)..................................................              25               1              25
Class 1 (2015)..................................................              28               1              28
Class 1 (2016)..................................................              18               1              18
Class 1 (2017)..................................................              19               1              19
Class 2 (2014)..................................................             238            1.15           273.7
Class 2 (2015)..................................................             263            1.15          302.45
Class 2 (2016)..................................................             169            1.15          194.35
Class 2 (2017)..................................................             290            1.15           333.5
Class 3 (2014)..................................................              60             1.3              78
Class 3 (2015)..................................................              42             1.3            54.6
Class 3 (2016)..................................................              28             1.3            36.4
Class 3 (2017)..................................................              45             1.3            58.5
Class 4 (2014)..................................................             289            1.45          419.05
Class 4 (2015)..................................................             269            1.45          390.05
Class 4 (2016)..................................................             222            1.45           321.9
Class 4 (2017)..................................................             285            1.45          413.25
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................           2,290  ..............        2,965.75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average weighting factor (weighted transits/number of transits).  ..............            1.30  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 26184]]

                                  Table 31--Average Weighting Factor for Area 5
                                           [District 2, undesignated]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of       Weighting       Weighted
                        Vessel class/year                            transits         factor         transits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1 (2014)..................................................              31               1              31
Class 1 (2015)..................................................              35               1              35
Class 1 (2016)..................................................              32               1              32
Class 1 (2017)..................................................              21               1              21
Class 2 (2014)..................................................             356            1.15           409.4
Class 2 (2015)..................................................             354            1.15           407.1
Class 2 (2016)..................................................             380            1.15             437
Class 2 (2017)..................................................             222            1.15           255.3
Class 3 (2014)..................................................              20             1.3              26
Class 3 (2015)..................................................               0             1.3               0
Class 3 (2016)..................................................               9             1.3            11.7
Class 3 (2017)..................................................              12             1.3            15.6
Class 4 (2014)..................................................             636            1.45           922.2
Class 4 (2015)..................................................             560            1.45             812
Class 4 (2016)..................................................             468            1.45           678.6
Class 4 (2017)..................................................             319            1.45          462.55
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................           3,455  ..............        4,556.45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average weighting factor (weighted transits/number of transits).  ..............            1.32  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  Table 32--Average Weighting Factor for Area 4
                                            [District 2, designated]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of       Weighting       Weighted
                        Vessel class/year                            transits         factor         transits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1 (2014)..................................................              20               1              20
Class 1 (2015)..................................................              15               1              15
Class 1 (2016)..................................................              28               1              28
Class 1 (2017)..................................................              15               1              15
Class 2 (2014)..................................................             237            1.15          272.55
Class 2 (2015)..................................................             217            1.15          249.55
Class 2 (2016)..................................................             224            1.15           257.6
Class 2 (2017)..................................................             127            1.15          146.05
Class 3 (2014)..................................................               8             1.3            10.4
Class 3 (2015)..................................................               8             1.3            10.4
Class 3 (2016)..................................................               4             1.3             5.2
Class 3 (2017)..................................................               4             1.3             5.2
Class 4 (2014)..................................................             359            1.45          520.55
Class 4 (2015)..................................................             340            1.45             493
Class 4 (2016)..................................................             281            1.45          407.45
Class 4 (2017)..................................................             185            1.45          268.25
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................           2,072  ..............         2,724.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average weighting factor (weighted transits/number of transits).  ..............            1.31  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Table 33--Average Weighting Factor for Areas 6 and 8
                                           [District 3, undesignated]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of       Weighting       Weighted
                        Vessel class/year                            transits         factor         transits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 6:
    Class 1 (2014)..............................................              45               1              45
    Class 1 (2015)..............................................              56               1              56
    Class 1 (2016)..............................................             136               1             136
    Class 1 (2017)..............................................             148               1             148
    Class 2 (2014)..............................................             274            1.15           315.1
    Class 2 (2015)..............................................             207            1.15          238.05
    Class 2 (2016)..............................................             236            1.15           271.4
    Class 2 (2017)..............................................             264            1.15           303.6
    Class 3 (2014)..............................................              15             1.3            19.5
    Class 3 (2015)..............................................               8             1.3            10.4
    Class 3 (2016)..............................................              10             1.3              13
    Class 3 (2017)..............................................              19             1.3            24.7
    Class 4 (2014)..............................................             394            1.45           571.3

[[Page 26185]]

 
    Class 4 (2015)..............................................             375            1.45          543.75
    Class 4 (2016)..............................................             332            1.45           481.4
    Class 4 (2017)..............................................             367            1.45          532.15
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total for Area 6........................................           2,886  ..............        3,709.35
Area 8:
    Class 1 (2014)..............................................               3               1               3
    Class 1 (2015)..............................................               0               1               0
    Class 1 (2016)..............................................               4               1               4
    Class 1 (2017)..............................................               4               1               4
    Class 2 (2014)..............................................             177            1.15          203.55
    Class 2 (2015)..............................................             169            1.15          194.35
    Class 2 (2016)..............................................             174            1.15           200.1
    Class 2 (2017)..............................................             151            1.15          173.65
    Class 3 (2014)..............................................               3             1.3             3.9
    Class 3 (2015)..............................................               0             1.3               0
    Class 3 (2016)..............................................               7             1.3             9.1
    Class 3 (2017)..............................................              18             1.3            23.4
    Class 4 (2014)..............................................             243            1.45          352.35
    Class 4 (2015)..............................................             253            1.45          366.85
    Class 4 (2016)..............................................             204            1.45           295.8
    Class 4 (2017)..............................................             269            1.45          390.05
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total for Area 8........................................           1,679  ..............         2,224.1
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Combined total......................................           4,565  ..............        5,933.45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average weighting factor (weighted transits/number of transits).  ..............            1.30  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  Table 34--Average Weighting Factor for Area 7
                                            [District 3, Designated]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of       Weighting       Weighted
                        Vessel class/year                            transits         factor         transits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1 (2014)..................................................              27               1              27
Class 1 (2015)..................................................              23               1              23
Class 1 (2016)..................................................              55               1              55
Class 1 (2017)..................................................              62               1              62
Class 2 (2014)..................................................             221            1.15          254.15
Class 2 (2015)..................................................             145            1.15          166.75
Class 2 (2016)..................................................             174            1.15           200.1
Class 2 (2017)..................................................             170            1.15           195.5
Class 3 (2014)..................................................               4             1.3             5.2
Class 3 (2015)..................................................               0             1.3               0
Class 3 (2016)..................................................               6             1.3             7.8
Class 3 (2017)..................................................              14             1.3            18.2
Class 4 (2014)..................................................             321            1.45          465.45
Class 4 (2015)..................................................             245            1.45          355.25
Class 4 (2016)..................................................             191            1.45          276.95
Class 4 (2017)..................................................             234            1.45           339.3
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................           1,892  ..............        2,451.65
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average weighting factor (weighted transits/number of transits).  ..............            1.30  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Step 9--Calculate Revised Base Rates

    In this step, we revise the base rates so that once the impact of 
the weighting factors are considered, the total cost of pilotage will 
be equal to the revenue needed. To do this, we divide the initial base 
rates, calculated in Step 7, by the average weighting factors 
calculated in Step 8, as shown in Table 35.

[[Page 26186]]

                                          Table 35--Revised Base Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Revised rate
                                                                                      Average     (initial rate/
                              Area                                 Initial rate      weighting        average
                                                                     (Step 7)      factor (Step      weighting
                                                                                        8)            factor)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District One: Designated........................................            $836            1.28            $653
District One: Undesignated......................................             565            1.30             435
District Two: Undesignated......................................             656            1.32             497
District Two: Designated........................................             777            1.31             593
District Three: Undesignated....................................             352            1.30             271
District Three: Designated......................................             780            1.30             600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Step 10--Review and Finalize Rates

    In Step 10, the Director reviews the rates set forth by the 
staffing model and ensures that they meet the goal of ensuring safe, 
efficient, and reliable pilotage. As detailed in the discussion 
sections of the NPRM, the proposed rates incorporate appropriate 
compensation for enough pilots to handle heavy traffic periods, cover 
operating expenses and infrastructure costs, and take into account 
average traffic and weighting factors. Therefore, we believe that these 
rates meet the goal of ensuring safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage. 
Thus, we are not making any alterations to the rates in this step. The 
final rates are shown in Table 36, and we will modify the text in Sec.  
401.405(a) to reflect them.

                                              Table 36--Final Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Final 2017     Proposed 2018    Final 2018
                 Area                             Name             pilotage rate   pilotage rate   pilotage rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District One: Designated..............  St. Lawrence River......            $601            $622            $653
District One: Undesignated............  Lake Ontario............             408             424             435
District Two: Undesignated............  Lake Erie...............             429             454             497
District Two: Designated..............  Navigable waters from                580             553             593
                                         Southeast Shoal to Port
                                         Huron, MI.
District Three: Undesignated..........  Lakes Huron, Michigan,               218             253             271
                                         and Superior.
District Three: Designated............  St. Mary's River........             514             517             600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. Surcharges

    Because there are several applicant pilots in 2018, we are 
authorizing surcharges to cover the costs needed for training expenses. 
Consistent with previous years, we are assigning a cost of $150,000 per 
applicant pilot. To develop the surcharge, we multiply the number of 
applicant pilots by the average cost per pilot to develop a total 
amount of training costs needed. We then impose that amount as a 
surcharge to all areas in the respective district, consisting of a 
percentage of revenue needed. In this year, there are two applicant 
pilots for District One, one applicant pilot for District Two, and four 
applicant pilots for District Three. The calculations to develop the 
surcharges are shown in Table 37. While the percentages are rounded for 
simplicity, this rounding does not impact the revenue generated, as 
surcharges can no longer be collected once the surcharge total has been 
attained.

                                        Table 37--Surcharge Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   District One    District Two   District Three
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of applicant pilots......................................               2               1               4
Total applicant training costs..................................        $300,000        $150,000        $600,000
Revenue needed (Step 6).........................................      $7,988,670      $7,230,300      $8,887,472
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total surcharge as percentage (total training costs/revenue)....              4%              2%              7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this final rule after considering numerous statutes 
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our 
analyses based on these statutes or Executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and 
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies 
to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives 
and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that 
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, 
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). 
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both 
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of 
promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and 
Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' directs agencies to reduce regulation 
and control regulatory costs and provides that ``for every one new 
regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for 
elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently

[[Page 26187]]

managed and controlled through a budgeting process.''
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this 
rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive 
Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. Because this rule is 
not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the 
requirements of Executive Order 13771. See the OMB Memorandum titled 
``Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, titled `Reducing 
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' '' (April 5, 2017). A 
regulatory analysis (RA) follows.
    The purpose of this final rule is to establish new base pilotage 
rates and surcharges for training. This rule also makes changes to the 
ratemaking methodology and revises the compensation benchmark. The last 
full ratemaking was concluded in 2017.
    Table 38 summarizes the regulatory changes that are expected to 
have no costs, and any qualitative benefits associated with them. The 
table also includes changes that affect portions of the methodology for 
calculating the base pilotage rates. While these changes affect the 
calculation of the rate, the costs of these changes are captured in the 
changes to the total revenue as a result of the rate change.

                 Table 38--Regulatory Changes With No Cost or Costs Captured in the Rate Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Change                       Description           Basis for no costs            Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codification of compensation           Add regulatory text to   Pilot compensation       --Pilot compensation
 inflation adjustment.                  Sec.   404.104 to make   costs are accounted      will keep up with
                                        the adjustment for       for in the base          regional inflation.
                                        inflation automatic.     pilotage rates.         --Improves consistency,
                                                                                          transparency, and
                                                                                          efficiency in our
                                                                                          ratemaking procedures.
Target pilot compensation............  --Due to the 2016 court  Pilot compensation       Improves transparency
                                        opinion on pilot         costs are accounted      in our ratemaking
                                        compensation, the        for in the base          procedures.
                                        Coast Guard is           pilotage rates.
                                        changing the pilot
                                        compensation benchmark.
Relocation of staffing model           Move the discussion of   We are not adjusting or  Improves the clarity of
 regulations.                           the staffing model       modifying the            the regulations and
                                        from 46 CFR 404.103      regulatory text, but     improves the
                                        (as part of ``Step 3''   simply moving it to      regulatory process.
                                        of the ratemaking        Sec.   401.220.
                                        process), to the
                                        general regulations
                                        governing pilotage in
                                        Sec.   401.220.
Delineation of full ratemakings and    Set forth separate       Change only clarifies    Simplify ratemaking
 annual reviews.                        regulatory paragraphs    that the benchmark       procedures in interim
                                        detailing the            level compensation       years and better
                                        differences between      will only be             effect the statutory
                                        how the Coast Guard      reconsidered during      mandate in section
                                        undertakes an annual     ``full ratemaking''      9303(f) of the Great
                                        adjustment of the        years.                   Lakes Pilotage Act.
                                        pilotage rates, and a
                                        full reassessment of
                                        the rates, which must
                                        be undertaken once
                                        every 5 years.
Miscellaneous other changes..........  --Rename the step        Minor editorial changes  Provides clarification
                                        currently titled         in this rule that do     to regulatory text and
                                        ``Initially calculate    not impact total         the rulemaking.
                                        base rates'' to          revenues.
                                        ``Calculate initial
                                        base rates'' for style
                                        purposes.
                                       --Adjust the reference
                                        to the staffing model
                                        in Step 7 to account
                                        for its relocation in
                                        text.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 39 summarizes the affected population, costs, and benefits of 
the rate changes that are expected to have costs associated with them.

                                 Table 39--Economic Impacts Due to Rate Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Affected
             Change                   Description         population             Costs             Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate Changes....................  Under the Great     Owners and          $2,830,061 Due to   --New rates cover
                                   Lakes Pilotage      operators of 215    change in Revenue   an association's
                                   Act of 1960, the    vessels             Needed for 2018     necessary and
                                   Coast Guard is      journeying the      ($25,156,442)       reasonable
                                   required to         Great Lakes         from Revenue        operating
                                   review and adjust   system annually,    Needed for 2017     expenses.
                                   base pilotage       49 U.S. Great       ($22,326,381) as   --Provides fair
                                   rates annually.     Lakes pilots, and   shown in Table 40   compensation,
                                                       3 pilotage          below.              adequate
                                                       associations.                           training, and
                                                                                               sufficient rest
                                                                                               periods for
                                                                                               pilots.
                                                                                              --Ensures the
                                                                                               association
                                                                                               receives
                                                                                               sufficient
                                                                                               revenues to fund
                                                                                               future
                                                                                               improvements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard is required to review and adjust pilotage rates on 
the Great Lakes annually. See Sections III and IV of this preamble for 
detailed discussions of the legal basis and purpose for this rulemaking 
and for background

[[Page 26188]]

information on Great Lakes pilotage ratemaking. Based on our annual 
review for this rulemaking, we are adjusting the pilotage rates for the 
2018 shipping season to generate sufficient revenues for each district 
to reimburse its necessary and reasonable operating expenses, fairly 
compensate trained and rested pilots, and provide an appropriate 
working capital fund to use for improvements. The rate changes in this 
final rule will lead to an increase in the cost per unit of service to 
shippers in all three districts, and result in an estimated annual cost 
increase to shippers.
    In addition to the increase in payments that will be incurred by 
shippers in all three districts from the previous year as a result of 
the rate changes, we are authorizing a temporary surcharge to allow the 
pilotage associations to recover training expenses that will be 
incurred in 2018. For 2018, we anticipate that there will be two 
applicant pilots in District One, one applicant pilot in District Two, 
and four applicant pilots in District Three. With a training cost of 
$150,000 per pilot, we estimate that Districts One, Two, and Three will 
incur $300,000, $150,000, and $600,000, respectively, in training 
expenses. These temporary surcharges will generate a combined 
$1,050,000 in revenue for the pilotage associations. Therefore, after 
accounting for the implementation of the temporary surcharges across 
all three districts, the total payments that will be made by shippers 
during the 2018 shipping season are estimated at $2,830,061 more than 
the total payments that were estimated in 2017 (Table 41).\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ Total payments across all three districts are equal to the 
increase in payments incurred by shippers as a result of the rate 
changes plus the temporary surcharges applied to traffic in 
Districts One, Two, and Three.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 40 summarizes the changes in the RA from the NPRM to the 
final rule. These changes were made as a result of public comments 
received after publication of the NPRM.

                              Table 40--Summary of Changes From NPRM to Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Element of the analysis                   NPRM                  Final rule         Resulting change in RA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Pilot Compensation............  $319,617...............  $352,485...............  Data indirectly affects
                                                                                          the calculation of
                                                                                          projected revenues.
Updated analysis with 2017 inflation   NPRM used data through   Uses 2017 data, where    Data indirectly affects
 and securities return data, when       2016, as this was the    applicable and           calculation of
 available.                             most current year        available.               projected revenues.
                                        available.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affected Population
    The shippers affected by these rate changes are those owners and 
operators of domestic vessels operating ``on register'' (employed in 
foreign trade) and owners and operators of non-Canadian foreign vessels 
on routes 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. The 
statute applies only to commercial vessels and not to recreational 
vessels. United States-flagged vessels not operating on register and 
Canadian ``lakers,'' which account for most commercial shipping on the 
Great Lakes, are not required by 46 U.S.C. 9302 to have pilots. 
However, these U.S.- and Canadian-flagged lakers may voluntarily choose 
to engage a Great Lakes registered pilot. Vessels that are U.S.-flagged 
may opt to have a pilot for various reasons, such as unfamiliarity with 
designated waters and ports, or for insurance purposes.
    We used billing information from the years 2014 through 2016 from 
the Great Lakes Pilotage Management System (GLPMS) to estimate the 
average annual number of vessels affected by the rate adjustment. The 
GLPMS tracks data related to managing and coordinating the dispatch of 
pilots on the Great Lakes, and billing in accordance with the services. 
We found that a total of 387 vessels used pilotage services during the 
years 2014 through 2016. That is, these vessels had a pilot dispatched 
to the vessel, and billing information was recorded in the GLPMS. The 
number of invoices per vessel ranged from a minimum of 1 invoice per 
year to a maximum of 108 invoices per year. Of these vessels, 367 were 
foreign-flagged vessels and 20 were U.S.-flagged.
    Vessel traffic is affected by numerous factors and varies from year 
to year. Therefore, rather than the total number of vessels over the 
time period, an average of the unique vessels using pilotage services 
from the years 2014 through 2016 is the best representation of vessels 
estimated to be affected by the rate in this final rule. From the years 
2014 through 2016, an average of 215 vessels used pilotage services 
annually. On average, 206 of these vessels were foreign-flagged vessels 
and 9 were U.S.-flagged vessels that voluntarily opted into the 
pilotage service.
Total Cost to Shippers
    The rate changes resulting from the methodology will generate costs 
to industry in the form of higher payments for shippers. We estimate 
the effect of the rate changes on shippers by comparing the total 
projected revenues needed to cover costs in 2017 with the total 
projected revenues needed to cover costs in 2018, including any 
temporary surcharges we have authorized. We set pilotage rates so that 
pilot associations receive enough revenue to cover their necessary and 
reasonable expenses. Shippers pay these rates when they have a pilot as 
required by 46 U.S.C. 9302. Therefore, the aggregate payments of 
shippers to pilot associations are equal to the projected necessary 
revenues for pilot associations. The revenues each year represent the 
total costs that shippers must pay for pilotage services, and the 
change in revenue from the previous year is the additional cost to 
shippers discussed in this final rule.
    The impacts of the rate changes on shippers are estimated from the 
District pilotage projected revenues (shown in Tables 20 through 22 of 
this preamble) and the surcharges described in Section VI of this 
preamble. We estimate that for the 2018 shipping season, the projected 
revenue needed for all three districts is $24,106,442. Temporary 
surcharges on traffic in Districts One, Two, and Three will be applied 
for the duration of the 2018 season in order for the pilotage 
associations to recover training expenses incurred for applicant 
pilots. We estimate that the pilotage associations require an 
additional $300,000, $150,000, and $600,000 in revenue for applicant 
training expenses in Districts One, Two, and Three, respectively. This 
will be an additional cost to shippers of $1,050,000 during the 2018 
shipping season. Adding the projected revenue of $24,106,442 to the 
surcharges, we estimate the pilotage

[[Page 26189]]

associations' total projected revenue needed for 2018 will be 
$25,156,442. To estimate the additional cost to shippers from this 
final rule, we compare the 2018 total projected revenues to the 2017 
projected revenues. Because we review and prescribe rates for the Great 
Lakes Pilotage annually, the effects are estimated as a single year 
cost rather than annualized over a 10-year period. In the 2017 final 
rule,\116\ we estimated the total projected revenue needed for 2017, 
including surcharges, as $22,326,381. This is the best approximation of 
2017 revenues as, at the time of this publication, we do not have 
enough audited data available for the 2017 shipping season to revise 
these projections. Table 41 shows the revenue projections for 2017 and 
2018 and details the additional cost increases to shippers by area and 
district as a result of the rate changes and temporary surcharges on 
traffic in Districts One, Two, and Three.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ The 2017 projected revenues are from the 2017 Great Lakes 
Pilotage Ratemaking final rule (82 FR 41484 and 41489), Tables 9 and 
14.
    \117\ The 2017 projected revenues are from the 2017 final rule 
(82 FR 41484 and 41489), Tables 9 and 14. The 2018 projected 
revenues are from Tables 20 through 22 of this final rule.
    \118\ The study is available under ``Documents'' entitled 
``Analysis of Great Lakes Pilotage Costs 2017'' at http://www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Prevention-Policy-CG-5P/Marine-Transportation-Systems-CG-5PW/Office-of-Waterways-and-Ocean-Policy/Office-of-Waterways-and-Ocean-Policy-Great-Lakes-Pilotage-Div/.

                                                 Table 41--Effect of the Final Rule by Area and District
                                                                 [$U.S.; non-discounted]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Total 2017                                      Total 2018      Additional
                  Area                    Revenue needed  2017 Temporary     projected    Revenue needed  2018 Temporary     projected     costs of this
                                              in 2017        surcharge        revenue         in 2018        surcharge        revenue          rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, District 1.......................      $7,109,019              $0      $7,109,019      $7,988,670        $300,000      $8,288,670      $1,179,651
Total, District 2.......................       6,633,491         300,000       6,933,491       7,230,300         150,000       7,380,300         446,809
Total, District 3.......................       7,233,871       1,050,000       8,283,871       8,887,472         600,000       9,487,472       1,203,601
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    System Total........................      20,976,381       1,350,000      22,326,381      24,106,442       1,050,000      25,156,442       2,830,061
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resulting difference between the projected revenue in 2017 and 
the projected revenue in 2018 is the annual change in payments from 
shippers to pilots as a result of the rate change that will be imposed 
by this rule. The effect of the rate change to shippers varies by area 
and district. The rate changes, after taking into account the increase 
in pilotage rates and the addition of temporary surcharges, will lead 
to affected shippers operating in District One, District Two, and 
District Three experiencing an increase in payments of $1,179,651, 
$446,809, and $1,203,601, respectively, over the previous year. The 
overall adjustment in payments will be an increase in payments by 
shippers of $2,830,061 across all three districts (a 13 percent 
increase over 2017). Again, because we review and set rates for Great 
Lakes Pilotage annually, the impacts are estimated as single year costs 
rather than annualized over a 10-year period.
    Table 42 shows the difference in revenue by component from 2017 to 
2018.\117\ The majority of the increase in revenue is due to the 
inflation of operating expenses and to the addition of four pilots who 
were authorized in the 2017 rule. These four pilots will become full-
time working pilots at the beginning of the 2018 shipping season. They 
will be compensated at the target compensation of $352,485 per pilot. 
The addition of these pilots to full working status accounts for 
$1,409,940 of the increase. The remaining amount is attributed to 
increases in the working capital fund, increases in the target 
compensation, and differences in the surcharges from 2017.

                                  Table 42--Difference in Revenue by Component
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Difference
                      Revenue  component                       Revenue  needed  Revenue  needed  (2018  Revenue-
                                                                   in  2017         in  2018      2017 Revenue)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted Operating Expenses..................................       $5,155,280       $5,965,599         $810,319
Total Target Pilot Compensation..............................       14,983,335       17,271,765        2,288,430
Working Capital Fund.........................................          837,766          869,078           31,312
Total Revenue Needed, without Surcharge......................       20,976,381       24,106,442        3,130,061
Surcharge....................................................        1,350,000        1,050,000         -300,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
    Total Revenue Needed, with Surcharge.....................       22,326,381       25,156,442        2,830,061
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pilotage Rates as a Percentage of Vessel Operating Costs
    To estimate the impact of U.S. pilotage costs on foreign-flagged 
vessels that will be affected by the rate adjustment, we looked at the 
pilotage costs as a percentage of a vessel's costs for an entire 
voyage. The portion of the trip on the Great Lakes using a pilot is 
only a portion of the whole trip. The affected vessels are often 
traveling from a foreign port, and the days without a pilot on the 
total trip often exceed the days a pilot is needed.
    To estimate this impact, we used the 2017 study titled, ``Analysis 
of Great Lakes Pilotage Costs on Great Lakes Shipping and the Potential 
Impact of Increases in U.S. Pilotage Charges.'' \118\ We conducted the 
study to explore additional frameworks and methodologies for assessing 
the cost of Great Lakes pilot's ratemaking regulations, with a focus on 
capturing industry and port level economic impacts. The study also 
included an analysis of the pilotage costs as a

[[Page 26190]]

percentage of the total voyage costs that we can use in RAs to estimate 
the direct impact of changes to the pilotage rates.
    The study developed a voyage cost model that is based on a vessel's 
daily costs. The daily costs included: Capital repayment costs; fuel 
costs; operating costs (such as crew, supplies, and insurance); port 
costs; speed of the vessel; stevedoring rates; and tolls. The daily 
operating costs were translated into total voyage costs using mileage 
between the ports for a number of voyage scenarios. In the study, the 
total voyage costs were then compared to the U.S. pilotage costs. The 
study found that, using the 2016 rates, the U.S. pilotage charges 
represent 10 percent of the total voyage costs for a vessel carrying 
grain, and between 8 and 9 percent of the total voyage costs for a 
vessel carrying steel.\119\ We updated the analysis to estimate the 
percentage U.S. pilotage charges represent using the percentage 
increase in revenues from the years 2016 to 2018. Since the study used 
2016 as the latest year of data, we compared the revenues needed in 
2018 and 2017 to the 2016 revenues in order to estimate the change in 
pilotage costs as a percentage of total voyage costs from 2017 to 2018. 
Table 43 shows the revenues needed for the years 2016, 2017, and 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ Martin Associates, ``Analysis of Great Lakes Pilotage 
Costs on Great Lakes Shipping and the Potential Impact of Increases 
in U.S. Pilotage Charges,'' page 33.
    \120\ The 2016 projected revenues are from the 2016 final rule, 
81 FR 11938. Figure 32, projected revenue needed in 2016 plus the 
temporary surcharge ($17,453,678 + $1,650,000 = $19,103,678).
    \121\ The 2017 projected revenues are from the 2017 final rule, 
82 FR 41484 and 41489, Tables 9 and 14.
    \122\ Available at http://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/Office%20of%20Waterways%20and%20Ocean%20Policy/2013%20MOU%20English.pdf?ver=2017-06-08-082809-150.
    \123\ See http://www.manta.com/.
    \124\ See http://resource.referenceusa.com/.

                                Table 43--Revenue Needed in 2016, 2017, and 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Revenue  needed   Revenue  needed   Revenue  needed
                    Revenue  component                       in  2016 \120\    in  2017 \121\       in  2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Revenue Needed, with Surcharge......................      $19,103,678       $22,326,381       $25,156,442
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From 2016 to 2017, the total revenues needed increased by 17 
percent. From 2017 to 2018, the total revenues needed will increase by 
13 percent. From 2016 to 2018, the total revenues needed will increase 
by 32 percent. While the change in total voyage cost will vary by the 
trip, vessel class, and whether the vessel is carrying steel or grain, 
we used these percentages as an average increase to estimate the change 
in the impact. When we increased the pilotage charges by 17 percent 
from 2016, we found the U.S. pilotage costs represented an average of 
11.3 percent of the total voyage costs. For this year, we increased the 
base 2016 rates by 32 percent. With this final rule's rates for 2018, 
pilotage costs are estimated to account for 12.6 percent of the total 
voyage costs, or a 1.3 percent increase over the percentage that U.S. 
pilotage costs represented of the total voyage in 2017.
    It is important to note that this analysis is based on a number of 
assumptions. The purpose of the study was to look at the impact of the 
U.S. pilotage rates. The study did not include an analysis of the GLPA 
rates. It was assumed that a U.S. pilot is assigned to all portions of 
a voyage where he or she could be assigned. In reality, the assignment 
of a United States or Canadian pilot is based on the order in which a 
vessel enters the system, as outlined in the Memorandum of 
Understanding between the GLPA and the Coast Guard.\122\
    This analysis looks at only the impact of U.S. pilotage cost 
changes. All other costs were held constant at the 2016 levels, 
including Canadian pilotage costs, tolls, stevedoring, and port 
charges. This analysis estimates the impacts of Great Lakes pilotage 
rates holding all other factors constant. If other factors or sectors 
were not held constant but, instead, were allowed to adjust or 
fluctuate, it is likely that the impact of pilotage rates would be 
different. Many factors that drive the tonnage levels of foreign cargo 
on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway were held constant for this 
analysis. These factors include, but are not limited to, demand for 
steel and grain, construction levels in the regions, tariffs, exchange 
rates, weather conditions, crop production, rail and alternative route 
pricing, tolls, vessel size restriction on the Great Lakes and St. 
Lawrence Seaway, and inland waterway river levels.
Benefits
    This final rule will allow the Coast Guard to meet the requirements 
in 46 U.S.C. 9303 to review the rates for pilotage services on the 
Great Lakes. The rate changes will promote safe, efficient, and 
reliable pilotage service on the Great Lakes by: (1) Ensuring that 
rates cover an association's operating expenses; (2) providing fair 
pilot compensation, adequate training, and sufficient rest periods for 
pilots; and (3) ensuring the association produces enough revenue to 
fund future improvements. The rate changes will also help recruit and 
retain pilots, which will ensure a sufficient number of pilots to meet 
peak shipping demand, which will help reduce delays caused by pilot 
shortages.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have 
considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities'' 
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are 
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, 
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 
people.
    For this final rule, we reviewed recent company size and ownership 
data for the vessels identified in the GLPMS and we reviewed business 
revenue and size data provided by publicly available sources such as 
MANTA \123\ and ReferenceUSA.\124\ As described in Section VII.A. of 
this preamble, Regulatory Planning and Review, we found that a total of 
387 unique vessels used pilotage services from 2014 through 2016. These 
vessels are owned by 59 entities. We found that of the 59 entities that 
own or operate vessels engaged in trade on the Great Lakes affected by 
this final rule, 48 are foreign entities that operate primarily outside 
the United States. The remaining 11 entities are U.S. entities. We 
compared the revenue and employee data found in the company search to 
the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Table

[[Page 26191]]

of Small Business Size Standards \125\ to determine how many of these 
companies are small entities. Table 44 shows the North American 
Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes of the U.S. entities and 
the small entity standard size established by the SBA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ Source: https://www.sba.gov/contracting/getting-started-contractor/make-sure-you-meet-sba-size-standards/table-small-business-size-standards. SBA has established a Table of Small 
Business Size Standards, which is matched to NAICS industries. A 
size standard, which is usually stated in number of employees or 
average annual receipts (``revenues''), represents the largest size 
that a business (including its subsidiaries and affiliates) may be 
considered in order to remain classified as a small business for SBA 
and Federal contracting programs.

                             Table 44--NAICS Codes and Small Entities Size Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            NAICS                     Description                      Small business  size standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238910......................  Site Preparation            $15 million.
                               Contractors.
483211......................  Inland Water Freight        750 employees.
                               Transportation.
483212......................  Inland Water Passenger      500 employees.
                               Transportation.
487210......................  Scenic & Sightseeing        $7.5 million.
                               Transportation, Water.
488320......................  Marine Cargo Handling.....  $38.5 million.
488330......................  Navigational Services to    $38.5 million.
                               Shipping.
488510......................  Freight Transportation      $15 million.
                               Arrangement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The entities all exceed the SBA's small business standards for 
small businesses. Further, these U.S. entities operate U.S.-flagged 
vessels and are not required to have pilots by 46 U.S.C. 9302.
    In addition to the owners and operators of vessels affected by this 
final rule, there are three U.S. entities affected by the rule that 
receive revenue from pilotage services. These are the three pilot 
associations that provide and manage pilotage services within the Great 
Lakes districts. Two of the associations operate as partnerships and 
one operates as a corporation. These associations are designated with 
the same NAICS industry classification and small-entity size standards 
described above, but they have fewer than 500 employees; combined, they 
have approximately 65 employees in total. We expect no adverse effect 
on these entities from this rule because all associations will receive 
enough revenue to balance the projected expenses associated with the 
projected number of bridge hours (time on task) and pilots.
    We did not find any small not-for-profit organizations that are 
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields. 
We did not find any small governmental jurisdictions with populations 
of fewer than 50,000 people. Based on this analysis, we find this final 
rule will not affect a substantial number of small entities.
    Therefore, we certify under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we offer to assist small 
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate 
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. The Coast Guard 
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain 
about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal 
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal 
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory 
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory 
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and 
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to 
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR 
(1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). This rule will 
not change the burden in the collection currently approved by OMB under 
OMB Control Number 1625-0086, Great Lakes Pilotage Methodology.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 
(``Federalism'') if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, 
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government. We have analyzed this final rule under Executive 
Order 13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the 
fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements as 
described in Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows.
    Congress directed the Coast Guard to establish ``rates and charges 
for pilotage services.'' See 46 U.S.C. 9303(f). This regulation is 
issued pursuant to that statute and is preemptive of State law as 
specified in 46 U.S.C. 9306. Under 46 U.S.C. 9306, a ``State or 
political subdivision of a State may not regulate or impose any 
requirement on pilotage on the Great Lakes.'' As a result, States or 
local governments are expressly prohibited from regulating within this 
category. Therefore, this rule is consistent with the fundamental 
federalism principles and preemption requirements described in 
Executive Order 13132.
    While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories 
in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a 
vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that 
State and local governments may have in making regulatory 
determinations. Additionally, for rules with federalism implications 
and preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs 
agencies to consult with State and local governments during the 
rulemaking process. If you believe this rule has implications for 
federalism under Executive Order 13132, please contact the person 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, 
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary 
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may 
result in the expenditure by a

[[Page 26192]]

State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one 
year. Although this rule will not result in such expenditure, we 
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

    This final rule will not cause a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 
(``Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally 
Protected Property Rights'').

H. Civil Justice Reform

    This final rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (``Civil Justice Reform''), to 
minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13045 
(``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks''). This rule is not an economically significant rule and will 
not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 
disproportionately affect children.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This final rule does not have tribal implications under Executive 
Order 13175 (``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments''), because it will not have a substantial direct effect on 
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211 (``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use''). We have determined that it is not a 
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a 
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus 
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides 
Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards 
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. 
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., 
specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test 
methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) 
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. 
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not 
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this final rule under Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) Directive 023-01, Revision (Rev) 01, Implementation of 
the National Environmental Policy Act [DHS Instruction Manual 023-01 
(series)] and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of 
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a 
significant effect on the human environment. A Record of Environmental 
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket 
where indicated under the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. This rule 
is categorically excluded under paragraph A3 of Table 1, particularly 
subparts (a), (b), and (c) in Appendix A of DHS Directive 023-
01(series). CATEX A3 pertains to promulgation of rules and procedures 
that are: (a) Strictly administrative or procedural in nature; (b) that 
implement, without substantive change, statutory or regulatory 
requirements; or (c) that implement, without substantive change, 
procedures, manuals, and other guidance documents. This rule adjusts 
base pilotage rates and surcharges for administering the 2018 shipping 
season in accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory mandates, 
and also proposes several minor changes to the Great Lakes pilotage 
ratemaking methodology.

List of Subjects

46 CFR Part 401

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

46 CFR Part 404

    Great Lakes, Navigation (water), Seamen.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 
46 CFR parts 401 and 404 as follows:

PART 401--GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 401 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 2104(a), 6101, 7701, 8105, 9303, 
9304; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 
0170.1(II)(92.a), (92.d), (92.e), (92.f).

0
2. Revise Sec.  401.220(a) to read as follows:

Sec.  401.220  Registration of pilots.

    (a) The Director shall determine the number of pilots required to 
be registered in order to assure adequate and efficient pilotage 
service in the United States waters of the Great Lakes and to provide 
for equitable participation of United States Registered Pilots with 
Canadian Registered Pilots in the rendering of pilotage services. The 
Director determines the number of pilots needed as follows:
    (1) The Director determines the base number of pilots needed by 
dividing each area's peak pilotage demand data by its pilot work cycle. 
The pilot work cycle standard includes any time that the Director finds 
to be a necessary and reasonable component of ensuring that a pilotage 
assignment is carried out safely, efficiently, and reliably for each 
area. These components may include, but are not limited to--
    (i) Amount of time a pilot provides pilotage service or is 
available to a vessel's master to provide pilotage service;
    (ii) Pilot travel time, measured from the pilot's base, to and from 
an assignment's starting and ending points;
    (iii) Assignment delays and detentions;
    (iv) Administrative time for a pilot who serves as a pilotage 
association's president;
    (v) Rest between assignments, as required by Sec.  401.451;
    (vi) Ten days' recuperative rest per month from April 15 through 
November 15 each year, provided that lesser rest allowances are 
approved by the Director at the pilotage association's request, if 
necessary to provide pilotage without interruption through that period; 
and
    (vii) Pilotage-related training.
    (2) Pilotage demand and the base seasonal work standard are based 
on available and reliable data, as so deemed by the Director, for a 
multi-year base period. The multi-year period is the 10 most recent 
full shipping seasons, and the data source is a system approved under 
46 CFR 403.300. Where

[[Page 26193]]

such data are not available or reliable, the Director also may use 
data, from additional past full shipping seasons or other sources, that 
the Director determines to be available and reliable.
    (3) The number of pilots needed in each district is calculated by 
totaling the area results by district and rounding them to the nearest 
whole integer. For supportable circumstances, the Director may make 
reasonable and necessary adjustments to the rounded result to provide 
for changes that the Director anticipates will affect the need for 
pilots in the district over the period for which base rates are being 
established.
* * * * *

0
3. Revise Sec.  401.405(a) to read as follows:

Sec.  401.405  Pilotage rates and charges.

    (a) The hourly rate for pilotage service on--
    (1) The St. Lawrence River is $653;
    (2) Lake Ontario is $435;
    (3) Lake Erie is $497;
    (4) The navigable waters from Southeast Shoal to Port Huron, MI is 
$593;
    (5) Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior is $271; and
    (6) The St. Mary's River is $600.
* * * * *

PART 404--GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE RATEMAKING

0
 4. The authority citation for part 404 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 2104(a), 9303, 9304; Department of 
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(92.a), (92.f).

0
 5. Revise Sec.  404.100 to read as follows:

Sec.  404.100  Ratemaking and annual reviews in general.

    (a) The Director establishes base pilotage rates by a full 
ratemaking pursuant to Sec. Sec.  404.101 through 404.110, which is 
conducted at least once every 5 years and completed by March 1 of the 
first year for which the base rates will be in effect. Base rates will 
be set to meet the goal specified in Sec.  404.1(a).
    (b) In the interim years preceding the next scheduled full rate 
review, the Director will adjust base pilotage rates by an interim 
ratemaking pursuant to Sec. Sec.  404.101 through 404.110.
    (c) Each year, the Director will announce whether the Coast Guard 
will conduct a full ratemaking or interim ratemaking procedure.

0
6. Revise Sec.  404.102 to read as follows:

Sec.  404.102  Ratemaking step 2: Project operating expenses, adjusting 
for inflation or deflation.

    The Director projects the base year's non-compensation operating 
expenses for each pilotage association, using recognized operating 
expense items from Sec.  404.101. Recognized operating expense items 
subject to inflation or deflation factors are adjusted for those 
factors based on the subsequent year's U.S. government consumer price 
index data for the Midwest, projected through the year in which the new 
base rates take effect, or if that is unavailable, the Federal Open 
Market Committee median economic projections for Personal Consumption 
Expenditures inflation.

0
7. Revise Sec.  404.103 to read as follows:

Sec.  404.103  Ratemaking step 3: Estimate number of working pilots.

    The Director projects, based on the number of persons applying 
under 46 CFR part 401 to become U.S. Great Lakes registered pilots, and 
on information provided by the district's pilotage association, the 
number of pilots expected to be fully working and compensated.

0
8. Revise Sec.  404.104 to read as follows:

Sec.  404.104  Ratemaking step 4: Determine target pilot compensation 
benchmark.

    (a) In a full ratemaking year, the Director determines base 
individual target pilot compensation using a compensation benchmark, 
set after considering the most relevant currently available non-
proprietary information. For supportable circumstances, the Director 
may make necessary and reasonable adjustments to the benchmark.
    (b) In an interim year, the Director adjusts the previous year's 
individual target pilot compensation level by the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics' Employment Cost Index for the Transportation and Materials 
sector, or if that is unavailable, the Federal Open Market Committee 
median economic projections for Personal Consumption Expenditures 
inflation.
    (c) The Director determines each pilotage association's total 
target pilot compensation by multiplying individual target pilot 
compensation computed in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section by the 
number of pilots projected under Sec.  404.103(d) or Sec.  401.220(a) 
of this chapter, whichever is lower.

0
9. Revise Sec.  404.107 to read as follows:

Sec.  404.107  Ratemaking step 7: Calculate initial base rates.

    (a) The Director calculates initial base hourly rates by dividing 
the projected needed revenue from Sec.  404.106 by averages of past 
hours worked in each district's designated and undesignated waters, 
using available and reliable data for a multi-year period set in 
accordance with Sec.  401.220(a) of this chapter.

    Dated: May 30, 2018.
Michael D. Emerson,
Director, Marine Transportation Systems, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2018-11969 Filed 6-4-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P