Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2000/04/14/00-9251/great-lakes-pilotage-rates
Timestamp: 2017-09-19 14:06:41
Document Index: 221121182

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u2009401', '§\u2009401', 'art 404', 'art 404', 'art 404', 'art 404', 'art 404', '§\u2009401', '§\u2009401', '§\u2009401', '§\u2009401', '§\u2009401']

Federal Register :: Great Lakes Pilotage Rates
A Proposed Rule by the Transportation Department and the Coast Guard on 04/14/2000
Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before May 15, 2000.
65 FR 20110
20110-20120 (11 pages)
USCG-1999-6098
2115-AF91
00-9251
(a) Regulatory History
(b) Purpose of This Rulemaking
What Is the Coast Guard Proposing in This Rulemaking?
Step 1.A: Submission of Financial Information
Step 1.B: Determination of Recognizable Expenses
Summary of Major Findings and Proposed Adjustments
(1) Equalization between Associations
(2) Reimbursed Expenses
(3) Expenses Not Necessary for Pilotage Services
(4) Expenses Related to Lobbying
(5) Expenses Not Conforming to IRS Guidelines
Step 1.C: Adjustment for Inflation or Deflation
Step 1.D: Projection of Operating Expenses
Step 2.A: Determination of Target Rate of Compensation
Step 2.B: Determination of Number of Pilots Needed
Step 2.C. Projection of Target Pilot Compensation
Step 3.A. Projection of Revenue
Step 4. Calculation of Investment Base
Step 5. Determination of Target Rate of Return
Step 6. Adjustment Determination
Step 7. Adjustment of Pilotage Rates
§ 401.407 Basic rates and charges on Lake Erie and the navigable waters from Southeast Shoal to Port Huron, MI.
§ 401.410 Basic rates and charges on Lake Huron, Michigan and Superior and the St Mary's River.
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/00-9251 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/00-9251
Coast Guard, DOT. Start Printed Page 20111
The Coast Guard proposes to update the rates that pilots receive for their services on the Great Lakes. We are required by regulations to review these rates annually. Based on our review, we propose to minimally change the rates for the 2000 season to prevent a large rate change in future years.
(1) By mail to the Docket Management Facility (USCG-1999-6098), U.S. Department of Transportation, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet at ­http://dms.dot.gov.
For questions on this proposed rule, call LCDR Don Darcy, Project Manager, Office of Standards Evaluation and Development Division, Commandant (G-MSR-1), U.S. Coast Guard, at 202-267-1200, by facsimile 202-267-4547, or by email at ddarcy@comdt.uscg.mil. For questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Dorothy Walker, Chief, Dockets, Department of Transportation, telephone 202-366-9329.
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-1999-6098), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material by mail, hand delivery, fax, or electronic means to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.
We do not plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
On May 9, 1996, the Department of Transportation published a final rule in the Federal Register (61 FR 21081). The rule explained the methodology used to set the rates for pilots working in the Great Lakes.
On December 14, 1998, the Coast Guard published a notice of annual review findings in the Federal Register (63 FR 68697). The Notice announced the results of the 1998 Rate Review and requested comments.
The Coast Guard is required by 46 CFR 404.1 (b) to conduct an annual review of rates for pilots working in the Great Lakes. We reviewed these rates by using the methodology found in 46 CFR, part 404, Appendix A, Step 2.A. As explained in Step 2.A, the compensation target for pilots providing service on designated waters of the Great Lakes is equal to the approximate average annual compensation for masters on U.S Great Lakes vessels. To calculate the compensation target for pilots, multiply the average annual compensation earned by first mates on U.S. Great Lakes vessels times 150%. The target compensation for pilots providing service on undesignated waters of the Great Lakes is equal to the approximate average annual compensation for first mates on U.S. Great Lakes vessels. We reviewed these pilotage rates and determined that they should be adjusted to meet pilot target compensation. Therefore, in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 9303(f), and based on the 1999 rate review, we are proposing to update the pilotage rates to meet these targets. We would like your comments on these updated rates.
We propose to change the rates for pilots in 46 CFR 401.405, 401.407, and 401.410 as follows:
If you are a pilot working in . . .
Your rate will . . .
Area 1 increase 3%
Area 2 decrease 4%
Area 4 decrease 2%
Area 5 decrease 6%
Area 6 no change
Area 7 increase 9%
Area 8 decrease 5%
We also propose to decrease the rates in 46 CFR 401.420 and 401.428 by 1% because the average change in rates for all districts is 1%.
The yearly rate update is designed to minimize fluctuations in pilot compensation and avoid large changes in pilotage rates.
This rulemaking follows the methodology detailed in 46 CFR Part 404, including the step-by-step ratemaking calculations contained in Appendix A to Part 404. We summarized these calculations in the following tables and explained them in more detail afterwards. Start Printed Page 20112
Table A.—District 1
Area 1 St. Lawrence River
Area 2 Lake Ontario
Total District 1
Step 1, Projection of operating expenses $287,152 $244,612 $531,764
Step 2, Projection of target pilot compensation $1,088,262 $414,576 $1,502,838
Step 3, Projection of revenue $1,333,991 $687,207 $2,021,198
Step 4, Calculation of investment base $0 $0 $0
Step 5, Determination of target return on investment 6.69% 6.69% 6.69%
Step 6, Adjustment determination $1,359,198 $645,374 $2,004,572
Step 7, Adjustment of pilotage rates 1.03 .96 1.01
Table B.—District 2
Area 4 Lake Erie
Area 5 South East Shoal to Port Huron Michigan
Total District 2
Step 1, Projection of operating expenses $609,164 $518,917 $1,128,081
Step 2, Projection of target pilot compensation $518,220 $1,243,728 $1,761,948
Step 3, Projection of revenue $1,156,057 $1,886,198 $3,042,255
Step 4, Calculation of investment base $45,397 $71,006 $116,403
Step 6, Adjustment determination $1,134,321 $1,773,496 $2,907,817
Step 7, Adjustment of pilotage rates .98 .94 .96
Table C.—District 3
Total District 3
Step 1, Projection of operating expenses $648,500 $128,476 $446,608 $1,223,584
Step 2, Projection of target pilot compensation $1,140,084 $621,864 $829,152 $2,591,100
Step 3, Projection of revenue $1,797,967 $688,583 $1,338,912 $3,825,462
Step 4, Calculation of investment base $11,997 $4,595 $8,934 $25,526
Step 5, Determination of target return on investment 6.69% 6.69% 6.69% 6.69%
Step 6, Adjustment determination $1,789,386 $750,648 $1,276,358 $3,816,392
Step 7, Adjustment of pilotage rate 1.00 1.09 .95 .99
Here is a detailed explanation of our step-by-step calculations.
Our first step is to gather financial data from each of the three Great Lakes pilot associations (the Associations). Each of the Associations must obtain an audit by an independent Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and submit these audits to the Director of the Great Lakes Pilotage (the Director), in accordance with 46 CFR 403.300.
Each year, the Director determines which Association expenses will be recognized for ratemaking purposes. The Director may hire an independent CPA firm to review the expenses reported by the Association using the guidelines contained in 46 CFR 404.05. However, for 1999 this was not possible due to the transfer of the Office of the Director, Great Lakes Pilotage from the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation to the United States Coast Guard, and the fact that the position of Economist on the Director's staff was vacant for the last half of 1998. To determine the reasonable and necessary expenses for the purpose of the 1999 Rate Review, we used the Director's 1997 independent audit of the Associations. In the following paragraphs, we discuss some of the details of the audit and afterward, we have provided you with a table containing the expenses that the Director recognized and approved.
We calculate target pilot compensation each year based on the previous year's compensation earned by first mates on U.S. Great Lakes vessels. That figure is added to the total expenses to determine the revenue needed for ratemaking purposes. District 2 reported pilot compensation of $246,649 as training expenses and District 3 reported applicant pilot salaries and benefits of $274,509 as an expense. Because the figures represent pilot compensation, they cannot be considered expenses for ratemaking purposes. The Director subtracted these expenses from the expense bases of Districts 1 and 2.
To support safety and ongoing learning, each Pilot's Association agreed to develop a Continuing Education Plan for registered pilots to keep them aware of safety issues and refresh their skills. Each Association submitted a plan that the Director approved, with minor modifications. The Director will continue to monitor these plans to ensure they have been implemented, are effective and are applied to each District's continuing education account. The Director reserves the right to modify each plan as necessary.
In order to encourage safety and compensate each District for its training Start Printed Page 20113expenses, the Director has added the following figures to the expense bases of each District:
District 1: $30,000.
District 2: $40,000.
District 3: $50,000.
These figures include $2000 for each District for their “Train the Trainer” courses which prepare pilots to more effectively contribute to the training process.
The following table displays the results of the audits and the Director's adjustments.
Recognizable Expenses
Total reported expenses $343,699 $1,522,063 $1,191,109
Proposed adjustments (independent CPA firm) 70,939 (225,569) 151,619
Director's adjustments (32,894) (246,649) (274,509)
45,000 (45,602) (56,203)
30,000 (21,151) 40,000
40,000 50,000
Total recognized expenses $456,744 $1,023,092 $1,062,016
In June 1999, we forwarded the Director's 1997 independent CPA firm audit report to the Associations for comment. The following is a summary of the CPA firm's major findings and proposed adjustments, along with the Director's corresponding adjustments.
We divided the adjustments we made to the reported expenses into five categories: (1) Equalization Between districts, (2) reimbursed expenses, (3) expenses not necessary for pilotage services, (4) expenses related to lobbying, and (5) expenses not conforming to IRS guidelines.
The Coast Guard must ensure that each association's expenses are analyzed fairly and consistently with the other associations because each one is organized differently. The District 1 and 3 Associations are organized as partnerships whereas the District 2 Association is organized as a corporation. Because of this difference, the District 2 Association pays for Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, insurance and travel expenses out of corporate funds while in the District 1 and 3 Associations these expenses are paid directly by the pilots themselves. Since these taxes, insurance and travel expenses are legitimate business expenses that should be recognized for ratemaking purposes, funds for these expenses have been added to the expense base of Districts 1 and 3.
District 2 spends a great deal more than the other Districts on many categories of expenses. For instance, pilot boat expenses in District 2 average $176 per trip, while expenses in the other two Districts average approximately $97 per trip. Erie Leasing, a wholly owned subsidiary of District 2 pilot's association that leases equipment back to District 2, reported a net income from operations of $70,506 in 1997, while District 3 has no affiliated company and the District 1 affiliated company showed a net income of $4520 for 1997.
In the 1998 rate review, the Director stated that 1998 was the last year in which District 2 would be allowed to incur unreasonably high expenses. To bring pilot boat charges in line with Districts 1 and 3, the Director is reducing District 2's expense base by an additional $45,602. This deduction is intended to offset Erie Leasing's net income of $70,506 from operations. This, in effect, reduces Erie Leasing's net income to $24,904, which represents a 6.69% return on Erie Leasing's property and equipment of $372,270.
The independent CPA firm found that multiple parties reimburse some expenses for each association and recommended that these expenses should not be included in the expense base for each district. Examples of these expenses include reimbursement from one pilot association to another for shared pilot boats and dispatch, reimbursement from ships for tugboat use, and reimbursement from Canadian pilotage operations for shared administrative expenses. Although these are legitimate business expenses, they are paid by other districts or parties, not by basic pilotage rates, and should not be included in the calculation of pilotage rates for the district being reimbursed. The Director agrees with the independent CPA firm's recommendation to deduct reimbursed expenses from the expense bases of District's 2 and 3. These expenses include those for Canadian pilotage operations and shared administrative expenses.
Expenses that are not necessary for the provision of pilotage services are disallowed for ratemaking purposes. This is explained in 46 CFR 404.5 (a)(1), which contains some of the Great Lakes Pilotage Ratemaking regulations. This section states: “Each expense included in the rate base is evaluated to determine if it is necessary for the provision of pilotage service” and “expense items that the Director determines are not reasonable and necessary for the provision of pilotage service will not be recognized for ratemaking purposes.” The independent CPA firm determined that the largest portion of expenses that fits in this category came from the legal challenge by two Associations. They challenged the transfer of Great Lakes Pilotage oversight functions from the Commandant of the Coast Guard to the Administrator of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC). This transfer did not affect the substantive rules regarding pilotage services. These litigation costs are distinguishable from expenses that are directly related to the provision of those services, such as the cost of transportation to and from vessels or the pilot's labor, from which the rate-paying public derives a direct benefit. The latter are costs that affect service to the public, while the former are not. We allowed some legal expenses directly related to the provision of pilotage service, such as the expense of defending a law suit by an applicant pilot discharged from the training program for cause, which directly affects the quality of service provided the public. While it is reasonable to expect the public to share the burden of the direct costs of services provided, it is not reasonable to pass on the costs of litigation over an issue that has no Start Printed Page 20114discernable effect on the actual provision of pilotage services. Therefore, we are disallowing these legal costs for the purposes of this ratemaking ($19,900 in District 1, $36,869 in District 3).
Furthermore, the Director believes that a major portion of the remaining legal costs, even after disallowance for the above, are still excessive. In 1997, District 1 reported $34,138 in legal expenses, District 2: $21,151, and District 3: $56,203. The Director intends to recognize only those legal expenses that are reasonable, necessary and directly related to the provision of pilotage services (i.e., they directly result from a legal action). In 1997, District 1 incurred $34,138 in legal expenses; $1,244 of which was directly related to litigation. Therefore, in the absence of any documentation to justify these legal expenses, the Director, for ratemaking purposes, is disallowing $32,894 in legal expenses for District 1. Furthermore, because there were no legal expenses related to litigation in Districts 2 and 3, the Director is disallowing $21,151 for District 2 and $56,203 for District 3.
In addition to the costs associated with legal expenses, the independent CPA firm also recommended additional deductions from District 2's expenses in the amount of $4800 for overpayment of rent, $947 for business promotion, $400 in donations, and $1,988 for uniforms. None of these charges are necessary for the provision of pilotage services. The Director agrees with the independent CPA firm's findings and these expenses have been deducted from the rate base.
The independent CPA firm recommended that we deduct $1,392 from District 1, $3,428 from District 2, and $12,495 from District 3 for lobbying expenses including dues, legal charges, employee payrolls, and travel.
The independent CPA firm recommended that we deduct $2,484 from District 2's expense base for overpayment of a subsistence allowance that does not conform to IRS guidelines. The Director agrees with these findings and we deducted these expenses from the rate base.
During the 1999 navigational season, the Director initiated a change to District 1's Working Rules, in order to reduce pilot fatigue. This change increased the pilot's minimum time between assignments from eleven hours to thirteen hours and approved the use of a car service between home and pilot change points. During 1999, the cost of the car service was applied as a surcharge on the pilot's uniform source form. To incorporate this expense in District 1's expense base, the Director has approved an additional $45,000.
To adjust expenses for inflation, we increased the total recognized expenses for each association by 2.1%. The 2.1% inflation figure is based on the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from January 1998 to April 1999.
Once all adjustments are made to the recognized operating expenses, the Director projects these expenses for each pilotage area. The Director considers foreseeable circumstances that could affect the accuracy of the projection and, as best as possible, determines the “projection of operating expenses.”
For this rulemaking, we adjusted association expenses by multiplying the pilotage hour projection for each district (described in step 2.B., below) by the aggregate percentage of Association expenses that change in relation to a change in pilotage hours. Analysis indicates about 57% of Association expenses are affected by a change in pilotage hours. For instance, in District 1, pilotage hours are projected to decrease 5% (see step 2.B. below) which is multiplied by 57% to project that District 1's operating expenses should decrease 2.8% in response to the projected decrease in pilotage hours. Then, District-wide expenses were apportioned to each area according to the number of pilots in that area, as determined in step 2.B., below. For instance, District 1 is calculated to need seven pilots in Area 1 and four pilots in Area 2, therefore, Area 1 was assigned 64% of the expenses for the District and Area 2 was assigned 36% of the expenses for the District. The results of Step 1 for each district are displayed below.
Projection of operating expenses $287,152 $244,612 $531,764
Area 5 South East Shoal to Port Huron MI
Projection of operating expenses $609,164 $518,917 1,128,081
Projection of operating expenses $648,500 $128,476 $446,608 $1,223,584
For pilots providing service in undesignated waters, the target rate of compensation is equal to the average yearly compensation earned by first mates on U.S. Great Lakes vessels. Effective August 1, 1999, the rate is $103,644, according to information from the American Maritime Officers Union and Great Lakes Ship Operating Companies. This rate covers wages and compensation which include work days, vacation pay, weekend pay, holiday pay, bonuses, clerical pay, medical benefits and pension contributions.
For pilots providing services in designated waters the target rate of compensation is 1.5 times the yearly rate of first mate compensation, which is calculated at $155,466. These figures represent a 12% increase in pilot's target compensation since pilotage rates were last set in 1997.
The number of pilots needed is determined by dividing the projected bridge hours for each area by the work hour targets for each area i.e., 1000 hours in designated waters and 1800 hours in undesignated waters. Pilot bridge hours are projected based on the vessel traffic that these pilots are expected to serve. The Coast Guard used three sources to project vessel traffic and bridge hours. These sources included industry surveys, projections by the St. Lawrence Seaway Corporation and current bridge hour levels. The projection for 1999 is for a 5% reduction in Districts 1, 2, and 3. The following bullets list the projected equivalent pilot needs for 1999, by area:
Area 1: 7 pilots.
Area 2: 4 pilots.
Area 4: 5 pilots.
Area 5: 8 pilots.
Area 6: 11 pilots.
Area 7: 4 pilots.
Area 8: 8 pilots.
(We use the term “equivalent” because the actual assignment of pilots to each area varies according to the needs of vessel traffic). Applying this methodology to the undesignated waters of District 3 results in a total of 19.2 pilots required for both Areas 6 and 8. Because District 3 utilizes contract pilots, a total of 19 pilots was utilized instead of 20 pilots to determine total pilot target compensation for the District. This certainly is not intended to penalize District 3 in any manner. Contract pilots enhance profitability while providing District 3 an added flexibility to comfortably handle sudden surges in traffic, while protecting pilot compensation targets in the event that projected traffic projections fall short of estimates.
Target pilot compensation is determined by multiplying the target compensation for each area by the number of pilots in each area. The results of Step 2 are summarized below.
Projection of target pilot compensation $1,088,262 $414,576 $1,502,838
Area 5 South East Shoal to Port Huron, MI
Projection of target pilot compensation $518,220 $1,243,728 $1,761,948
Projection of target pilot compensation $1,140,084 $621,864 $829,152 $2,591,100
We projected Pilotage Revenue by multiplying the revenue by each Association in 1998 by the change in traffic projected for each Association. The result for each was divided among the pilotage areas based on the number of pilots in each area. The results of Step 3 for each district are summarized below.
Projection of revenue $1,333,991 $687,207 $2,021,198
Start Printed Page 20116
Projection of revenue $1,156,057 $1,886,198 $3,042,255
Projection of revenue $1,797,967 $688,583 $1,338,912 $3,825,462
The independent CPA firm hired by the Director calculated the Investment Base for each Association during the analysis. The results of those calculations are contained in the reports of the CPA firm, which have been forwarded to each of the Districts for comment. The Step 4 Investment Base as calculated for each district is displayed below.
Calculation of investment base $0 $0 $0
Calculation of investment base $45,397 $71,006 $116,403
Calculation of investment base $11,997 $4,595 $8,934 $25,526
The rate of return on investment (ROI) for 1999 was set at 6.69%. This is based on the preceding year's average annual rate of return of new issues of high-grade corporate securities (Moody's AAA rating, average return). The Step 5 determination of target return on investment is displayed below.
Area 1 St. Lawrence River (percent)
Area 2 Lake Ontario (percent)
Total District 1 (percent)
Determination of target return on investment 6.69 6.69 6.69
Start Printed Page 20117
Area 4 Lake Erie (percent)
Area 5 South East Shoal to Port Huron, MI (percent)
Total District 2 (percent)
Area 6 Lakes Huron and Michigan (percent)
Area 7 St. Mary's River (percent)
Total District 3 (percent)
We made the adjustment determination using the numbers listed above and following the formula found in Step 6 of Appendix A to 46 CFR Part 404. The Step 6 results for each district are displayed below.
Adjustment determination $1,375,414 $659,187 $2,034,602
Adjustment determination $1,134,321 $1,773,496 $2,907,81
Area 7 St. Mary's, River
Adjustment determination $1,789,386 $750,648 $1,276,358 $3,816,392
To determine the adjustments to pilotage rates in each area we multiplied the current pilotage rates in those areas by the rate multiplier. The rate multiplier is calculated by dividing the revenue needed (from step 6) by the revenue needed (from step 3) for each area. The Coast Guard proposes to amend the pilotage rates in 46-404.05-410 with the rates obtained by multiplying the current pilotage rates times the rate multiplier calculated for each pilotage area. The Step 7 Adjustments of Pilotage Rates for each district are displayed below.
Adjustment of pilotage rates 1.03 .96 1.01
Start Printed Page 20118
Area 5 South East Shoal to Port Huron MI.
Adjustment of pilotage rates .98 .94 .96
Adjustment of pilotage rate 1.00 1.09 .95 .99
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT)(44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This proposed rule would make minimal adjustments to the pilotage rates for the Great Lakes 2000 shipping season. The Coast Guard used the ratemaking methodology found in 46 CFR part 404, Appendix A to identify adjustments necessary to achieve target pilot compensation by establishing these new rates for pilotage. This ratemaking methodology is designed to annually review pilotage rates in order to avoid fluctuations in pilot compensation thus avoiding large changes in pilotage rates. This notice of proposed rulemaking provides a step-by-step economic guide to show how the pilotage rates would be changed. The results of this rulemaking are in keeping with the Coast Guard's desire for a fair and efficient pilotage system.
For the Great Lakes region, small entities potentially impacted by this proposed rulemaking include shippers, Great Lakes ports, carriers, and shipping agents. The proposed decreases in Great Lakes pilotage rates are not expected to significantly impact small businesses because this rulemaking actually reduces the financial burden on small entities and on the general public.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult Tom Lawler, Chief Economist, Great Lakes Pilotage (G-MW-1), U.S. Coast Guard, at 202-267-6447, by facsimile 202-267-4700, or by email at tlawler@comdt.uscg.mil.
The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposal under the principles and criteria in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that this proposal does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to Start Printed Page 20119minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(a), of the Commandants Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. The proposed rule is procedural in nature because it deals exclusively with adjusting pilotage rates for the Great Lakes. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2104(a), 6101, 7701, 8105, 9303, 9304; 49 CFR 1.45, 1.46 (mmm), 46 CFR 401.105 also issued the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507.
2. In § 401.405, revise tables (a) and (b) to read as follows:
Basic Pilotage $8 Kilometer or $13 per mile. 1
Each Lock Transited $176 1
Harbor Movage $579 1
1 The minimum basic rate for assignment of a pilot in the St. Lawrence River is $381 and the maximum basic rate for a through trip is $1,676.
Six Hour Period $282
Docking/Undocking 269
3. In § 401.407, revise tables (a) and (b) to read as follows:
Six Hour Period $316 $316
Docking/Undocking 243 243
Any Point on the Niagara River below the Black Rock Lock N/A 620
Any point on/in
Toledo or any port on Lake Erie west of South-East Shoal $929 $548 $1,205 $929 N/A
Port Huron Change Point 1 1,617 1 1,873 1,215 945 $672
St. Clair River 1 1,617 N/A 1,215 1,215 548
Detroit or Windsor or the Detroit River 929 1,205 548 N/A 1,215
Detroit Pilot Boat 672 929 N/A N/A 1,215
4. In § 401.410, revise tables (b) and (c) to read as follows:
Gros Cap $1,436 N/A N/A
Algoma Steel Corporation Wharf at Sault Ste. Marie Ontario 1,436 541 N/A
Any point in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario except the Algoma Steel Corporation Wharf 1,204 541 N/A
Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan 1,204 541 N/A
Harbor Movage N/A N/A 541
Start Printed Page 20120
Six Hour Period $248
Docking/Undocking 237
5. In § 401.420—
a. In paragraph (a), remove the number “$51” and add, in its place, the number “$50”; and remove the number “$807” and add, in its place, the number “$799”.
b. In paragraph (b), remove the number “$51” and add, in its place, the number “$50”; and remove the number “$807” and add, in its place, the number “$799”.
c. In paragraph (c) (1), remove the number “$305” and add, in its place, the number “$302”; in paragraph (c) (3), remove the number “$51” and add, in its place, the number “$50” and also in paragraph (c) (3), remove the number “$807”, and add, in its place, the number “$799”.
6. In § 401.428, remove the number “$312” and add, in its place, the number “$309”.
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast GuardAssistant Commandant for Marine Safety and Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 00-9251 Filed 4-13-00; 8:45 am]