Source: https://regulations.vlex.com/vid/great-lakes-pilotage-246812390
Timestamp: 2019-10-21 15:29:47
Document Index: 570357437

Matched Legal Cases: ['arts 401', 'art 404', 'art 404', 'art 404', 'art 404', 'art 404', 'art 1', 'art 404', 'art 404']

Great Lakes Pilotage: - February 04, 2011 - Regulations - VLEX 246812390
Federal Register: February 4, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 24)
Page 6351-6364
DOCID:fr04fe11-13
RIN 1625-AB48
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is increasing the rates for pilotage service on the Great Lakes to generate sufficient revenue to cover allowable expenses, target pilot compensation, and return on investment. This increase reflects a projected August 1, 2011, increase in benchmark contractual wages and benefits and an adjustment for deflation. This rule promotes the Coast Guard's strategic goal of maritime safety.
ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2010-0517 and are available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0517 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, call or e-mail Mr. Paul Wasserman, Chief, Great Lakes Pilotage
Division, Commandant (CG-5522), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1535, or e-mail Paul.M.Wasserman@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
MISLE Marine Information for Safety, and Law Enforcement
On August 19, 2010, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled ``Great Lakes Pilotage Rates: 2011 Annual Review and
Adjustment'' in the Federal Register (75 FR 51191). We received three comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested and none was held.
The basis of this rulemaking is the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960 (``the Act'') (46 U.S.C. chapter 93), which requires vessels engaged in foreign trade to use U.S. registered pilots while transiting the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes system. The Act also requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to ``prescribe by regulation rates and charges for pilotage services, giving consideration to the public interest and the costs of providing the services.'' 46 U.S.C. 9303(f). The Secretary's duties and authority under the Act have been delegated to the Coast Guard, and Coast Guard regulations implementing the Act appear in parts 401 through 404 of
Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
The Act requires annual pilotage rate reviews to be completed by
March 1 of each year, with a ``full ratemaking'' to establish new base rates at least once every five years. The purpose of this rulemaking is to comply with 46 U.S.C. 9303(f) by applying the ratemaking methodology described in Appendix C to 46 CFR part 404, which will satisfy the requirement for the annual pilotage rate review for 2011.
Great Lakes Pilotage to operate a pilotage pool. It is
important to note that, while we set rates, we do not control the actual number of pilots an association maintains, so long as the association is able to provide safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage service, nor do we control the actual compensation that pilots receive.
The actual compensation is determined by each of the three district associations, which use different compensation practices.
Superior. Area 3 is the Welland Canal, which is serviced exclusively by the Canadian Great Lakes Pilotage Authority and, accordingly, is not included in the U.S. rate structure. Areas 1, 5, and 7 have been designated by Presidential Proclamation, pursuant to the Act, to be waters in which pilots must at all times be fully engaged in the navigation of vessels in their charge. Areas 2, 4, 6, and 8 have not been so designated because they are open bodies of water. Under the
Act, pilots assigned to vessels in these areas are only required to
``be on board and available to direct the navigation of the vessel at the discretion of and subject to the customary authority of the master.'' 46 U.S.C. 9302(a)(1)(B).
Our pilotage regulations implement the Act's requirement for annual reviews of pilotage rates and a full ratemaking at least once every five years. 46 CFR 404.1. To assist in calculating pilotage rates, the regulations require pilotage associations to submit annual financial statements prepared by certified public accounting firms. In addition, every fifth year, in connection with the full ratemaking, we contract with an independent accounting firm to conduct a full audit of the accounts and records of the pilotage associations and prepare and submit financial reports relevant to the ratemaking process. In those years when a full ratemaking is conducted, we generate the pilotage rates using Appendix A to 46 CFR Part 404. The last Appendix A review was concluded in 2006 (71 FR 16501, April 3, 2006). Between the five- year full ratemaking intervals, we annually review the pilotage rates using Appendix C to Part 404 and adjust rates when deemed appropriate.
We conducted Appendix C reviews in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 and increased rates in each year. The 2010 final rule was published on
February 23, 2010 (75 FR 7958) and took effect on August 1, 2010. The terms and formulas used in Appendix A and Appendix C are defined in
Appendix B to Part 404.
Comments outside the scope of the rule. One commenter made several statements which, although they are outside the scope of this rule, require correction or clarification. The commenter said we improperly base our ratemaking calculations on union contracts, do not allow for consultation with pilots or industry, provide no meaningful opportunity for appealing decisions made by the Director, and no longer
``maintain'' the Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee (GLPAC). The use of union contracts in calculating pilot benefits and compensation as part of the overall rate calculation is an explicit requirement of the current methodology. 46 CFR 404.5, 46 CFR part 404, App. A, step 2.A. All of our ratemakings are subject to notice and comment procedure, providing ample opportunity for input from pilots, industry, and the general public. Decisions of the Director may be appealed pursuant to 46 CFR subpart 1.03, and ultimately all Coast Guard decisions are subject to judicial review. The Coast Guard has not only taken all necessary steps to maintain GLPAC, but in recent years we have sharpened our focus on using GLPAC to provide us with the type of consultation the commenter appears to have in mind. Congress established GLPAC specifically for that purpose.
Ratemaking methodology. Two commenters recommended that we suspend any rate increase until the ratemaking methodology is reviewed and updated as needed. We requested public comments in 2009 on the need for, and content of, any change to that methodology, and we forwarded those comments to GLPAC (74 FR 35838, July 21, 2009). GLPAC has these comments under consideration, but no action can be taken before the
March 1, 2011 deadline for establishing the annual rate adjustment for 2011.
Calculations. One commenter disagreed with the way we applied the methodology in calculating bridge hours and the number of pilots in
Areas 4 and 5. We performed all calculations in accordance with
Appendix C to Part 404. We used our forecast of bridge hour demand and the Director's discretion to determine the number of pilots. As we stated in the NPRM (75 FR at 51197), this determination applied the same reasoning we have used since the 2008 ratemaking, which was explained in the 2008 final rule (74 FR 220, 221-22, Jan. 5, 2009) and also discussed at length in the 2009 ratemaking final rule (74 FR 35812, 35813-14, Jul. 21, 2009).
One commenter said that our ratemaking is arbitrary and capricious because we count delay and detention in calculating bridge hours for
Areas 6, 7, and 8 but not in Areas 4 and 5. Under Step 1 of the
Appendix C methodology, we do not count pilot delay or detention in the calculation of bridge hours. No information was provided by the commenter to substantiate this claim, which runs counter to our discussion of bridge hour calculations in ratemaking documents over many years, and which repeats an allegation made in 2007 and refuted in that year's interim rule: ``The Coast Guard has never considered delay, detention, or travel time to be included in the definition of bridge hours and has never knowingly included these items in its bridge hour computations.'' (72 FR 8117, February 23, 2007). We did not consider delay, detention, or travel time in our bridge hour computations for this final rule.
Table 1--2011 Area Rate Changes
Then the percentage of increase
Area 1 (Designated waters).................................
Area 2 (Undesignated waters)...............................
Area 4 (Undesignated waters)...............................
Area 5 (Designated waters).................................
Area 6 (Undesignated waters)...............................
Area 7 (Designated waters).................................
Area 8 (Undesignated waters)...............................
Rates for cancellation, delay, or interruption in rendering services (46 CFR 401.420) and basic rates and charges for carrying a
U.S. pilot beyond the normal change point, or for boarding at other than the normal boarding point (46 CFR 401.428), have been increased by 6.51 percent in all areas based upon the calculations appearing at
Tables 19 through 21, which follow.
(pilot compensation expense plus all other recognized expenses plus the return element, which is net income plus interest) and divide by the total bridge hours used in setting the base period rates;
Step 2: Calculate the ``expense multiplier,'' the ratio of other expenses, and the return element to pilot compensation for the base period;
The base data used to calculate each of the eight steps comes from the 2010 Appendix C review. The Coast Guard also used the most recent union contracts between the American Maritime Officers Union (AMOU) and vessel owners and operators on the Great Lakes to estimate target pilot compensation. However, the current AMOU contracts expire in July 2011, and the Coast Guard has been informed that the contract negotiations will not begin until sometime after that, which is well after the pilotage statute requires that we establish a rate. Accordingly, we have reviewed the terms of both existing and past AMOU contracts and have projected, for the purpose of this ratemaking, that the AMOU contracts effective in 2011 would provide increases in compensation equal to 3%, which is the increase called for in the AMOU contracts over the past two years. We project all other benefits to remain fixed at current levels with the exception of medical plan contributions.
Medical plan contributions have increased 10% per year from 2006 through 2010 in the current AMOU contracts. Thus, we forecast an increase of 10% over 2010 medical plan contributions for the AMOU contracts in 2011. Bridge hour projections for the 2011 season have been obtained from historical data, pilots, and industry. All documents and records used in this rate calculation have been placed in the public docket for this rulemaking and are available for review at the addresses listed under ADDRESSES.
Step 1: Calculate the total economic cost for the base period. In this step, for each area, we add the total cost of target pilot compensation, all other recognized expenses, and the return element
(net income plus interest). We divide this sum by the total bridge hours for each area. The result is the cost in each area of providing pilotage service per bridge hour for the base period. Tables 2 through 4 summarize the Step 1 calculations:
Table 2--Total Economic Cost for Base Period (2010), Areas in District
Base operating expense..................
Base target pilot compensation..........
+ $1,677,397
+ $1,020,120
Base return element.....................
+ $11,571
+ $17,701
Subtotal............................
= $2,267,537
= $1,627,853
Base bridge hours.......................
/ 5,203
Base cost per bridge hour...............
= $435.81
= $288.12
Table 3--Total Economic Cost for Base Period (2010), Areas in District
Shoal to Port
+ $816,096
+ $27,055
+ $33,939
= $1,384,254
= $2,559,805
= $189.11
= $502.22
Table 4--Total Economic Cost for Base Period (2010), Areas in District Three
Base operating expense..........................................
Base target pilot compensation..................................
+ $1,632,191
+ $1,118,265
+ $1,428,167
Base return element.............................................
+ $35,106
+ $12,852
+ $20,743
Subtotal....................................................
= $2,544,935
= $1,559,501
= $2,140,345
Base bridge hours...............................................
/ 13,406
/ 3,259
/ 11,630
Base cost per bridge hour.......................................
= $189.84
= $478.52
= $184.04
Step 2. Calculate the expense multiplier. In this step, for each area, we add the base operating expense and the base return element.
Then we divide the sum by the base target pilot compensation to get the expense multiplier for each area. Tables 5 through 7 show the Step 2 calculations.
Table 5--Expense Multiplier, Areas in District One
= $590,140
= $607,733
/ $1,677,397
/ $1,020,120
Expense multiplier......................
Table 6--Expense Multiplier, Areas in District Two
= $568,158
= $882,408
/ $816,096
Table 7--Expense Multiplier, Areas in District Three
= $912,744
= $441,236
= $712,178
/ $1,632,191
/ $1,118,265
/ $1,428,167
Expense multiplier..............................................
In this step, we determine the new target rate of compensation and the new number of pilots needed in each pilotage area, to determine the new target pilot compensation for each area.
(a) Determine new target rate of compensation. Target pilot compensation is based on the average annual compensation of first mates and masters on U.S. Great Lakes vessels. For pilots in undesignated waters, we approximate the first mates' compensation and, in designated waters, we approximate the master's compensation (first mates' wages multiplied by 150% plus benefits). To determine first mates' and masters' average annual compensation, we use data from the most recent
AMOU contracts with the U.S. companies engaged in Great Lakes shipping.
different AMOU agreements apply to different companies, we apportion the compensation provided by each agreement according to the percentage of tonnage represented by companies under each agreement.
Both Agreement A and Agreement B will expire on July 31, 2011.
Based on the discussions with AMOU officials, these contracts are not expected to be negotiated until 2011. This does not provide sufficient time to incorporate new rates into the ratemaking process for the 2011 shipping season. The Coast Guard projects that when new AMOU contracts are negotiated in 2011, they will provide for a 3% wage increase effective August 1, 2011. This is in keeping with the recent contractual wage raises under the existing union contracts. Both 2009 and 2010 saw wage raises of 3%. Under Agreement A, we project that the daily wage rate would increase from $270.61 to $278.73. Under Agreement
B, the daily wage rate would be increased from $333.58 to $343.59. All other benefits and calculations for these contracts are forecasted to remain identical to the current AMOU contracts, with the exception of the health benefit plan discussed below. The pension plan contribution, which has been a fixed amount, the 401k employers matching contribution of 5% of wages, which is also a set amount, and the monthly contract multipliers are all projected to remain fixed at current AMOU levels.
These benefits have not changed their numerical or percentage values over the courses of the previous AMOU agreements still in effect. We do not project that the 2011 contracts will have any impact on these fixed costs.
$278.73 daily rate x 54.5 days......
205,074 wages..............................
$343.59 daily rate x 49.5 days......
229,602 wages..............................
Both Agreements A and B include a health benefits contribution rate of $88.76. On average, this benefit contribution has increased at a rate of 10% per year throughout the lives of the existing five-year contracts. Accordingly, for the purposes of the 2011 rate we project that when the new AMOU contracts are negotiated in 2011, this contribution would increase to $97.64 effective August 1, 2011. We project that Agreement A would continue to include a pension plan contribution rate of $33.35 per man-day. Agreement B would continue to include a pension plan contribution rate of $43.55 per man-day.
Similarly, we expect both Agreements A and B to continue to provide a 5% 401k employer matching provision. Accordingly, for purposes of the 2011 rate, we will continue to use these values in calculating total pilot compensation. Currently, neither Agreement A nor Agreement B includes a clerical contribution that appeared in earlier contracts, and we project that this would not be a feature of any new AMOU contracts negotiated in 2011. We project that the multiplier used to calculate monthly benefits would remain the same at 45.5 days.
Employer contribution, 401k plan
(Monthly Wages x 5%)...............
Pension = $33.35 x 45.5 days........
Health = $97.64 x 45.5 days.........
Pension = $43.55 x 45.5 days........
Monthly total benefits..............
= 6,719.58
= 7,099.35
Monthly total benefits x 9 months...
= 60,476
= 63,894
= 7,274.52
= 7,699.71
= 65,471
= 69,297
Agreement A: Wages......................
Agreement A: Benefits...................
+ 60,476
+ 63,894
Agreement A: Total......................
= 197,192
= 268,968
Agreement B: Wages......................
Agreement B: Benefits...................
+ 65,471
+ 69,297
Agreement B: Total......................
= 218,539
= 298,900
American Steamship Company.............. ..............
Mittal Steel USA, Inc................... ..............
Key Lakes, Inc..........................
361,385 ..............
Total tonnage, each agreement.......
Percent tonnage, each agreement.........
/ 1,215,811
= 29.7238%
= 70.2762%
Table 12 applies the percentage of tonnage represented by each agreement to the wages and benefits provided by each agreement, to determine the projected target rate of compensation on a tonnage- weighted basis.
Total wages and benefits x percent
$268,968 tonnage............................
x 29.7238%
= $58,613
= $79,948
$298,900 tonnage............................
x 70.2762%
= $153,581
= $210,055
Total weighted average wages and
$79,948 benefits = projected target rate of
+ $153,581
+ $210,055 compensation.......................
= $212,194
= $290,003
(b) Determine number of pilots needed. Subject to adjustment by the Coast Guard Director of Great Lakes Pilotage to ensure uninterrupted service, we determine the number of pilots needed for ratemaking purposes in each area by dividing each area's projected bridge hours, either by 1,000 (designated waters) or by 1,800
(undesignated waters).
Bridge hours are the number of hours a pilot is aboard a vessel providing pilotage service. Projected bridge hours are based on the vessel traffic that pilots are expected to serve. Based on historical data and information provided by pilots and industry, we project that vessel traffic in the 2011
navigation season in Districts 1 and 2 would remain unchanged from the 2010 projections noted in Table 13 of the 2010 final rule. In District 3, in both Areas 6 and 8, decreasing bridge hours require the removal of two unused authorizations for pilots, one for each Area. There are no pilots currently in either of these slots and no jobs are being lost as a result of this action. The removal of these two pilot billets merely attempts to mitigate a significant downward trend across the undesignated waters of District 3. The bridge hours for the designated waters of Area 7, like Districts 1 and 2, would remain unchanged from the 2010 projections.
Projected 2011 waters) or
(undesignated waters)
(c) Determine the projected target pilot compensation for each area. The projection of new total target pilot compensation is determined separately for each pilotage Area by multiplying the number of pilots needed in each Area (see Table 13) by the projected target rate of compensation (see Table 12) for pilots working in that Area.
Table 14 shows this calculation.
Pilots needed target rate of target pilot
(Total = 38) compensation compensation
x $290,003
x 212,194
x 290,003
operating compensation
x 0.35182
= $612,171
x 0.59575
= 632,069
x 0.69619
= 590,909
x 0.52606
= 915,350
x 0.55921
= 830,633
x 0.39457
= 457,708
x 0.49867
= 634,883
Step 5: Adjust the result in Step 4, as required, for inflation or deflation, and calculate projected total economic cost. Based on data from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics available at http://www.bls.gov/
xg_shells/ro5xg01.htm, we have multiplied the results in Step 4 by a 0.994 deflation factor, reflecting an average deflation rate of 0.6% between 2008 and 2009, the latest years for which data are available.
Table 16 shows this calculation and the projected total economic cost.
Projected multiplied by C. Projected
target pilot total economic expense
factor (= A x compensation cost (= B+C) 0.994)
Area 1..........................................
$2,348,516
Area 2..........................................
Area 4..........................................
Area 5..........................................
Area 6..........................................
2,311,006
Area 7..........................................
Area 8..........................................
(total) unit
total economic 2011 bridge
costs (A cost
Table 18--Percentage Change in Unit Costs
Percentage change from base (A
Prospective B. Base period divided by B; unit costs
We use the percentage change between the prospective overall unit cost and the base overall unit cost to adjust rates for cancellation, delay, or interruption in rendering services (46 CFR 401.420) and basic rates and charges for carrying a U.S. pilot beyond the normal change point or for boarding at other than the normal boarding point (46 CFR 401.428). This calculation is derived from the Appendix C ratemaking methodology found at 46 CFR 404.10 and differs from the area rate calculation by using total costs and total bridge hours for all areas.
Tables 19 through 21 show this calculation.
Table 19--Calculation of Base Period Overall Unit Cost
(2010) overall B. Base period (2010) overall total economic (2010) overall unit cost (A costs
bridge hours divided by B)
Sum of all Areas.............................................
$14,084,230
Table 20--Calculation of Projected Period Overall Unit Cost
Base period period (2011) period (2011)
(2011) overall overall total overall bridge unit cost (A economic costs
$13,953,996
Table 21--Percentage Change in Overall Prospective Unit Costs/Base Unit Cost
Prospective B. Base period change from overall unit
overall base cost
unit cost (A divided by B)
Across all Areas.............................................
Table 22--Base Period Rates Adjusted by Percentage Change in Unit Costs *
Percentage change in unit
base rate (A x (A + C, rounded to rate
nearest dollar) factor)
.................. 3.57(1.0357)
--Basic pilotage............ $17.73/km, $31.38/ .................. $0.63/km, $1.12/mi $18.36/km, $32.50/ mi.
--Each lock transited....... $393.............. .................. $14.03............ $407
--Harbor movage............. $1,287............ .................. $45.95............ $1,333
--Minimum basic rate, St.
$858.............. .................. $30.63............ $889
--Maximum rate, through trip $3,767............ .................. $134.48........... $3,901
.................. 3.77(1.0377)
--6-hr. period.............. $861.............. .................. $32.46............ $893
--Docking or undocking...... $821.............. .................. $30.95............ $852
.................. 3.75(1.0375)
--6 hr. period.............. $762.............. .................. $28.58............ $791
--Docking or undocking...... $587.............. .................. $22.01............ $609
--Any point on Niagara River $1,498............ .................. $56.18............ $1,554 below Black Rock Lock.
Area 5 between any point on or
.................. 3.52(1.0352) in:
--Toledo or any point on
$1,364............ .................. $48.01............ $1,412
Lake Erie W. of Southeast
$2,308............ .................. $81.24............ $2,389
Shoal & Southeast Shoal.
$2,997............ .................. $105.49........... $3,102
Shoal & Detroit River.
Shoal & Detroit Pilot Boat.
--Port Huron Change Point & $4,020............ .................. $141.50........... $4,162
Southeast Shoal (when pilots are not changed at the Detroit Pilot Boat).
--Port Huron Change Point & $4,657............ .................. $163.93........... $4,821
Erie W. of Southeast Shoal
(when pilots are not changed at the Detroit
Pilot Boat).
--Port Huron Change Point & $3,020............ .................. $106.30........... $3,126
--Port Huron Change Point & $2,349............ .................. $82.68............ $2,432
Detroit Pilot Boat.
--Port Huron Change Point & $1,670............ .................. $58.78............ $1,729
--St. Clair River........... $1,364............ .................. $48.01............ $1,412
--St. Clair River &
$4,020............ .................. $141.50........... $4,162
--St. Clair River & Detroit $3,020............ .................. $106.30........... $3,126
River/Detroit Pilot Boat.
--Detroit, Windsor, or
Detroit River & Southeast
Detroit River & Toledo or any point on Lake Erie W. of Southeast Shoal.
$3,020............ .................. $106.30........... $3,126
Detroit River & St. Clair
--Detroit Pilot Boat &
$1,670............ .................. $58.78............ $1,729
Southeast Shoal.
Erie W. of Southeast Shoal.
--Detroit Pilot Boat & St.
.................. 4.89(1.0489)
--6 hr. period.............. $656.............. .................. $32.08............ $688
--Docking or undocking...... $623.............. .................. $30.46............ $653
Area 7 between any point on or
.................. 3.56(1.0356) in:
--Gros Cap & De Tour........ $2,559............ .................. $91.10............ $2,650
--Algoma Steel Corp. Wharf, $2,559............ .................. $91.10............ $2,650
Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. & De
--Algoma Steel Corp. Wharf, $964.............. .................. $34.32............ $998
Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. &
Gros Cap.
--Any point in Sault Ste.
$2,145............ .................. $76.36............ $2,221
Marie, Ont., except the
Algoma Steel Corp. Wharf &
$964.............. .................. $34.32............ $998
--Sault Ste. Marie, MI & De $2,145............ .................. $76.36............ $2,221
--Sault Ste. Marie, MI &
--Harbor movage............. $964.............. .................. $34.32............ $998
.................. 5.26(1.0526)
--6 hr. period.............. $578.............. .................. $30.40............ $608
--Docking or undocking...... $549.............. .................. $28.88............ $578
* Rates for ``Cancellation, delay or interruption in rendering services (Sec. 401.420)'' and ``Basic Rates and charges for carrying a U.S. pilot beyond the normal change point, or for boarding at other than the normal boarding point (Sec. 401.428)'' are not reflected in this table but have been increased by 6.51% across all areas (see Table 21).
``Background'' section for a detailed explanation of the legal authority and requirements for the Coast Guard to conduct an annual review and provide possible adjustments of pilotage rates on the Great
Lakes. Based on our annual review, we are adjusting the pilotage rates for the 2011 shipping season to generate sufficient revenue to cover allowable expenses, target pilot compensation, and returns on investment.
This final rule will implement rate adjustments for the Great Lakes system over the current rates adjusted in the 2010 final rule that was published on February 23, 2010 (75 FR 7958) and took effect on August 1, 2010. These adjustments to Great Lakes pilotage rates meet the requirements set forth in 46 CFR part 404 for similar compensation levels between Great Lakes pilots and industry. They also include adjustments for deflation and projected changes in association expenses to maintain these compensation levels. See ``B. Calculating the Rate
Adjustment'' for details on these adjustments.
In general, we expect an increase in pilotage rates for a certain area to result in additional costs for shippers using pilotage services in that area, while a decrease would result in a cost reduction or savings for shippers in that area. The shippers affected by these rate adjustments are those owners and operators of domestic vessels operating on register (employed in the foreign trade) and owners and operators of foreign vessels on a route within the Great Lakes system.
These owners and operators must have pilots or pilotage service as required by 46 U.S.C. 9302.
Table 23--Additional Impact of the Final Rule by Area
$U.S.; non-discounted
Change in total economic
cost or total economic
costs in 2011 savings of costs in 2010
$2,267,537
2,140,345
* The derivation of these values is detailed in Table 16.
See ``B. Calculating the Rate Adjustment'' for further details on the rate adjustment methodology.
``Additional Cost or Savings of this Rule'' = ``Projected Total Economic Cost in 2011'' minus ``Projected Total
Economic Cost in 2010.''
The impact of the rate adjustment in this final rule to shippers varies by area. The annual costs of the rate adjustments range from
$51,887 to $90,071 for most affected areas. However, Areas 6 and 8 would experience annual cost savings of approximately $234,000 and
$236,000, respectively. The annual savings is due to a projected decrease in the number of billeted pilots in Areas 6 and 8 from 2010 to 2011. This decrease in the number of pilots would reduce the projected revenue needed to cover costs of pilotage services in Areas 6 and 8.
This rate adjustment would result in a savings for Areas 6 and 8 that would outweigh the combined costs of the other areas. We measure the impact of this rule by examining the changes in costs to shippers for pilotage services. With savings in Areas 6 and 8 exceeding the combined costs in other areas, the net impact of this rule would be a cost savings for pilotage services in the Great Lakes system. The overall impact of the final rule would be a cost savings to shippers of about $130,000 if we sum across all affected areas.
In the NPRM, we certified under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We received no public comments that would alter our certification in the NPRM. We have found no additional data or information that would change our findings in the NPRM. We have adopted the certification in the NPRM for this final rule. See the
``Small Entities'' section of the NPRM for additional details. A summary of the NPRM analysis follows.
We found entities affected by the rule to be classified under the
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code subsector 483-Water Transportation, which includes one or all of the following 6- digit NAICS codes for freight transportation: 483111-Deep Sea Freight
Transportation, 483113-Coastal and Great Lakes Freight Transportation, and 483211-Inland Water Freight Transportation. According to the Small
Business Administration's definition, a U.S. company with these NAICS codes and employing less than 500 employees is considered a small entity.
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could 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.
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism because there are no similar State regulations and the
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the
Office of Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(a) of the Instruction. Paragraph 34(a) pertains to minor regulatory changes that are editorial or procedural in nature. This rule adjusts rates in accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory mandates. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
(water), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.
Basic pilotage........................ $18.36 per Kilometer or $32.50 per mile.\1\
Each Lock Transited................... $407.\1\
Harbor Movage......................... $1,333.\1\
River is $889, and the maximum basic rate for a through trip is
$3,901.
0 3. In Sec. 401.407, revise paragraphs (a) and (b), including the footnote to Table (b), to read as follows:
St. Clair shoal
Toledo or any port on Lake Erie west of
Southeast Shoal...............................
Port Huron Change Point........................
\1\ 4,162
\1\ 4,821
St. Clair River................................
Detroit or Windsor or the Detroit River........
Detroit Pilot Boat.............................
Superior, and the St Mary's River.
Six-hour period............................................
Docking or undocking.......................................
Gros cap Any harbor
Gros Cap.........................
Algoma Steel Corporation Wharf at
Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.......
Any point in Sault Ste. Marie,
Ontario, except the Algoma Steel
Corporation Wharf...............
Sault Ste. Marie, MI.............
Harbor Movage....................
Sec. 401.420 [Amended] 0 5. In Sec. 401.420-- 0 a. In paragraph (a), remove the text ``$119'' and add, in its place, the text ``$127''; and remove the text ``$1,867'' and add, in its place, the text ``$1,989''; 0 b. In paragraph (b), remove the text ``$119'' and add, in its place, the text ``$127''; and remove the text ``$1,867'' and add, in its place, the text ``$1,989''; and 0 c. In paragraph (c)(1), remove the text ``$705'' and add, in its place, the text ``$751''; and in paragraph (c)(3), remove the text ``$119'' and add, in its place, the text ``$127'', and remove the text
``$1,867'' and add, in its place, the text ``$1,989''.
Sec. 401.428 [Amended] 0 6. In Sec. 401.428, remove the text ``$719'' and add, in its place, the text ``$766''.
FR Doc. 2011-2456 Filed 2-3-11; 8:45 am