83 FR 2581 - Great Lakes Pilotage Rates-2018 Annual Review and Revisions to Methodology
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 12 (January 18, 2018)
Coast Guard
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 12 (January 18, 2018)
| Page Range | 2581-2607 | |
| FR Document | 2018-00781 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 12 (Thursday, January 18, 2018)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 2581-2607] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-00781] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 46 CFR Parts 401 and 404 [USCG-2017-0903] RIN 1625-AC40 Great Lakes Pilotage Rates--2018 Annual Review and Revisions to Methodology AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: In accordance with the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960, the Coast Guard proposes new base pilotage rates and surcharges for the 2018 shipping season. Additionally, the Coast Guard is proposing several changes to the Great Lakes pilotage ratemaking methodology. These additional proposed 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 five 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: Comments and related material must be submitted to the online docket via https://www.regulations.gov, or reach the Docket Management Facility, on or before February 20, 2018. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG- 2017-0903 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document for further instructions on submitting comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document, call or [[Page 2582]] email Mr. Michael Moyers, Great Lakes Pilotage, Commandant (CG-WWM-2), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1553, email [email protected], or fax 202-372-1914. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents for Preamble I. Public Participation and Request for Comments II. Abbreviations III. Executive Summary IV. Basis and Purpose V. Background VI. Discussion of Proposed Methodological and Other Changes A. Codification of Compensation Inflation Adjustment B. Relocation of Staffing Model Regulations C. Additional Changes to Ratemaking Steps 3 and 4 D. Delineation of Full Ratemakings and Annual Adjustments E. Other Miscellaneous Changes VII. Revised Compensation Benchmark VIII. Discussion of Proposed 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 IX. 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. Public Participation and Request for Comments We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this proposed rule, and all public comments, are available in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov, and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published. We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, visit https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice. We are not planning to hold a public meeting but will consider doing so if public comments indicate a meeting would be helpful. We would issue a separate Federal Register notice to announce the date, time, and location of such a meeting. II. Abbreviations APA American Pilots Association AMOU American Maritime Officers Union CATEX Unique Categorical Exclusions for the U.S. Coast Guard CFR Code of Federal Regulations CPA Certified public accountant DHS Department of Homeland Security 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 III. 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 currently range 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, which are the exclusive source of 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 this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 46 U.S.C. Chapter 93; Public Law 86-555, 74 Stat. 259, as amended. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In this NPRM, we are proposing to make modifications to the ratemaking methodology and proposing new pilotage rates for 2018 based on the new proposed methodology. The proposed modifications to the ratemaking methodology consist of a new compensation benchmark, organizational changes, and clarifications. We are proposing a new compensation benchmark to comply with a recent court decision holding that the Coast Guard had not adequately justified the previous benchmark, established in the 2016 rulemaking, which set compensation at the level of Canadian wages plus ten percent.\2\ From an organizational standpoint, we propose to move the discussion of the staffing model from its current location in title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulation (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 proposing to set forth separate regulatory paragraphs detailing the differences between how we undertake an annual adjustment of the pilotage rates, and a full reassessment of the rates, which must be undertaken once every 5 years. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ We have included the court's opinion in the docket at USCG- 2017-0903. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As part of our annual review, we are proposing in this NPRM new rates for the 2018 shipping season. Based on the ratemaking model discussed in this NPRM, we are proposing the rates shown in Table 1. [[Page 2583]] Table 1--Current and Proposed Pilotage Rates on the Great Lakes ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2017 pilotage Proposed 2018 Area rate pilotage rate ------------------------------------------------------------------------ St. Lawrence River...................... $601 $622 Lake Ontario............................ 408 424 Navigable waters from Southeast Shoal to 580 553 Port Huron, MI......................... Lake Erie............................... 429 454 St. Mary's River........................ 514 517 Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior..... 218 253 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This proposed rule is not economically significant under E.O. 12866. This proposed rule would impact 49 U.S. Great Lakes pilots, 3 pilot associations, and the owners and operators of an average of 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 $1,162,401 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. Section IX of this preamble discusses the regulatory impact analyses of this proposed rule. IV. Basis and Purpose The legal basis of this rulemaking 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 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\ The purpose of this NPRM is to propose new changes to the methodology in projecting pilotage rates as well as revised pilotage rates and surcharges. Our goals for this and all future rates are to ensure safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage services on the Great Lakes, and provide adequate funds to maintain infrastructure. Additionally, we believe that the new methodology will increase transparency and predictability in the ratemaking process and ensure that annual adjustments of rates are completed in a timely manner. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- V. Background Pursuant to the Great Lakes Pilotage Act, the Coast Guard, in conjunction with the Canadian Great Lakes Pilotage Authority, 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. waters of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway are divided into three pilotage districts. Pilotage in each district is provided by an association certified by the Coast Guard Director of the Great Lakes Pilotage Office (``the Director'') to operate a pilotage pool. The Saint Lawrence Seaway Pilotage Association provides pilotage services in District One, which includes all U.S. waters of the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. The Lakes Pilotage Association provides pilotage services in District Two, which includes all U.S. waters of Lake Erie, the Detroit River, Lake St. Clair, and the St. Clair River. Finally, the Western Great Lakes Pilotage Association provides pilotage services in District Three, which includes all U.S. waters of the St. Mary's River; Sault Ste. Marie Locks; and Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior. Each pilotage district is further divided into ``designated'' and ``undesignated'' areas. Designated areas are classified as such by Presidential Proclamation \7\ to be waters in which pilots must, at all times, be fully engaged in the navigation of vessels in their charge. Undesignated areas, on the other hand, are open bodies of water, and thus are not subject to the same pilotage requirements. While working in those undesignated areas, pilots must ``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.'' \8\ As such, pilotage rates in designated areas are higher than those in undesignated areas. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ Presidential Proc. 3385, Designation of restricted waters under the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960, December 22, 1960. \8\ 46 U.S.C. 9302(a)(1)(B). [[Page 2584]] Table 2--Areas of the Great Lakes and Saint Lawrence Seaway ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pilotage Area number District association Designation \9\ Area name \10\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One.............................. Saint Lawrence Designated......... 1 St. Lawrence River. Seaway Pilotage Undesignated....... 2 Lake Ontario. Association. Two.............................. Lake Pilotage Designated......... 5 Navigable waters Association. from Southeast Shoal to Port Huron, MI. Undesignated....... 4 Lake Erie. Three............................ Western Great Lakes Designated......... 7 St. Mary's River. Pilotage Undesignated....... 6 Lakes Huron and Association. Undesignated....... 8 Michigan. Lake Superior. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Each pilot association is an independent business and is the sole provider of pilotage services in the district in which it operates. Each pilot associations is responsible for funding its own operating expenses, maintaining infrastructure, acquiring and implementing technological advances, training personnel/partners and pilot compensation. We developed a 10-step ratemaking methodology to derive a pilotage rate that covers these expenses based on the estimated amount of traffic. In short, the methodology is designed to measure how much revenue each pilotage association will need to cover expenses and provide competitive compensation to working pilots. The Coast Guard then divides that amount by the historical average traffic transiting through the district. We recognize that in years where traffic is above average, pilot associations will take in more revenue than projected, while in years where traffic is below average, they will take in less. We believe that over the long term, however, this system ensures that infrastructure will be maintained and that pilots will receive adequate compensation and work a reasonable number of hours with adequate rest between assignments to ensure retention of highly-trained personnel. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ Area 3 is the Welland Canal, which is serviced exclusively by the Canadian Great Lakes Pilotage Authority (GLPA) and, accordingly, is not included in the United States pilotage rate structure. \10\ The areas are listed by name in 46 CFR 401.405. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Over the past 2 years, the Coast Guard has made major adjustments to the Great Lakes pilotage ratemaking methodology. In 2016, we made significant changes to the methodology, moving to an hourly billing rate for pilotage services and changing the compensation benchmark to a more transparent model. In 2017, we added additional steps to the ratemaking methodology, including new steps that will accurately account for the additional revenue produced by the application of weighting factors (discussed in detail in Steps 7 through 9 of this preamble). The current methodology, which was finalized in the August 31, 2017 Federal Register (82 FR 41466), is designed to accurately capture all the costs and revenues associated with Great Lakes pilotage requirements and produce an hourly rate that adequately, and accurately, compensates pilots and covers expenses. The Coast Guard summarizes the current methodology in the section below. Summary of Ratemaking Methodology As stated above, 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). In Step 1, ``Recognize previous operating expenses,'' (Sec. 404.101) we review audited operating expenses from each of the three pilotage associations. This number forms the baseline amount that each association is budgeted. Because of the time delay between when the association submits raw numbers and the Coast Guard receives audited numbers, this number is 3 years behind the projected year of expenses. So in calculating the 2018 rates in this proposal, we are beginning with the audited expenses from calendar year 2015. While each pilotage association operates in an entire district, we further break down the costs by area. Thus, with regard to operating expenses, we allocate certain operating expenses to undesignated areas, and certain expenses to designated areas. In some cases (e.g., insurance for applicant pilots who operate in undesignated areas only), we can allocate the costs based on where they are actually accrued. In other situations (e.g., general legal expenses), expenses are distributed between designated and undesignated waters on a pro rata basis, based upon the proportion of income forecasted from the respective portions of the district. 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 are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index for the Midwest Region, or if not available, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) median economic projections for Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) inflation. This step produces the total operating expenses for each area and district. In Step 3, ``Determine number of pilots needed,'' (Sec. 404.103) we calculate 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 many pilots would be needed to handle shipping during the beginning 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, we determine 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. In Step 4, ``Determine target pilot compensation benchmark,'' (Sec. 404.104) we determine 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.'' Next, we multiply 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 is 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 for purposes of determining the revenues needed for each area. To make the determination of how many pilots to assign, we use the staffing model designed to determine [[Page 2585]] the total number of pilots, described in Step 3, above. In Step 5, ``Project working capital fund,'' (Sec. 404.105) we calculate a return on investment by adding the total operating expenses (derived in Step 2) and the total pilot compensation (derived in Step 4), and multiply 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. In Step 6, ``Project needed revenue,'' (Sec. 404.106) we simply 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, ``Initially calculate base rates,'' (Sec. 404.107) we calculate an hourly pilotage rate to cover the revenue needed calculated in step 6. This step consists of first calculating the 10- year traffic average for each area. Next, we divide the revenue needed in each area (calculated in Step 6) by the 10-year traffic average to produce an initial base rate. 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 number ranging from 1.0 (for the smallest ships, or ``Class I'' vessels) to 1.45 (for the largest ships, or ``Class IV'' vessels). As this significantly increases the revenue collected, we need to account for the added revenue produced by the weighting factors to ensure that shippers are not overpaying 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 simply 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; compensating pilots fairly, who are trained and rested; and providing appropriate profit for improvements. Because it is our goal to be as transparent as possible in our ratemaking procedure, we use this step sparingly to adjust rates. Finally, after the base rates are set, Sec. 401.401 permits the Coast Guard to apply surcharges. Currently, we use surcharges 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, we have 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 early in the season could pay more than shippers employing pilots later in the season, after the surcharge cap has been met. VI. Discussion of Proposed Methodological and Other Changes For 2018, we are proposing a number of changes to the ratemaking methodology. These changes are both revisions to the rate-setting process, as well as organizational changes that will simplify and streamline rate-setting procedures in future years. While we realize that yearly adjustments of the ratemaking methodology can lead to unpredictability, we believe that modest modifications to the ratemaking methodology in order to improve accuracy, simplify its steps, and make it more transparent complies with our statutory requirement to consider public interest and the costs of providing pilotage services. These proposed changes are intended to provide rate stability and predictability beneficial to the U.S. Great Lakes pilot associations, shippers, cruise ships, and voluntary employment of U.S. registered pilots.\11\ Additionally, in this section, we discuss several other proposed changes to the Great Lakes pilotage regulations, which, while related to the annual ratemakings, are not limited to the specific methodological steps. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ In some cases, U.S.-registered vessels that are not required to use a pilot by law will do so voluntarily for business reasons. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Codification of Compensation Inflation Adjustment One change we are proposing in this NPRM is to add regulatory text to Sec. 404.104 that would automatically adjust the pilot compensation figure for inflation annually. Under the current regulations, while pilot compensation is determined in Step 4 annually, there is no specific provision that it will change with inflation. This issue is often raised in comments. For example, in the 2016 Great Lakes pilotage rate adjustment final rule,\12\ we set target pilot compensation at $326,114 annually. Then, in the 2017 NPRM,\13\ we proposed leaving that amount unchanged. This prompted comments stating that leaving the nominal target compensation of pilots unchanged undermined the Coast Guard's stated goal of compensation stability, because the pilots' earning power would not keep up with regional inflation. In the 2017 final rule, we increased the target compensation number by the inflation rate, to the current level of $332,963.\14\ In that rule, we stated that ``we intend to adjust the compensation figure for inflation annually in future ratemaking actions, the same way that operating expenses are adjusted for inflation.'' \15\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ See 81 FR 11908 (March 7, 2016). \13\ See 81 FR 72011 (October 19, 2016). \14\ See 82 FR 41466 (August 31, 2017). \15\ Id., at 41483. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on these considerations, we propose to add regulatory text to Sec. 404.104 to make the adjustment for inflation automatic. This would serve a variety of interests. First, it would improve consistency in our ratemaking procedures. While the operating expenses are automatically adjusted for inflation, compensation is not. This proposed change would treat the two types of expenses equally. Additionally, because the revenue for the working capital fund is based in part on compensation (see the discussion in the Background section of this Preamble), automatically adjusting pilot compensation for inflation would have a similar effect on contributions to the working capital fund. Automatically adjusting pilot compensation for inflation would improve transparency and efficiency in our ratemaking procedures. Also, replacing the current process with an automatic and predictable inflationary adjustment would increase predictability. As previously stated, we believe this predictability benefits the [[Page 2586]] U.S. registered pilots who provide the service and those stakeholders who employ the pilots. Given variations in traffic, compensation as a pilot is uncertain, and we believe that this proposed change would reduce some of the uncertainty related to target pilot compensation. It would also increase the efficiency of the ratemaking process by making the inflation adjustment automatic, so that we would be better able to process our annual ratemaking in a timely fashion. To implement this increase, we propose adding regulatory text to Sec. 404.104 stating that the Director will adjust the previous year's individual target pilot compensation level by BLS CPI for the Midwest Region, or if that is unavailable, the FOMC median economic projections for PCE inflation \16\. See proposed Sec. 404.104(b). The BLS CPI tracks the changes in prices of all goods and services purchased for consumption by urban households. The BLS releases CPI data monthly, for the previous month. The FOMC PCE inflation tracks the projected change in prices of goods and services purchased by consumers throughout the US economy for the current and future years. We note that this would occur only in years in which we conduct an annual review of pilotage rates, and not in years when we conduct a ``full ratemaking, because in those years the target compensation figure is reset and no inflation adjustment is needed.'' \17\ We invite comment on the effect of this proposal as well as the particular inflation index chosen to implement it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcprojtabl20170920.pdf. \17\ For more information on this topic, see section VI.D. titled, ``Delineation of full ratemakings and annual reviews'' in this preamble. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Relocation of Staffing Model Regulations Another change that we propose in this NPRM is to relocate the ``staffing model'' regulatory text, currently located in Sec. 404.103(a) through (c). We are not proposing to adjust or modify the regulatory text, but simply move it to Sec. 401.220(a), ``Registration of pilots,'' rather than keep it as part of the ratemaking methodology text. For the reasons below, we believe that this change will both improve the clarity of the regulations and improve the regulatory process. The staffing model informs the Coast Guard's administration of the Great Lakes Pilotage program, but is distinct from the ratemaking methodology. Specifically, the staffing model provides guidance to the Director on implementing the requirement currently in Sec. 401.220(a), which requires the Director to determine the number of pilots needed 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. The current way in which Sec. 404.103, entitled ``Ratemaking Step 3: Determine number of pilots needed,'' is written produces two distinct sets of numbers. In Sec. 404.103(a) through (c), we employ a ``staffing model'' to determine the number of pilots needed in each district to provide safe and reliable pilotage services in periods of high seasonal demand. This staffing model produces a number of pilots for each district that we believe is needed to minimize delays and allow for some instances of double pilotage (that is, where two pilots are employed on a vessel simultaneously because of particularly hazardous conditions). In the 2017 final rule, the staffing model produced a figure of 54 total pilots on the Great Lakes: 17 for District One, 15 for District Two, and 22 for District Three.\18\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ See 82 FR 41466, at 41484 (August 31, 2018). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Director of the Great Lakes Pilotage Office is required in Sec. 404.103(d) to project the number of pilots expected to be working in the current year based on the numbers provided by the pilotage associations, as well as the number of applications for pilot positions.\19\ As shown by the calculations used in the next, and all subsequent steps of the ratemaking process, the pilot numbers derived under Sec. 404.103(d), not those from the staffing model text in paragraphs (a)-(c), were used to calculate the pilotage rates. The reason that the numbers produced by the text in paragraphs (a)-(c) are not used in the ratemaking is because while the staffing model is related to the annual ratemaking methodology, it is only through its impact on the number derived in paragraph (d). Instead, the function of the staffing model is to provide guidance to the Director regarding the number of pilots needed. While the number of pilots needed, as ascertained by the Director, certainly has an impact on the number of working pilots, the two numbers are not necessarily identical. We also note that, over the past several years, the number of pilots actually working has been significantly lower than the amount the staffing model suggests are needed. While the staffing model itself does not directly affect the ratemaking, the fact that the text appears in Sec. 404.103, rather than as a modifier to Sec. 401.220(a), creates some confusion. To begin, we note that inclusion of the staffing model text in the annual ratemaking section implies that we reevaluate the staffing model every year as part of the annual ratemaking procedure. While this is incorrect, it has led to confusion about the role of the staffing model, and significant resources have been expended by commenters in past years regarding its use and application. We believe part 401 is the best place to locate the staffing model text as it contains many similar items pertaining to pilotage that, while they affect the ratemaking process, are not part of it and do not need to be reanalyzed on an annual basis. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ See, for example, table 7, ``Calculations of total compensation,'' 82 FR 41466, at 41483 (August 31, 2017). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, we note that the movement of the staffing model to Sec. 401.220(a) would have an organizational impact on future pilotage rate regulatory actions. In the past, we included detailed, and sometimes repetitive, calculations of the staffing model in our annual ratemaking publication. However, if we move the staffing model text to part 401, and do not make any changes to the inputs or staffing methodology, we would not include a full analysis of the staffing model in each regulatory document. Instead, we propose to simply certify that the number of pilots working under Step 3 of the ratemaking process was less than or equal to the number of pilots authorized by the regulations in Sec. 401.220. However, in circumstances where the staffing model produced a changed result in the number of pilots needed to ensure safe and reliable pilotage, we would include an analysis of the number of pilots recommended by the staffing model in the proposed rule. In this year's ratemaking, we note that the staffing model analysis remains unchanged from 2017, and for that reason is not repeated here. For the reasons stated above, we propose moving the current staffing model text, located in Sec. 404.103(a) through (c) to Sec. 401.220(a), where it will be renumbered as Sec. 401.220(a)(1) through (a)(3). The existing text would not be changed in any way other than being relocated, and we are not proposing any changes to the staffing model in this ratemaking. C. Additional Changes to Ratemaking Steps 3 and 4 Additionally, we are proposing a change to the remaining text of Sec. 404.103. Specifically, we propose to remove the words ``during the first year of the period for which base rates are being established'' from Sec. 404.103(d). This phrase, carried over from previous [[Page 2587]] years, does not apply under the current methodology where base rates are established annually. We believe that this change would help to improve clarity and regulatory efficiency in future annual ratemakings. Finally, we are proposing to change the name of the section. The section, currently titled, ``Determine number of pilots needed,'' is misleading, as the number of pilots needed to ensure safe and reliable pilotage is determined by the Director in Sec. 401.220(a). Thus, we propose to change the section heading to ``Estimate number of working pilots,'' to more accurately reflect what we are doing in this step of the ratemaking process. In a related matter, we are also proposing a change to Sec. 404.104 to explicitly establish the relationship between the staffing model and the annual ratemaking. While in the past, the number of pilots has been below the number derived from the staffing model, there is no regulatory text indicating that this is a limiting factor. To eliminate this ambiguity, we propose to add text to Sec. 404.104, ``Ratemaking step 4: Determine target pilot compensation,'' that would limit the total number of working pilots for ratemaking purposes to the maximum number allowed by the staffing model. This does not prohibit pilotage associations from hiring more pilots than the staffing model suggests are needed to handle peak traffic (if, for example, pilots wanted to work fewer hours for less pay, and the Director approved), but it would limit pilotage rates by preventing those extra pilots from being considered in the ratemaking calculations. D. Delineation of Full Ratemakings and Annual Adjustments In this NPRM, we are proposing an organizational change to the regulations in part 404 to better delineate the full ratemaking procedure from the interim ratemaking procedure. Pursuant to the Act, we are required to establish new pilotage rates by March 1 of each year.\20\ However, the Act sets forth two types of ratemaking procedures. The Act states that the Coast Guard must establish base pilotage rates by a ``full ratemaking'' at least once every 5 years, and that it must ``conduct annual reviews of such base pilotage rates, and make adjustments to such base rates, in each intervening year.'' \21\ In order to more clearly effect the Act's mandate, we propose to include in the regulatory text sections that differentiate between a ``full ratemaking'' and an ``interim ratemaking.'' We would announce, in the NPRM of each annual ratemaking, whether we were conducting a full or interim ratemaking procedure (while the Act requires that the Coast Guard perform a full ratemaking at least once every 5 years, we note that it may occur more frequently if circumstances warrant). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ See 46 U.S.C. 9303(f). \21\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We note that the existing regulatory text in part 404 already contains a provision that considers the difference between a full ratemaking and an interim ratemaking. Existing Sec. 404.100, ``Ratemaking and annual reviews in general,'' states that once every 5 years, the Director establishes base pilotage rates by a full ratemaking pursuant to Sec. Sec. 404.101 through 404.110, and that in ``interim years,'' the Director may adjust rates according to one of several methods (either automatic adjustments, annual adjustments for inflation, or a new full ratemaking).\22\ However, after adopting the new ratemaking methodology in 2016, we do not currently have a regulatory provision for implementing the interim ratemaking other than conducting a full ratemaking analysis. With the new methodology, adopted in 2016, refined in 2017, and with the additional changes proposed for 2018, we believe that the ratemaking procedures generally defined in this part can be used in both full and interim ratemaking years, with certain differences, as described below. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ See 33 CFR 404.100(b)(1) through (b)(3). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The only substantive difference between a full and interim ratemaking concerns Step 4 of the ratemaking procedure, ``Determine target pilot compensation.'' This step of the ratemaking analysis, in which the total compensation for pilots is determined, comprises the majority of the revenue total needed to operate Great Lakes pilotage. In past ratemaking actions, we received numerous comments and substantial amounts of data when considering the ``benchmark'' for pilot compensation. Even in years where we did not propose adjusting the compensation benchmark, we received substantial data about ways in which it could be adjusted. However, we do not believe that it is in the interest of Great Lakes shipping to calculate a new benchmark compensation level every year. Such a system could lead to substantial volatility regarding compensation. This, in turn, could lead to the pilot recruitment and retention problems that affected the Great Lakes region prior to the ratemaking methodology changes introduced in the past few years. For these reasons, we are proposing regulatory language in part 404 to clarify that the benchmark pilot compensation would only be reconsidered during ``full ratemaking'' years, which occur at least once every 5 years. Conversely, during ``interim years,'' we would not consider changes to the benchmark pilot compensation. Instead, during those years, we would adjust the target compensation according to Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index for the Midwest Region, or if that is not available, the FOMC median economic projections for PCE inflation, allowing compensation to stay in line with inflation. We believe that this system would simplify ratemaking procedures in interim years and better effect the statutory mandate in section 9303(f) of the Act. In this NPRM, we have proposed regulatory changes to Sec. 404.100(b) and (c), as well as in Sec. 404.104(a) and (b), that would enact these changes to the methodology. E. Other Miscellaneous Changes We propose several minor editorial changes in this NPRM. In section 404.107, we propose renaming Step 7, currently titled, ``Initially calculate base rates'' to ``Calculate initial base rates'' for style purposes and to make an accompanying edit to the text by changing the words ``initially calculates base rates'' to ``calculates initial base rates'' in the text of that section. We also propose to adjust the reference to the staffing model in Step 7 to account for its relocation in text (proposed section 401.220(a)). VII. Revised Compensation Benchmark In this NPRM, the Coast Guard is proposing a new compensation benchmark for pilots on the Great Lakes. It is doing so to comply with a court decision holding that the Coast Guard's existing compensation benchmark, which based on the salaries of Canadian Great Lakes pilot salaries plus a 10% increase, was arbitrary and capricious. We are following the court's decision and are moving to implement a new benchmark in this proposed rule. When the Coast Guard adopted the existing compensation benchmark in the 2016 annual adjustment, we recognized that the number was based on somewhat uncertain data, and have undertaken a comprehensive, multi- year analysis of pilot compensation practices to develop a more appropriate benchmark.\23\ However, as we do not expect to be able to make any proposals based on this study until at least the 2020 rate adjustment, and we cannot continue to [[Page 2588]] use the existing model, there is a need for an interim benchmark level to be developed on short notice and with limited time to gather new data. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \23\ See 82 FR 41466 (March 8, 2017) at 41469. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Therefore, the Coast Guard is proposing a new compensation benchmark based, in part, on the previous model of compensation that was used by the Coast Guard prior to the new ratemaking methodology introduced in the 2016 annual ratemaking.\24\ Under the previous methodology, each year the Coast Guard gathered contract information from the American Maritime Officers Union (AMOU), and used details from their contracts to estimate rates for Great Lakes pilots. Ultimately, however, the AMOU stopped providing information to the Coast Guard, which was one basis for moving to other models. However, in the context of the previous rate adjustments, the AMOU did provide information up through the 2015 calendar year. Given that in this document, we have proposed to develop a new benchmark compensation level every 5 years, and then index that number for inflation each year in between, we believe the most efficient solution for an interim compensation benchmark is to derive a compensation figure using the 2015 AMOU data, and then apply inflationary adjustments to that data to arrive at an equivalent level for the 2018 shipping season. We note that this method is different than using data for the 2018 AMOU contracts, for which there is no public information and which this proposed compensation benchmark does not utilize. Because the interim benchmark proposed in this NPRM is explicitly based on the terms of the AMOU contract as they existed in 2015, we note that comments that relate to AMOU contract information from years other than 2015 would not be relevant to this proposed compensation benchmark and will not be considered. However, we do request comments on whether we have correctly applied the terms of the 2015 contract, or used correct data, to the calculation of target pilot compensation under this proposed model and note that we may adjust the interim compensation benchmark if we receive validated data relating to total compensation pursuant to the 2015 AMOU contract terms that improves our understanding of that contract. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \24\ We note that the 2016 ratemaking significantly overhauled the entire ratemaking process, not just the method for computing the compensation benchmark, and that methodology is still the basis of the current proposed ratemaking process. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The data we are using, provided in a letter from the AMOU from October 4, 2013,\25\ consists of ``daily aggregate rates'' for two contracts between Great Lakes shipping companies for the services of AMOU mates.\26\ These numbers were provided to the Coast Guard as a public comment to be used as a basis for compensation in the 2014 ratemaking procedure. These daily aggregate rates include daily wages, vacation pay, pension plan contributions, and medical plan contributions for AMOU officers. The relevant 2015 numbers include a $1,142.06 aggregate rate for Agreement A,\27\ and $1,124.72 aggregate rate for Agreement B,\28\ which are the amounts used to calculate the compensation for pilots on designated waters. We note that the while the 2014 ratemaking methodology calculated different compensation targets for pilots in undesignated areas and those in designated areas, the ratemaking methodology used today calculates a single wage rate, so only the numbers used in designated waters would be relevant. We explain how we propose to translate this information into a proposed annual pilot compensation benchmark below. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \25\ We refer to this document as the ``2013 AMOU letter,'' which is available in the docket at USCG-2017-0903, as well as in the docket for the 2014 Great Lakes Pilotage rulemaking, at USCG- 2013-0534-0007. \26\ We acknowledge that the American pilotage associations sued the Coast Guard and won in a lawsuit on the 2014 ratemaking regarding the inappropriate use of AMOU daily aggregate rate data. However, that was because in that ratemaking, the Coast Guard did not use the updated daily aggregate rate data provided in the October 4, 2013 letter, but instead relied on older data that the AMOU had explicitly disavowed. In this proposal, we are correcting that mistake by using the updated data. The opinion from the 2014 court case is available on the docket at USCG-2017-0903. \27\ ``Agreement A'' refers to the contract between AMOU and vessels operated by Key Lakes, Inc. \28\ ``Agreement B'' refers to the contract between AMOU and vessels operated by Mittal Steel USA, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Despite the fact that the aggregated data in the 2013 AMOU letter is not broken down into specific costs, we believe that the data points provided are generally accurate. Prior to 2014, the Coast Guard received confidential copies of the AMOU contracts with detailed breakdowns of compensation components including wages, medical costs, defined contribution and defined benefit pension costs. The latest contract we have covered the 2011 through the 2015 shipping seasons, which is one reason we believe that basing our interim benchmark on the 2015 season is a reasonable measure, as we have the underlying contract for that season. Using the estimated out-year figures set forth in the 2011 contract, and applying the detailed compensation methodology used in the 2012 Great Lakes Pilotage annual ratemaking final rule,\29\ we were able to calculate aggregate figures that were within 1% of the figures provided in the 2013 AMOU letter.\30\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \29\ 2012 Rates for Pilotage on the Great Lakes, 77 FR 11752 (February 28, 2012). \30\ Because the out-year figures, including those for 2015, were estimates, we would not expect the 2015 numbers as calculated in 2011 and 2013 to match exactly, as component items such as medical cost expenditures often defy exact predictions. We believe that the very close match between our own calculations and the figures provided by AMOU is strong evidence that the AMOU data accurately accounts for the total compensation of Great Lakes masters and thus provides a reasonable facsimile for Great Lakes pilots. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the notice of proposed rulemaking for the 2014 Great Lakes pilotage annual rate adjustment, we described how we use the daily aggregate rates to develop a total pilot compensation figure. The annual rates included the ``daily wage rate, vacation pay, pension plan contributions, and medical plan contributions.'' \31\ We stated that ``because we are interested in annual compensation, we must convert these to daily rates. We use a 270-day multiplier which reflects an average 30-day month, over the 9 months of the average shipping season.'' \32\ Subsequently, ``[w]e apportion the compensation provided by each agreement according to the percentage of tonnage represented by companies under each agreement.'' \33\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \31\ Great Lakes Pilotage Rates--2014 Annual Review and Adjustment, notice of proposed rulemaking, 78 FR 48374, at 48381(August 8, 2013). \32\ Id. \33\ Id., at 48382. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- After publication of the 2014 Final Rule, the Coast Guard was sued by the three American pilotage associations, in part, because the AMOU aggregate data it had used to calculate the 2014 compensation figures did not include a seasonal bonus component. In that case, the Coast Guard relied on previous aggregate data figures provided by the AMOU in 2012, instead of using the figures provided by the AMOU in its October 4, 2013 public comment, where the AMOU stated that the previous figures were inaccurate. While the court found that the use of the old figures was arbitrary, the use of AMOU aggregate data generally was not disputed.\34\ Instead, it was the use of the disavowed aggregate data that was not supported. We intend to correct this by basing our interim methodology on the new figures provided by the AMOU for the year [[Page 2589]] 2015, which were also contained in the 2013 letter. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \34\ This was the information AMOU provided to correct what it alleged was inaccurate data the Coast Guard had proposed using. The aggregate data in the 2013 AMOU letter included a comprehensive wage component, which included work days, weekend days, holidays, and the ``seasonal bonus'' days. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To apply the 2015 aggregate data figures to the current ratemaking methodology, we need only use the figures for designated waters. Prior to the 2016 ratemaking, the Coast Guard calculated separate compensation figures for designated and undesignated waters-- compensating pilots assigned to designated waters an equivalent rate to masters, while compensating pilots assigned to undesignated waters the equivalent rate of AMOU mates, who are paid considerably less. However, in 2016, the Coast Guard ended the practice of calculating separate compensation figures for pilots on the Great Lakes. In the 2016 Great Lakes pilotage NPRM, we stated that ``we see no reasonable basis for discriminating between the target compensation of pilots on the basis of the distinction between designated or undesignated waters. In any waters and in any district, pilots need the same skills, and therefore we propose a single individual target compensation figure across all three districts.'' \35\ As all pilots must be trained to navigate the more-complex designated waters, we believe it is appropriate that they receive the level of compensation associated with that task. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \35\ Great Lakes Pilotage Rates--2016 Annual Review and Changes to Methodology, 80 FR 54484, at 54490 (September 10, 2015). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because of these factors, we believe we can develop an interim benchmark compensation level based on the 2015 AMOU aggregate data for wages in designated waters that has been publically provided. Based on our calculations, the new benchmark compensation figure would be $319,617 per pilot. The numbers are derived as follows: In the first step of calculating the interim compensation benchmark, shown as Table 3 below, we multiply the daily aggregate rates for Agreement A and Agreement B by 270, the estimated number of days in the shipping season, to derive a seasonal average compensation figure. Table 3--Calculation of Seasonal Rates by agreement ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seasonal compensation Aggregate (aggregate daily rate daily rate x 270) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Agreement A............................. $1,142.06 $308,356 Agreement B............................. 1,124.72 303,674 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Next, as stated above, 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 below, approximately 70% of cargo was carried under the Agreement A contract, while approximately 30% of cargo was carried under the Agreement B contract. Table 4--Weighted Average of Each Agreement ------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. Based on this calculation, we have developed a figure of $305,066 (rounded) for total compensation in 2015. Table 5--Calculation of Averaged Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Weighted compensation (seasonal % Tonnage compensation x % tonnage) (rounded) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Agreement A--weighted................... 29.7237811 $91,655 Agreement B--weighted................... 70.2762189 213,411 ------------------------------- Total compensation (Agreement A + B) 100 305,066 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [[Page 2590]] Finally, we adjust that figure for inflation. As we propose to do in our overall ratemaking methodology, we use the BLS Consumer Price Index for the Midwest region to inflate to 2016, and FOMC median economic projections for PCE inflation to inflate the total compensation to 2017 and 2018. Based on three years of inflation adjustments, we arrive at the proposed 2018 target compensation figure, which is $319,617 annually. Table 6--Inflation Adjustments--2015 to 2018 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Target Inflation (%) compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2015 Target Pilot Compensation.......... .............. $305,066 2016 Inflation Adjustment \36\.......... 0.8 307,507 2017 Inflation Adjustment \37\.......... 1.9 313,350 2018 Inflation Adjustment............... 2.0 319,617 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ VIII. Discussion of Proposed Rate Adjustments In this NPRM, based on the proposed updated methodology described in the previous section, we are proposing new pilotage rates for 2018. This section discusses the proposed rate changes using the ratemaking steps provided in 46 CFR part 404, as they would be written according to the proposed revisions discussed above. Here we will detail each step of the ratemaking procedure to show how we arrived at the proposed new rates. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \36\ Inflation adjustment from 2015 to 2016 calculated from Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI--All Urban Consumers for Midwest Urban, found at https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0200SA0?data_tool=Xgtable. \37\ Inflation to 2017 and 2018 found using Federal Open Market Committee, Summary of Economic Projections, found at https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcprojtabl20160316.htm. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The 2018 ratemaking is an ``annual review,'' rather than a full ratemaking. Thus, for this purpose, we propose using the annual review methodology in Sec. 404.104. A. Step 1: Recognition of Operating Expenses Step 1 in our ratemaking methodology requires that we 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.\38\ 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 laid out in Tables 7 through 9. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \38\ These reports are available in the docket for this rulemaking (see https://www.regulations.gov, Docket #USCG-2017- 0903). Table 7--2015 Recognized Expenses for 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 [[Page 2591]] 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 Boats + 905,484 733,579 1,639,063 Admin)................................................. Proposed 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 Proposed 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 8--2015 Recognized Expenses for 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 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 [[Page 2592]] 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 Boats + 779,872 1,169,806 1,949,678 Admin)................................................. Proposed Adjustments (Independent CPA): Pilot boat costs............................................ -444 -666 -1,110 ----------------------------------------------- TOTAL CPA ADJUSTMENTS................................... -444 -666 -1,110 Proposed 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 9--2015 Recognized Expenses for District Three ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Undesignated Designated -------------------------------- Lakes Huron Reported expenses for 2015 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 ----------------------------------------------- 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 Boats + 1,682,274 560,757 2,243,031 Admin)................................................. Proposed 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 [[Page 2593]] Proposed 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. We calculated inflation using the Bureau of Labor Statistics' data from the Consumer Price Index for the Midwest Region of the United States \39\ and reports from the Federal Reserve. Based on that information, the calculations for Step 1 are as follows: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \39\ Available at https://www.bls.gov/regions/midwest/data/consumerpriceindexhistorical_midwest_table.pdf. \40\ See https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0200SA0?data_tool=Xgtable. \41\ See https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcprojtabl20160316.htm. \42\ See https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcprojtabl20160316.htm. Table 10--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%) \40\........................ 7,241 5,843 13,084 2017 Inflation Modification (@1.9%) \41\........................ 17,335 13,988 31,323 2018 Inflation Modification (@2.0%) \42\........................ 18,594 15,004 33,598 ----------------------------------------------- Adjusted 2018 Operating Expenses............................ 948,283 765,179 1,713,462 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 11--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 (@1.9%)............................. 14,923 22,384 37,307 2018 Inflation Modification (@2.0%)............................. 16,007 24,010 40,017 ----------------------------------------------- Adjusted 2018 Operating Expenses............................ 816,341 1,224,508 2,040,849 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 12--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 (@1.9%)............................. 30,558 10,186 40,744 2018 Inflation Modification (@2.0%)............................. 32,778 10,926 43,704 ----------------------------------------------- Adjusted 2018 Operating Expenses............................ 1,671,666 557,221 2,228,888 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [[Page 2594]] used to determine the amount of revenue needed in their respective areas. Table 13--Authorized Pilots ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- District One District Two District Three ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum number of pilots (per Sec. 401.220(a)) \43\........... 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 In this step, we determine the total pilot compensation for each area. Because we are proposing a ``full ratemaking'' this year, we propose to follow the procedure outlined in paragraph (a) of Sec. 404.104, which requires us to develop a benchmark after considering the most relevant currently available non-proprietary information. In accordance with the discussion in Section VII above, the proposed compensation benchmark for 2018 is $319,617 per pilot. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \43\ For a detailed calculation, see 82 FR 41466, table 6 at 41480 (August 31, 2017). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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,\44\ which is more than or equal to the numbers of working pilots provided by the pilot associations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \44\ See Table 6 of the 2017 final rule, 82 FR 41466 at 41480 (August 31, 2017). 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). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Table 14. Table 14--Target Pilot Compensation for District One ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Designated Undesignated Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Pilot Compensation....................................... $319,617 $319,617 $319,617 Number of Pilots................................................ 10 7 17 ----------------------------------------------- Total Target Pilot Compensation............................. $3,196,170 $2,237,319 $5,433,489 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 15--Target Pilot Compensation for District Two ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Undesignated Designated Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Pilot Compensation....................................... $319,617 $319,617 $319,617 Number of Pilots................................................ 7 7 14 ----------------------------------------------- Total Target Pilot Compensation............................. $2,237,319 $2,237,319 $4,474,638 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 16--Target Pilot Compensation for District Three ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Undesignated Designated Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Pilot Compensation....................................... $319,617 $319,617 $319,617 Number of Pilots................................................ 14 4 18 ----------------------------------------------- Total Target Pilot Compensation............................. $4,474,638 $1,278,468 $5,753,106 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- E. Step 5: Calculate Working Capital Fund Next, we calculate the working capital fund revenues needed for each area. First, we add the figures for projected operating expenses and total pilot compensation for each area. Next, 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 3.67 percent.\45\ By multiplying the two figures, we get the working capital fund contribution for each area, as shown in Table 17. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \45\ Moody's Seasoned Aaa Corporate Bond Yield, average of 2016 monthly data, located at http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/AAA/downloaddata?cid=119. The Coast Guard uses the most recent complete year of data. [[Page 2595]] Table 17--Working Capital Fund Contribution for District One ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Designated Undesignated Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjusted Operating Expenses (Step 2)............................ $948,283 $765,179 $1,713,462 Total Target Pilot Compensation (Step 4)........................ 3,196,170 2,237,319 5,433,489 ----------------------------------------------- Total 2018 Expenses......................................... 4,144,453 3,002,498 7,146,951 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Working Capital Fund Contribution (Total 2018 Expenses x 3.67%). 152,101 110,192 262,293 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 18--Working Capital Fund Contribution for District Two ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Undesignated Designated Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjusted Operating Expenses (Step 2)............................ $816,341 $1,224,508 $2,040,849 Total Target Pilot Compensation (Step 4)........................ 2,237,319 2,237,319 4,474,638 ----------------------------------------------- Total 2018 Expenses......................................... 3,053,660 3,461,827 6,515,487 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Working Capital Fund Contribution (Total 2018 Expenses x 3.67%). 112,069 127,049 239,118 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 19--Working Capital Fund Contribution for District Three ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Undesignated Designated Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjusted Operating Expenses (Step 2)............................ $1,671,666 $557,221 $2,228,887 Total Target Pilot Compensation (Step 4)........................ 4,474,638 1,278,468 5,753,106 ----------------------------------------------- Total 2018 Expenses......................................... 6,146,304 1,835,689 7,981,993 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Working Capital Fund Contribution (Total 2018 Expenses x 3.67%). 225,569 67,370 292,939 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- F. Step 6: Calculate Revenue Needed 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 Table 20. Table 20--Revenue Needed for District One ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Designated Undesignated Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjusted Operating Expenses (Step 2)............................ $948,283 $765,179 $1,713,462 Total Target Pilot Compensation (Step 4)........................ 3,196,170 2,237,319 5,433,489 Return on Investment (Step 5)................................... 152,101 110,192 262,293 ----------------------------------------------- Total Revenue Needed........................................ 4,296,554 3,112,690 7,409,244 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 21--Revenue Needed for District Two ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Undesignated Designated Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjusted Operating Expenses (Step 2)............................ $816,341 $1,224,508 $2,040,849 Total Target Pilot Compensation (Step 4)........................ 2,237,319 2,237,319 4,474,638 Return on Investment (Step 5)................................... 112,069 127,049 239,118 ----------------------------------------------- Total Revenue Needed........................................ 3,165,729 3,588,876 6,754,605 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 22--Revenue Needed for District Three ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Undesignated Designated Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjusted Operating Expenses (Step 2)............................ $1,671,666 $557,221 $2,228,888 Total Target Pilot Compensation (Step 4)........................ 4,474,638 1,278,468 5,753,106 Return on Investment (Step 5)................................... 225,569 67,370 292,939 ----------------------------------------------- Total Revenue Needed........................................ 6,371,873 1,903,059 8,274,933 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 2596]] 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. Table 23--Time on Task for District One ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Year Undesignated Designated ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2016........................................ 6,217 5,434 2015........................................ 6,667 5,743 2014........................................ 6,853 6,810 2013........................................ 5,529 5,864 2012........................................ 5,121 4,771 2011........................................ 5,377 5,045 2010........................................ 5,649 4,839 2009........................................ 3,947 3,511 2008........................................ 5,298 5,829 2007........................................ 5,929 6,099 Average..................................... 5,659 5,395 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 24--Time on Task for District Two ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Year Undesignated Designated ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 2007........................................ 6,223 6,049 Average..................................... 5,299 4,919 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 25--Time on Task for District Three ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Year Undesignated Designated ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 2007........................................ 24,811 5,944 Average..................................... 19,294 2,828 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 needed to produce the revenue needed for each area, assuming the amount of traffic is as expected. The calculations for each area are set forth in Tables 26 through 28. Table 26--Rate Calculations for District One ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Designated Undesignated ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Revenue needed (Step 6)................. $4,296,554 $3,112,690 Average time on task.................... 5,395 5,659 Initial rate............................ 796 550 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 27--Rate Calculations for District Two ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Designated Undesignated ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Revenue needed (Step 6)................. $3,588,876 $3,165,729 Average time on task.................... 4,919 5,299 Initial rate............................ 730 597 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 28--Rate Calculations for District Three ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Designated Undesignated ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Revenue needed (Step 6)................. $1,903,059 $6,371,873 Average time on task.................... 2,828 19,294 Initial rate............................ 673 330 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ H. Step 8: Calculate 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 1.00 31 Class 1 (2015).................................................. 41 1.00 41 Class 1 (2016).................................................. 31 1.00 31 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 3 (2014).................................................. 50 1.30 65 [[Page 2597]] Class 3 (2015).................................................. 28 1.30 36.4 Class 3 (2016).................................................. 50 1.30 65 Class 4 (2014).................................................. 271 1.45 392.95 Class 4 (2015).................................................. 251 1.45 363.95 Class 4 (2016).................................................. 214 1.45 310.3 ----------------------------------------------- Total....................................................... 1,732 .............. 2,216.35 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 1.00 25 Class 1 (2015).................................................. 28 1.00 28 Class 1 (2016).................................................. 18 1.00 18 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 3 (2014).................................................. 60 1.30 78 Class 3 (2015).................................................. 42 1.30 54.6 Class 3 (2016).................................................. 28 1.30 36.4 Class 4 (2014).................................................. 289 1.45 419.05 Class 4 (2015).................................................. 269 1.45 390.05 Class 4 (2016).................................................. 222 1.45 321.9 ----------------------------------------------- Total....................................................... 1,651 .............. 2,141.6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average weighting factor (weighted transits/number of transits). .............. 1.30 .............. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 31--Average Weighting Factor for Area 4 [District 2, designated] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of Weighting Weighted Vessel class/year transits factor transits ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Class 1 (2014).................................................. 20 1.00 20 Class 1 (2015).................................................. 15 1.00 15 Class 1 (2016).................................................. 28 1.00 28 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 3 (2014).................................................. 8 1.30 10.4 Class 3 (2015).................................................. 8 1.30 10.4 Class 3 (2016).................................................. 4 1.30 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 ----------------------------------------------- Total....................................................... 1,741 .............. 2,289.7 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average weighting factor (weighted transits/number of transits). .............. 1.32 .............. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 32--Average Weighting Factor for Area 5 [District 2, undesignated] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of Weighting Weighted Vessel class/year transits factor transits ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Class 1 (2014).................................................. 31 1.00 31 Class 1 (2015).................................................. 35 1.00 35 Class 1 (2016).................................................. 32 1.00 32 Class 2 (2014).................................................. 356 1.15 409.4 Class 2 (2015).................................................. 354 1.15 407.1 [[Page 2598]] Class 2 (2016).................................................. 380 1.15 437 Class 3 (2014).................................................. 20 1.30 26 Class 3 (2015).................................................. 0 1.30 0 Class 3 (2016).................................................. 9 1.30 11.7 Class 4 (2014).................................................. 636 1.45 922.2 Class 4 (2015).................................................. 560 1.45 812 Class 4 (2016).................................................. 468 1.45 678.6 ----------------------------------------------- Total....................................................... 2,881 .............. 3,802 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average weighting factor (weighted transits/number of transits). .............. 1.32 .............. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 1.00 45 Class 1 (2015).............................................. 56 1.00 56 Class 1 (2016).............................................. 136 1.00 136 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 3 (2014).............................................. 15 1.30 19.5 Class 3 (2015).............................................. 8 1.30 10.4 Class 3 (2016).............................................. 10 1.30 13 Class 4 (2014).............................................. 394 1.45 571.3 Class 4 (2015).............................................. 375 1.45 543.75 Class 4 (2016).............................................. 332 1.45 481.4 ----------------------------------------------- Total for Area 6........................................ 2,088 .............. 2,700.9 Area 8: Class 1 (2014).............................................. 3 1.00 3 Class 1 (2015).............................................. 0 1.00 0 Class 1 (2016).............................................. 4 1.00 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 3 (2014).............................................. 3 1.30 3.9 Class 3 (2015).............................................. 0 1.30 0 Class 3 (2016).............................................. 7 1.30 9.1 Class 4 (2014).............................................. 243 1.45 352.35 Class 4 (2015).............................................. 253 1.45 366.85 Class 4 (2016).............................................. 204 1.45 295.8 ----------------------------------------------- Total for Area 8........................................ 1,237 .............. 1,633 ----------------------------------------------- Combined total...................................... 3,325 .............. 4,333.9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 1.00 27 Class 1 (2015).................................................. 23 1.00 23 Class 1 (2016).................................................. 55 1.00 55 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 3 (2014).................................................. 4 1.30 5.2 Class 3 (2015).................................................. 0 1.30 0 Class 3 (2016).................................................. 6 1.30 7.8 [[Page 2599]] Class 4 (2014).................................................. 321 1.45 465.45 Class 4 (2015).................................................. 245 1.45 355.25 Class 4 (2016).................................................. 191 1.45 276.95 ----------------------------------------------- Total....................................................... 1,412 .............. 1,836.65 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. 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........................................ $796 1.28 $622 District One: Undesignated...................................... 550 1.30 424 District Two: Designated........................................ 730 1.32 553 District Two: Undesignated...................................... 597 1.32 424 District Three: Designated...................................... 673 1.30 517 District Three: Undesignated.................................... 330 1.30 253 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J. Step 10: Review and Finalize Rates In this step, 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. Because, as detailed in the discussion sections of this NPRM, the proposed rates incorporate appropriate compensation for enough pilots to handle heavy traffic periods, would cover operating expenses and infrastructure costs, and have taken average traffic and weighting factors into consideration, we believe that they do meet the goal of ensuring safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage. Thus, we are not proposing any alterations to the rates in this step. The final rates are shown in Table 36, and we propose to modify the text in Sec. 401.405(a) to reflect them. Table 36--Final Rates ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2017 Pilotage Proposed 2018 Area Name rate pilotage rate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- District One: Designated...................... St. Lawrence River.............. $601 $622 District One: Undesignated.................... Lake Ontario.................... 408 424 District Two: Undesignated.................... Lake Erie....................... 429 454 District Two: Designated...................... Navigable waters from Southeast 580 553 Shoal to Port Huron, MI. District Three: Undesignated.................. Lakes Huron, Michigan, and 218 253 Superior. District Three: Designated.................... St. Mary's River................ 514 517 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K. Surcharges Because there are several applicant pilots in 2018, we are proposing to levy surcharges to cover the costs needed for training expenses. Consistent with previous years, we are proposing to assign 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, and 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. We note that while the percentages are rounded for simplicity, such rounding does not impact the revenue generated, as surcharges can no longer be collected once the surcharge total has been attained. [[Page 2600]] 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)......................................... $7,409,244 $6,754,605 $8,274,933 Total surcharge as percentage (total training costs/revenue).... 4% 2% 7% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IX. Regulatory Analyses We developed this proposed 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 managed and controlled through a budgeting process.'' The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this proposed rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. Because this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action, this proposed rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled, ``Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs''' (February 2, 2017). A regulatory analysis (RA) follows. The purpose of this rulemaking is to propose new base pilotage rates and surcharges for training. This proposed 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 proposed changes that affect portions of the methodology for calculating the proposed base pilotage rates. While these proposed 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 proposed rate change (summarized in Table 39). Table 38--Regulatory Changes With No Cost or Costs Captured in the Proposed Rate Change ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposed 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 would 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 proposing to Improve the clarity of regulations. the staffing model adjust or modify the the regulations and from 46 CFR 404.103 regulatory text, but improve the regulatory (as part of ``Step 3'' simply move it to Sec. process. of the ratemaking 401.220. process), to the general regulations governing pilotage in Sec. 401.420. 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 NPRM 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 2601]] 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 Proposed change Description population Costs Benefits ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rate Changes.................... Under the Great Owners and $1,162,401--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 ($23,488,782) 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 IV and V of this preamble for detailed discussions of the legal basis and purpose for this rulemaking and for background information on Great Lakes pilotage ratemaking. Based on our annual review for this proposed rulemaking, we propose 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 proposed rule would, if codified, 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 would be incurred by shippers in all three districts from the previous year as a result of the proposed rate changes, we propose authorizing a temporary surcharge to allow the pilotage associations to recover training expenses that would 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 in training expenses, respectively. These temporary surcharges would 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 would be made by shippers during the 2018 shipping season are estimated at approximately $1,162,401 more than the total payments that were estimated in 2017 (Table 40).\46\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \46\ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A detailed discussion of our economic impact analysis follows. 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 varying 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. As previously stated, U.S.-flagged vessels not operating on register are not required to have a registered pilot per 46 U.S.C. 9302, but they can voluntarily choose to have one. 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 proposed in this NPRM. From the years 2014 through 2016, an average of 215 vessels used pilotage services annually.\47\ On average, 206 of these vessels were foreign- flagged vessels and 9 were U.S.-flagged vessels that voluntarily opted into the pilotage service. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \47\ Some vessels entered the Great Lakes multiple times in a single year, affecting the average number of unique vessels utilizing pilotage services in any given year. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Cost to Shippers The rate changes resulting from the new methodology would 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 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 [[Page 2602]] 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 proposed rule. The impacts of the proposed rate changes on shippers are estimated from the District pilotage projected revenues (shown in Tables 20 through 22 of this preamble) and the proposed surcharges described in section VIII of this preamble. We estimate that for the 2018 shipping season, the projected revenue needed for all three districts is $22,438,782. Temporary surcharges on traffic in Districts One, Two, and Three would 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 would require an additional $300,000, $150,000, and $600,000 in revenue for applicant training expenses in Districts One, Two, and Three, respectively. This would be an additional cost to shippers of $1,050,000 during the 2018 shipping season. Adding the projected revenue of $22,438,782 to the proposed surcharges, we estimate the pilotage associations' total projected revenue needed for 2018 would be $23,488,782. To estimate the additional cost to shippers from this proposed 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 rulemaking,\48\ we estimated the total projected revenue needed for 2017, including surcharges, as $22,326,381. This is the best approximation of 2017 revenues as, at the time of this publication, we do not have enough audited data available for the 2017 shipping season to revise these projections. Table 40 shows the revenue projections for 2017 and 2018 and details the additional cost increases to shippers by area and district as a result of the rate changes and temporary surcharges on traffic in Districts One, Two, and Three. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \48\ The 2017 projected revenues are from the 2017 Great Lakes Pilotage Ratemaking final rule (82 FR 41484 and 41489), Tables 9 and 14. Table 40--Effect of the Proposed Rule by Area and District [$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 proposed rule -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total, District One..................... $7,109,019 $0 $7,109,019 $7,409,244 $300,000 $7,709,244 $600,225 Total, District Two..................... 6,633,491 300,000 6,933,491 6,754,605 150,000 6,904,605 (28,886) Total, District Three................... 7,233,871 1,050,000 8,283,871 8,274,933 600,000 8,874,933 591,062 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- System Total........................ 20,976,381 1,350,000 22,326,381 22,438,782 1,050,000 23,488,782 1,162,401 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The resulting difference between the projected revenue in 2017 and the projected revenue in 2018 is the proposed annual change in payments from shippers to pilots as a result of the rate change that would be imposed by this rule. The effect of the proposed 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, would lead to affected shippers operating in District One and District Three experiencing an increase in payments of $600,225 and $591,062, respectively, over the previous year, and a decrease in payments of $28,886 in District 2. The overall adjustment in payments would be an increase in payments by shippers of approximately $1,162,401 across all three districts (a 5 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 41 shows the difference in revenue by component from 2017 to 2018.\49\ 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 are training this year and will become full-time working pilots at the beginning of the 2018 shipping season. They would be compensated at the target compensation of $319,617 per pilot. The addition of these pilots to full working status accounts for $1,278,468 of the increase ($677,898 when also including the effect of decreasing compensation for 45 pilots). The remaining amount is attributed to decreases in the working capital fund and differences in the surcharges from 2017. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \49\ 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 20-22 of this NPRM. Table 41--Difference in Revenue by Component ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Difference Revenue needed Revenue needed (2018 Revenue- Revenue component in 2017 in 2018 2017 Revenue) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjusted Operating Expenses..................................... $5,155,280 $5,983,199 $827,919 Total Target Pilot Compensation................................. 14,983,335 15,661,233 677,898 Working Capital Fund............................................ 837,766 794,350 (43,416) ----------------------------------------------- Total Revenue Needed, without Surcharge......................... 20,976,381 22,438,782 1,462,401 Surcharge....................................................... 1,350,000 1,050,000 (300,000) ----------------------------------------------- [[Page 2603]] Total Revenue Needed, with Surcharge........................ 22,326,381 23,488,782 1,162,401 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pilotage Rates as a Percentage of Vessel Operating Costs To estimate the impact of U.S. pilotage costs on foreign-flagged vessels that would 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.'' \50\ 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 percentage of the total voyage costs that we can use in RAs to estimate the direct impact of changes to the pilotage rates. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \50\ The study is available 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/. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 percent and 9 percent of the total voyage costs for a vessel carrying steel.\51\ 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 42 shows the revenues needed for the years 2016, 2017, and 2018. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \51\ 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. \52\ 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). \53\ The 2017 projected revenues are from the 2017 final rule, 82 FR 41484 and 41489, tables 9 and 14. Table 42--Revenue Needed in 2016, 2017, and 2018 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Revenue needed Revenue needed Revenue needed Revenue component in 2016 \52\ in 2017 \53\ in 2018 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Revenue Needed, with Surcharge............................ $19,103,678 $22,326,381 $23,488,782 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From 2016 to 2017, the total revenues needed increased by 17 percent. From 2017 to 2018, the proposed total revenues needed would increase by 5 percent. From 2016 to 2018, the total revenues needed would increase by 23 percent. While the change in total voyage cost would 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. We then increased the base 2016 rates by 23 percent. With this proposed rule's rates for 2018, pilotage costs are estimated to account for 11.8 percent of the total voyage costs, or a 0.5 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. This analysis only looks at the impact of proposed 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 proposed rule would allow the Coast Guard to meet the requirements in [[Page 2604]] 46 U.S.C. 9303 to review the rates for pilotage services on the Great Lakes. The rate changes would 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 would also help recruit and retain pilots, which would ensure a sufficient number of pilots to meet peak shipping demand, which would 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 proposed rule would have a significant economic effect 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 the proposed 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 \54\ and ReferenceUSA.\55\ As described in Section IX.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 proposed 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 of Small Business Size Standards \56\ to determine how many of these companies are small entities. Table 43 shows the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes of the U.S. entities and the small entity standard size established by the SBA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \54\ See http://www.manta.com/. \55\ See http://resource.referenceusa.com/. \56\ 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 43--NAICS Codes and Small Entities Size Standards ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Small business size NAICS Description 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 $38.5 million. to 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 as required by 46 U.S.C. 9302. In addition to the owners and operators of vessels affected by this proposed rule, there are three U.S. entities affected by the proposed 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 proposed rule because all associations would 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 found this proposed rulemaking, if promulgated, would not affect a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, we certify under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it qualifies, and how and to what degree this proposed rule would economically affect it. C. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 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 proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult Mr. Mike Moyers, Great Lakes Pilotage, Commandant (CG-WWM-2), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1533, email [email protected], or fax 202-372-1914. 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 [[Page 2605]] 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 proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). This proposed rule would 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 E.O. 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 proposed rule under E.O. 13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements as described in E.O. 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, the rule is consistent with the principles of federalism and preemption requirements in E.O. 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 implications and preemptive effect, E.O. 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 E.O. 13132, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 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 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. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble. G. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. H. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. I. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. J. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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 proposed rule under E.O. 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 E.O. because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under E.O. 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211. 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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. M. Environment We have analyzed this proposed 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 made a preliminary determination 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 preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' section of this preamble. This proposed rule meets the criteria for categorical exclusion (CATEX) 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 proposed 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 [[Page 2606]] minor changes to the Great Lakes pilotage ratemaking methodology. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. 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 proposes to amend 46 CFR parts 401 and 404 as follows: Title 46--Shipping 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 paragraph (a) of Sec. 401.220 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 46 CFR 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 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 paragraph (a) of Sec. 401.405 to read as follows: (a) The hourly rate for pilotage service on-- (1) The St. Lawrence River is $622; (2) Lake Ontario is $424; (3) Lake Erie is $454; (4) The navigable waters from Southeast Shoal to Port Huron, MI is $553; (5) Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior is $253; and (6) The St. Mary's River is $517. * * * * * 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 of this part, 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) of this part. (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 of this part. (c) Each year, the Director will announce whether the Coast Guard will conduct a full ratemaking or interim ratemaking procedure. 0 6. Revise Sec. 404.103 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 7. 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' Consumer Price Index for the Midwest Region, 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) of this part, or Sec. 401.220(a) of this part, whichever is lower. 0 8. 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 of this part 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 part. [[Page 2607]] Dated: January 11, 2018. Michael D. Emerson, Director, Marine Transportation Systems, U.S. Coast Guard. [FR Doc. 2018-00781 Filed 1-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 2581
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Reporting and recordkeeping
This action does not impose an Children From Environmental Health requirements, Superfund, Water
information collection burden under the and Safety Risks pollution control, Water supply.
PRA. This rule does not contain any The EPA interprets Executive Order Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C.
information collection requirements that 13045 as applying only to those 9601–9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR,
require approval of the OMB. regulatory actions that concern 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757,
environmental health or safety risks that 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
the EPA has reason to believe may
I certify that this action will not have disproportionately affect children, per Dated: January 9, 2018.
a significant economic impact on a the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory Barry N. Breen,
substantial number of small entities action’’ in section 2–202 of the Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator,
under the RFA. This action will not Executive Order. This action is not Office of Land and Emergency Management.
impose any requirements on small subject to Executive Order 13045 [FR Doc. 2018–00623 Filed 1–17–18; 8:45 am]
entities. This rule listing sites on the because this action itself is procedural BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
NPL does not impose any obligations on in nature (adds sites to a list) and does
any group, including small entities. This not, in and of itself, provide protection
rule also does not establish standards or from environmental health and safety
requirements that any small entity must DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
risks. Separate future regulatory actions SECURITY
meet, and imposes no direct costs on are required for mitigation of
any small entity. Whether an entity, environmental health and safety risks. Coast Guard
small or otherwise, is liable for response
costs for a release of hazardous I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 46 CFR Parts 401 and 404
substances depends on whether that
entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). Distribution, or Use [USCG–2017–0903]
Any such liability exists regardless of This action is not subject to Executive RIN 1625–AC40
whether the site is listed on the NPL Order 13211, because it is not a
through this rulemaking. significant regulatory action under Great Lakes Pilotage Rates—2018
Executive Order 12866. Annual Review and Revisions to
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) J. National Technology Transfer and Methodology
This action does not contain any Advancement Act (NTTAA) AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
unfunded mandate as described in This rulemaking does not involve ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does technical standards.
not significantly or uniquely affect small SUMMARY: In accordance with the Great
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal
governments. This action imposes no Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960, the Coast
Actions To Address Environmental
enforceable duty on any state, local or Guard proposes new base pilotage rates
Justice in Minority Populations and
tribal governments or the private sector. and surcharges for the 2018 shipping
Low-Income Populations
Listing a site on the NPL does not itself season. Additionally, the Coast Guard is
impose any costs. Listing does not mean The EPA believes the human health or proposing several changes to the Great
that the EPA necessarily will undertake environmental risk addressed by this Lakes pilotage ratemaking methodology.
remedial action. Nor does listing require action will not have potential These additional proposed changes
any action by a private party, state, local disproportionately high and adverse include creating clear delineation
or tribal governments or determine human health or environmental effects between the Coast Guard’s annual rate
liability for response costs. Costs that on minority, low-income or indigenous adjustments and the Coast Guard’s
arise out of site responses result from populations because it does not affect requirement to conduct a full
future site-specific decisions regarding the level of protection provided to ratemaking every five years; the
what actions to take, not directly from human health or the environment. As adoption of a revised compensation
the act of placing a site on the NPL. discussed in Section I.C. of the benchmark; reorganization of the text
preamble to this action, the NPL is a list regarding the staffing model for
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism of national priorities. The NPL is calculating the number of pilots needed;
This rule does not have federalism intended primarily to guide the EPA in and certain editorial changes.
implications. It will not have substantial determining which sites warrant further DATES: Comments and related material
direct effects on the states, on the investigation to assess the nature and must be submitted to the online docket
relationship between the national extent of public health and via https://www.regulations.gov, or
government and the states, or on the environmental risks associated with a reach the Docket Management Facility,
distribution of power and release of hazardous substances, on or before February 20, 2018.
responsibilities among the various pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
levels of government. of only limited significance as it does
not assign liability to any party. Also, identified by docket number USCG–
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 2017–0903 using the Federal
placing a site on the NPL does not mean
and Coordination With Indian Tribal eRulemaking Portal at https://
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
that any remedial or removal action
Governments www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public
necessarily need be taken.
This action does not have tribal Participation and Request for
implications as specified in Executive List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 Comments’’ portion of the
Order 13175. Listing a site on the NPL Environmental protection, Air SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
does not impose any costs on a tribe or pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous this document for further instructions
require a tribe to take remedial action. substances, Hazardous waste, on submitting comments.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not Intergovernmental relations, Natural FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
apply to this action. resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, information about this document, call or
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:18 Jan 17, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM 18JAP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_2593/page/1.svg)
![2588 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules
use the existing model, there is a need 2013,25 consists of ‘‘daily aggregate methodology used in the 2012 Great
for an interim benchmark level to be rates’’ for two contracts between Great Lakes Pilotage annual ratemaking final
developed on short notice and with Lakes shipping companies for the rule,29 we were able to calculate
limited time to gather new data. services of AMOU mates.26 These aggregate figures that were within 1% of
Therefore, the Coast Guard is numbers were provided to the Coast the figures provided in the 2013 AMOU
proposing a new compensation Guard as a public comment to be used letter.30
as a basis for compensation in the 2014 In the notice of proposed rulemaking
benchmark based, in part, on the
ratemaking procedure. These daily for the 2014 Great Lakes pilotage annual
previous model of compensation that
aggregate rates include daily wages, rate adjustment, we described how we
was used by the Coast Guard prior to the
vacation pay, pension plan use the daily aggregate rates to develop
new ratemaking methodology a total pilot compensation figure. The
contributions, and medical plan
introduced in the 2016 annual annual rates included the ‘‘daily wage
contributions for AMOU officers. The
ratemaking.24 Under the previous rate, vacation pay, pension plan
relevant 2015 numbers include a
methodology, each year the Coast Guard $1,142.06 aggregate rate for Agreement contributions, and medical plan
gathered contract information from the A,27 and $1,124.72 aggregate rate for contributions.’’ 31 We stated that
American Maritime Officers Union Agreement B,28 which are the amounts ‘‘because we are interested in annual
(AMOU), and used details from their used to calculate the compensation for compensation, we must convert these to
contracts to estimate rates for Great pilots on designated waters. We note daily rates. We use a 270-day multiplier
Lakes pilots. Ultimately, however, the that the while the 2014 ratemaking which reflects an average 30-day month,
AMOU stopped providing information methodology calculated different over the 9 months of the average
to the Coast Guard, which was one basis compensation targets for pilots in shipping season.’’ 32 Subsequently,
for moving to other models. However, in undesignated areas and those in ‘‘[w]e apportion the compensation
the context of the previous rate designated areas, the ratemaking provided by each agreement according
adjustments, the AMOU did provide methodology used today calculates a to the percentage of tonnage represented
information up through the 2015 single wage rate, so only the numbers by companies under each agreement.’’ 33
calendar year. Given that in this used in designated waters would be After publication of the 2014 Final
document, we have proposed to develop relevant. We explain how we propose to Rule, the Coast Guard was sued by the
a new benchmark compensation level translate this information into a three American pilotage associations, in
every 5 years, and then index that proposed annual pilot compensation part, because the AMOU aggregate data
number for inflation each year in benchmark below. it had used to calculate the 2014
between, we believe the most efficient Despite the fact that the aggregated compensation figures did not include a
solution for an interim compensation data in the 2013 AMOU letter is not seasonal bonus component. In that case,
benchmark is to derive a compensation broken down into specific costs, we the Coast Guard relied on previous
figure using the 2015 AMOU data, and believe that the data points provided are aggregate data figures provided by the
then apply inflationary adjustments to generally accurate. Prior to 2014, the AMOU in 2012, instead of using the
that data to arrive at an equivalent level Coast Guard received confidential figures provided by the AMOU in its
for the 2018 shipping season. We note copies of the AMOU contracts with October 4, 2013 public comment, where
that this method is different than using detailed breakdowns of compensation the AMOU stated that the previous
data for the 2018 AMOU contracts, for components including wages, medical figures were inaccurate. While the court
which there is no public information costs, defined contribution and defined found that the use of the old figures was
and which this proposed compensation benefit pension costs. The latest arbitrary, the use of AMOU aggregate
benchmark does not utilize. Because the contract we have covered the 2011 data generally was not disputed.34
interim benchmark proposed in this through the 2015 shipping seasons, Instead, it was the use of the disavowed
NPRM is explicitly based on the terms which is one reason we believe that aggregate data that was not supported.
of the AMOU contract as they existed in basing our interim benchmark on the We intend to correct this by basing our
2015, we note that comments that relate 2015 season is a reasonable measure, as interim methodology on the new figures
to AMOU contract information from we have the underlying contract for that provided by the AMOU for the year
years other than 2015 would not be season. Using the estimated out-year
relevant to this proposed compensation figures set forth in the 2011 contract, 29 2012 Rates for Pilotage on the Great Lakes, 77
benchmark and will not be considered. and applying the detailed compensation FR 11752 (February 28, 2012).
30 Because the out-year figures, including those
However, we do request comments on for 2015, were estimates, we would not expect the
25 We refer to this document as the ‘‘2013 AMOU
whether we have correctly applied the 2015 numbers as calculated in 2011 and 2013 to
letter,’’ which is available in the docket at USCG–
terms of the 2015 contract, or used 2017–0903, as well as in the docket for the 2014 match exactly, as component items such as medical
correct data, to the calculation of target Great Lakes Pilotage rulemaking, at USCG–2013– cost expenditures often defy exact predictions. We
believe that the very close match between our own
pilot compensation under this proposed 0534–0007.
calculations and the figures provided by AMOU is
26 We acknowledge that the American pilotage
model and note that we may adjust the strong evidence that the AMOU data accurately
associations sued the Coast Guard and won in a
interim compensation benchmark if we lawsuit on the 2014 ratemaking regarding the accounts for the total compensation of Great Lakes
receive validated data relating to total inappropriate use of AMOU daily aggregate rate masters and thus provides a reasonable facsimile for
Great Lakes pilots.
compensation pursuant to the 2015 data. However, that was because in that ratemaking,
31 Great Lakes Pilotage Rates—2014 Annual
AMOU contract terms that improves our the Coast Guard did not use the updated daily
aggregate rate data provided in the October 4, 2013 Review and Adjustment, notice of proposed
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
understanding of that contract. letter, but instead relied on older data that the rulemaking, 78 FR 48374, at 48381(August 8, 2013).
32 Id.
The data we are using, provided in a AMOU had explicitly disavowed. In this proposal,
we are correcting that mistake by using the updated 33 Id., at 48382.
letter from the AMOU from October 4, data. The opinion from the 2014 court case is 34 This was the information AMOU provided to
available on the docket at USCG–2017–0903. correct what it alleged was inaccurate data the
24 We note that the 2016 ratemaking significantly 27 ‘‘Agreement A’’ refers to the contract between
Coast Guard had proposed using. The aggregate data
overhauled the entire ratemaking process, not just AMOU and vessels operated by Key Lakes, Inc. in the 2013 AMOU letter included a comprehensive
the method for computing the compensation 28 ‘‘Agreement B’’ refers to the contract between wage component, which included work days,
benchmark, and that methodology is still the basis AMOU and vessels operated by Mittal Steel USA, weekend days, holidays, and the ‘‘seasonal bonus’’
of the current proposed ratemaking process. Inc. days.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:18 Jan 17, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM 18JAP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_2593/page/8.svg)
![2596 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules
G. Step 7: Calculate Initial Base Rates TABLE 23—TIME ON TASK FOR TABLE 25—TIME ON TASK FOR
Having determined the revenue DISTRICT ONE—Continued DISTRICT THREE
needed for each area in the previous six
steps, we divide that number by the Year Undesignated Designated Year Undesignated Designated
expected number of hours of traffic to
2009 .............. 3,947 3,511 2016 .............. 23,421 2,769
develop an hourly rate. Step 7 is a two- 2008 .............. 5,298 5,829 2015 .............. 22,824 2,696
part process. In the first part, we 2007 .............. 5,929 6,099 2014 .............. 25,833 3,835
calculate the 10-year average of traffic in Average ........ 5,659 5,395 2013 .............. 17,115 2,631
each district. Because we are calculating 2012 .............. 15,906 2,163
separate figures for designated and 2011 .............. 16,012 1,678
undesignated waters, there are two parts TABLE 24—TIME ON TASK FOR 2010 .............. 20,211 2,461
for each calculation. The calculations DISTRICT TWO 2009 .............. 12,520 1,820
are shown in Tables 23 through 25. 2008 .............. 14,287 2,286
Year Undesignated Designated 2007 .............. 24,811 5,944
TABLE 23—TIME ON TASK FOR Average ........ 19,294 2,828
2016 .............. 6,425 5,615
DISTRICT ONE 2015 .............. 6,535 5,967
2014 .............. 7,856 7,001 Next, we derive the initial hourly rate
Year Undesignated Designated 2013 .............. 4,603 4,750 by dividing the revenue needed by the
2012 .............. 3,848 3,922 average number of hours for each area.
2016 .............. 6,217 5,434 2011 .............. 3,708 3,680 This produces an initial rate needed to
2015 .............. 6,667 5,743 2010 .............. 5,565 5,235 produce the revenue needed for each
2014 .............. 6,853 6,810 2009 .............. 3,386 3,017
2013 .............. 5,529 5,864 area, assuming the amount of traffic is
2008 .............. 4,844 3,956 as expected. The calculations for each
2012 .............. 5,121 4,771 2007 .............. 6,223 6,049
2011 .............. 5,377 5,045 Average ........ 5,299 4,919
area are set forth in Tables 26 through
2010 .............. 5,649 4,839 28.
TABLE 26—RATE CALCULATIONS FOR DISTRICT ONE
Designated Undesignated
Revenue needed (Step 6) ....................................................................................................................................... $4,296,554 $3,112,690
Average time on task ............................................................................................................................................... 5,395 5,659
Initial rate ................................................................................................................................................................. 796 550
TABLE 27—RATE CALCULATIONS FOR DISTRICT TWO
Designated Undesignated
Revenue needed (Step 6) ....................................................................................................................................... $3,588,876 $3,165,729
Average time on task ............................................................................................................................................... 4,919 5,299
Initial rate ................................................................................................................................................................. 730 597
TABLE 28—RATE CALCULATIONS FOR DISTRICT THREE
Designated Undesignated
Revenue needed (Step 6) ....................................................................................................................................... $1,903,059 $6,371,873
Average time on task ............................................................................................................................................... 2,828 19,294
Initial rate ................................................................................................................................................................. 673 330
H. Step 8: Calculate Weighting Factors undesignated area. We collect the weighting factor for each area using the
by Area weighting factors, set forth in 46 CFR data from each vessel transit from 2014
In this step, we calculate the average 401.400, for each vessel trip. Using this onward, as shown in Tables 29 through
weighting factor for each designated and database, we calculate the average 34.
TABLE 29—AVERAGE WEIGHTING FACTOR FOR AREA 1
[District 1, designated]
Number of Weighting Weighted
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Vessel class/year transits factor transits
Class 1 (2014) ............................................................................................................................. 31 1.00 31
Class 1 (2015) ............................................................................................................................. 41 1.00 41
Class 1 (2016) ............................................................................................................................. 31 1.00 31
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 3 (2014) ............................................................................................................................. 50 1.30 65
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:18 Jan 17, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM 18JAP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_2593/page/16.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 2597
TABLE 29—AVERAGE WEIGHTING FACTOR FOR AREA 1—Continued
[District 1, designated]
Number of Weighting Weighted
Vessel class/year transits factor transits
Class 3 (2015) ............................................................................................................................. 28 1.30 36.4
Class 3 (2016) ............................................................................................................................. 50 1.30 65
Class 4 (2014) ............................................................................................................................. 271 1.45 392.95
Class 4 (2015) ............................................................................................................................. 251 1.45 363.95
Class 4 (2016) ............................................................................................................................. 214 1.45 310.3
Total ...................................................................................................................................... 1,732 ........................ 2,216.35
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 1.00 25
Class 1 (2015) ............................................................................................................................. 28 1.00 28
Class 1 (2016) ............................................................................................................................. 18 1.00 18
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 3 (2014) ............................................................................................................................. 60 1.30 78
Class 3 (2015) ............................................................................................................................. 42 1.30 54.6
Class 3 (2016) ............................................................................................................................. 28 1.30 36.4
Class 4 (2014) ............................................................................................................................. 289 1.45 419.05
Class 4 (2015) ............................................................................................................................. 269 1.45 390.05
Class 4 (2016) ............................................................................................................................. 222 1.45 321.9
Total ...................................................................................................................................... 1,651 ........................ 2,141.6
Average weighting factor (weighted transits/number of transits) ................................................ ........................ 1.30 ........................
TABLE 31—AVERAGE WEIGHTING FACTOR FOR AREA 4
[District 2, designated]
Number of Weighting Weighted
Vessel class/year transits factor transits
Class 1 (2014) ............................................................................................................................. 20 1.00 20
Class 1 (2015) ............................................................................................................................. 15 1.00 15
Class 1 (2016) ............................................................................................................................. 28 1.00 28
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 3 (2014) ............................................................................................................................. 8 1.30 10.4
Class 3 (2015) ............................................................................................................................. 8 1.30 10.4
Class 3 (2016) ............................................................................................................................. 4 1.30 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
Total ...................................................................................................................................... 1,741 ........................ 2,289.7
Average weighting factor (weighted transits/number of transits) ................................................ ........................ 1.32 ........................
TABLE 32—AVERAGE WEIGHTING FACTOR FOR AREA 5
[District 2, undesignated]
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Number of Weighting Weighted
Vessel class/year transits factor transits
Class 1 (2014) ............................................................................................................................. 31 1.00 31
Class 1 (2015) ............................................................................................................................. 35 1.00 35
Class 1 (2016) ............................................................................................................................. 32 1.00 32
Class 2 (2014) ............................................................................................................................. 356 1.15 409.4
Class 2 (2015) ............................................................................................................................. 354 1.15 407.1
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:18 Jan 17, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM 18JAP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_2593/page/17.svg)
![2598 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 32—AVERAGE WEIGHTING FACTOR FOR AREA 5—Continued
[District 2, undesignated]
Number of Weighting Weighted
Vessel class/year transits factor transits
Class 2 (2016) ............................................................................................................................. 380 1.15 437
Class 3 (2014) ............................................................................................................................. 20 1.30 26
Class 3 (2015) ............................................................................................................................. 0 1.30 0
Class 3 (2016) ............................................................................................................................. 9 1.30 11.7
Class 4 (2014) ............................................................................................................................. 636 1.45 922.2
Class 4 (2015) ............................................................................................................................. 560 1.45 812
Class 4 (2016) ............................................................................................................................. 468 1.45 678.6
Total ...................................................................................................................................... 2,881 ........................ 3,802
Average weighting factor (weighted transits/number of transits) ................................................ ........................ 1.32 ........................
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 1.00 45
Class 1 (2015) ...................................................................................................................... 56 1.00 56
Class 1 (2016) ...................................................................................................................... 136 1.00 136
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 3 (2014) ...................................................................................................................... 15 1.30 19.5
Class 3 (2015) ...................................................................................................................... 8 1.30 10.4
Class 3 (2016) ...................................................................................................................... 10 1.30 13
Class 4 (2014) ...................................................................................................................... 394 1.45 571.3
Class 4 (2015) ...................................................................................................................... 375 1.45 543.75
Class 4 (2016) ...................................................................................................................... 332 1.45 481.4
Total for Area 6 ............................................................................................................. 2,088 ........................ 2,700.9
Area 8:
Class 1 (2014) ...................................................................................................................... 3 1.00 3
Class 1 (2015) ...................................................................................................................... 0 1.00 0
Class 1 (2016) ...................................................................................................................... 4 1.00 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 3 (2014) ...................................................................................................................... 3 1.30 3.9
Class 3 (2015) ...................................................................................................................... 0 1.30 0
Class 3 (2016) ...................................................................................................................... 7 1.30 9.1
Class 4 (2014) ...................................................................................................................... 243 1.45 352.35
Class 4 (2015) ...................................................................................................................... 253 1.45 366.85
Class 4 (2016) ...................................................................................................................... 204 1.45 295.8
Total for Area 8 ............................................................................................................. 1,237 ........................ 1,633
Combined total ....................................................................................................... 3,325 ........................ 4,333.9
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
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Class 1 (2014) ............................................................................................................................. 27 1.00 27
Class 1 (2015) ............................................................................................................................. 23 1.00 23
Class 1 (2016) ............................................................................................................................. 55 1.00 55
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 3 (2014) ............................................................................................................................. 4 1.30 5.2
Class 3 (2015) ............................................................................................................................. 0 1.30 0
Class 3 (2016) ............................................................................................................................. 6 1.30 7.8
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:03 Jan 17, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM 18JAP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_2593/page/18.svg)
![2602 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules
have a pilot as required by 46 U.S.C. traffic in Districts One, Two, and Three projected revenues. Because we review
9302. Therefore, the aggregate payments would be applied for the duration of the and prescribe rates for the Great Lakes
of shippers to pilot associations are 2018 season in order for the pilotage Pilotage annually, the effects are
equal to the projected necessary associations to recover training estimated as a single year cost rather
revenues for pilot associations. The expenses incurred for applicant pilots. than annualized over a 10-year period.
revenues each year represent the total We estimate that the pilotage In the 2017 rulemaking,48 we estimated
costs that shippers must pay for pilotage associations would require an the total projected revenue needed for
services, and the change in revenue additional $300,000, $150,000, and 2017, including surcharges, as
from the previous year is the additional $600,000 in revenue for applicant $22,326,381. This is the best
cost to shippers discussed in this training expenses in Districts One, Two, approximation of 2017 revenues as, at
proposed rule. and Three, respectively. This would be
The impacts of the proposed rate the time of this publication, we do not
an additional cost to shippers of
changes on shippers are estimated from $1,050,000 during the 2018 shipping have enough audited data available for
the District pilotage projected revenues season. Adding the projected revenue of the 2017 shipping season to revise these
(shown in Tables 20 through 22 of this $22,438,782 to the proposed surcharges, projections. Table 40 shows the revenue
preamble) and the proposed surcharges we estimate the pilotage associations’ projections for 2017 and 2018 and
described in section VIII of this total projected revenue needed for 2018 details the additional cost increases to
preamble. We estimate that for the 2018 would be $23,488,782. To estimate the shippers by area and district as a result
shipping season, the projected revenue additional cost to shippers from this of the rate changes and temporary
needed for all three districts is proposed rule, we compare the 2018 surcharges on traffic in Districts One,
$22,438,782. Temporary surcharges on total projected revenues to the 2017 Two, and Three.
TABLE 40—EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED RULE BY AREA AND DISTRICT
[$U.S.; non-discounted]
Revenue 2017 Total 2017 Revenue 2018 Total 2018 Additional
Area needed in Temporary projected needed in Temporary projected costs of this
2017 surcharge revenue 2018 surcharge revenue proposed rule
Total, District One ........ $7,109,019 $0 $7,109,019 $7,409,244 $300,000 $7,709,244 $600,225
Total, District Two ........ 6,633,491 300,000 6,933,491 6,754,605 150,000 6,904,605 (28,886)
Total, District Three ..... 7,233,871 1,050,000 8,283,871 8,274,933 600,000 8,874,933 591,062
System Total ......... 20,976,381 1,350,000 22,326,381 22,438,782 1,050,000 23,488,782 1,162,401
The resulting difference between the a decrease in payments of $28,886 in of four pilots who were authorized in
projected revenue in 2017 and the District 2. The overall adjustment in the 2017 rule. These four pilots are
projected revenue in 2018 is the payments would be an increase in training this year and will become full-
proposed annual change in payments payments by shippers of approximately time working pilots at the beginning of
from shippers to pilots as a result of the $1,162,401 across all three districts (a 5 the 2018 shipping season. They would
rate change that would be imposed by percent increase over 2017). Again, be compensated at the target
this rule. The effect of the proposed rate because we review and set rates for compensation of $319,617 per pilot. The
change to shippers varies by area and Great Lakes Pilotage annually, the addition of these pilots to full working
district. The rate changes, after taking impacts are estimated as single year status accounts for $1,278,468 of the
into account the increase in pilotage costs rather than annualized over a 10- increase ($677,898 when also including
rates and the addition of temporary year period. the effect of decreasing compensation
surcharges, would lead to affected Table 41 shows the difference in
for 45 pilots). The remaining amount is
shippers operating in District One and revenue by component from 2017 to
District Three experiencing an increase 2018.49 The majority of the increase in attributed to decreases in the working
in payments of $600,225 and $591,062, revenue is due to the inflation of capital fund and differences in the
respectively, over the previous year, and operating expenses and to the addition surcharges from 2017.
TABLE 41—DIFFERENCE IN REVENUE BY COMPONENT
Difference
Revenue Revenue (2018 Rev-
Revenue component needed in needed in enue–2017
2017 2018 Revenue)
Adjusted Operating Expenses ..................................................................................................... $5,155,280 $5,983,199 $827,919
Total Target Pilot Compensation ................................................................................................. 14,983,335 15,661,233 677,898
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Working Capital Fund .................................................................................................................. 837,766 794,350 (43,416)
Total Revenue Needed, without Surcharge ................................................................................ 20,976,381 22,438,782 1,462,401
Surcharge .................................................................................................................................... 1,350,000 1,050,000 (300,000)
48 The 2017 projected revenues are from the 2017 49 The 2017 projected revenues are from the 2017 The 2018 projected revenues are from tables 20–22
Great Lakes Pilotage Ratemaking final rule (82 FR final rule (82 FR 41484 and 41489), tables 9 and 14. of this NPRM.
41484 and 41489), Tables 9 and 14.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:18 Jan 17, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM 18JAP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_2593/page/22.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 2605
Regulatory Fairness Boards. The F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act not designated it as a significant energy
Ombudsman evaluates these actions The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act action. Therefore, it does not require a
annually and rates each agency’s of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, requires Statement of Energy Effects under E.O.
responsiveness to small business. If you Federal agencies to assess the effects of 13211.
wish to comment on actions by their discretionary regulatory actions. In L. Technical Standards
employees of the Coast Guard, call particular, the Act addresses actions
1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The National Technology Transfer
that may result in the expenditure by a
and Advancement Act, codified as a
D. Collection of Information State, local, or Tribal Government, in
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies
the aggregate, or by the private sector of
to use voluntary consensus standards in
This proposed rule would call for no $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or
their regulatory activities unless the
new collection of information under the more in any one year. Though this
agency provides Congress, through
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 proposed rule would not result in such
OMB, with an explanation of why using
U.S.C. 3501–3520). This proposed rule an expenditure, we discuss the effects of
these standards would be inconsistent
would not change the burden in the this proposed rule elsewhere in this
with applicable law or otherwise
collection currently approved by OMB preamble.
impractical. Voluntary consensus
under OMB Control Number 1625–0086, G. Taking of Private Property standards are technical standards (e.g.,
Great Lakes Pilotage Methodology. This proposed rule would not cause a specifications of materials, performance,
taking of private property or otherwise design, or operation; test methods;
E. Federalism
have taking implications under E.O. sampling procedures; and related
A rule has implications for federalism 12630, Governmental Actions and management systems practices) that are
under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has Interference with Constitutionally developed or adopted by voluntary
a substantial direct effect on the States, Protected Property Rights. consensus standards bodies. This
on the relationship between the national proposed rule does not use technical
H. Civil Justice Reform standards. Therefore, we did not
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and This proposed rule meets applicable consider the use of voluntary consensus
responsibilities among the various standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of standards.
levels of government. We have analyzed E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to M. Environment
this proposed rule under E.O. 13132 and minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden. We have analyzed this proposed rule
have determined that it is consistent under Department of Homeland
with the fundamental federalism I. Protection of Children Security (DHS) Directive 023–01,
principles and preemption requirements Revision (Rev) 01, Implementation of
We have analyzed this proposed rule
as described in E.O. 13132. Our analysis the National Environmental Policy Act
under E.O. 13045, Protection of
follows. [DHS Instruction Manual 023–01
Children from Environmental Health
Congress directed the Coast Guard to Risks and Safety Risks. This proposed (series)] and Commandant Instruction
establish ‘‘rates and charges for pilotage rule is not an economically significant M16475.lD, which guide the Coast
services.’’ See 46 U.S.C. 9303(f). This rule and would not create an Guard in complying with the National
regulation is issued pursuant to that environmental risk to health or risk to Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
statute and is preemptive of State law as safety that might disproportionately U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a
specified in 46 U.S.C. 9306. Under 46 affect children. preliminary determination that this
U.S.C. 9306, a ‘‘State or political action is one of a category of actions that
J. Indian Tribal Governments do not individually or cumulatively
subdivision of a State may not regulate
or impose any requirement on pilotage This proposed rule does not have have a significant effect on the human
on the Great Lakes.’’ As a result, States tribal implications under E.O. 13175, environment. A preliminary Record of
or local governments are expressly Consultation and Coordination with Environmental Consideration
Indian Tribal Governments, because it supporting this determination is
prohibited from regulating within this
would not have a substantial direct available in the docket where indicated
category. Therefore, the rule is
effect on one or more Indian tribes, on under the ‘‘Public Participation and
consistent with the principles of
the relationship between the Federal Request for Comments’’ section of this
federalism and preemption
Government and Indian tribes, or on the preamble. This proposed rule meets the
requirements in E.O. 13132.
distribution of power and criteria for categorical exclusion
While it is well settled that States may responsibilities between the Federal (CATEX) under paragraph A3 of Table
not regulate in categories in which Government and Indian tribes. 1, particularly subparts (a), (b), and (c)
Congress intended the Coast Guard to be in Appendix A of DHS Directive 023–
the sole source of a vessel’s obligations, K. Energy Effects 01(series). CATEX A3 pertains to
the Coast Guard recognizes the key role We have analyzed this proposed rule promulgation of rules and procedures
that State and local governments may under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning that are: (a) Strictly administrative or
have in making regulatory Regulations That Significantly Affect procedural in nature; (b) that
determinations. Additionally, for rules Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We implement, without substantive change,
with implications and preemptive have determined that it is not a statutory or regulatory requirements; or
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
effect, E.O. 13132 specifically directs ‘‘significant energy action’’ under that (c) that implement, without substantive
agencies to consult with State and local E.O. because it is not a ‘‘significant change, procedures, manuals, and other
governments during the rulemaking regulatory action’’ under E.O. 12866 and guidance documents. This proposed
process. If you believe this rule has is not likely to have a significant rule adjusts base pilotage rates and
implications for federalism under E.O. adverse effect on the supply, surcharges for administering the 2018
13132, please contact the person listed distribution, or use of energy. The shipping season in accordance with
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section Administrator of the Office of applicable statutory and regulatory
of this preamble. Information and Regulatory Affairs has mandates, and also proposes several
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:18 Jan 17, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM 18JAP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_2593/page/25.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 2607
Dated: January 11, 2018. path for innovative vehicle designs and Standards, telephone 202–366–1810,
Michael D. Emerson, technologies that feature ADSs. email David.Hines@dot.gov;
Director, Marine Transportation Systems, DATES: Comments are due no later than For legal issues, Stephen Wood,
U.S. Coast Guard. March 5, 2018. Assistant Chief Counsel, Vehicle
[FR Doc. 2018–00781 Filed 1–17–18; 8:45 am] Rulemaking and Harmonization, Office
ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the
of Chief Counsel, 202–366–2992, email
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P docket number above and be submitted
Steve.Wood@dot.gov.
by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the Table of Contents
online instructions for submitting
I. Overview
National Highway Traffic Safety comments. II. Automation Revolution
Administration • Mail: Docket Management Facility, III. Changes in Vehicle Interior Designs and
M–30, U.S. Department of Their Effect on Testing, Certification and
49 CFR Part 571 Transportation, West Building, Ground Compliance Verification Under the
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Federal Safety Standards
[Docket No. NHTSA–2018–0009] IV. Initial Agency Efforts To Identify Testing,
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Removing Regulatory Barriers for • Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Certification and Compliance
Department of Transportation, West Verification Issues
Vehicles With Automated Driving V. Requests for Comment
Systems Building, Ground Floor, Room W12– A. Barriers to Testing, Certification and
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Compliance Verification
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 B. Research Needed To Address Those
Safety Administration (NHTSA), p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Barriers and NHTSA’s Role in
Department of Transportation (DOT). Friday, except Federal holidays. Conducting it
ACTION: Request for comment (RFC). • Fax: 202–493–2251. VI. Public Participation
Regardless of how you submit your Appendix
SUMMARY: NHTSA seeks public comments, you must include the docket 1. Executive Summary of the Volpe Report
2. List of Standards Identified in the Volpe
comments to identify any regulatory number identified in the heading of this Report
barriers in the existing Federal Motor notice.
Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) to Note that all comments received, I. Overview
the testing, compliance certification and including any personal information NHTSA wants to avoid impeding
compliance verification of motor provided, will be posted without change progress with unnecessary or
vehicles with Automated Driving to http://www.regulations.gov. Please unintended regulatory barriers to motor
Systems (ADSs) and certain see the ‘‘Privacy Act’’ heading below. vehicles that have Automated Driving
unconventional interior designs. You may call the Docket Management Systems (ADS) and unconventional
NHTSA is focusing primarily, but not Facility at 202–366–9324. designs, especially those with
exclusively, on vehicles with ADSs that Docket: For access to the docket to unconventional interior designs. These
lack controls for a human driver; e.g., read background documents or barriers may complicate or may even
steering wheel, brake pedal or comments received, go to http:// make impossible the testing and
accelerator pedal. The absence of www.regulations.gov or the street certification of motor vehicles. At this
manual driving controls, and thus of a address listed above. We will continue stage, the Agency is primarily, but not
human driver, poses potential barriers to file relevant information in the exclusively, concerned with vehicles
to testing, compliance certification and Docket as it becomes available. with ADSs that do not have the means
compliance verification. For example, Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 for human driving, e.g., a steering wheel
many of the FMVSS refer to the ‘‘driver’’ U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments and brake and accelerator pedals.
or ‘‘driver’s seating position’’ in from the public to better inform its NHTSA is also interested in the
specifying where various vehicle decision-making process. DOT posts additional testing and certification
features and systems need to be located these comments, without edit, including problems for vehicles with ADSs and
so that they can be seen and/or used by any personal information the with seating or other systems that have
a person sitting in that position. Further, commenter provides, to http:// multiple modes, such as front seats that
the compliance test procedures of some www.regulations.gov, as described in rotate. Some FMVSS, therefore, may
FMVSS depend on the presence of such the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– pose barriers to the testing and
things as a human test driver who can 14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at certification of these vehicles.
follow instructions on test driving https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. To enable vehicles with ADSs and
maneuvers or a steering wheel that can Anyone can search the electronic form with unconventional interiors while
be used by an automated steering of all comments received into any of our maintaining those existing safety
machine. NHTSA also seeks comments dockets by the name of the individual requirements that will be needed and
on the research that would be needed to submitting the comment (or signing the appropriate for those vehicles, NHTSA
determine how to amend the FMVSS in comment, if submitted on behalf of an is developing plans and proposals for
order to remove such barriers, while association, business, labor union, etc.). removing or modifying existing
retaining those existing safety FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: regulatory barriers to testing and
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
requirements that will be needed and For research issues, John Harding, compliance certification in those areas
appropriate for those vehicles. In all Intelligent Technologies Research for which existing data and knowledge
cases, the Agency’s goal would be to Division, Office of Vehicle Crash are sufficient to support decision-
ensure the maintenance of currently Avoidance and Electronic Controls making. In other areas, plans and
required levels of safety performance. Research, telephone: 202–366–5665, proposals cannot be developed until the
These comments will aid the Agency in email: John.Harding@dot.gov; completion of near term research to
setting research priorities as well as For rulemaking issues, David Hines, determine how to revise the test
inform its subsequent actions to lay a Director, Office of Crash Avoidance procedures for those vehicles. In all
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:18 Jan 17, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM 18JAP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_2593/page/27.svg)
Document Created: 2018-01-18 00:42:43
Document Modified: 2018-01-18 00:42:43
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Notice of proposed rulemaking. | |
| Dates | Comments and related material must be submitted to the online docket via https://www.regulations.gov, or reach the Docket Management Facility, on or before February 20, 2018. | |
| Contact | For information about this document, call or email Mr. Michael Moyers, Great Lakes Pilotage, Commandant (CG-WWM-2), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1553, email [email protected], or fax 202-372-1914. | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 2581 | |
| RIN Number | 1625-AC40 | |
| CFR Citation | 46
CFR
401 46 CFR 404 | |
| CFR Associated | Administrative Practice and Procedure; Great Lakes; Navigation (water); Penalties; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Seamen |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR