Great Lakes Pilotage Rates-2017 Annual Review, 72011-72034 [2016-25254]

Download as PDF 72011 Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 81, No. 202 Wednesday, October 19, 2016 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0499; FRL–9954–19– Region 9] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; California; Calaveras County, Chico (Butte County), San Francisco Bay Area and San Luis Obispo County (Eastern San Luis Obispo) Base Year Emission Inventories for the 2008 Ozone Standards Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning the base year emission inventories (EIs) for four areas designated as nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (2008 ozone NAAQS). The subject areas include Calaveras County, Chico (Butte County), San Francisco Bay Area and San Luis Obispo (Eastern San Luis Obispo). We are proposing to approve these revisions under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by November 18, 2016. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– OAR–2016–0499 at https:// www.regulations.gov, or via email to Nancy Levin, Air Planning Office at levin.nancy@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or edited from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 18, 2016 Jkt 241001 restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 3848, levin.nancy@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. This proposal addresses base year EIs for the Calaveras County, Chico (Butte County), San Francisco Bay Area and San Luis Obispo (Eastern San Luis Obispo) 2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment areas. We are approving these base year EIs in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on a particular base year EI, we may adopt as final those that are not the subject of an adverse comment. We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action. Dated: September 28, 2016. Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. 2016–25161 Filed 10–18–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 46 CFR Parts 401, 403, and 404 [USCG–2016–0268] RIN 1625–AC34 Great Lakes Pilotage Rates—2017 Annual Review Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: The Coast Guard proposes new base pilotage rates and surcharges using the methodology instituted in 2016. The changes would take effect 30 days after publication of a final rule. Rates for pilotage services on the Great Lakes were last revised in March 2016 and, by law, must be reviewed annually. DATES: Comments and related material must be submitted to the online docket via www.regulations.gov on or before December 19, 2016. Requests for a public meeting must be submitted by November 18, 2016. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG– 2016–0268 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https:// www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public Participation and Request for Comments’’ portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments. SUMMARY: For information about this document, call or email Mr. Todd Haviland, Director, Great Lakes Pilotage, Commandant (CG– WWM–2), Coast Guard; telephone 202– 372–2037, email Todd.A.Haviland@ uscg.mil, or fax 202–372–1914. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Table of Contents for Preamble I. Public Participation and Request for Comments II. Abbreviations III. Basis and Purpose IV. Background V. Discussion of Proposed Rate Changes A. District One B. District Two C. District Three D. Other Changes Affecting Ratemaking E. Surcharges VI. Regulatory Analyses A. Regulatory Planning and Review E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM 19OCP1 72012 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules 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 srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 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 document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site’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, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086). 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 BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics CAD Canadian dollars CFR Code of Federal Regulations CPA Certified public accountant VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 18, 2016 Jkt 241001 GLPA Great Lakes Pilotage Authority (Canadian) GLPMS Great Lakes Pilotage Management System NAICS North American Industry Classification System NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking NTSB National Transportation Safety Board OMB Office of Management and Budget RA Regulatory analysis SBA Small Business Administration § Section symbol SLSMC Saint Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation U.S.C. United States Code USD United States dollars III. Basis and Purpose The legal basis of this rulemaking is the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960 (‘‘the Act’’),1 which requires U.S. vessels operating ‘‘on register’’ 2 and foreign 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 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is to propose new base pilotage rates and surcharges for training and propose new methodology in projecting pilotage rates. This includes proposals to adjust the surcharge provision to stop collecting funds once the assigned value has been recovered for the season; modify the regulations to review pilot compensation once every 10 years, with cost-of-living adjustments added annually between reviews; rename Return on Investment as Working Capital Fund to better clarify the intent of this step; and move the audit deadline from April to January of each 1 Public Law 86–555, 74 Stat. 259, as amended; currently codified as 46 U.S.C. Chapter 93. 2 ‘‘On register’’ means that the vessel’s certificate of documentation has been endorsed with a registry endorsement, and therefore, may be employed in foreign trade or trade with Guam, American Samoa, Wake, Midway, or Kingman Reef. 46 U.S.C. 12105, 46 CFR 67.17. 3 46 U.S.C. 9302(a)(1). 4 46 U.S.C. 9303(f). 5 DHS Delegation No. 0170.1, para. II (92.f). PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 year in order to capture expenses in the rate sooner and to eliminate 1 year from the current 3-year lag in expenses being recognized in the rate. The new methodology in proposing rates changes pilot demand from peak to seasonal. In addition to these changes to the ratemaking process, the Coast Guard proposes adding pilots to support a mandatory change point on the Saint Lawrence River between Iroquois Lock and the area of Ogdensburg, NY. We further propose to amend the regulation regarding delays so that cancellation charges can be assessed in an appropriate manner. Finally, we are seeking public comment on how we should proceed with weighting factors. IV. Background The vessels affected by this NPRM are those engaged in foreign trade upon the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes. United States and Canadian ‘‘lakers,’’ which account for most commercial shipping on the Great Lakes, are not affected.6 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 Great Lakes Pilotage (‘‘the Director’’) to operate a pilotage pool. The Coast Guard does not control the actual compensation that pilots receive. The actual compensation is determined by the district associations, each of which uses different compensation practices. District One, consisting of Areas 1 and 2, includes all U.S. waters of the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. District Two, consisting of Areas 4 and 5, includes all U.S. waters of Lake Erie, the Detroit River, Lake St. Clair, and the St. Clair River. District Three, consisting of Areas 6, 7, and 8, includes all U.S. waters of the St. Mary’s River; Sault Ste. Marie Locks; and Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior. 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. Areas 1, 5, and 7 have been designated 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. Areas 2, 4, 6, and 8 have not been so designated because they are open bodies of water. While working in 6 46 U.S.C. 9302. A ‘‘laker’’ is a commercial cargo vessel especially designed for and generally limited to use on the Great Lakes. 7 Presidential Proclamation 3385, Designation of restricted waters under the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960, December 22, 1960. E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM 19OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules 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 The Coast Guard is required to establish new pilotage rates by March 1 of each year, employing a full ratemaking at least once every 5 years and an annual review and adjustment in the intervening years.9 The Coast Guard will continue to review rates annually until we can stabilize the rates and ensure pilotage association revenues are in line with projections. In 2016, we revised our ratemaking methodology to improve the ratemaking process. Some of the changes proposed in this document further refine the 2016 methodology. V. Discussion of Proposed Rate Changes We propose new rates, and surcharges under 46 CFR 401.401, for 2017. This section discusses the proposed rates using the ratemaking steps provided in 46 CFR part 404. We reviewed the independent accountant’s financial reports for each association’s 2014 expenses and revenues. Those reports, which include pilot comments on draft versions and the accountant’s response to those comments, appear in the docket.10 This year, we have reorganized the layout of this proposed rule to address the ratemaking steps for 72013 each pilotage district individually. This is only a formatting change to make the proposed rule easier to follow. We begin with District One, and some explanations in the section on District One will apply to similar changes in the other Districts. A. District One Recognize previous year’s operating expenses (§ 404.101). First, we reviewed and accepted the accountant’s final findings on the 2014 audit of association expenses. Table 1 shows District One’s recognized expenses. TABLE 1—RECOGNIZED EXPENSES FOR DISTRICT ONE District One Designated Operating Expenses: Other Pilotage Costs: Pilot subsistence/travel ......................................................................................................... Applicant Pilot subsistence/travel ......................................................................................... License insurance ................................................................................................................. Applicant Pilot license insurance .......................................................................................... Payroll taxes ......................................................................................................................... Applicant Pilot payroll taxes ................................................................................................. Other ..................................................................................................................................... Undesignated St. Lawrence River Reported expenses for 2014 Lake Ontario Total $228,222 12,996 22,480 1,760 64,130 0 378 $530,769 12,996 42,711 1,760 142,197 0 857 Total other pilotage costs .............................................................................................. Pilot Boat and Dispatch Costs: Pilot boat expense ................................................................................................................ Dispatch expense ................................................................................................................. Payroll taxes ......................................................................................................................... 401,324 329,966 731,290 130,741 0 9,797 103,173 0 7,732 233,914 0 17,529 Total pilot and dispatch costs ....................................................................................... Administrative Expenses: Legal—general counsel ........................................................................................................ Legal—shared counsel (K&L Gates) .................................................................................... Legal—USCG litigation ......................................................................................................... Insurance .............................................................................................................................. Employee benefits ................................................................................................................ Payroll taxes ......................................................................................................................... Other taxes ........................................................................................................................... Travel .................................................................................................................................... Depreciation/auto leasing/other ............................................................................................ Interest .................................................................................................................................. APA Dues ............................................................................................................................. Utilities .................................................................................................................................. Salaries ................................................................................................................................. Accounting/Professional fees ............................................................................................... Pilot Training ......................................................................................................................... Applicant Pilot training .......................................................................................................... Other ..................................................................................................................................... srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS $302,547 0 20,231 0 78,067 0 479 140,538 110,905 251,443 2,173 8,783 12,794 21,829 7,570 5,281 7,262 648 48,094 13,713 12,444 8,916 52,121 5,142 6,427 0 8,866 1,505 6,932 10,098 17,226 5,974 4,167 5,731 512 31,820 10,821 11,996 418 41,130 4,058 5,074 0 6,546 3,678 15,715 22,892 39,055 13,544 9,448 12,993 1,160 79,914 24,534 24,440 9,334 93,251 9,200 11,501 0 15,412 Total Administrative Expenses ...................................................................................... Total Operating Expenses (Other Costs + Pilot Boats + Admin) ............................................... Proposed Adjustments (Independent CPA): Pilot subsistence/travel ......................................................................................................... Payroll taxes ......................................................................................................................... Applicant Pilot payroll taxes ................................................................................................. 222,063 763,925 164,008 604,879 386,071 1,368,804 ¥15,712 ¥87 0 ¥12,401 ¥68 2,347 ¥28,113 ¥155 2,347 TOTAL CPA ADJUSTMENTS ....................................................................................... ¥15,799 ¥10,122 ¥25,921 8 46 9 46 U.S.C. 9302(a)(1)(B). U.S.C. 9303(f). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 18, 2016 10 See ‘‘Summary—Independent Accountant’s Report on Pilot Association Expenses, with Pilot Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Association Comments and Accountant’s Responses.’’ E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM 19OCP1 72014 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1—RECOGNIZED EXPENSES FOR DISTRICT ONE—Continued District One Designated Undesignated St. Lawrence River Reported expenses for 2014 Lake Ontario Total Proposed Adjustments (Director): APA Dues ............................................................................................................................. 2015 Surcharge Adjustment * ............................................................................................... Legal—shared counsel (K&L Gates) .................................................................................... Legal—USCG litigation ......................................................................................................... ¥1,867 ¥92,766 ¥8,783 ¥12,794 ¥1,799 ¥72,887 ¥6,932 ¥10,098 ¥3,666 ¥165,653 ¥15,715 ¥22,892 TOTAL DIRECTOR’S ADJUSTMENTS ........................................................................ ¥116,209 ¥91,717 ¥207,926 Total Operating Expenses (OpEx + Adjustments) ...................................................................... 631,917 503,040 1,134,957 * District One collected $493,682 with an authorized 10% surcharge in 2015. The adjustment represents the difference between the collected amount and the authorized amount of $328,029 authorized in the 2015 final rule. Project next year’s operating expenses, adjusting for inflation or deflation (§ 404.102). We based our inflation adjustments on the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) data from the Consumer Price Index for the Midwest Region of the United States,11 and reports from the Federal Reserve.12 The adjustments for District One are shown in Table 2. TABLE 2—INFLATION ADJUSTMENT, DISTRICT ONE District One Total Designated Total 2015 2016 2017 Undesignated Operating Expenses (Step 1) ............................................................................................. Inflation Modification (@¥0.5%) ........................................................................................ Inflation Modification (@2.2%) ........................................................................................... Inflation Modification (@2.1%) ........................................................................................... $631,917 ¥3,160 13,833 13,494 $503,040 ¥2,515 11,012 10,742 $1,134,957 ¥5,675 24,844 24,237 Adjusted 2017 Operating Expenses ..................................................................................... 656,084 522,279 1,178,363 Determine number of pilots needed (§ 404.103). To determine the number of pilots needed for 2017, we reviewed the historic number of annual assignments in each area going back to 2007. Our demand model from the 2016 final rule allows pilots 10 days of recuperative rest each month between mid-April and mid-November, in order to better mitigate long-term fatigue. A U.S. registered pilot may spend several days in various ports in between assignments, which is not considered recuperative rest. In 2016, we examined peak staffing primarily through an analysis of the maximum number of trips needed through designated waters at the end of each season. We propose modifying our pilotage demand calculation to focus instead on the pilot work cycle, including elements such as travel, rest, pilot boat time, and other items in addition to time on the bridge of the ship, and the number of assignments we reasonably expect pilots to be able to complete during the 9-month shipping season instead of during peak pilotage demand. The rest standards apply from April 15 through November 15 of each shipping season, which are non-peak periods. Thus, of the 270 days of the shipping season,13 a pilot would be available for assignment on 200 of those days.14 During the opening and closing of the season, however, we expect all of the working pilots to be available. This is critical at the end of the season to prevent a ship from getting stuck in the system due to lock maintenance schedules. We invite comment on these assumptions and how this model might impact operations and the recruitment and retention of pilots. Tables 3 through 7 examine our proposed staffing model. We begin our analysis with the pilot assignment cycle first discussed in the 2016 rulemaking.15 The pilot assignment cycle outlines the time needed to perform an assignment from beginning to end. This is shown in Table 3. TABLE 3—PILOT ASSIGNMENT CYCLE FOR DISTRICT ONE srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS District One Pilot assignment cycle Area 1 (hours) Average Through Transit Time * .............................................................................................................................. 11 Available at https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/ CUUR0200SA0?data_tool=Xgtable 12 Available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/ monetarypolicy/fomcprojtabl20160316.htm VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 18, 2016 Jkt 241001 13 Nine months per shipping season × 30 days per month. PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 10.8 Area 2 (hours) 11.0 14 Two-hundred and seventy days per season minus 70 days rest (7 non-peak months × 10 days rest per month). 15 81 FR 11932, Figure 14. E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM 19OCP1 72015 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE 3—PILOT ASSIGNMENT CYCLE FOR DISTRICT ONE—Continued District One Pilot assignment cycle Area 1 (hours) Travel ....................................................................................................................................................................... Delay ........................................................................................................................................................................ Admin ....................................................................................................................................................................... Total Assignment ..................................................................................................................................................... Mandatory Rest ....................................................................................................................................................... Pilot Cycle (hours/assignment) ................................................................................................................................ Area 2 (hours) 3.2 0.7 0.5 15.2 10 25.2 4.6 0.9 0.5 17.0 10 27.0 * Updated since 2016 to reflect average through transit time based on current speed and other conditions as provided by pilot associations. Using this data, we calculate the maximum number of assignments a pilot could conduct each year under perfect conditions with demand evenly distributed throughout the shipping season. This information follows in Table 4. TABLE 4—CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM ASSIGNMENTS FOR DISTRICT ONE District One Pilot assignments Area 1 Seasonal Availability Goal (hours) .......................................................................................................................... Pilot Cycle (hours/assignment) ................................................................................................................................ Max Assignments per Pilot ...................................................................................................................................... Our model uses this maximum figure to calculate a projected number of assignments for each pilot in the 2017 shipping season. At this time, we can neither track assignments electronically nor track individual pilot cycle times. Additionally, the projected number of assignments per pilot reflects only Area 2 4,800 25.2 190 4,800 27 178 actual assignments and does not include time the pilot is standing by and waiting for the next assignment. This calculation is detailed in Table 5. TABLE 5—PROJECTED ASSIGNMENTS PER PILOT IN DISTRICT ONE District One Assignments per pilot Area 1 (hours) Max Assignments per Pilots .................................................................................................................................... Efficiency Adjustment * ............................................................................................................................................ Projected Assignments per Pilot ............................................................................................................................. Area 2 (hours) 190 0.5 95 178 0.5 89 * Recommended starting ratio per the 2013 bridge hour study (on page 23), available in the docket. Next, we examine the historic number of assignments over the last nine shipping seasons, by Area, in District One. This will inform our final pilot strength calculation. The number of pilot assignments is detailed in Table 6. TABLE 6—HISTORIC NUMBER OF ASSIGNMENTS IN DISTRICT ONE District One Historic number of assignments srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Area 1 2007 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2008 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2009 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2010 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2011 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2012 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2013 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2014 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2015 ......................................................................................................................................................................... Average Assignments .............................................................................................................................................. Finally, using the historic average number of assignments from the last nine shipping seasons (Table 6) and the VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 18, 2016 Jkt 241001 projected assignments per pilot (Table 5), we are able to calculate the projected need for pilot strength for District One. PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Area 2 708 632 361 518 500 479 490 612 593 544 558 480 434 591 634 632 598 637 589 573 This calculation is in Table 7. In all districts, when the calculation results in a fraction of a pilot, we round pilot E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM 19OCP1 72016 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules numbers up to the nearest whole pilot. We do this to avoid shortening our demand calculation and also to compensate for the role of the district presidents as both working pilots and representatives of their associations. We believe the rounding is justified to meet the needs of the staffing model and also to ensure the presidents of the pilot associations are able to effectively engage in meetings and communications with stakeholders throughout the Great Lakes region and the Coast Guard. TABLE 7—PROJECTED PILOTS NEEDED IN DISTRICT ONE District One Pilots needed Area 1 (hours) Historic Average Assignments ................................................................................................................................. Projected Assignments per Pilot ............................................................................................................................. Projected Pilots Needed (unrounded) ..................................................................................................................... Projected Pilots Needed (rounded) ......................................................................................................................... srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Based on these tables, District One has a projected pilot need of 13 pilots for the 2017 season. Proposed Mandatory Change Point Affecting Pilot Need However, we also propose to add a mandatory change point in the vicinity of Iroquois Lock. In the 2016 NPRM, we proposed making Iroquois Lock a mandatory change point to enhance safety by mitigating fatigue on long pilotage runs. 80 FR 54487. However, we did not implement that proposal because the GLPA and Saint Lawrence Seaway Pilots Association informed us that they needed additional time to recruit, hire, and train additional pilots to implement this change. We propose adding the language, ‘‘The Saint Lawrence River between Iroquois Lock and the area of Ogdensburg, NY, at the opening of the 2017 shipping season,’’ to the list of mandatory change points in section 401.450. The transit between Snell Lock and Cape Vincent takes about 11 hours under ideal circumstances. We want to limit a U.S. registered pilot’s assignment to 8 hours in designated waters in order to mitigate fatigue. Establishing this mandatory change point allows us to accomplish this goal. Establishing this change point will increase the number of assignments and pilots needed in Area 1. Currently, about 40 percent of the assignments change at Iroquois Lock due to the night relief working rules or a slow moving vessel. We have historically counted this as one assignment even though two pilots are used to complete this assignment. For the purposes of calculating the number of additional assignments, we assume that 40 percent of trips currently switch pilots, while 60 percent will require a new pilot assignment. The historical average number of pilot assignments in District One, Area 1, is 544 per year (Table 6). If 60 percent of these will require an VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 18, 2016 Jkt 241001 additional pilot assignment due to the new change point, 326 additional pilot assignments will be needed.16 From Table 5, pilots in this area average 95 assignments per season, resulting in the need for an additional 3.4 pilots to cover the additional assignments. Again, we round the calculated number of pilots needed to the next whole pilot to help ensure an adequate supply of pilots available for assignment. Based on these calculations, we propose four additional pilots to handle the increased number of assignments. The Saint Lawrence Seaway Pilots Association has communicated that it will have the necessary number of pilots trained at the beginning of the 2017 season. Therefore, we are proposing the addition of these pilots in the 2017 rulemaking, resulting in a total number of 17 pilots needed for District One (13 from Table 7 to handle existing demand, plus 4 to account for the Iroquois Lock change point). We have coordinated with the Saint Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC), the Great Lakes Pilots Authority, and the Saint Lawrence Seaway Pilots Association, and concluded that the addition of the change point will not require capital expenses. The SLSMC will continue to allow the U.S. and Canadian registered pilots to use the Iroquois Lock for pilot changes. This avoids the need to purchase a new pilot boat and dock, as well as additional labor for support staff. If this changes, we will require District One to provide a plan for procuring a new pilot boat, dock, and additional support staff needed for this new change point, so that these costs can be included in a ratemaking. We understand that District One plans to have all applicant pilots trained and working for the 2017 season. Therefore, Table 8 shows zero applicants, and 16 We calculated 544 average assignments per year × .6 will require a new pilot assignment. PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 544 95 5.71 6 Area 2 (hours) 573 89 6.44 7 consequently, no applicant surcharge for District One. TABLE 8—PILOTS NEEDED; PILOTS PROJECTED TO BE WORKING District One Needed pilots, period for which 2017 rates are in effect .................................... Working pilots projected for 2017 .................................. Applicant pilots for 2017 ....... 17 17 0 Determine target pilot compensation (§ 404.104). In the 2016 ratemaking, we attempted to align the compensation of U.S. registered pilots with the Canadian registered pilots of the GLPA and set a target compensation of $326,114. We are proposing to freeze target compensation for 2017 at the 2016 levels for the following reasons. First, the methodology used to align target compensation in the 2016 ratemaking used the foreign exchange rate between the Canadian and U.S. dollar to convert Canadian compensation to United States compensation. The exchange rate has changed substantially from 1.149CAD:1USD in 2014 to 1.329CAD:1USD in 2015.17 This is a change of nearly 20 percent. The volatility in exchange rates is dependent on factors external to the ratemaking, and we do not believe it is in the public interest to lower target pilot compensation by nearly 20 percent based on foreign exchange. Second, the system needs target pilot compensation stability in order to achieve and maintain workforce stability. Finally, the most challenging portion of this analysis is the conversion of Canadian benefits into roughly equivalent United States benefits. For example, the U.S. registered pilots invest their own money 17 See https://www.irs.gov/individuals/ international-taxpayers/yearly-average-currencyexchange-rates. E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM 19OCP1 72017 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules to own and operate the pilot associations, whereas the Canadian registered pilots do not. The Canadian registered pilots have a defined, government-backed pension, guaranteed time off, sick days, personal days, and medical benefits that require no out-ofpocket expenses. Our discussions with stakeholders, including the Canadian government, pilots, and industry, have highlighted the challenges of comparing benefits across international boundaries. We are not convinced that a single conversion from Canadian currency to United States currency properly accounts for the level of benefits provided to the Canadian registered pilots. We believe the most appropriate solution is to launch an independent, third-party study to examine pilot compensation and recommend a total compensation number. The Coast Guard is in the early stages of pursuing this study. While we await the results of an independent third-party study, we propose maintaining the 2016 level for target pilot compensation for this ratemaking. The calculations of target pilot compensation for District One are displayed in Table 9. TABLE 9—DISTRICT ONE TARGET PILOT COMPENSATION District One Total Designated Undesignated Target Pilot Compensation .......................................................................................................... Number of Pilots (Step 3) ............................................................................................................ $326,114 10 $326,114 7 $326,114 17 Total Target Pilot Compensation .......................................................................................... $3,261,142 $2,282,799 $5,543,941 Determine working capital fund (proposed § 404.105). We propose changing the term for this step from ‘‘Project return on investment’’ to ‘‘Determine working capital fund’’ based on several discussions with the shippers, ports, and agents. We agree with the shippers, ports, and agents that this is more than a return on the monies the pilots have invested in their infrastructure. The intent of this step is to provide the pilots with working capital for future expenses associated with capital improvements, technology investments, and future training needs, with the goal of eliminating the need for surcharges. Even though we propose changing the name of this step, we do not propose changing the calculation. We calculate the working capital fund by multiplying the 2014 average rate of return for new issues of high-grade corporate securities and Total Expenses (Adjusted Operating Expenses from Step 2 plus Total Target Pilot Compensation from Step 4). We use the Moody’s AAA bond rate information to determine the average annual rate of return for new issues of high-grade corporate securities. The 2014 average annual rate of return for new issues of high-grade corporate securities was 4.16 percent.18 The working capital fund calculation is shown in Table 10. TABLE 10—DISTRICT ONE WORKING CAPITAL FUND CALCULATION District One Total Designated Adjusted Operating Expenses (Step 2) ....................................................................................... Total Target Pilot Compensation (Step 4) ................................................................................... Total 2017 Expenses ................................................................................................................... Working Capital Fund (4.16%) .................................................................................................... Project needed revenue for next year (proposed § 404.106). Table 11 shows District One’s needed revenue, which is determined by adding the proposed § 404.102 operating expense, the proposed § 404.104 total target Undesignated $656,084 3,261,142 3,917,226 162,957 $522,279 2,282,799 2,805,078 116,691 $1,178,363 5,543,941 6,722,304 279,648 compensation, and the proposed § 404.105 working capital fund. TABLE 11—REVENUE NEEDED District One Total Designated Undesignated srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Adjusted Operating Expenses (Step 2) ....................................................................................... Total Target Pilot Compensation (Step 4) ................................................................................... Working Capital Fund (Step 5) .................................................................................................... $656,084 3,261,142 162,957 $522,279 2,282,799 116,691 $1,178,363 5,543,941 279,648 Total Revenue Needed ........................................................................................................ 4,080,183 2,921,770 7,001,952 Make initial base rate calculations (proposed § 404.107). To make our initial base rate calculations, we first establish a multi-year base period from 18 Based on Moody’s AAA corporate bonds, which can be found at: https:// research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/AAA/ downloaddata?cid=119. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 18, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 which we can draw available and reliable data on actual pilot hours E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM 19OCP1 72018 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules the same period was only up 15 percent TABLE 12—HOURS WORKED, 2007 THROUGH 2015, DISTRICT ONE— compared to our projected revenue needed. This suggested that the District Continued worked in each district’s designated and undesignated waters. For the 2017 rates, we propose using data covering 2007 through 2015. Table 12 shows calculations of the average number of bridge hours over the last 9 shipping seasons. TABLE 12—HOURS WORKED, 2007 THROUGH 2015, DISTRICT ONE District One Designated (hours) 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 5,743 6,810 5,864 4,771 5,045 4,839 Undesignated (hours) 6,667 6,853 5,529 5,121 5,377 5,649 District One Designated (hours) 2009 .......... 2008 .......... 2007 .......... Average .... Undesignated (hours) 3,511 5,829 6,099 5,390 3,947 5,298 5,929 5,597 We are monitoring bridge hours and revenue projections for the season, and there is a great deal of variation in the system. Through the end of May 2016, projected bridge hours for the entire shipping season were up 45 percent in District One compared to the 9-year average, while revenue projection for One rate continued to under-generate needed revenue. However, by the end of July 2016, projected bridge hours for the entire shipping season were up 8.2 percent as compared to the 9-year average, and revenue projection was up 16 percent as compared to projected revenue needed, which suggests slight over-generation of revenue. We will continue to monitor traffic and revenue projections throughout the shipping season to see if any additional changes are needed. Table 13 calculates new rates by dividing each association’s projected needed revenue, from § 404.106, by the average hours shown in Table 12 and rounding to the nearest whole number. TABLE 13—RATE CALCULATIONS District One Designated Revenue Needed (Step 6) ....................................................................................................................................... Average time on task 2007–2015 ........................................................................................................................... Hourly Rate .............................................................................................................................................................. We now examine the calculations of the other two pilotage districts for 2017. B. District Two Recognize previous year’s operating expenses (§ 404.101). We reviewed and accepted the accountant’s final findings $4,080,183 5,390 $757 Undesignated $2,921,770 5,597 $522 on the 2014 audits of association expenses. Table 14 shows District Two’s recognized expenses. TABLE 14—RECOGNIZED EXPENSES FOR DISTRICT TWO District Two Undesignated Operating Expenses: Other Pilotage Costs: Pilot subsistence/travel ......................................................................................................... Applicant Pilot subsistence/travel ......................................................................................... License insurance ................................................................................................................. Applicant Pilot license insurance .......................................................................................... Payroll taxes ......................................................................................................................... Applicant Pilot payroll taxes ................................................................................................. Other ..................................................................................................................................... Designated Lake Erie Reported expenses for 2014 SES to Port Huron Total $222,635 14,160 79,333 8,608 115,354 12,516 1,579 $371,059 23,600 132,221 14,346 192,257 20,860 2,632 Total other pilotage costs .............................................................................................. Pilot Boat and Dispatch Costs: Pilot boat expense ................................................................................................................ Dispatch expense ................................................................................................................. Employee benefits ................................................................................................................ Payroll taxes ......................................................................................................................... srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS $148,424 9,440 52,888 5,738 76,903 8,344 1,053 302,790 454,185 756,975 173,145 10,080 72,662 8,472 259,718 15,120 108,992 12,707 432,863 25,200 181,654 21,179 Total pilot and dispatch costs ....................................................................................... Administrative Expenses: Legal—general counsel ........................................................................................................ Legal—shared counsel (K&L Gates) .................................................................................... Legal—USCG litigation ......................................................................................................... Office rent ............................................................................................................................. Insurance .............................................................................................................................. Employee benefits ................................................................................................................ Payroll taxes ......................................................................................................................... 264,358 396,538 660,896 2,680 4,984 8,371 26,275 9,909 23,002 5,001 4,020 7,476 12,557 39,413 14,863 34,504 7,501 6,700 12,461 20,928 65,688 24,772 57,506 12,502 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 18, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM 19OCP1 72019 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE 14—RECOGNIZED EXPENSES FOR DISTRICT TWO—Continued District Two Undesignated Designated Lake Erie Reported expenses for 2014 SES to Port Huron Total Other taxes ........................................................................................................................... Depreciation/auto leasing/other ............................................................................................ Interest .................................................................................................................................. APA Dues ............................................................................................................................. Utilities .................................................................................................................................. Salaries ................................................................................................................................. Accounting/Professional fees ............................................................................................... Pilot Training ......................................................................................................................... Other ..................................................................................................................................... 21,179 17,784 3,298 8,664 15,429 46,008 9,410 0 11,343 31,769 26,677 4,948 12,996 23,144 69,013 14,115 0 17,012 52,948 44,461 8,246 21,660 38,573 115,021 23,525 0 28,355 Total Administrative Expenses ...................................................................................... Total Operating Expenses (Other Costs + Pilot Boats + Admin) ............................................... Proposed Adjustments (Independent CPA): Depreciation/auto leasing/other ............................................................................................ 213,339 780,488 320,007 1,170,729 533,346 1,951,217 3,322 4,982 8,304 TOTAL CPA ADJUSTMENTS ....................................................................................... Proposed Adjustments (Director): APA Dues ............................................................................................................................. 2015 Surcharge Adjustment* ............................................................................................... Legal—shared counsel (K&L Gates) .................................................................................... Legal—USCG litigation ......................................................................................................... 3,322 4,982 8,304 ¥1,300 ¥85,782 ¥4,984 ¥8,371 ¥1,949 ¥128,672 ¥7,476 ¥12,557 ¥3,249 ¥214,454 ¥12,461 ¥20,928 TOTAL DIRECTOR’S ADJUSTMENTS ........................................................................ ¥100,436 ¥150,655 ¥251,092 Total Operating Expenses (OpEx + Adjustments) ...................................................................... 683,374 1,025,056 1,708,429 * District Two collected $540,284 with an authorized 10% surcharge in 2015. The adjustment represents the difference between the collected amount and the $325,830 authorized in the 2015 final rule. Project next year’s operating expenses, adjusting for inflation or deflation (§ 404.102). We based our inflation adjustments on BLS data from the Consumer Price Index for the Midwest Region of the United States,19 and reports from the Federal Reserve.20 The adjustments for District Two are shown in Table 15. TABLE 15—INFLATION ADJUSTMENT, DISTRICT TWO District Two Total Undesignated Total 2015 2016 2017 Designated Operating Expenses (Step 1) ............................................................................................. Inflation Modification (@¥0.5%) ........................................................................................ Inflation Modification (@2.2%) ........................................................................................... Inflation Modification (@2.1%) ........................................................................................... $683,374 ¥3,417 14,959 14,593 $1,025,056 ¥5,125 22,438 21,890 $1,708,429 ¥8,542 37,398 36,483 Adjusted 2017 Operating Expenses ............................................................................................ 709,509 1,064,259 1,773,767 Determine number of pilots needed (§ 404.103). To determine the number of pilots needed for 2017 in District Two, we followed the same steps discussed earlier in this proposed rule for District One. The resulting calculations follow in Tables 16 through 20. TABLE 16—PILOT ASSIGNMENT CYCLE FOR DISTRICT TWO District Two srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Pilot assignment cycle Area 4 (hours) Average Through Transit Time * .............................................................................................................................. Travel ....................................................................................................................................................................... Delay ........................................................................................................................................................................ Admin ....................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Available at https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/ CUUR0200SA0?data_tool=Xgtable. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 18, 2016 Jkt 241001 20 Available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/ monetarypolicy/fomcprojtabl20160316.htm. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM 19OCP1 17.0 4.6 0.7 0.5 Area 5 (hours) 6.5 3.2 0.4 0.5 72020 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE 16—PILOT ASSIGNMENT CYCLE FOR DISTRICT TWO—Continued District Two Pilot assignment cycle Area 4 (hours) Total Assignment ..................................................................................................................................................... Mandatory Rest ....................................................................................................................................................... Pilot Cycle (hours/assignment) ................................................................................................................................ Area 5 (hours) 22.8 10 32.8 10.6 10 20.6 * Updated since 2016 to reflect average through transit time based on current speed and other conditions as provided by pilot associations. TABLE 17—CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM ASSIGNMENTS FOR DISTRICT TWO District Two Pilot assignments Area 4 Seasonal Availability Goal (hours) .......................................................................................................................... Pilot Cycle (hours/assignment) ................................................................................................................................ Max Assignments per Pilot ...................................................................................................................................... Area 5 4800 32.8 146 4800 20.6 233 TABLE 18—PROJECTED ASSIGNMENTS PER PILOT IN DISTRICT TWO District Two Assignments per pilot Area 4 Max Assignments per Pilots .................................................................................................................................... Efficiency Adjustment * ............................................................................................................................................ Projected Assignments per Pilot ............................................................................................................................. Area 5 146 0.5 73 233 0.5 117 * Recommended starting ratio per the 2013 bridge hour study (on page 23), available in the docket. TABLE 19—HISTORIC NUMBER OF ASSIGNMENTS IN DISTRICT TWO District Two Historic number of assignments Area 4 2007 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2008 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2009 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2010 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2011 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2012 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2013 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2014 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2015 ......................................................................................................................................................................... Average Assignments .............................................................................................................................................. Area 5 510 444 290 460 331 351 404 624 576 443 866 616 471 821 598 603 693 1043 946 740 TABLE 20—PROJECTED PILOTS NEEDED IN DISTRICT TWO District Two Pilots needed Area 4 srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Historic Average Assignments ................................................................................................................................. Projected Assignments per Pilot ............................................................................................................................. Projected Pilots Needed (unrounded) ..................................................................................................................... Projected Pilots Needed (rounded) ......................................................................................................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 18, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM 19OCP1 443 73 6.06 7 Area 5 740 117 6.35 7 72021 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules We round the calculated number of total pilots for District Two to the next whole pilot to help ensure that an adequate supply of pilots is available for assignment. Based on these tables, District Two has a projected need for 14 pilots for the 2017 season. At the beginning of the 2017 shipping season, they plan to have 13 working pilots and 2 applicants. We believe the second applicant is necessary to prepare for future retirements, given the extended training periods associated with new pilots. Currently, 4 of the pilots in District Two are over 62 years of age. These 4 pilots represent nearly 30 percent of the pilot strength in this association. Waiting until these pilots retire to replace them will result in significant delays. Therefore, we propose authorizing a surcharge in 2017, which we discuss in section ‘‘E. Surcharges’’ later in this preamble, to fund two applicant pilots in District Two. TABLE 21—PILOTS NEEDED; PILOTS PROJECTED TO BE WORKING—Continued District Two Applicant pilots for 2017 ....... TABLE 21—PILOTS NEEDED; PILOTS PROJECTED TO BE WORKING District Two Needed pilots, period for which 2017 rates are in effect .................................... Working pilots projected for 2017 .................................. 14 13 2 Determine target pilot compensation (§ 404.104). Similar to our discussion and proposal for District One, for the 2017 NPRM, we propose maintaining the 2016 compensation levels. Thus, target pilot compensation for 2017 would be $326,114. Total target pilot compensation for District Two is calculated in Table 22. TABLE 22—DISTRICT TWO TARGET PILOT COMPENSATION District Two Total Undesignated Designated Target Pilot Compensation .......................................................................................................... Number of Pilots (Step 3) ............................................................................................................ $326,114 6 $326,114 7 $326,114 13 Total Target Pilot Compensation .......................................................................................... $1,956,685 $2,282,799 $4,239,485 Determine working capital fund (proposed § 404.105). The 2014 average annual rate of return for new issues of high-grade corporate securities was 4.16 percent.21 We apply that rate to District Two’s projected total operating and compensation expenses (from §§ 404.102 and 404.104) to determine the allowed working capital fund for the shipping season, as shown in Table 23. TABLE 23—DISTRICT TWO WORKING CAPITAL FUND CALCULATION District Two Total Undesignated Adjusted Operating Expenses (Step 2) ....................................................................................... Total Target Pilot Compensation (Step 4) ................................................................................... Total 2017 Expenses ................................................................................................................... Working Capital Fund (4.16%) .................................................................................................... Project needed revenue for next year (proposed § 404.106). Table 24 shows District Two’s needed revenue, determined by adding the proposed § 404.102 operating expense, the proposed § 404.104 total target $709,509 1,956,685 2,666,194 110,914 Designated $1,064,259 2,282,799 3,347,059 139,238 $1,773,767 4,239,485 6,013,252 250,151 compensation, and the proposed § 404.105 working capital fund. TABLE 24—REVENUE NEEDED District Two Total Undesignated Designated $709,509 1,956,685 110,914 $1,064,259 2,282,799 139,238 $1,773,767 4,239,485 250,151 Total Revenue Needed ........................................................................................................ srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Adjusted Operating Expenses (Step 2) ....................................................................................... Total Target Pilot Compensation (Step 4) ................................................................................... Working Capital Fund (Step 5) .................................................................................................... 2,777,108 3,486,296 6,263,403 Make initial base rate calculations (proposed § 404.107). To make our initial base rate calculations, we first establish a multi-year base period from which available and reliable data for actual pilot hours worked in each district’s designated and undesignated waters can be drawn. For the 2017 rates, we propose using data covering 2007 21 Based on Moody’s AAA corporate bonds, which can be found at: https://research.stlouisfed. org/fred2/series/AAA/downloaddata?cid=119. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 18, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM 19OCP1 72022 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules through 2015. Table 25 calculates the average number of bridge hours over the last 9 shipping seasons. TABLE 25—HOURS WORKED, 2007 THROUGH 2015, DISTRICT TWO District Two Undesignated (hours) 2015 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2014 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2013 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2012 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2011 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2010 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2009 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2008 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2007 ......................................................................................................................................................................... AVERAGE ................................................................................................................................................................ We are monitoring bridge hours and revenue projections for the season, and there is a great deal of variation in the system. Through the end of May 2016, projected bridge hours for the entire shipping season were up 22 percent in District Two compared to the 9-year average, and revenue projection was up 17 percent compared to projected revenue needed. This suggested a robust correlation between traffic and revenue in District Two. However, by the end of July 2016, projected bridge hours were down 3.4 percent as compared to the 9year average, while revenue projection was up 21 percent compared to projected revenue needed, which suggests over-generation of revenue. We Designated (hours) 6,535 7,856 4,603 3,848 3,708 5,565 3,386 4,844 6,223 5,174 5,967 7,001 4,750 3,922 3,680 5,235 3,017 3,956 6,049 4,842 will continue to monitor traffic and revenue projections throughout the shipping season to see if any additional changes are needed. Table 26 calculates new rates by dividing District Two’s projected needed revenue, from § 404.106, by the average hours shown in Table 25 and rounding to the nearest whole number. TABLE 26—RATE CALCULATIONS District Two Undesignated Revenue Needed (Step 6) ....................................................................................................................................... Average time on task 2007–2015 ........................................................................................................................... Hourly Rate .............................................................................................................................................................. C. District Three Recognize previous year’s operating expenses (§ 404.101). We reviewed and accepted the accountant’s final findings on the 2014 audits of association expenses. $2,777,108 5,174 $537 Designated $3,486,296 4,842 $720 Table 27 shows District Three’s recognized expenses. TABLE 27—RECOGNIZED EXPENSES FOR DISTRICT THREE District Three Undesignated Reported Expenses for 2014 srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior Designated Total St. Mary’s River Operating Expenses: Other Pilotage Costs: Pilot subsistence/travel ......................................................................................................... Applicant pilot subsistence/travel ......................................................................................... License insurance ................................................................................................................. Payroll taxes ......................................................................................................................... Applicant pilot payroll taxes .................................................................................................. Other ..................................................................................................................................... $424,935 24,608 14,304 110,567 9,082 12,268 $141,645 8,203 4,768 36,856 3,027 4,090 $566,580 32,810 19,072 147,423 12,109 16,358 Total other pilotage costs .............................................................................................. 595,764 198,589 794,353 Pilot Boat and Dispatch Costs: Pilot boat costs ..................................................................................................................... Dispatch costs ...................................................................................................................... Payroll taxes ......................................................................................................................... 593,360 133,787 31,432 197,787 44,596 10,477 791,147 178,383 41,909 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 18, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM 19OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules 72023 TABLE 27—RECOGNIZED EXPENSES FOR DISTRICT THREE—Continued District Three Undesignated Reported Expenses for 2014 Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior Designated Total St. Mary’s River Total pilot and dispatch costs ....................................................................................... 758,579 252,860 1,011,439 Administrative Expenses: Legal—general counsel ........................................................................................................ Legal—shared counsel (K&L Gates) .................................................................................... Legal—USCG litigation ......................................................................................................... Office rent ............................................................................................................................. Insurance .............................................................................................................................. Employee benefits ................................................................................................................ Other taxes ........................................................................................................................... Depreciation/auto leasing/other ............................................................................................ Interest .................................................................................................................................. APA Dues ............................................................................................................................. Dues and subscriptions ........................................................................................................ Utilities .................................................................................................................................. Salaries ................................................................................................................................. Accounting/Professional fees ............................................................................................... Pilot Training ......................................................................................................................... Other ..................................................................................................................................... 15,386 15,900 23,422 7,425 11,050 113,890 129 28,802 2,858 20,235 3,975 33,083 95,577 27,492 0 9,318 5,129 5,300 7,807 2,475 3,683 37,964 43 9,601 953 6,745 1,325 11,028 31,859 9,164 0 3,106 20,515 21,201 31,229 9,900 14,733 151,854 173 38,403 3,811 26,980 5,300 44,111 127,437 36,656 0 12,424 Total Administrative Expenses ...................................................................................... 408,542 136,182 544,727 Total Operating Expenses (Other Costs + Pilot Boats + Admin) ............................................... 1,762,885 587,631 2,350,518 Proposed Adjustments (Independent CPA): Pilot subsistence/Travel ........................................................................................................ Payroll taxes ......................................................................................................................... Pilot boat costs ..................................................................................................................... Legal—shared counsel (K&L Gates) .................................................................................... Dues and subscriptions ........................................................................................................ Other expenses .................................................................................................................... ¥15,595 5,949 ¥62,748 ¥1,590 ¥3,975 ¥375 ¥5,198 1,983 ¥20,916 ¥530 ¥1,325 ¥125 ¥20,793 7,931 ¥83,664 ¥2,120 ¥5,300 ¥500 TOTAL CPA ADJUSTMENTS ....................................................................................... ¥78,334 ¥26,111 ¥104,445 Proposed Adjustments (Director): APA Dues ............................................................................................................................. Surcharge Adjustment * ........................................................................................................ Legal—shared counsel (K&L Gates) .................................................................................... Legal—USCG litigation ......................................................................................................... ¥3,035 ¥216,734 ¥14,310 ¥23,422 ¥1,012 ¥72,245 ¥4,770 ¥7,807 ¥4,047 ¥288,979 ¥19,080 ¥31,229 TOTAL DIRECTOR’S ADJUSTMENTS ........................................................................ ¥257,502 ¥85,834 ¥343,335 Total Operating Expenses (OpEx + Adjustments) ...................................................................... 1,427,050 475,687 1,903,738 * District Three collected $615,929 with an authorized 10% surcharge in 2015. The adjustment represents the difference between the collected amount and the authorized amount of $326,950 authorized in the 2015 final rule. Project next year’s operating expenses, adjusting for inflation or deflation (§ 404.102). We based our inflation adjustments on BLS data from the Consumer Price Index for the Midwest Region of the United States,22 and reports from the Federal Reserve.23 The adjustments for District Three are shown in Table 28. TABLE 28—INFLATION ADJUSTMENT, DISTRICT THREE District Three Total srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Undesignated Total 2015 2016 2017 Operating Expenses (Step 1) ............................................................................................. Inflation Modification (@¥0.5%) ........................................................................................ Inflation Modification (@2.2%) ........................................................................................... Inflation Modification (@2.1%) ........................................................................................... 22 Available at https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/ CUUR0200SA0?data_tool=Xgtable. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 18, 2016 Jkt 241001 $1,427,050 ¥7,135 31,238 30,474 23 Available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/ monetarypolicy/fomcprojtabl20160316.htm. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM 19OCP1 Designated $475,687 ¥2,378 10,413 10,158 $1,902,738 ¥9,514 41,651 40,632 72024 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE 28—INFLATION ADJUSTMENT, DISTRICT THREE—Continued District Three Total Undesignated Adjusted 2017 Operating Expenses ..................................................................................... Determine number of pilots needed (§ 404.103). To determine the number of pilots needed for 2017 in District Three, we followed the same steps discussed earlier in this proposed rule for Districts One and Two. The resulting Designated 1,481,627 493,879 1,975,506 calculations follow in Tables 29 through 33. TABLE 29—PILOT ASSIGNMENT CYCLE FOR DISTRICT THREE District Three Pilot assignment cycle Area 6 (hours) Average Through Transit Time * .................................................................................................. Travel ........................................................................................................................................... Delay ............................................................................................................................................ Admin ........................................................................................................................................... Total Assignment ......................................................................................................................... Mandatory Rest ........................................................................................................................... Pilot Cycle (hours/assignment) .................................................................................................... Area 7 (hours) 22.5 2.4 1 0.5 26.4 10 36.4 Area 8 (hours) 7.1 3.6 0.3 0.5 11.5 10 21.5 21.6 3.7 3.3 0.5 29.1 10 39.1 * Although transit times in Districts One and Two have been updated based on actual conditions, no similar change was required to reflect transit times in District Three. TABLE 30—CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM ASSIGNMENTS FOR DISTRICT THREE District Three Pilot assignments Area 6 Seasonal Availability Goal (hours) .............................................................................................. Pilot Cycle (hours/assignment) .................................................................................................... Max Assignments per Pilot .......................................................................................................... Area 7 4,800 36.4 132 Area 8 4,800 21.5 223 4,800 39.1 123 TABLE 31—PROJECTED ASSIGNMENTS PER PILOT IN DISTRICT THREE District Three Assignments per pilot Area 6 Max Assignments per Pilots ........................................................................................................ Efficiency Adjustment * ................................................................................................................ Projected Assignments per Pilot ................................................................................................. Area 7 132 0.5 66 Area 8 223 0.5 112 123 0.5 61 * Recommended starting ratio per the 2013 bridge hour study (on page 23), available in the docket. TABLE 32—HISTORIC NUMBER OF ASSIGNMENTS IN DISTRICT THREE District Three Historic number of assignments srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Area 6 2007 ............................................................................................................................................. 2008 ............................................................................................................................................. 2009 ............................................................................................................................................. 2010 ............................................................................................................................................. 2011 ............................................................................................................................................. 2012 ............................................................................................................................................. 2013 ............................................................................................................................................. 2014 ............................................................................................................................................. 2015 ............................................................................................................................................. Average Assignments .................................................................................................................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 18, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM Area 7 681 423 352 547 460 436 464 729 644 526 19OCP1 Area 8 794 309 231 352 228 267 315 426 412 370 478 252 275 338 223 243 322 575 421 347 72025 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE 33—PROJECTED PILOTS NEEDED IN DISTRICT THREE District Three Pilots needed Area 6 Historic Average Assignments ..................................................................................................... Projected Assignments per Pilot ................................................................................................. Projected Pilots Needed (unrounded) ......................................................................................... Projected Pilots Needed (rounded) ............................................................................................. We round the calculated number of pilots needed by Area to the next whole pilot to help ensure an adequate supply of pilots are available for assignments. Based on these tables, District Three has a projected pilot need of 18 pilots for the 2017 season. However, at the beginning of the 2017 shipping season, they plan to have 15 working and registered pilots supplemented by 7 applicants. We believe the applicants are necessary to prepare for future retirements given the extended training periods associated with new pilots. Currently, 6 of the pilots who are trained or registered in District Three are over 61 years of age. These 6 pilots represent 30 percent of the current pilot 526 66 7.98 8 strength for District Three, which is already less than the 18 pilots projected to be needed in 2017. If we wait until these pilots retire to begin replacing them, the system will experience significant delays due to a lack of available pilots. Therefore, we propose authorizing a surcharge, which we discuss in section E, below, to fund seven applicant pilots in District Three. TABLE 34—PILOTS NEEDED; PILOTS PROJECTED TO BE WORKING District Three Needed pilots, period for which 2017 rates are in effect .................................... Area 7 18 Area 8 370 112 3.32 4 347 61 5.66 6 TABLE 34—PILOTS NEEDED; PILOTS PROJECTED TO BE WORKING—Continued District Three Working pilots projected for 2017 .................................. Applicant pilots for 2017 ....... 15 7 Determine target pilot compensation (§ 404.104). Similar to our discussion and proposal for Districts One and Two, we propose maintaining the 2016 compensation levels. Thus, target pilot compensation for 2017 would be $326,114. Total target pilot compensation for District Three is calculated in Table 35. TABLE 35—DISTRICT THREE TARGET PILOT COMPENSATION District Three Total Undesignated Designated Target Pilot Compensation .......................................................................................................... Number of Pilots (Step 3) ............................................................................................................ $326,114 11 $326,114 4 $326,114 15 Total Target Pilot Compensation .......................................................................................... $3,587,256 $1,304,457 $4,891,713 Determine working capital fund (proposed § 404.105). The 2014 average annual rate of return for new issues of high-grade corporate securities was 4.16 percent.24 We apply that rate to District Three’s projected total operating and compensation expenses (from §§ 404.102 and 404.104) to determine the allowed working capital fund for the shipping season, as shown in Table 36. TABLE 36—DISTRICT THREE WORKING CAPITAL FUND CALCULATION District Three Total Undesignated srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Adjusted Operating Expenses (Step 2) ....................................................................................... Total Target Pilot Compensation (Step 4) ................................................................................... Total 2016 Expenses ................................................................................................................... Working Capital Fund (4.16%) .................................................................................................... Project needed revenue for next year (proposed § 404.106). Table 37 shows District Three’s needed revenue, which is determined by adding the proposed § 404.102 operating expense, the proposed § 404.104 total target 24 Based on Moody’s AAA corporate bonds, which can be found at: https:// $1,481,627 3,587,256 5,068,883 210,866 research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/AAA/ downloaddata?cid=119. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 18, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Designated $493,879 1,304,457 1,798,336 74,811 $1,975,506 4,891,713 6,867,219 285,676 compensation, and the proposed § 404.105 working capital fund. E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM 19OCP1 72026 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE 37—REVENUE NEEDED District Three Total Undesignated Designated Adjusted Operating Expenses (Step 2) ....................................................................................... Total Target Pilot Compensation (Step 4) ................................................................................... Working Capital Fund (Step 5) .................................................................................................... $1,481,627 3,587,256 210,866 $493,879 1,304,457 74,811 $1,975,506 4,891,713 285,676 Total Revenue Needed ........................................................................................................ 5,279,748 1,873,147 7,152,895 Make initial base rate calculations (proposed § 404.107). To make our initial base rate calculations, we first establish a multi-year base period from which available and reliable data for actual pilot hours worked in each district’s designated and undesignated waters can be drawn. For the 2017 rates, we propose using data covering 2007 through 2015. Table 38 calculates the average number of bridge hours over the last nine shipping seasons. TABLE 38—HOURS WORKED, 2007 THROUGH 2015, DISTRICT THREE District Three Undesignated (hours) 2015 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2014 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2013 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2012 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2011 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2010 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2009 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2008 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2007 ......................................................................................................................................................................... Average .................................................................................................................................................................... We are monitoring bridge hours and revenue projections for the season, and there is a great deal of variation in the system. Through the end of May 2016, projected bridge hours for the entire shipping season were down 10 percent in District Three as compared to the 9-year average, while revenue projection through May 2016 was up 9 percent compared to projected revenue needed. This suggested that the District Three rate was over-generating revenue. However, by the end of July 2016, projected bridge hours were up 23 percent as compared to the 9-year average, and revenue projection was up 19 percent as compared to projected revenue needed, which suggested a more robust correlation between traffic and revenue in District Three. We continue to monitor projections so that we can make changes if needed. In particular, we are considering removing the maximum Designated (hours) 22,824 25,833 17,115 15,906 16,012 20,211 12,520 14,287 24,811 18,835 2,696 3,835 2,631 2,163 1,678 2,461 1,820 2,286 5,944 2,835 ratio between designated and undesignated charges, which we established last year in § 404.107(b), if it appears to be artificially raising undesignated rates and lowering designated rates. Table 39 calculates new rates by dividing District Three’s projected needed revenue, from § 404.106, by the average hours shown in Table 38 and rounding to the nearest whole number. TABLE 39—RATE CALCULATIONS District Three Undesignated Revenue Needed (Step 6) ....................................................................................................................................... Average time on task 2007–2015 ........................................................................................................................... Hourly Rate .............................................................................................................................................................. srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS D. Other Changes Affecting Ratemaking Review and finalize rates (§ 404.108). In addition to the changes described earlier, we propose five additional changes for 2017 that will equally impact the pilot associations. First, we propose adding a requirement to the surcharge regulation in § 401.401. We propose that once a pilot association collects the amount of money allowable VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 18, 2016 Jkt 241001 for recoupment, which is designated by the final rule, the pilot association’s authorization to collect a surcharge for the remainder of that shipping season will terminate. This proposed change will prevent excess amounts from being recouped and should eliminate the need to make adjustments to the operating expenses for the following year. Turning to surcharges for 2017, we find that PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 $5,279,748 18,835 $280 Designated $1,873,147 2,835 $661 allowing associations to recoup necessary and reasonable training expenses, both to help achieve a full complement of needed pilots and to ensure skill maintenance and development for current pilots, will facilitate safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage, and is good cause for imposing a necessary and reasonable temporary E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM 19OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules surcharge, as authorized by 46 CFR 401.401. In addition, we propose amending the cancellation charge provision in § 401.420(b) to ensure that it explicitly states that the minimum charge for a cancellation is 4 hours plus necessary and reasonable travel expenses for travel that occurs. Based on the feedback we received from the pilot associations, we believe the current language is not specific enough and will continue to cause confusion, as indicated by inquiries from both pilot associations and shipping agents. We view this charge as necessary to emphasize that pilots are a limited resource and encourage their efficient use. We are also removing ‘‘after that pilot has begun travelling to the designated pickup place’’ from § 401.420(b) to eliminate any confusion about the 4-hour minimum charge. To expedite the recoupment of expenses, we also propose to adjust § 403.300(c) to require submission of an unqualified audit prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and all accompanying notes by January 31st of each year. This would require the pilot associations to complete their financial statements by January 24th in order to meet the January 31st deadline. Existing § 403.300(c) requires submission of an unqualified audit by April 1 of each year. Our goal is to allow our independent auditors to begin work much sooner and complete work on the third party audit in time for it to be used for the publication of the proposed rule that summer. This timeline would remove 1 year from the current 3-year gap between the actual expenses and their recoupment in the rate. We request comments regarding the feasibility of completing the required audits by January 31, and if it is not feasible, an explanation as to why and what other date would be appropriate. We also propose the addition of new language in § 404.104 that would allow the Director to set compensation for a 10-year period to a compensation benchmark. The compensation benchmark would be based on the most relevant available non-proprietary information such as wage and benefit information from other pilotage groups. In the years in which a compensation benchmark is not set, target pilot compensation will be adjusted for inflation by using the CPI for the Midwest region or by a pre-determined amount that would be published prior to use. We believe this will promote target compensation stability and rate predictability. The proposed changes to §§ 403.300(c) and 404.104 should assist the pilot associations with recruitment and retention and help the various stakeholders forecast budgets and pricing. These changes would apply only to the calculation of target pilot compensation; we do not propose any changes to the formula in which we use target pilot compensation to calculate the rate. Finally, we seek public comment on how we should handle weighting factors in 46 CFR 401.400, which outlines the calculations for determining the weighting factors for a vessel subject to compulsory pilotage. This calculation determines which multiplication factor will be applied to the pilotage fees. We are not proposing any action in this proposed rule because we do not have sufficient data to make an informed decision. The first option is to maintain the status quo. This would maintain the current weighting factors and continue to leave them out of the ratemaking calculation. The second option for weighting factors is to remove them completely from the regulations and charge every vessel equally for pilotage service. This aligns with the current compensation 72027 model that a pilot should be compensated equally for their expertise across all areas of the Great Lakes. The ship’s dimensions do not impact the experience and skill level of the pilot providing the service. The third option is to incorporate weighting factors into the rulemaking through an additional step that examines and projects their impact on the revenues of the pilot associations. This might enable us to better forecast revenue, but it would add another variable to the projections in the rate methodology. We request public comment specifically on which of these three options should be implemented for future ratemakings; in your comment, please explain why the option should be implemented. E. Surcharges Turning to surcharges for 2017, we find that allowing associations to recoup necessary and reasonable training expenses, both to help achieve a full complement of needed pilots and to ensure skill maintenance and development for current pilots, will facilitate safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage, and is good cause for imposing a necessary and reasonable temporary surcharge, as authorized by 46 CFR 401.401. For 2017, we anticipate that there will be two applicant pilots in District Two, and seven applicant pilots in District Three. Based on historic pilot costs, the stipend, per diem, and training costs for each applicant pilot are approximately $150,000 per shipping season. Thus, we estimate that the training expenses that each association will incur will be approximately $300,000 in District Two and $1,050,000 in District Three. Table 40 derives the proposed percentage surcharge for each district by comparing this estimate to each district’s projected needed revenue. TABLE 40—SURCHARGE CALCULATION BY DISTRICT District One Projected Needed Revenue (§ 404.106) ..................................................................................... Anticipated Training Expenses .................................................................................................... Surcharge Needed * ..................................................................................................................... $7,001,952 $0 0% District Two $6,263,403 $300,000 5% District Three $7,152,895 $1,050,000 15% srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS * All surcharge calculations are rounded up to the nearest whole percentage. These surcharges would only be collected until the target amount is reached. This should eliminate the need to make adjustments to the operating expenses for the following year. We will ensure that these expenses are not VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 18, 2016 Jkt 241001 included in future rulemakings in order to avoid double billing. VI. Regulatory Analyses We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or Executive orders. A. Regulatory Planning and Review Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess the costs and E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM 19OCP1 72028 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules 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 effects, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule has not been designated a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this proposed rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). We developed an analysis of the costs and benefits of the proposed rule to ascertain its probable impacts on industry. We consider all estimates and analysis in this Regulatory Analysis (RA) to be subject to change in consideration of public comments. Table 41 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 42). TABLE 41—REGULATORY CHANGES WITH NO COST OR COSTS CAPTURED IN THE PROPOSED RATE CHANGE Proposed changes Description Basis for no costs Benefits Mandatory change point on the Saint Lawrence River between Iroquois Lock and the area of Ogdensburg, NY. Propose a mandatory change point on the Saint Lawrence River between Iroquois Lock and the area of Ogdensburg, NY that would become effective at the beginning of the 2017 shipping season. The addition of the change point will not require capital expenses. The only cost is for the new pilots, who are accounted for in the base pilotage rates and training surcharges (Table 43). Demand model ................................ Determine pilot demand using seasonal demand instead of peak demand. Pilot staffing costs are accounted for in the base pilotage rates (Table 43). Cancellation charges ....................... Propose amending the cancellation charge provision in § 401.120(b) to ensure it explicitly states that the minimum charge for a cancellation is 4 hours plus necessary and reasonable travel expenses for that travel that occurs. Propose adding a requirement to the surcharge regulation in § 401.401 to stop collecting funds once the assigned value has been recovered for the season. Propose to adjust § 403.300(c) to move the audit deadline from April 1 to January 31 of each year. Clarification of existing text and current practice. Staffing additional pilots will help meet the increased demand for pilots to handle the additional assignments anticipated to be caused by the new change point. Additional pilots due to this change point should also serve to mitigate any potential delays and any potential fatigue that would occur from high pilotage demand without them. More accurate estimate of the number of assignments we reasonably expect pilots to be able to complete during the 9-month shipping season instead of during peak pilotage demand. —Clarifies the current language to eliminate any potential confusion on the minimum charge for cancellations. —Clarification of the minimum charge ensures the recognition of pilots as a limited resource and encourages efficient use. Prevents excess amounts from being recouped from industry via the following year’s rule. Rename Return on Investment ....... Propose renaming Return on Investment as Working Capital Fund. Set Pilot compensation for a 10year period. Propose the addition of new language in § 404.104 that would allow the Director to set compensation for a 10-year period to a compensation benchmark. Clarifies the intent of the fund but does not change the method of calculation. Costs are included in the total revenues. Pilot staffing costs are accounted for in the base pilotage rates. Surcharge provision ........................ srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Audit deadline ................................. The following table summarizes the affected population, costs, and benefits of the regulatory requirements that are VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 18, 2016 Jkt 241001 Ensures the goal surcharge amount built into the year’s rulemaking will not be surpassed, and prevents additional costs on industry. Adjusts the deadline for audit submission, but does not add additional work. Allows independent auditors to begin work sooner and complete the audit in time for the proposed rule. This would eliminate 1 year from the current 3-year lag in expenses being recognized in the rate. Clarifies the intent of this fund. Promotes target compensation stability and rate predictability. expected to have costs associated with them. PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM 19OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules 72029 TABLE 42—REGULATORY ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF RATE CHANGE Description Affected population Rate Changes ..... srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Proposed change Under the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960, the Coast Guard is required to review and adjust base pilotage rates annually. Owners and operators of 230 vessels journeying the Great Lakes system annually. The Coast Guard is required to review and adjust pilotage rates on the Great Lakes annually. See Parts III and IV of this preamble for detailed discussions of the Coast Guard’s 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 are adjusting the pilotage rates for the 2017 shipping season to generate for each district sufficient revenues 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 2017. For 2017, we anticipate that there will be no applicant pilots in District One, two applicant pilots in District Two, and seven applicant pilots in District Three. With a training cost of $150,000 per pilot, we estimate that Districts Two and Three will incur $300,000 and $1,050,000 in training expenses, respectively. These temporary surcharges would generate a combined $1,350,000 in revenue for the pilotage associations. Therefore, after accounting for the implementation of the temporary surcharges across all three districts, the payments made by shippers during the 2017 shipping season are estimated to be approximately $2,664,574 more than the payments that were estimated in 2016 (Table 43).25 25 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 18, 2016 Jkt 241001 A draft regulatory analysis follows. The purpose of this rulemaking is to propose new base pilotage rates and surcharges for training. The last full ratemaking was concluded in 2016. 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 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 Statesflagged vessels not operating on register and Canadian ‘‘lakers,’’ which account for most commercial shipping on the Great Lakes, are not required to have pilots by 46 U.S.C. 9302. However, these U.S.- and Canadian-flagged lakers may voluntarily choose to have a pilot. We used 2013–2015 billing information from the 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. Using that period, we found that a total of 407 unique vessels used pilotage services over the years 2013 through 2015. 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 65 invoices per year. Of these vessels, 383 were foreign-flagged vessels and 24 were U.S.-flagged. The U.S.-flagged vessels are not required to have a pilot per 46 U.S.C. 9302, but they can voluntarily choose to have a pilot. U.S.-flagged vessels may opt to have a pilot for varying reasons such as temporary surcharges applied to traffic in Districts One, Two, and Three. PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Costs Benefits $2,664,574 —New rates cover an association’s necessary and reasonable operating expenses. —Provides fair compensation, adequate training, and sufficient rest periods for pilots. —Ensures the association makes enough money to fund future improvements. unfamiliarity with designated waters and ports, or for insurance purposes. 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 2013 through 2015 is the best representation of vessels estimated to be affected by this rule’s proposed rate. From the years 2013– 2015, an average of 230 vessels used pilotage services annually.26 On average, 219 of these vessels are foreignflagged vessels and 11 are U.S.-flagged vessels that voluntarily opt into the pilotage service. Costs The rate changes resulting from the new methodology would generate costs on industry in the form of higher payments for shippers. We calculate the cost in two ways in this RA, as the total cost to shippers and as a percentage of vessel operating costs. Total Cost to Shippers We estimate the effect of the rate changes on shippers by comparing the total projected revenues needed to cover costs in 2016 with the total projected revenues to cover costs in 2017, including any temporary surcharges authorized by the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard sets pilotage rates so that the pilot associations receive enough revenue to cover their necessary and reasonable expenses. The shippers pay these rates when they have a pilot as required by 46 U.S.C. 9302. Therefore, the aggregate payments of the shippers to the pilot associations are equal to the projected necessary revenues for the pilot associations. The revenues each year represent the total costs that shippers must pay for pilotage services, and the change in the revenues from the previous year is the additional cost to shippers from this proposed rulemaking. 26 Some vessels entered the Great Lakes multiple years, affecting the average number of unique vessels utilizing pilotage services in any given year. E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM 19OCP1 72030 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules The effect of the rate changes on shippers is estimated from the District pilotage projected revenues and the proposed surcharges described in Section V of this preamble. We estimate that for the 2017 shipping season, the projected revenue needed for all three Districts is $20,418,252. Temporary surcharges on traffic in District Two and District Three would be applied for the duration of the 2017 season in order for the pilotage associations to recover training expenses incurred for applicant pilots. We estimate that the pilotage associations require an additional $300,000 and $1,050,000 in revenue for applicant training expenses in Districts Two and Three, respectively. This is an additional cost to shippers of $1,350,000 during the 2017 shipping season. Adding the projected revenue to the proposed surcharges, we estimate the pilotage associations’ total projected needed revenue for 2017 would be $21,768,252. The 2017 projected revenues for the districts are from Tables 11, 24, and 37 of this preamble. To estimate the additional cost to shippers from this proposed rule, we compare the 2017 total projected revenues to the 2016 projected revenues. Because the Coast Guard must 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 2016 rulemaking,27 we estimated the total projected revenue needed for 2016, including surcharges, is $19,103,678. This is the best approximation of 2016 revenues as, at the time of this publication, we do not have enough audited data available for the 2016 shipping season to revise these projections. Table 43 shows the revenue projections for 2016 and 2017 and details the additional cost increases to shippers by area and district as a result of the rate changes and temporary surcharges on traffic in Districts One, Two, and Three. TABLE 43—EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED RULE BY AREA AND DISTRICT [$U.S.; Non-discounted] Revenue needed in 2016 Area 2016 Temporary surcharge Total 2016 Projected revenue Revenue needed in 2017 2017 Temporary surcharge Total 2017 Projected revenue Additional costs of this proposed rule Total, District One ........ Total, District Two ........ Total, District Three ..... $5,354,945 5,629,641 6,469,092 $450,000 300,000 900,000 $5,804,945 5,929,641 7,369,092 $7,001,953 6,263,404 7,152,895 $0 300,000 1,050,000 $7,001,953 6,563,404 8,202,895 $1,197,008 633,763 833,803 System Total ......... 17,453,678 1,650,000 19,103,678 20,418,252 1,350,000 21,768,252 2,664,574 * Values may not sum due to rounding. The resulting difference between the projected revenue in 2016 and the projected revenue in 2017 is the annual change in payments from shippers to pilots as a result of the rate change imposed by this proposed rule. The effect of the rate change in this proposed rule on 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, District Two, and District Three experiencing an increase in payments of $1,197,008, $633,763, and $833,803, respectively, from the previous year. The overall adjustment in payments would be an increase in payments by shippers of approximately $2,664,574 across all three districts (a 14 percent increase over 2016). Because the Coast Guard must review and prescribe rates for Great Lakes Pilotage annually, the effects are estimated as single year costs rather than annualized over a 10-year period. Table 44 shows the difference in revenue by component from 2016 to 2017.28 Although per pilot compensation is unchanged from the 2016 final rule, the majority of the increase in revenue is due to the addition of 8 pilots that were authorized in the 2016 rule. These eight pilots are currently training this year and will become full-time working pilots at the beginning of the 2017 shipping season. These pilots will be compensated at the target compensation established in the 2016 final rule ($326,114 per pilot). The addition of these pilots to full working status accounts for $2,608,913 of the increase. The remaining amount is attributed to inflation of operating expenses, working capital fund, and differences in the surcharges from 2016. TABLE 44—DIFFERENCE IN REVENUE BY COMPONENT Revenue needed in 2016 Revenue component Revenue needed in 2017 Difference (2017 revenue ¥2016 revenue) $4,677,518 12,066,226 709,934 $4,927,636 14,675,139 815,475 $250,118 2,608,913 105,541 Total Revenue Needed, without Surcharge ................................................................... Surcharge .............................................................................................................................. srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Adjusted Operating Expenses ............................................................................................... Total Target Pilot Compensation ........................................................................................... Working Capital Fund ............................................................................................................ 17,453,678 1,650,000 20,418,250 1,350,000 2,964,572 ¥300,000 Total Revenue Needed, with Surcharge ........................................................................ 19,103,678 21,768,252 2,664,574 * Values may not sum due to rounding. 27 2016 projected revenues are from the 2016 rulemaking, 81 FR 11937, Figures 31 and 32. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 18, 2016 Jkt 241001 28 The 2016 projected revenues are from the 2016 rulemaking, 81 FR 11934, Figures 24 and 28. The PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 2017 projected revenues are from Tables 11, 24, 37, and 40 of this NPRM. E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM 19OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Pilotage Rates as a Percentage of Vessel Operating Costs To estimate the impact of U.S. pilotage costs on the foreign vessels affected by the rate adjustment, we looked at the pilotage costs as a percentage of a vessel’s costs for an entire voyage. The part 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 2013–2015 vessel arrival data from the Coast Guard’s Ship Arrival Notification System and pilotage billing data from the GLPMS. A random sample of 50 arrivals was taken from GLPMS data. To estimate the impact of pilotage costs on the costs of an entire trip, we estimated the length of each one way trip. We used the vessel name and the date of the arrival to find the last port of call before entering the Great Lakes system. The date of the departure from this port was used as the start date of the trip. To find the end date of the trip we used GLPMS data to find all the pilotage charges associated with this vessel during this trip in the Great Lakes system. The end date of the one way trip was taken as the last pilotage charge before beginning the trip to exit the system. We estimated the total operating cost by multiplying the number of days for each by the 2015 average daily operating cost and added this to the total pilotage costs from GLPMS for each trip. In 2015 the average daily operating costs (excluding fixed costs) for Great Lakes bulkers and tankers ranged roughly from $5,191 to $7,879.29 The total pilotage charges for each trip were updated to the 2016 rates using the average rate increases in the Great Lakes Pilotage Rates 2013–2016 Annual Review and Adjustments final rules.30 The total updated pilotage charges for each trip were then divided by the total operating cost of the trip. We found that for a vessel’s one-way trips, the U.S. pilotage costs could account for approximately 16.99 percent 31 of the total operating costs for a foreign vessel’s voyage using 2016 rates. We also estimated the impact of the rate increase in this proposed rule. We took the same 50 trips and updated the pilotage costs to the proposed 2017 rates (average increase of 17 percent). With this proposed rule’s rates for 2017, pilotage costs are estimated to account for 19.11 percent of total operating costs, or a 2.2 percentage point increase 32 over the current cost. The total operating costs do not include the fixed costs of the vessels. If these costs are included in the total costs, the pilotage rates as a percentage of total costs would be lower. 29 ‘‘Ship operating costs: Current and future trends,’’ Richard Grenier, Moore Stephens LLP, December 2015. The 2015 weighted average operating cost is estimated at $5,191 for a handysize bulker, $5,771 for a handymax bulker, and $7,879 for a product tanker. These costs include only the costs of operating and do not include any fixed costs of the vessels (such as amortization of vessel construction costs). The operating costs include crew wages, provisions, other crew costs, lubricating oils and store costs, spares, repair and maintenance, P&I insurance, marine insurance, registration costs, management fees, and sundry expenses. 30 The average percentage changes in the rates for 2013–2016, were 1.87%, 2.5%, 10%, and 12%, respectively. 31 For the random sample of 50 arrivals, the average of the pilotage costs as a percentage of the total operating costs was 16.9%. The percentages ranged from a low of 3.2% to a high of 35.2%. 32 19.1% of total operating costs in 2017—16.9% of total operating costs in 2016 = 2.2% incremental increase of pilotage costs as a percentage of total operating costs. 33 See https://www.manta.com/. 34 See https://resource.referenceusa.com/. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 18, 2016 Jkt 241001 Benefits This proposed rule would allow the Coast Guard to meet the requirements in 46 U.S.C. 9303 to review the rates for pilotage services on the Great Lakes. The rate changes would promote safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage service on the Great Lakes by ensuring rates cover an association’s operating expenses; provide fair pilot compensation, adequate training, and sufficient rest periods for pilots; and ensures the association makes enough money to fund future improvements. The rate changes will also help recruit and retain pilots, which will ensure a sufficient number of pilots to meet peak shipping demand, which would help reduce delays caused by pilot shortages. The proposed amendment of the cancellation charge in § 401.120(b) would prevent confusion and help ensure that it explicitly states that the minimum charge for a cancellation is 4 hours. The proposed limitation to the surcharge regulation in § 401.401 would prevent excess amounts from being recouped via the following year’s rule. The proposed adjustment to § 403.300(c) to require submission of an unqualified audit by January 31st of each year would allow our independent auditors to begin work much sooner and complete work on the third party audit in time to be used for the publication of the proposed rule that summer. This timeline would remove 1 year from the PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 72031 current 3-year gap between the actual expenses and their recoupment in the rate. The proposed changes to § 404.104 will promote target compensation stability and rate predictability. The proposed changes to §§ 403.300(c) and 404.104 should assist the pilot associations with recruitment and retention and help the various stakeholders forecast budgets and pricing. 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 GLPMS and we reviewed business revenue and size data provided by publicly available sources such as MANTA 33 and ReferenceUSA.34 As described in Section VI.A of this preamble, Regulatory Planning and Review, we found that a total of 407 unique vessels used pilotage services over the years 2013–2015. These vessels are owned by 119 entities. We found that of the 119 entities that own or operate vessels engaged in trade on the Great Lakes affected by this proposed rule, 104 are foreign entities that operate primarily outside of the United States. The remaining 15 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 35 to determine how many of these companies are small entities. Table 45 shows the NAICS codes of the U.S. entities and the small entity standard size established by the Small Business Administration. 35 Source: https://www.sba.gov/contracting/ getting-started-contractor/make-sure-you-meet-sbasize-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. E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM 19OCP1 72032 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE 45—NAICS CODES AND SMALL ENTITIES SIZE STANDARDS NAICS srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 238910 441222 483113 483211 483212 487210 488320 488330 488510 .................................................... .................................................... .................................................... .................................................... .................................................... .................................................... .................................................... .................................................... .................................................... Site Preparation Contractors ................................................................................. Boat Dealers .......................................................................................................... Coastal & Great Lakes Freight Transportation ...................................................... Inland Water Freight Transportation ...................................................................... Inland Water Passenger Transportation ................................................................ Scenic & Sightseeing Transportation, Water ......................................................... Marine Cargo Handling .......................................................................................... Navigational Services to Shipping ......................................................................... Freight Transportation 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 total employees. We expect no adverse effect to these entities from this proposed rule because all associations receive enough revenue to balance the projected expenses associated with the projected number of bridge hours and pilots. We did not find any small not-forprofit 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, the Coast Guard certifies 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 18, 2016 Small business size standard Description Jkt 241001 qualifies, as well as 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. Todd Haviland, Director, Great Lakes Pilotage, Commandant (CG– WWM–2), Coast Guard; telephone 202– 372–2037, email Todd.A.Haviland@ uscg.mil, 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 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 Executive Order 13132, PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 $15 million. $32.5 million. 750 employees. 750 employees. 500 employees. $7.5 million. $38.5 million. $38.5 million. $15 million. 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 that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows. Congress directed the Coast Guard to establish ‘‘rates and charges for pilotage services.’’ 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 Executive Order 13132. While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel’s obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that State and local governments may have in making regulatory determinations. Additionally, for rules with implications and preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs agencies to consult with State and local governments during the rulemaking process. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 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 E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM 19OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules 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 Executive Order 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 Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. I. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 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. srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS J. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 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 Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under that Executive Order because it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. 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 Executive Order 13211. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 18, 2016 Jkt 241001 72033 L. Technical Standards 46 CFR Part 404 The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272, note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the 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. Great Lakes, Navigation (water), Seamen. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 46 CFR parts 401, 403, and 404 as follows: M. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 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 environmental analysis checklist 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 is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, and figure 2–1, paragraph 34(a) of the Instruction. Paragraph 34(a) pertains to minor regulatory changes that are editorial or procedural in nature. This proposed rule adjusts rates in accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory mandates. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. 46 CFR Part 401 Administrative practice and procedure, Great Lakes, Navigation (water), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen. 46 CFR Part 403 Great Lakes, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen, Uniform System of Accounts. Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 PART 401—GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE REGULATIONS 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). ■ 2. Revise § 401.401 to read as follows: § 401.401 Surcharges. To facilitate safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage, and for good cause, the Director may authorize surcharges on any rate or charge authorized by this subpart. Surcharges must be proposed for prior public comment and may not be authorized for more than 1 year. Once the approved amount has been received, the pilot association is not authorized to collect any additional funds under the surcharge authority and must cease such collections for the remainder of that shipping season. ■ 3. Revise § 401.405(a) to read as follows: § 401.405 Pilotage rates and charges. (a) The hourly rate for pilotage service on— (1) The St. Lawrence River is $757; (2) Lake Ontario is $522; (3) Lake Erie is $537; (4) The navigable waters from Southeast Shoal to Port Huron, MI is $720; (5) Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior is $280; and (6) The St. Mary’s River is $661. * * * * * ■ 4. Revise § 401.420(b) to read as follows: § 401.420 Cancellation, delay, or interruption in rendition of services. * List of Subjects PO 00000 Title 46—Shipping Sfmt 4702 * * * * (b) When an order for a U.S. pilot’s service is cancelled, the vessel can be charged for the pilot’s reasonable travel expenses for travel that occurred to and from the pilot’s base, and the greater of— (1) Four hours; or (2) The time of cancellation and the time of the pilot’s scheduled arrival, or the pilot’s reporting for duty as ordered, whichever is later. * * * * * E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM 19OCP1 72034 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules 5. Amend § 401.450 as follows: a. Redesignate paragraphs (b) through (j) as paragraphs (c) through (k), respectively; and ■ b. Add new paragraph (b) to read as follows: ■ ■ § 401.450 Pilotage change points. must electronically submit that report with any associated settlement statements and all accompanying notes to the Director by January 31. PART 404—GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE RATEMAKING 8. The authority citation for part 404 continues to read as follows: * * * * (b) The Saint Lawrence River between Iroquois Lock and the area of Ogdensburg, NY beginning January 31, 2017; * * * * * ■ PART 403—GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE UNIFORM ACCOUNTING SYSTEM ■ * Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 2104(a), 9303, 9304; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(92.a), (92.f). 7. Revise § 403.300(c) to read as follows: ■ § 403.300 Financial reporting requirements. srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS * * * * (c) By January 24 of each year, each association must obtain an unqualified audit report for the preceding year that is audited and prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles by an independent certified public accountant. Each association VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Oct 18, 2016 Jkt 241001 § 404.104 Ratemaking step 4: Determine target pilot compensation benchmark. § 404.103 Ratemaking step 3: Determine number of pilots needed. At least once every 10 years, the Director will set a base target pilot compensation benchmark using the most relevant available non-proprietary information. In years in which a base compensation benchmark is not set, target pilot compensation will be adjusted for inflation using the CPI for the Midwest region or a published predetermined amount. The Director determines each pilotage association’s total target pilot compensation by multiplying individual target pilot compensation by the number of pilots projected under § 404.103(d). * 6. The authority citation for part 403 continues to read as follows: ■ * other sources, that the Director determines to be available and reliable. * * * * * ■ 10. Revise § 404.104 to read as follows: § 404.105 Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 2104(a), 9303, 9304; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(92.a), (92.f). 9. Amend § 404.103 as follows: a. In paragraph (a), following the words ‘‘dividing each area’s’’ remove the word ‘‘peak’’ and add, in its place, the word ‘‘seasonal’’; and ■ b. Revise paragraph (b) to read as follows: ■ * * * * (b) 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 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 [Amended] 11. In § 404.105, remove the words ‘‘return on investment’’ and add, in their place, the words ‘‘working capital fund.’’ ■ Dated: October 13, 2016. Michael D. Emerson, Director, Marine Transportation Systems, U.S. Coast Guard. [FR Doc. 2016–25254 Filed 10–18–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM 19OCP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 19, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72011-72034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25254]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 401, 403, and 404

[USCG-2016-0268]
RIN 1625-AC34

Great Lakes Pilotage Rates--2017 Annual Review

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes new base pilotage rates and
surcharges using the methodology instituted in 2016. The changes would
take effect 30 days after publication of a final rule. Rates for
pilotage services on the Great Lakes were last revised in March 2016
and, by law, must be reviewed annually.

DATES: Comments and related material must be submitted to the online
docket via www.regulations.gov on or before December 19, 2016. Requests
for a public meeting must be submitted by November 18, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2016-0268 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
II. Abbreviations
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Background
V. Discussion of Proposed Rate Changes
A. District One
B. District Two
C. District Three
D. Other Changes Affecting Ratemaking
E. Surcharges
VI. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Planning and Review

[[Page 72012]]

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 document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that Web site'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, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
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
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
CAD Canadian dollars
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CPA Certified public accountant
GLPA Great Lakes Pilotage Authority (Canadian)
GLPMS Great Lakes Pilotage Management System
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
OMB Office of Management and Budget
RA Regulatory analysis
SBA Small Business Administration
Sec. Section symbol
SLSMC Saint Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation
U.S.C. United States Code
USD United States dollars

III. Basis and Purpose

The legal basis of this rulemaking is the Great Lakes Pilotage Act
of 1960 (``the Act''),\1\ which requires U.S. vessels operating ``on
register'' \2\ and foreign 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Public Law 86-555, 74 Stat. 259, as amended; currently
codified as 46 U.S.C. Chapter 93.
\2\ ``On register'' means that the vessel's certificate of
documentation has been endorsed with a registry endorsement, and
therefore, may be employed in foreign trade or trade with Guam,
American Samoa, Wake, Midway, or Kingman Reef. 46 U.S.C. 12105, 46
CFR 67.17.
\3\ 46 U.S.C. 9302(a)(1).
\4\ 46 U.S.C. 9303(f).
\5\ DHS Delegation No. 0170.1, para. II (92.f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The purpose of this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is to
propose new base pilotage rates and surcharges for training and propose
new methodology in projecting pilotage rates. This includes proposals
to adjust the surcharge provision to stop collecting funds once the
assigned value has been recovered for the season; modify the
regulations to review pilot compensation once every 10 years, with
cost-of-living adjustments added annually between reviews; rename
Return on Investment as Working Capital Fund to better clarify the
intent of this step; and move the audit deadline from April to January
of each year in order to capture expenses in the rate sooner and to
eliminate 1 year from the current 3-year lag in expenses being
recognized in the rate. The new methodology in proposing rates changes
pilot demand from peak to seasonal.
In addition to these changes to the ratemaking process, the Coast
Guard proposes adding pilots to support a mandatory change point on the
Saint Lawrence River between Iroquois Lock and the area of Ogdensburg,
NY. We further propose to amend the regulation regarding delays so that
cancellation charges can be assessed in an appropriate manner. Finally,
we are seeking public comment on how we should proceed with weighting
factors.

IV. Background

The vessels affected by this NPRM are those engaged in foreign
trade upon the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes. United States and
Canadian ``lakers,'' which account for most commercial shipping on the
Great Lakes, are not affected.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ 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
Great Lakes Pilotage (``the Director'') to operate a pilotage pool. The
Coast Guard does not control the actual compensation that pilots
receive. The actual compensation is determined by the district
associations, each of which uses different compensation practices.
District One, consisting of Areas 1 and 2, includes all U.S. waters
of the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. District Two, consisting of
Areas 4 and 5, includes all U.S. waters of Lake Erie, the Detroit
River, Lake St. Clair, and the St. Clair River. District Three,
consisting of Areas 6, 7, and 8, includes all U.S. waters of the St.
Mary's River; Sault Ste. Marie Locks; and Lakes Huron, Michigan, and
Superior. 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.
Areas 1, 5, and 7 have been designated 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. Areas 2, 4, 6, and 8 have
not been so designated because they are open bodies of water. While
working in

[[Page 72013]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ Presidential Proclamation 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Coast Guard is required to establish new pilotage rates by
March 1 of each year, employing a full ratemaking at least once every 5
years and an annual review and adjustment in the intervening years.\9\
The Coast Guard will continue to review rates annually until we can
stabilize the rates and ensure pilotage association revenues are in
line with projections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ 46 U.S.C. 9303(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2016, we revised our ratemaking methodology to improve the
ratemaking process. Some of the changes proposed in this document
further refine the 2016 methodology.

V. Discussion of Proposed Rate Changes

We propose new rates, and surcharges under 46 CFR 401.401, for
2017. This section discusses the proposed rates using the ratemaking
steps provided in 46 CFR part 404. We reviewed the independent
accountant's financial reports for each association's 2014 expenses and
revenues. Those reports, which include pilot comments on draft versions
and the accountant's response to those comments, appear in the
docket.\10\ This year, we have reorganized the layout of this proposed
rule to address the ratemaking steps for each pilotage district
individually. This is only a formatting change to make the proposed
rule easier to follow. We begin with District One, and some
explanations in the section on District One will apply to similar
changes in the other Districts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ See ``Summary--Independent Accountant's Report on Pilot
Association Expenses, with Pilot Association Comments and
Accountant's Responses.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. District One

Recognize previous year's operating expenses (Sec. 404.101).
First, we reviewed and accepted the accountant's final findings on the
2014 audit of association expenses.
Table 1 shows District One's recognized expenses.

Table 1--Recognized Expenses for District One
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District One
--------------------------------
Designated Undesignated
Reported expenses for 2014 -------------------------------- Total
St. Lawrence
River Lake Ontario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Expenses:
Other Pilotage Costs:
Pilot subsistence/travel.................................... $302,547 $228,222 $530,769
Applicant Pilot subsistence/travel.......................... 0 12,996 12,996
License insurance........................................... 20,231 22,480 42,711
Applicant Pilot license insurance........................... 0 1,760 1,760
Payroll taxes............................................... 78,067 64,130 142,197
Applicant Pilot payroll taxes............................... 0 0 0
Other....................................................... 479 378 857
-----------------------------------------------
Total other pilotage costs.............................. 401,324 329,966 731,290
Pilot Boat and Dispatch Costs:
Pilot boat expense.......................................... 130,741 103,173 233,914
Dispatch expense............................................ 0 0 0
Payroll taxes............................................... 9,797 7,732 17,529
-----------------------------------------------
Total pilot and dispatch costs.......................... 140,538 110,905 251,443
Administrative Expenses:
Legal--general counsel...................................... 2,173 1,505 3,678
Legal--shared counsel (K&L Gates)........................... 8,783 6,932 15,715
Legal--USCG litigation...................................... 12,794 10,098 22,892
Insurance................................................... 21,829 17,226 39,055
Employee benefits........................................... 7,570 5,974 13,544
Payroll taxes............................................... 5,281 4,167 9,448
Other taxes................................................. 7,262 5,731 12,993
Travel...................................................... 648 512 1,160
Depreciation/auto leasing/other............................. 48,094 31,820 79,914
Interest.................................................... 13,713 10,821 24,534
APA Dues.................................................... 12,444 11,996 24,440
Utilities................................................... 8,916 418 9,334
Salaries.................................................... 52,121 41,130 93,251
Accounting/Professional fees................................ 5,142 4,058 9,200
Pilot Training.............................................. 6,427 5,074 11,501
Applicant Pilot training.................................... 0 0 0
Other....................................................... 8,866 6,546 15,412
-----------------------------------------------
Total Administrative Expenses........................... 222,063 164,008 386,071
Total Operating Expenses (Other Costs + Pilot Boats + Admin).... 763,925 604,879 1,368,804
Proposed Adjustments (Independent CPA):
Pilot subsistence/travel.................................... -15,712 -12,401 -28,113
Payroll taxes............................................... -87 -68 -155
Applicant Pilot payroll taxes............................... 0 2,347 2,347
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL CPA ADJUSTMENTS................................... -15,799 -10,122 -25,921

[[Page 72014]]

Proposed Adjustments (Director):
APA Dues.................................................... -1,867 -1,799 -3,666
2015 Surcharge Adjustment *................................. -92,766 -72,887 -165,653
Legal--shared counsel (K&L Gates)........................... -8,783 -6,932 -15,715
Legal--USCG litigation...................................... -12,794 -10,098 -22,892
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL DIRECTOR'S ADJUSTMENTS............................ -116,209 -91,717 -207,926
-----------------------------------------------
Total Operating Expenses (OpEx + Adjustments)................... 631,917 503,040 1,134,957
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* District One collected $493,682 with an authorized 10% surcharge in 2015. The adjustment represents the
difference between the collected amount and the authorized amount of $328,029 authorized in the 2015 final
rule.

Project next year's operating expenses, adjusting for inflation or
deflation (Sec. 404.102). We based our inflation adjustments on the
Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) data from the Consumer Price Index
for the Midwest Region of the United States,\11\ and reports from the
Federal Reserve.\12\ The adjustments for District One are shown in
Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ Available at https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0200SA0?data_tool=Xgtable
\12\ Available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcprojtabl20160316.htm

Table 2--Inflation Adjustment, District One
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District One
-------------------------------- Total
Designated Undesignated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Operating Expenses (Step 1)............................... $631,917 $503,040 $1,134,957
2015 Inflation Modification (@-0.5%)............................ -3,160 -2,515 -5,675
2016 Inflation Modification (@2.2%)............................. 13,833 11,012 24,844
2017 Inflation Modification (@2.1%)............................. 13,494 10,742 24,237
-----------------------------------------------
Adjusted 2017 Operating Expenses............................ 656,084 522,279 1,178,363
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determine number of pilots needed (Sec. 404.103). To determine the
number of pilots needed for 2017, we reviewed the historic number of
annual assignments in each area going back to 2007. Our demand model
from the 2016 final rule allows pilots 10 days of recuperative rest
each month between mid-April and mid-November, in order to better
mitigate long-term fatigue. A U.S. registered pilot may spend several
days in various ports in between assignments, which is not considered
recuperative rest.
In 2016, we examined peak staffing primarily through an analysis of
the maximum number of trips needed through designated waters at the end
of each season. We propose modifying our pilotage demand calculation to
focus instead on the pilot work cycle, including elements such as
travel, rest, pilot boat time, and other items in addition to time on
the bridge of the ship, and the number of assignments we reasonably
expect pilots to be able to complete during the 9-month shipping season
instead of during peak pilotage demand. The rest standards apply from
April 15 through November 15 of each shipping season, which are non-
peak periods. Thus, of the 270 days of the shipping season,\13\ a pilot
would be available for assignment on 200 of those days.\14\ During the
opening and closing of the season, however, we expect all of the
working pilots to be available. This is critical at the end of the
season to prevent a ship from getting stuck in the system due to lock
maintenance schedules. We invite comment on these assumptions and how
this model might impact operations and the recruitment and retention of
pilots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ Nine months per shipping season x 30 days per month.
\14\ Two-hundred and seventy days per season minus 70 days rest
(7 non-peak months x 10 days rest per month).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tables 3 through 7 examine our proposed staffing model. We begin
our analysis with the pilot assignment cycle first discussed in the
2016 rulemaking.\15\ The pilot assignment cycle outlines the time
needed to perform an assignment from beginning to end. This is shown in
Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ 81 FR 11932, Figure 14.

Table 3--Pilot Assignment Cycle for District One
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District One
-------------------------------
Pilot assignment cycle Area 1 Area 2
(hours) (hours)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Through Transit Time \*\........ 10.8 11.0

[[Page 72015]]

Travel.................................. 3.2 4.6
Delay................................... 0.7 0.9
Admin................................... 0.5 0.5
Total Assignment........................ 15.2 17.0
Mandatory Rest.......................... 10 10
Pilot Cycle (hours/assignment).......... 25.2 27.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Updated since 2016 to reflect average through transit time based on
current speed and other conditions as provided by pilot associations.

Using this data, we calculate the maximum number of assignments a
pilot could conduct each year under perfect conditions with demand
evenly distributed throughout the shipping season. This information
follows in Table 4.

Table 4--Calculation of Maximum Assignments for District One
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District One
Pilot assignments -------------------------------
Area 1 Area 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seasonal Availability Goal (hours)...... 4,800 4,800
Pilot Cycle (hours/assignment).......... 25.2 27
Max Assignments per Pilot............... 190 178
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our model uses this maximum figure to calculate a projected number
of assignments for each pilot in the 2017 shipping season. At this
time, we can neither track assignments electronically nor track
individual pilot cycle times. Additionally, the projected number of
assignments per pilot reflects only actual assignments and does not
include time the pilot is standing by and waiting for the next
assignment. This calculation is detailed in Table 5.

Table 5--Projected Assignments per Pilot in District One
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District One
Assignments per pilot -------------------------------
Area 1 (hours) Area 2 (hours)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max Assignments per Pilots.............. 190 178
Efficiency Adjustment *................. 0.5 0.5
Projected Assignments per Pilot......... 95 89
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Recommended starting ratio per the 2013 bridge hour study (on page
23), available in the docket.

Next, we examine the historic number of assignments over the last
nine shipping seasons, by Area, in District One. This will inform our
final pilot strength calculation. The number of pilot assignments is
detailed in Table 6.

Table 6--Historic Number of Assignments in District One
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District One
Historic number of assignments -------------------------------
Area 1 Area 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007.................................... 708 558
2008.................................... 632 480
2009.................................... 361 434
2010.................................... 518 591
2011.................................... 500 634
2012.................................... 479 632
2013.................................... 490 598
2014.................................... 612 637
2015.................................... 593 589
Average Assignments..................... 544 573
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, using the historic average number of assignments from the
last nine shipping seasons (Table 6) and the projected assignments per
pilot (Table 5), we are able to calculate the projected need for pilot
strength for District One. This calculation is in Table 7. In all
districts, when the calculation results in a fraction of a pilot, we
round pilot

[[Page 72016]]

numbers up to the nearest whole pilot. We do this to avoid shortening
our demand calculation and also to compensate for the role of the
district presidents as both working pilots and representatives of their
associations. We believe the rounding is justified to meet the needs of
the staffing model and also to ensure the presidents of the pilot
associations are able to effectively engage in meetings and
communications with stakeholders throughout the Great Lakes region and
the Coast Guard.

Table 7--Projected Pilots Needed in District One
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District One
Pilots needed -------------------------------
Area 1 (hours) Area 2 (hours)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historic Average Assignments............ 544 573
Projected Assignments per Pilot......... 95 89
Projected Pilots Needed (unrounded)..... 5.71 6.44
Projected Pilots Needed (rounded)....... 6 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on these tables, District One has a projected pilot need of
13 pilots for the 2017 season.
Proposed Mandatory Change Point Affecting Pilot Need
However, we also propose to add a mandatory change point in the
vicinity of Iroquois Lock. In the 2016 NPRM, we proposed making
Iroquois Lock a mandatory change point to enhance safety by mitigating
fatigue on long pilotage runs. 80 FR 54487. However, we did not
implement that proposal because the GLPA and Saint Lawrence Seaway
Pilots Association informed us that they needed additional time to
recruit, hire, and train additional pilots to implement this change. We
propose adding the language, ``The Saint Lawrence River between
Iroquois Lock and the area of Ogdensburg, NY, at the opening of the
2017 shipping season,'' to the list of mandatory change points in
section 401.450. The transit between Snell Lock and Cape Vincent takes
about 11 hours under ideal circumstances. We want to limit a U.S.
registered pilot's assignment to 8 hours in designated waters in order
to mitigate fatigue. Establishing this mandatory change point allows us
to accomplish this goal.
Establishing this change point will increase the number of
assignments and pilots needed in Area 1. Currently, about 40 percent of
the assignments change at Iroquois Lock due to the night relief working
rules or a slow moving vessel. We have historically counted this as one
assignment even though two pilots are used to complete this assignment.
For the purposes of calculating the number of additional assignments,
we assume that 40 percent of trips currently switch pilots, while 60
percent will require a new pilot assignment. The historical average
number of pilot assignments in District One, Area 1, is 544 per year
(Table 6). If 60 percent of these will require an additional pilot
assignment due to the new change point, 326 additional pilot
assignments will be needed.\16\ From Table 5, pilots in this area
average 95 assignments per season, resulting in the need for an
additional 3.4 pilots to cover the additional assignments. Again, we
round the calculated number of pilots needed to the next whole pilot to
help ensure an adequate supply of pilots available for assignment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ We calculated 544 average assignments per year x .6 will
require a new pilot assignment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on these calculations, we propose four additional pilots to
handle the increased number of assignments. The Saint Lawrence Seaway
Pilots Association has communicated that it will have the necessary
number of pilots trained at the beginning of the 2017 season.
Therefore, we are proposing the addition of these pilots in the 2017
rulemaking, resulting in a total number of 17 pilots needed for
District One (13 from Table 7 to handle existing demand, plus 4 to
account for the Iroquois Lock change point).
We have coordinated with the Saint Lawrence Seaway Management
Corporation (SLSMC), the Great Lakes Pilots Authority, and the Saint
Lawrence Seaway Pilots Association, and concluded that the addition of
the change point will not require capital expenses. The SLSMC will
continue to allow the U.S. and Canadian registered pilots to use the
Iroquois Lock for pilot changes. This avoids the need to purchase a new
pilot boat and dock, as well as additional labor for support staff. If
this changes, we will require District One to provide a plan for
procuring a new pilot boat, dock, and additional support staff needed
for this new change point, so that these costs can be included in a
ratemaking.
We understand that District One plans to have all applicant pilots
trained and working for the 2017 season. Therefore, Table 8 shows zero
applicants, and consequently, no applicant surcharge for District One.

Table 8--Pilots Needed; Pilots Projected To Be Working
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District One
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Needed pilots, period for which 2017 rates are in effect 17
Working pilots projected for 2017....................... 17
Applicant pilots for 2017............................... 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determine target pilot compensation (Sec. 404.104). In the 2016
ratemaking, we attempted to align the compensation of U.S. registered
pilots with the Canadian registered pilots of the GLPA and set a target
compensation of $326,114. We are proposing to freeze target
compensation for 2017 at the 2016 levels for the following reasons.
First, the methodology used to align target compensation in the 2016
ratemaking used the foreign exchange rate between the Canadian and U.S.
dollar to convert Canadian compensation to United States compensation.
The exchange rate has changed substantially from 1.149CAD:1USD in 2014
to 1.329CAD:1USD in 2015.\17\ This is a change of nearly 20 percent.
The volatility in exchange rates is dependent on factors external to
the ratemaking, and we do not believe it is in the public interest to
lower target pilot compensation by nearly 20 percent based on foreign
exchange. Second, the system needs target pilot compensation stability
in order to achieve and maintain workforce stability. Finally, the most
challenging portion of this analysis is the conversion of Canadian
benefits into roughly equivalent United States benefits. For example,
the U.S. registered pilots invest their own money

[[Page 72017]]

to own and operate the pilot associations, whereas the Canadian
registered pilots do not. The Canadian registered pilots have a
defined, government-backed pension, guaranteed time off, sick days,
personal days, and medical benefits that require no out-of-pocket
expenses. Our discussions with stakeholders, including the Canadian
government, pilots, and industry, have highlighted the challenges of
comparing benefits across international boundaries. We are not
convinced that a single conversion from Canadian currency to United
States currency properly accounts for the level of benefits provided to
the Canadian registered pilots. We believe the most appropriate
solution is to launch an independent, third-party study to examine
pilot compensation and recommend a total compensation number. The Coast
Guard is in the early stages of pursuing this study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ See https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/yearly-average-currency-exchange-rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While we await the results of an independent third-party study, we
propose maintaining the 2016 level for target pilot compensation for
this ratemaking. The calculations of target pilot compensation for
District One are displayed in Table 9.

Table 9--District One Target Pilot Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District One
-------------------------------- Total
Designated Undesignated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Pilot Compensation....................................... $326,114 $326,114 $326,114
Number of Pilots (Step 3)....................................... 10 7 17
-----------------------------------------------
Total Target Pilot Compensation............................. $3,261,142 $2,282,799 $5,543,941
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determine working capital fund (proposed Sec. 404.105). We propose
changing the term for this step from ``Project return on investment''
to ``Determine working capital fund'' based on several discussions with
the shippers, ports, and agents. We agree with the shippers, ports, and
agents that this is more than a return on the monies the pilots have
invested in their infrastructure. The intent of this step is to provide
the pilots with working capital for future expenses associated with
capital improvements, technology investments, and future training
needs, with the goal of eliminating the need for surcharges. Even
though we propose changing the name of this step, we do not propose
changing the calculation.
We calculate the working capital fund by multiplying the 2014
average rate of return for new issues of high-grade corporate
securities and Total Expenses (Adjusted Operating Expenses from Step 2
plus Total Target Pilot Compensation from Step 4). We use the Moody's
AAA bond rate information to determine the average annual rate of
return for new issues of high-grade corporate securities. The 2014
average annual rate of return for new issues of high-grade corporate
securities was 4.16 percent.\18\ The working capital fund calculation
is shown in Table 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ Based on Moody's AAA corporate bonds, which can be found
at: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/AAA/downloaddata?cid=119.

Table 10--District One Working Capital Fund Calculation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District One
-------------------------------- Total
Designated Undesignated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted Operating Expenses (Step 2)............................ $656,084 $522,279 $1,178,363
Total Target Pilot Compensation (Step 4)........................ 3,261,142 2,282,799 5,543,941
Total 2017 Expenses............................................. 3,917,226 2,805,078 6,722,304
Working Capital Fund (4.16%).................................... 162,957 116,691 279,648
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Project needed revenue for next year (proposed Sec. 404.106).
Table 11 shows District One's needed revenue, which is determined by
adding the proposed Sec. 404.102 operating expense, the proposed Sec.
404.104 total target compensation, and the proposed Sec. 404.105
working capital fund.

Table 11--Revenue Needed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District One
-------------------------------- Total
Designated Undesignated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted Operating Expenses (Step 2)............................ $656,084 $522,279 $1,178,363
Total Target Pilot Compensation (Step 4)........................ 3,261,142 2,282,799 5,543,941
Working Capital Fund (Step 5)................................... 162,957 116,691 279,648
-----------------------------------------------
Total Revenue Needed........................................ 4,080,183 2,921,770 7,001,952
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Make initial base rate calculations (proposed Sec. 404.107). To
make our initial base rate calculations, we first establish a multi-
year base period from which we can draw available and reliable data on
actual pilot hours

[[Page 72018]]

worked in each district's designated and undesignated waters. For the
2017 rates, we propose using data covering 2007 through 2015. Table 12
shows calculations of the average number of bridge hours over the last
9 shipping seasons.

Table 12--Hours Worked, 2007 Through 2015, District One
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District One
-------------------------------
Designated Undesignated
(hours) (hours)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015.................................... 5,743 6,667
2014.................................... 6,810 6,853
2013.................................... 5,864 5,529
2012.................................... 4,771 5,121
2011.................................... 5,045 5,377
2010.................................... 4,839 5,649
2009.................................... 3,511 3,947
2008.................................... 5,829 5,298
2007.................................... 6,099 5,929
Average................................. 5,390 5,597
------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are monitoring bridge hours and revenue projections for the
season, and there is a great deal of variation in the system. Through
the end of May 2016, projected bridge hours for the entire shipping
season were up 45 percent in District One compared to the 9-year
average, while revenue projection for the same period was only up 15
percent compared to our projected revenue needed. This suggested that
the District One rate continued to under-generate needed revenue.
However, by the end of July 2016, projected bridge hours for the entire
shipping season were up 8.2 percent as compared to the 9-year average,
and revenue projection was up 16 percent as compared to projected
revenue needed, which suggests slight over-generation of revenue. We
will continue to monitor traffic and revenue projections throughout the
shipping season to see if any additional changes are needed.
Table 13 calculates new rates by dividing each association's
projected needed revenue, from Sec. 404.106, by the average hours
shown in Table 12 and rounding to the nearest whole number.

Table 13--Rate Calculations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District One
-------------------------------
Designated Undesignated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue Needed (Step 6)................. $4,080,183 $2,921,770
Average time on task 2007-2015.......... 5,390 5,597
Hourly Rate............................. $757 $522
------------------------------------------------------------------------

We now examine the calculations of the other two pilotage districts
for 2017.

B. District Two

Recognize previous year's operating expenses (Sec. 404.101). We
reviewed and accepted the accountant's final findings on the 2014
audits of association expenses.
Table 14 shows District Two's recognized expenses.

Table 14--Recognized Expenses for District Two
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Two
--------------------------------
Undesignated Designated
Reported expenses for 2014 -------------------------------- Total
SES to Port
Lake Erie Huron
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Expenses:
Other Pilotage Costs:
Pilot subsistence/travel.................................... $148,424 $222,635 $371,059
Applicant Pilot subsistence/travel.......................... 9,440 14,160 23,600
License insurance........................................... 52,888 79,333 132,221
Applicant Pilot license insurance........................... 5,738 8,608 14,346
Payroll taxes............................................... 76,903 115,354 192,257
Applicant Pilot payroll taxes............................... 8,344 12,516 20,860
Other....................................................... 1,053 1,579 2,632
-----------------------------------------------
Total other pilotage costs.............................. 302,790 454,185 756,975
Pilot Boat and Dispatch Costs:
Pilot boat expense.......................................... 173,145 259,718 432,863
Dispatch expense............................................ 10,080 15,120 25,200
Employee benefits........................................... 72,662 108,992 181,654
Payroll taxes............................................... 8,472 12,707 21,179
-----------------------------------------------
Total pilot and dispatch costs.......................... 264,358 396,538 660,896
Administrative Expenses:
Legal--general counsel...................................... 2,680 4,020 6,700
Legal--shared counsel (K&L Gates)........................... 4,984 7,476 12,461
Legal--USCG litigation...................................... 8,371 12,557 20,928
Office rent................................................. 26,275 39,413 65,688
Insurance................................................... 9,909 14,863 24,772
Employee benefits........................................... 23,002 34,504 57,506
Payroll taxes............................................... 5,001 7,501 12,502

[[Page 72019]]

Other taxes................................................. 21,179 31,769 52,948
Depreciation/auto leasing/other............................. 17,784 26,677 44,461
Interest.................................................... 3,298 4,948 8,246
APA Dues.................................................... 8,664 12,996 21,660
Utilities................................................... 15,429 23,144 38,573
Salaries.................................................... 46,008 69,013 115,021
Accounting/Professional fees................................ 9,410 14,115 23,525
Pilot Training.............................................. 0 0 0
Other....................................................... 11,343 17,012 28,355
-----------------------------------------------
Total Administrative Expenses........................... 213,339 320,007 533,346
Total Operating Expenses (Other Costs + Pilot Boats + Admin).... 780,488 1,170,729 1,951,217
Proposed Adjustments (Independent CPA):
Depreciation/auto leasing/other............................. 3,322 4,982 8,304
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL CPA ADJUSTMENTS................................... 3,322 4,982 8,304
Proposed Adjustments (Director):
APA Dues.................................................... -1,300 -1,949 -3,249
2015 Surcharge Adjustment*.................................. -85,782 -128,672 -214,454
Legal--shared counsel (K&L Gates)........................... -4,984 -7,476 -12,461
Legal--USCG litigation...................................... -8,371 -12,557 -20,928
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL DIRECTOR'S ADJUSTMENTS............................ -100,436 -150,655 -251,092
-----------------------------------------------
Total Operating Expenses (OpEx + Adjustments)................... 683,374 1,025,056 1,708,429
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* District Two collected $540,284 with an authorized 10% surcharge in 2015. The adjustment represents the
difference between the collected amount and the $325,830 authorized in the 2015 final rule.

Project next year's operating expenses, adjusting for inflation or
deflation (Sec. 404.102). We based our inflation adjustments on BLS
data from the Consumer Price Index for the Midwest Region of the United
States,\19\ and reports from the Federal Reserve.\20\ The adjustments
for District Two are shown in Table 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ Available at https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0200SA0?data_tool=Xgtable.
\20\ Available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcprojtabl20160316.htm.

Table 15--Inflation Adjustment, District Two
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Two
-------------------------------- Total
Undesignated Designated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Operating Expenses (Step 1)............................... $683,374 $1,025,056 $1,708,429
2015 Inflation Modification (@-0.5%)............................ -3,417 -5,125 -8,542
2016 Inflation Modification (@2.2%)............................. 14,959 22,438 37,398
2017 Inflation Modification (@2.1%)............................. 14,593 21,890 36,483
-----------------------------------------------
Adjusted 2017 Operating Expenses................................ 709,509 1,064,259 1,773,767
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determine number of pilots needed (Sec. 404.103). To determine the
number of pilots needed for 2017 in District Two, we followed the same
steps discussed earlier in this proposed rule for District One. The
resulting calculations follow in Tables 16 through 20.

Table 16--Pilot Assignment Cycle for District Two
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Two
-------------------------------
Pilot assignment cycle Area 4 Area 5
(hours) (hours)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Through Transit Time *.......... 17.0 6.5
Travel.................................. 4.6 3.2
Delay................................... 0.7 0.4
Admin................................... 0.5 0.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 72020]]

Total Assignment........................ 22.8 10.6
Mandatory Rest.......................... 10 10
Pilot Cycle (hours/assignment).......... 32.8 20.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Updated since 2016 to reflect average through transit time based on
current speed and other conditions as provided by pilot associations.

Table 17--Calculation of Maximum Assignments for District Two
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Two
Pilot assignments -------------------------------
Area 4 Area 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seasonal Availability Goal (hours)...... 4800 4800
Pilot Cycle (hours/assignment).......... 32.8 20.6
Max Assignments per Pilot............... 146 233
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 18--Projected Assignments per Pilot in District Two
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Two
Assignments per pilot -------------------------------
Area 4 Area 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max Assignments per Pilots.............. 146 233
Efficiency Adjustment *................. 0.5 0.5
Projected Assignments per Pilot......... 73 117
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Recommended starting ratio per the 2013 bridge hour study (on page
23), available in the docket.

Table 19--Historic Number of Assignments in District Two
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Two
Historic number of assignments -------------------------------
Area 4 Area 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007.................................... 510 866
2008.................................... 444 616
2009.................................... 290 471
2010.................................... 460 821
2011.................................... 331 598
2012.................................... 351 603
2013.................................... 404 693
2014.................................... 624 1043
2015.................................... 576 946
Average Assignments..................... 443 740
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 20--Projected Pilots Needed in District Two
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Two
Pilots needed -------------------------------
Area 4 Area 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historic Average Assignments............ 443 740
Projected Assignments per Pilot......... 73 117
Projected Pilots Needed (unrounded)..... 6.06 6.35
Projected Pilots Needed (rounded)....... 7 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 72021]]

We round the calculated number of total pilots for District Two to
the next whole pilot to help ensure that an adequate supply of pilots
is available for assignment. Based on these tables, District Two has a
projected need for 14 pilots for the 2017 season. At the beginning of
the 2017 shipping season, they plan to have 13 working pilots and 2
applicants. We believe the second applicant is necessary to prepare for
future retirements, given the extended training periods associated with
new pilots. Currently, 4 of the pilots in District Two are over 62
years of age. These 4 pilots represent nearly 30 percent of the pilot
strength in this association. Waiting until these pilots retire to
replace them will result in significant delays. Therefore, we propose
authorizing a surcharge in 2017, which we discuss in section ``E.
Surcharges'' later in this preamble, to fund two applicant pilots in
District Two.

Table 21--Pilots Needed; Pilots Projected To Be Working
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Two
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Needed pilots, period for which 2017 rates are in effect 14
Working pilots projected for 2017....................... 13
Applicant pilots for 2017............................... 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determine target pilot compensation (Sec. 404.104). Similar to our
discussion and proposal for District One, for the 2017 NPRM, we propose
maintaining the 2016 compensation levels. Thus, target pilot
compensation for 2017 would be $326,114. Total target pilot
compensation for District Two is calculated in Table 22.

Table 22--District Two Target Pilot Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Two
-------------------------------- Total
Undesignated Designated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Pilot Compensation....................................... $326,114 $326,114 $326,114
Number of Pilots (Step 3)....................................... 6 7 13
-----------------------------------------------
Total Target Pilot Compensation............................. $1,956,685 $2,282,799 $4,239,485
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determine working capital fund (proposed Sec. 404.105). The 2014
average annual rate of return for new issues of high-grade corporate
securities was 4.16 percent.\21\ We apply that rate to District Two's
projected total operating and compensation expenses (from Sec. Sec.
404.102 and 404.104) to determine the allowed working capital fund for
the shipping season, as shown in Table 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ Based on Moody's AAA corporate bonds, which can be found
at: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/AAA/downloaddata?cid=119.

Table 23--District Two Working Capital Fund Calculation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Two
-------------------------------- Total
Undesignated Designated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted Operating Expenses (Step 2)............................ $709,509 $1,064,259 $1,773,767
Total Target Pilot Compensation (Step 4)........................ 1,956,685 2,282,799 4,239,485
Total 2017 Expenses............................................. 2,666,194 3,347,059 6,013,252
Working Capital Fund (4.16%).................................... 110,914 139,238 250,151
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Project needed revenue for next year (proposed Sec. 404.106).
Table 24 shows District Two's needed revenue, determined by adding the
proposed Sec. 404.102 operating expense, the proposed Sec. 404.104
total target compensation, and the proposed Sec. 404.105 working
capital fund.

Table 24--Revenue Needed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Two
-------------------------------- Total
Undesignated Designated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted Operating Expenses (Step 2)............................ $709,509 $1,064,259 $1,773,767
Total Target Pilot Compensation (Step 4)........................ 1,956,685 2,282,799 4,239,485
Working Capital Fund (Step 5)................................... 110,914 139,238 250,151
-----------------------------------------------
Total Revenue Needed........................................ 2,777,108 3,486,296 6,263,403
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Make initial base rate calculations (proposed Sec. 404.107). To
make our initial base rate calculations, we first establish a multi-
year base period from which available and reliable data for actual
pilot hours worked in each district's designated and undesignated
waters can be drawn. For the 2017 rates, we propose using data covering
2007

[[Page 72022]]

through 2015. Table 25 calculates the average number of bridge hours
over the last 9 shipping seasons.

Table 25--Hours Worked, 2007 Through 2015, District Two
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Two
-------------------------------
Undesignated Designated
(hours) (hours)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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................................. 5,174 4,842
------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are monitoring bridge hours and revenue projections for the
season, and there is a great deal of variation in the system. Through
the end of May 2016, projected bridge hours for the entire shipping
season were up 22 percent in District Two compared to the 9-year
average, and revenue projection was up 17 percent compared to projected
revenue needed. This suggested a robust correlation between traffic and
revenue in District Two. However, by the end of July 2016, projected
bridge hours were down 3.4 percent as compared to the 9-year average,
while revenue projection was up 21 percent compared to projected
revenue needed, which suggests over-generation of revenue. We will
continue to monitor traffic and revenue projections throughout the
shipping season to see if any additional changes are needed.
Table 26 calculates new rates by dividing District Two's projected
needed revenue, from Sec. 404.106, by the average hours shown in Table
25 and rounding to the nearest whole number.

Table 26--Rate Calculations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Two
-------------------------------
Undesignated Designated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue Needed (Step 6)................. $2,777,108 $3,486,296
Average time on task 2007-2015.......... 5,174 4,842
Hourly Rate............................. $537 $720
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. District Three

Recognize previous year's operating expenses (Sec. 404.101). We
reviewed and accepted the accountant's final findings on the 2014
audits of association expenses.
Table 27 shows District Three's recognized expenses.

Table 27--Recognized Expenses for District Three
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Three
--------------------------------
Undesignated Designated
Reported Expenses for 2014 -------------------------------- Total
Lakes Huron,
Michigan, and St. Mary's
Superior River
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Expenses:
Other Pilotage Costs:
Pilot subsistence/travel.................................... $424,935 $141,645 $566,580
Applicant pilot subsistence/travel.......................... 24,608 8,203 32,810
License insurance........................................... 14,304 4,768 19,072
Payroll taxes............................................... 110,567 36,856 147,423
Applicant pilot payroll taxes............................... 9,082 3,027 12,109
Other....................................................... 12,268 4,090 16,358
-----------------------------------------------
Total other pilotage costs.............................. 595,764 198,589 794,353
-----------------------------------------------
Pilot Boat and Dispatch Costs:
Pilot boat costs............................................ 593,360 197,787 791,147
Dispatch costs.............................................. 133,787 44,596 178,383
Payroll taxes............................................... 31,432 10,477 41,909
-----------------------------------------------

[[Page 72023]]

Total pilot and dispatch costs.......................... 758,579 252,860 1,011,439
-----------------------------------------------
Administrative Expenses:
Legal--general counsel...................................... 15,386 5,129 20,515
Legal--shared counsel (K&L Gates)........................... 15,900 5,300 21,201
Legal--USCG litigation...................................... 23,422 7,807 31,229
Office rent................................................. 7,425 2,475 9,900
Insurance................................................... 11,050 3,683 14,733
Employee benefits........................................... 113,890 37,964 151,854
Other taxes................................................. 129 43 173
Depreciation/auto leasing/other............................. 28,802 9,601 38,403
Interest.................................................... 2,858 953 3,811
APA Dues.................................................... 20,235 6,745 26,980
Dues and subscriptions...................................... 3,975 1,325 5,300
Utilities................................................... 33,083 11,028 44,111
Salaries.................................................... 95,577 31,859 127,437
Accounting/Professional fees................................ 27,492 9,164 36,656
Pilot Training.............................................. 0 0 0
Other....................................................... 9,318 3,106 12,424
-----------------------------------------------
Total Administrative Expenses........................... 408,542 136,182 544,727
-----------------------------------------------
Total Operating Expenses (Other Costs + Pilot Boats + Admin).... 1,762,885 587,631 2,350,518
-----------------------------------------------
Proposed Adjustments (Independent CPA):
Pilot subsistence/Travel.................................... -15,595 -5,198 -20,793
Payroll taxes............................................... 5,949 1,983 7,931
Pilot boat costs............................................ -62,748 -20,916 -83,664
Legal--shared counsel (K&L Gates)........................... -1,590 -530 -2,120
Dues and subscriptions...................................... -3,975 -1,325 -5,300
Other expenses.............................................. -375 -125 -500
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL CPA ADJUSTMENTS................................... -78,334 -26,111 -104,445
-----------------------------------------------
Proposed Adjustments (Director):
APA Dues.................................................... -3,035 -1,012 -4,047
Surcharge Adjustment *...................................... -216,734 -72,245 -288,979
Legal--shared counsel (K&L Gates)........................... -14,310 -4,770 -19,080
Legal--USCG litigation...................................... -23,422 -7,807 -31,229
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL DIRECTOR'S ADJUSTMENTS............................ -257,502 -85,834 -343,335
-----------------------------------------------
Total Operating Expenses (OpEx + Adjustments)................... 1,427,050 475,687 1,903,738
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* District Three collected $615,929 with an authorized 10% surcharge in 2015. The adjustment represents the
difference between the collected amount and the authorized amount of $326,950 authorized in the 2015 final
rule.

Project next year's operating expenses, adjusting for inflation or
deflation (Sec. 404.102). We based our inflation adjustments on BLS
data from the Consumer Price Index for the Midwest Region of the United
States,\22\ and reports from the Federal Reserve.\23\ The adjustments
for District Three are shown in Table 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ Available at https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0200SA0?data_tool=Xgtable.
\23\ Available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcprojtabl20160316.htm.

Table 28--Inflation Adjustment, District Three
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Three
-------------------------------- Total
Undesignated Designated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Operating Expenses (Step 1)............................... $1,427,050 $475,687 $1,902,738
2015 Inflation Modification (@-0.5%)............................ -7,135 -2,378 -9,514
2016 Inflation Modification (@2.2%)............................. 31,238 10,413 41,651
2017 Inflation Modification (@2.1%)............................. 30,474 10,158 40,632
-----------------------------------------------

[[Page 72024]]

Adjusted 2017 Operating Expenses............................ 1,481,627 493,879 1,975,506
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determine number of pilots needed (Sec. 404.103). To determine the
number of pilots needed for 2017 in District Three, we followed the
same steps discussed earlier in this proposed rule for Districts One
and Two. The resulting calculations follow in Tables 29 through 33.

Table 29--Pilot Assignment Cycle for District Three
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Three
Pilot assignment cycle -----------------------------------------------
Area 6 (hours) Area 7 (hours) Area 8 (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Through Transit Time *.................................. 22.5 7.1 21.6
Travel.......................................................... 2.4 3.6 3.7
Delay........................................................... 1 0.3 3.3
Admin........................................................... 0.5 0.5 0.5
Total Assignment................................................ 26.4 11.5 29.1
Mandatory Rest.................................................. 10 10 10
Pilot Cycle (hours/assignment).................................. 36.4 21.5 39.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Although transit times in Districts One and Two have been updated based on actual conditions, no similar
change was required to reflect transit times in District Three.

Table 30--Calculation of Maximum Assignments for District Three
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Three
Pilot assignments -----------------------------------------------
Area 6 Area 7 Area 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seasonal Availability Goal (hours).............................. 4,800 4,800 4,800
Pilot Cycle (hours/assignment).................................. 36.4 21.5 39.1
Max Assignments per Pilot....................................... 132 223 123
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 31--Projected Assignments per Pilot in District Three
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Three
Assignments per pilot -----------------------------------------------
Area 6 Area 7 Area 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max Assignments per Pilots...................................... 132 223 123
Efficiency Adjustment *......................................... 0.5 0.5 0.5
Projected Assignments per Pilot................................. 66 112 61
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Recommended starting ratio per the 2013 bridge hour study (on page 23), available in the docket.

Table 32--Historic Number of Assignments in District Three
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Three
Historic number of assignments -----------------------------------------------
Area 6 Area 7 Area 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007............................................................ 681 794 478
2008............................................................ 423 309 252
2009............................................................ 352 231 275
2010............................................................ 547 352 338
2011............................................................ 460 228 223
2012............................................................ 436 267 243
2013............................................................ 464 315 322
2014............................................................ 729 426 575
2015............................................................ 644 412 421
Average Assignments............................................. 526 370 347
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 72025]]

Table 33--Projected Pilots Needed in District Three
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Three
Pilots needed -----------------------------------------------
Area 6 Area 7 Area 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historic Average Assignments.................................... 526 370 347
Projected Assignments per Pilot................................. 66 112 61
Projected Pilots Needed (unrounded)............................. 7.98 3.32 5.66
Projected Pilots Needed (rounded)............................... 8 4 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We round the calculated number of pilots needed by Area to the next
whole pilot to help ensure an adequate supply of pilots are available
for assignments. Based on these tables, District Three has a projected
pilot need of 18 pilots for the 2017 season. However, at the beginning
of the 2017 shipping season, they plan to have 15 working and
registered pilots supplemented by 7 applicants. We believe the
applicants are necessary to prepare for future retirements given the
extended training periods associated with new pilots. Currently, 6 of
the pilots who are trained or registered in District Three are over 61
years of age. These 6 pilots represent 30 percent of the current pilot
strength for District Three, which is already less than the 18 pilots
projected to be needed in 2017. If we wait until these pilots retire to
begin replacing them, the system will experience significant delays due
to a lack of available pilots. Therefore, we propose authorizing a
surcharge, which we discuss in section E, below, to fund seven
applicant pilots in District Three.

Table 34--Pilots Needed; Pilots Projected To Be Working
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Three
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Needed pilots, period for which 2017 rates are in effect 18
Working pilots projected for 2017....................... 15
Applicant pilots for 2017............................... 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determine target pilot compensation (Sec. 404.104). Similar to our
discussion and proposal for Districts One and Two, we propose
maintaining the 2016 compensation levels. Thus, target pilot
compensation for 2017 would be $326,114. Total target pilot
compensation for District Three is calculated in Table 35.

Table 35--District Three Target Pilot Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Three
-------------------------------- Total
Undesignated Designated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Pilot Compensation....................................... $326,114 $326,114 $326,114
Number of Pilots (Step 3)....................................... 11 4 15
-----------------------------------------------
Total Target Pilot Compensation............................. $3,587,256 $1,304,457 $4,891,713
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determine working capital fund (proposed Sec. 404.105). The 2014
average annual rate of return for new issues of high-grade corporate
securities was 4.16 percent.\24\ We apply that rate to District Three's
projected total operating and compensation expenses (from Sec. Sec.
404.102 and 404.104) to determine the allowed working capital fund for
the shipping season, as shown in Table 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ Based on Moody's AAA corporate bonds, which can be found
at: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/AAA/downloaddata?cid=119.

Table 36--District Three Working Capital Fund Calculation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Three
-------------------------------- Total
Undesignated Designated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted Operating Expenses (Step 2)............................ $1,481,627 $493,879 $1,975,506
Total Target Pilot Compensation (Step 4)........................ 3,587,256 1,304,457 4,891,713
Total 2016 Expenses............................................. 5,068,883 1,798,336 6,867,219
Working Capital Fund (4.16%).................................... 210,866 74,811 285,676
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Project needed revenue for next year (proposed Sec. 404.106).
Table 37 shows District Three's needed revenue, which is determined by
adding the proposed Sec. 404.102 operating expense, the proposed Sec.
404.104 total target compensation, and the proposed Sec. 404.105
working capital fund.

[[Page 72026]]

Table 37--Revenue Needed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Three
-------------------------------- Total
Undesignated Designated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted Operating Expenses (Step 2)............................ $1,481,627 $493,879 $1,975,506
Total Target Pilot Compensation (Step 4)........................ 3,587,256 1,304,457 4,891,713
Working Capital Fund (Step 5)................................... 210,866 74,811 285,676
-----------------------------------------------
Total Revenue Needed........................................ 5,279,748 1,873,147 7,152,895
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 38--Hours Worked, 2007 Through 2015, District Three
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Three
-------------------------------
Undesignated Designated
(hours) (hours)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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................................. 18,835 2,835
------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are monitoring bridge hours and revenue projections for the
season, and there is a great deal of variation in the system. Through
the end of May 2016, projected bridge hours for the entire shipping
season were down 10 percent in District Three as compared to the 9-year
average, while revenue projection through May 2016 was up 9 percent
compared to projected revenue needed. This suggested that the District
Three rate was over-generating revenue. However, by the end of July
2016, projected bridge hours were up 23 percent as compared to the 9-
year average, and revenue projection was up 19 percent as compared to
projected revenue needed, which suggested a more robust correlation
between traffic and revenue in District Three. We continue to monitor
projections so that we can make changes if needed. In particular, we
are considering removing the maximum ratio between designated and
undesignated charges, which we established last year in Sec.
404.107(b), if it appears to be artificially raising undesignated rates
and lowering designated rates.
Table 39 calculates new rates by dividing District Three's
projected needed revenue, from Sec. 404.106, by the average hours
shown in Table 38 and rounding to the nearest whole number.

Table 39--Rate Calculations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Three
-------------------------------
Undesignated Designated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue Needed (Step 6)................. $5,279,748 $1,873,147
Average time on task 2007-2015.......... 18,835 2,835
Hourly Rate............................. $280 $661
------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Other Changes Affecting Ratemaking

Review and finalize rates (Sec. 404.108). In addition to the
changes described earlier, we propose five additional changes for 2017
that will equally impact the pilot associations. First, we propose
adding a requirement to the surcharge regulation in Sec. 401.401. We
propose that once a pilot association collects the amount of money
allowable for recoupment, which is designated by the final rule, the
pilot association's authorization to collect a surcharge for the
remainder of that shipping season will terminate. This proposed change
will prevent excess amounts from being recouped and should eliminate
the need to make adjustments to the operating expenses for the
following year. Turning to surcharges for 2017, we find that allowing
associations to recoup necessary and reasonable training expenses, both
to help achieve a full complement of needed pilots and to ensure skill
maintenance and development for current pilots, will facilitate safe,
efficient, and reliable pilotage, and is good cause for imposing a
necessary and reasonable temporary

[[Page 72027]]

surcharge, as authorized by 46 CFR 401.401.
In addition, we propose amending the cancellation charge provision
in Sec. 401.420(b) to ensure that it explicitly states that the
minimum charge for a cancellation is 4 hours plus necessary and
reasonable travel expenses for travel that occurs. Based on the
feedback we received from the pilot associations, we believe the
current language is not specific enough and will continue to cause
confusion, as indicated by inquiries from both pilot associations and
shipping agents. We view this charge as necessary to emphasize that
pilots are a limited resource and encourage their efficient use. We are
also removing ``after that pilot has begun travelling to the designated
pickup place'' from Sec. 401.420(b) to eliminate any confusion about
the 4-hour minimum charge.
To expedite the recoupment of expenses, we also propose to adjust
Sec. 403.300(c) to require submission of an unqualified audit prepared
in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and all
accompanying notes by January 31st of each year. This would require the
pilot associations to complete their financial statements by January
24th in order to meet the January 31st deadline. Existing Sec.
403.300(c) requires submission of an unqualified audit by April 1 of
each year. Our goal is to allow our independent auditors to begin work
much sooner and complete work on the third party audit in time for it
to be used for the publication of the proposed rule that summer. This
timeline would remove 1 year from the current 3-year gap between the
actual expenses and their recoupment in the rate. We request comments
regarding the feasibility of completing the required audits by January
31, and if it is not feasible, an explanation as to why and what other
date would be appropriate.
We also propose the addition of new language in Sec. 404.104 that
would allow the Director to set compensation for a 10-year period to a
compensation benchmark. The compensation benchmark would be based on
the most relevant available non-proprietary information such as wage
and benefit information from other pilotage groups. In the years in
which a compensation benchmark is not set, target pilot compensation
will be adjusted for inflation by using the CPI for the Midwest region
or by a pre-determined amount that would be published prior to use. We
believe this will promote target compensation stability and rate
predictability.
The proposed changes to Sec. Sec. 403.300(c) and 404.104 should
assist the pilot associations with recruitment and retention and help
the various stakeholders forecast budgets and pricing. These changes
would apply only to the calculation of target pilot compensation; we do
not propose any changes to the formula in which we use target pilot
compensation to calculate the rate.
Finally, we seek public comment on how we should handle weighting
factors in 46 CFR 401.400, which outlines the calculations for
determining the weighting factors for a vessel subject to compulsory
pilotage. This calculation determines which multiplication factor will
be applied to the pilotage fees. We are not proposing any action in
this proposed rule because we do not have sufficient data to make an
informed decision.
The first option is to maintain the status quo. This would maintain
the current weighting factors and continue to leave them out of the
ratemaking calculation.
The second option for weighting factors is to remove them
completely from the regulations and charge every vessel equally for
pilotage service. This aligns with the current compensation model that
a pilot should be compensated equally for their expertise across all
areas of the Great Lakes. The ship's dimensions do not impact the
experience and skill level of the pilot providing the service.
The third option is to incorporate weighting factors into the
rulemaking through an additional step that examines and projects their
impact on the revenues of the pilot associations. This might enable us
to better forecast revenue, but it would add another variable to the
projections in the rate methodology.
We request public comment specifically on which of these three
options should be implemented for future ratemakings; in your comment,
please explain why the option should be implemented.

E. Surcharges

Turning to surcharges for 2017, we find that allowing associations
to recoup necessary and reasonable training expenses, both to help
achieve a full complement of needed pilots and to ensure skill
maintenance and development for current pilots, will facilitate safe,
efficient, and reliable pilotage, and is good cause for imposing a
necessary and reasonable temporary surcharge, as authorized by 46 CFR
401.401. For 2017, we anticipate that there will be two applicant
pilots in District Two, and seven applicant pilots in District Three.
Based on historic pilot costs, the stipend, per diem, and training
costs for each applicant pilot are approximately $150,000 per shipping
season. Thus, we estimate that the training expenses that each
association will incur will be approximately $300,000 in District Two
and $1,050,000 in District Three. Table 40 derives the proposed
percentage surcharge for each district by comparing this estimate to
each district's projected needed revenue.

Table 40--Surcharge Calculation by District
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District One District Two District Three
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Needed Revenue (Sec. 404.106)....................... $7,001,952 $6,263,403 $7,152,895
Anticipated Training Expenses................................... $0 $300,000 $1,050,000
Surcharge Needed *.............................................. 0% 5% 15%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All surcharge calculations are rounded up to the nearest whole percentage.

These surcharges would only be collected until the target amount is
reached. This should eliminate the need to make adjustments to the
operating expenses for the following year. We will ensure that these
expenses are not included in future rulemakings in order to avoid
double billing.

VI. 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 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess the
costs and

[[Page 72028]]

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 effects, and equity). Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
This proposed rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, this proposed rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
We developed an analysis of the costs and benefits of the proposed
rule to ascertain its probable impacts on industry. We consider all
estimates and analysis in this Regulatory Analysis (RA) to be subject
to change in consideration of public comments.
Table 41 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 42).

Table 41--Regulatory Changes With No Cost or Costs Captured in the Proposed Rate Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed changes Description Basis for no costs Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory change point on the Propose a mandatory The addition of the Staffing additional
Saint Lawrence River between change point on the change point will not pilots will help meet
Iroquois Lock and the area of Saint Lawrence River require capital the increased demand
Ogdensburg, NY. between Iroquois Lock expenses. The only cost for pilots to handle
and the area of is for the new pilots, the additional
Ogdensburg, NY that who are accounted for assignments anticipated
would become effective in the base pilotage to be caused by the new
at the beginning of the rates and training change point.
2017 shipping season. surcharges (Table 43). Additional pilots due
to this change point
should also serve to
mitigate any potential
delays and any
potential fatigue that
would occur from high
pilotage demand without
them.
Demand model..................... Determine pilot demand Pilot staffing costs are More accurate estimate
using seasonal demand accounted for in the of the number of
instead of peak demand. base pilotage rates assignments we
(Table 43). reasonably expect
pilots to be able to
complete during the 9-
month shipping season
instead of during peak
pilotage demand.
Cancellation charges............. Propose amending the Clarification of --Clarifies the current
cancellation charge existing text and language to eliminate
provision in Sec. current practice. any potential confusion
401.120(b) to ensure it on the minimum charge
explicitly states that for cancellations.
the minimum charge for a --Clarification of the
cancellation is 4 hours minimum charge ensures
plus necessary and the recognition of
reasonable travel pilots as a limited
expenses for that travel resource and encourages
that occurs. efficient use.
Surcharge provision.............. Propose adding a Ensures the goal Prevents excess amounts
requirement to the surcharge amount built from being recouped
surcharge regulation in into the year's from industry via the
Sec. 401.401 to stop rulemaking will not be following year's rule.
collecting funds once surpassed, and prevents
the assigned value has additional costs on
been recovered for the industry.
season.
Audit deadline................... Propose to adjust Sec. Adjusts the deadline for Allows independent
403.300(c) to move the audit submission, but auditors to begin work
audit deadline from does not add additional sooner and complete the
April 1 to January 31 of work. audit in time for the
each year. proposed rule. This
would eliminate 1 year
from the current 3-year
lag in expenses being
recognized in the rate.
Rename Return on Investment...... Propose renaming Return Clarifies the intent of Clarifies the intent of
on Investment as Working the fund but does not this fund.
Capital Fund. change the method of
calculation. Costs are
included in the total
revenues.
Set Pilot compensation for a 10- Propose the addition of Pilot staffing costs are Promotes target
year period. new language in Sec. accounted for in the compensation stability
404.104 that would allow base pilotage rates. and rate
the Director to set predictability.
compensation for a 10-
year period to a
compensation benchmark.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following table summarizes the affected population, costs, and
benefits of the regulatory requirements that are expected to have costs
associated with them.

[[Page 72029]]

Table 42--Regulatory Economic Impacts of Rate Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed change Description Affected population Costs Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate Changes................. Under the Great Lakes Owners and operators $2,664,574 --New rates cover an
Pilotage Act of of 230 vessels association's
1960, the Coast journeying the necessary and
Guard is required to Great Lakes system reasonable
review and adjust annually. operating expenses.
base pilotage rates --Provides fair
annually. compensation,
adequate training,
and sufficient rest
periods for pilots.
--Ensures the
association makes
enough money to
fund future
improvements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Coast Guard is required to review and adjust pilotage rates on
the Great Lakes annually. See Parts III and IV of this preamble for
detailed discussions of the Coast Guard's 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
are adjusting the pilotage rates for the 2017 shipping season to
generate for each district sufficient revenues 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 2017. For 2017, we anticipate that there will be
no applicant pilots in District One, two applicant pilots in District
Two, and seven applicant pilots in District Three. With a training cost
of $150,000 per pilot, we estimate that Districts Two and Three will
incur $300,000 and $1,050,000 in training expenses, respectively. These
temporary surcharges would generate a combined $1,350,000 in revenue
for the pilotage associations. Therefore, after accounting for the
implementation of the temporary surcharges across all three districts,
the payments made by shippers during the 2017 shipping season are
estimated to be approximately $2,664,574 more than the payments that
were estimated in 2016 (Table 43).\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ 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 draft regulatory analysis follows.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to propose new base pilotage
rates and surcharges for training. The last full ratemaking was
concluded in 2016.
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 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 to have pilots by 46 U.S.C. 9302. However,
these U.S.- and Canadian-flagged lakers may voluntarily choose to have
a pilot.
We used 2013-2015 billing information from the 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. Using that period, we found that a total of 407 unique
vessels used pilotage services over the years 2013 through 2015. 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 65 invoices per
year. Of these vessels, 383 were foreign-flagged vessels and 24 were
U.S.-flagged. The U.S.-flagged vessels are not required to have a pilot
per 46 U.S.C. 9302, but they can voluntarily choose to have a pilot.
U.S.-flagged vessels may opt to have a pilot for varying reasons such
as unfamiliarity with designated waters and ports, or for insurance
purposes.
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 2013 through 2015 is the best representation of vessels estimated
to be affected by this rule's proposed rate. From the years 2013-2015,
an average of 230 vessels used pilotage services annually.\26\ On
average, 219 of these vessels are foreign-flagged vessels and 11 are
U.S.-flagged vessels that voluntarily opt into the pilotage service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ Some vessels entered the Great Lakes multiple years,
affecting the average number of unique vessels utilizing pilotage
services in any given year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs
The rate changes resulting from the new methodology would generate
costs on industry in the form of higher payments for shippers. We
calculate the cost in two ways in this RA, as the total cost to
shippers and as a percentage of vessel operating costs.
Total Cost to Shippers
We estimate the effect of the rate changes on shippers by comparing
the total projected revenues needed to cover costs in 2016 with the
total projected revenues to cover costs in 2017, including any
temporary surcharges authorized by the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard
sets pilotage rates so that the pilot associations receive enough
revenue to cover their necessary and reasonable expenses. The shippers
pay these rates when they have a pilot as required by 46 U.S.C. 9302.
Therefore, the aggregate payments of the shippers to the pilot
associations are equal to the projected necessary revenues for the
pilot associations. The revenues each year represent the total costs
that shippers must pay for pilotage services, and the change in the
revenues from the previous year is the additional cost to shippers from
this proposed rulemaking.

[[Page 72030]]

The effect of the rate changes on shippers is estimated from the
District pilotage projected revenues and the proposed surcharges
described in Section V of this preamble. We estimate that for the 2017
shipping season, the projected revenue needed for all three Districts
is $20,418,252. Temporary surcharges on traffic in District Two and
District Three would be applied for the duration of the 2017 season in
order for the pilotage associations to recover training expenses
incurred for applicant pilots. We estimate that the pilotage
associations require an additional $300,000 and $1,050,000 in revenue
for applicant training expenses in Districts Two and Three,
respectively. This is an additional cost to shippers of $1,350,000
during the 2017 shipping season. Adding the projected revenue to the
proposed surcharges, we estimate the pilotage associations' total
projected needed revenue for 2017 would be $21,768,252. The 2017
projected revenues for the districts are from Tables 11, 24, and 37 of
this preamble. To estimate the additional cost to shippers from this
proposed rule, we compare the 2017 total projected revenues to the 2016
projected revenues. Because the Coast Guard must 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 2016 rulemaking,\27\ we estimated the total projected revenue
needed for 2016, including surcharges, is $19,103,678. This is the best
approximation of 2016 revenues as, at the time of this publication, we
do not have enough audited data available for the 2016 shipping season
to revise these projections. Table 43 shows the revenue projections for
2016 and 2017 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ 2016 projected revenues are from the 2016 rulemaking, 81 FR
11937, Figures 31 and 32.

Table 43--Effect of the Proposed Rule by Area and District
[$U.S.; Non-discounted]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2016 Total 2017 Additional
Area Revenue needed 2016 Temporary Projected Revenue needed 2017 Temporary Projected costs of this
in 2016 surcharge revenue in 2017 surcharge revenue proposed rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, District One..................... $5,354,945 $450,000 $5,804,945 $7,001,953 $0 $7,001,953 $1,197,008
Total, District Two..................... 5,629,641 300,000 5,929,641 6,263,404 300,000 6,563,404 633,763
Total, District Three................... 6,469,092 900,000 7,369,092 7,152,895 1,050,000 8,202,895 833,803
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System Total........................ 17,453,678 1,650,000 19,103,678 20,418,252 1,350,000 21,768,252 2,664,574
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Values may not sum due to rounding.

The resulting difference between the projected revenue in 2016 and
the projected revenue in 2017 is the annual change in payments from
shippers to pilots as a result of the rate change imposed by this
proposed rule. The effect of the rate change in this proposed rule on
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, District Two, and District Three experiencing an increase
in payments of $1,197,008, $633,763, and $833,803, respectively, from
the previous year. The overall adjustment in payments would be an
increase in payments by shippers of approximately $2,664,574 across all
three districts (a 14 percent increase over 2016). Because the Coast
Guard must review and prescribe rates for Great Lakes Pilotage
annually, the effects are estimated as single year costs rather than
annualized over a 10-year period.
Table 44 shows the difference in revenue by component from 2016 to
2017.\28\ Although per pilot compensation is unchanged from the 2016
final rule, the majority of the increase in revenue is due to the
addition of 8 pilots that were authorized in the 2016 rule. These eight
pilots are currently training this year and will become full-time
working pilots at the beginning of the 2017 shipping season. These
pilots will be compensated at the target compensation established in
the 2016 final rule ($326,114 per pilot). The addition of these pilots
to full working status accounts for $2,608,913 of the increase. The
remaining amount is attributed to inflation of operating expenses,
working capital fund, and differences in the surcharges from 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ The 2016 projected revenues are from the 2016 rulemaking,
81 FR 11934, Figures 24 and 28. The 2017 projected revenues are from
Tables 11, 24, 37, and 40 of this NPRM.

Table 44--Difference in Revenue by Component
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference (2017
Revenue component Revenue needed Revenue needed revenue -2016
in 2016 in 2017 revenue)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted Operating Expenses.................................. $4,677,518 $4,927,636 $250,118
Total Target Pilot Compensation.............................. 12,066,226 14,675,139 2,608,913
Working Capital Fund......................................... 709,934 815,475 105,541
--------------------------------------------------
Total Revenue Needed, without Surcharge.................. 17,453,678 20,418,250 2,964,572
Surcharge.................................................... 1,650,000 1,350,000 -300,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total Revenue Needed, with Surcharge..................... 19,103,678 21,768,252 2,664,574
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Values may not sum due to rounding.

[[Page 72031]]

Pilotage Rates as a Percentage of Vessel Operating Costs
To estimate the impact of U.S. pilotage costs on the foreign
vessels affected by the rate adjustment, we looked at the pilotage
costs as a percentage of a vessel's costs for an entire voyage. The
part 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 2013-2015 vessel arrival data from
the Coast Guard's Ship Arrival Notification System and pilotage billing
data from the GLPMS. A random sample of 50 arrivals was taken from
GLPMS data. To estimate the impact of pilotage costs on the costs of an
entire trip, we estimated the length of each one way trip. We used the
vessel name and the date of the arrival to find the last port of call
before entering the Great Lakes system. The date of the departure from
this port was used as the start date of the trip. To find the end date
of the trip we used GLPMS data to find all the pilotage charges
associated with this vessel during this trip in the Great Lakes system.
The end date of the one way trip was taken as the last pilotage charge
before beginning the trip to exit the system. We estimated the total
operating cost by multiplying the number of days for each by the 2015
average daily operating cost and added this to the total pilotage costs
from GLPMS for each trip. In 2015 the average daily operating costs
(excluding fixed costs) for Great Lakes bulkers and tankers ranged
roughly from $5,191 to $7,879.\29\ The total pilotage charges for each
trip were updated to the 2016 rates using the average rate increases in
the Great Lakes Pilotage Rates 2013-2016 Annual Review and Adjustments
final rules.\30\ The total updated pilotage charges for each trip were
then divided by the total operating cost of the trip. We found that for
a vessel's one-way trips, the U.S. pilotage costs could account for
approximately 16.99 percent \31\ of the total operating costs for a
foreign vessel's voyage using 2016 rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ ``Ship operating costs: Current and future trends,''
Richard Grenier, Moore Stephens LLP, December 2015. The 2015
weighted average operating cost is estimated at $5,191 for a
handysize bulker, $5,771 for a handymax bulker, and $7,879 for a
product tanker. These costs include only the costs of operating and
do not include any fixed costs of the vessels (such as amortization
of vessel construction costs). The operating costs include crew
wages, provisions, other crew costs, lubricating oils and store
costs, spares, repair and maintenance, P&I insurance, marine
insurance, registration costs, management fees, and sundry expenses.
\30\ The average percentage changes in the rates for 2013-2016,
were 1.87%, 2.5%, 10%, and 12%, respectively.
\31\ For the random sample of 50 arrivals, the average of the
pilotage costs as a percentage of the total operating costs was
16.9%. The percentages ranged from a low of 3.2% to a high of 35.2%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We also estimated the impact of the rate increase in this proposed
rule. We took the same 50 trips and updated the pilotage costs to the
proposed 2017 rates (average increase of 17 percent). With this
proposed rule's rates for 2017, pilotage costs are estimated to account
for 19.11 percent of total operating costs, or a 2.2 percentage point
increase \32\ over the current cost. The total operating costs do not
include the fixed costs of the vessels. If these costs are included in
the total costs, the pilotage rates as a percentage of total costs
would be lower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ 19.1% of total operating costs in 2017--16.9% of total
operating costs in 2016 = 2.2% incremental increase of pilotage
costs as a percentage of total operating costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits
This proposed rule would allow the Coast Guard to meet the
requirements in 46 U.S.C. 9303 to review the rates for pilotage
services on the Great Lakes. The rate changes would promote safe,
efficient, and reliable pilotage service on the Great Lakes by ensuring
rates cover an association's operating expenses; provide fair pilot
compensation, adequate training, and sufficient rest periods for
pilots; and ensures the association makes enough money to fund future
improvements. The rate changes will also help recruit and retain
pilots, which will ensure a sufficient number of pilots to meet peak
shipping demand, which would help reduce delays caused by pilot
shortages.
The proposed amendment of the cancellation charge in Sec.
401.120(b) would prevent confusion and help ensure that it explicitly
states that the minimum charge for a cancellation is 4 hours. The
proposed limitation to the surcharge regulation in Sec. 401.401 would
prevent excess amounts from being recouped via the following year's
rule. The proposed adjustment to Sec. 403.300(c) to require submission
of an unqualified audit by January 31st of each year would allow our
independent auditors to begin work much sooner and complete work on the
third party audit in time to be used for the publication of the
proposed rule that summer. This timeline would remove 1 year from the
current 3-year gap between the actual expenses and their recoupment in
the rate. The proposed changes to Sec. 404.104 will promote target
compensation stability and rate predictability. The proposed changes to
Sec. Sec. 403.300(c) and 404.104 should assist the pilot associations
with recruitment and retention and help the various stakeholders
forecast budgets and pricing.

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 GLPMS and we reviewed
business revenue and size data provided by publicly available sources
such as MANTA \33\ and ReferenceUSA.\34\ As described in Section VI.A
of this preamble, Regulatory Planning and Review, we found that a total
of 407 unique vessels used pilotage services over the years 2013-2015.
These vessels are owned by 119 entities. We found that of the 119
entities that own or operate vessels engaged in trade on the Great
Lakes affected by this proposed rule, 104 are foreign entities that
operate primarily outside of the United States. The remaining 15
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 \35\ to determine how many
of these companies are small entities. Table 45 shows the NAICS codes
of the U.S. entities and the small entity standard size established by
the Small Business Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ See https://www.manta.com/.
\34\ See https://resource.referenceusa.com/.
\35\ 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.

[[Page 72032]]

Table 45--NAICS Codes and Small Entities Size Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS Description Small business size standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238910.................................. Site Preparation Contractors.... $15 million.
441222.................................. Boat Dealers.................... $32.5 million.
483113.................................. Coastal & Great Lakes Freight 750 employees.
Transportation.
483211.................................. Inland Water Freight 750 employees.
Transportation.
483212.................................. Inland Water Passenger 500 employees.
Transportation.
487210.................................. Scenic & Sightseeing $7.5 million.
Transportation, Water.
488320.................................. Marine Cargo Handling........... $38.5 million.
488330.................................. Navigational Services to $38.5 million.
Shipping.
488510.................................. Freight Transportation $15 million.
Arrangement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The entities all exceed the SBA's small business standards for
small businesses. Further, these U.S. entities operate U.S.-flagged
vessels and are not required to have pilots 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 total employees. We expect no
adverse effect to these entities from this proposed rule because all
associations receive enough revenue to balance the projected expenses
associated with the projected number of bridge hours 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, the Coast Guard certifies 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, as well as 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. Todd Haviland,
Director, Great Lakes Pilotage, Commandant (CG-WWM-2), Coast Guard;
telephone 202-372-2037, email Todd.A.Haviland@uscg.mil, 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 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 Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132. Our analysis follows.
Congress directed the Coast Guard to establish ``rates and charges
for pilotage services.'' 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 Executive Order 13132.
While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a
vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that
State and local governments may have in making regulatory
determinations. Additionally, for rules with implications and
preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs agencies
to consult with State and local governments during the rulemaking
process. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism under
Executive Order 13132, please contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION section of this preamble.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

[[Page 72033]]

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 Executive Order 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 Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. Protection of Children

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

L. Technical Standards

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C.
272, note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in
their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the 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 Management Directive 023-01 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 environmental analysis
checklist 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 is
categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, and figure 2-1, paragraph
34(a) of the Instruction. Paragraph 34(a) pertains to minor regulatory
changes that are editorial or procedural in nature. This proposed rule
adjusts rates in accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory
mandates. 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 403

Great Lakes, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Seamen, Uniform System of Accounts.

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, 403, 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 Sec. 401.401 to read as follows:

Sec. 401.401 Surcharges.

To facilitate safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage, and for good
cause, the Director may authorize surcharges on any rate or charge
authorized by this subpart. Surcharges must be proposed for prior
public comment and may not be authorized for more than 1 year. Once the
approved amount has been received, the pilot association is not
authorized to collect any additional funds under the surcharge
authority and must cease such collections for the remainder of that
shipping season.
0
3. Revise Sec. 401.405(a) to read as follows:

Sec. 401.405 Pilotage rates and charges.

(a) The hourly rate for pilotage service on--
(1) The St. Lawrence River is $757;
(2) Lake Ontario is $522;
(3) Lake Erie is $537;
(4) The navigable waters from Southeast Shoal to Port Huron, MI is
$720;
(5) Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior is $280; and
(6) The St. Mary's River is $661.
* * * * *
0
4. Revise Sec. 401.420(b) to read as follows:

Sec. 401.420 Cancellation, delay, or interruption in rendition of
services.

* * * * *
(b) When an order for a U.S. pilot's service is cancelled, the
vessel can be charged for the pilot's reasonable travel expenses for
travel that occurred to and from the pilot's base, and the greater of--
(1) Four hours; or
(2) The time of cancellation and the time of the pilot's scheduled
arrival, or the pilot's reporting for duty as ordered, whichever is
later.
* * * * *

[[Page 72034]]

0
5. Amend Sec. 401.450 as follows:
0
a. Redesignate paragraphs (b) through (j) as paragraphs (c) through
(k), respectively; and
0
b. Add new paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec. 401.450 Pilotage change points.

* * * * *
(b) The Saint Lawrence River between Iroquois Lock and the area of
Ogdensburg, NY beginning January 31, 2017;
* * * * *

PART 403--GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE UNIFORM ACCOUNTING SYSTEM

0
6. The authority citation for part 403 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
7. Revise Sec. 403.300(c) to read as follows:

Sec. 403.300 Financial reporting requirements.

* * * * *
(c) By January 24 of each year, each association must obtain an
unqualified audit report for the preceding year that is audited and
prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles by
an independent certified public accountant. Each association must
electronically submit that report with any associated settlement
statements and all accompanying notes to the Director by January 31.

PART 404--GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE RATEMAKING

0
8. 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
9. Amend Sec. 404.103 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a), following the words ``dividing each area's''
remove the word ``peak'' and add, in its place, the word ``seasonal'';
and
0
b. Revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec. 404.103 Ratemaking step 3: Determine number of pilots needed.

* * * * *
(b) 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.
* * * * *
0
10. Revise Sec. 404.104 to read as follows:

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

At least once every 10 years, the Director will set a base target
pilot compensation benchmark using the most relevant available non-
proprietary information. In years in which a base compensation
benchmark is not set, target pilot compensation will be adjusted for
inflation using the CPI for the Midwest region or a published
predetermined amount. The Director determines each pilotage
association's total target pilot compensation by multiplying individual
target pilot compensation by the number of pilots projected under Sec.
404.103(d).

Sec. 404.105 [Amended]

0
11. In Sec. 404.105, remove the words ``return on investment'' and
add, in their place, the words ``working capital fund.''

Dated: October 13, 2016.
Michael D. Emerson,
Director, Marine Transportation Systems, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2016-25254 Filed 10-18-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.