[Federal Register: April 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 78)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18669-18682]
[DOCID:fr24ap09-21]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 401

[Docket No. USCG-2008-1126]
RIN 1625-AB29

2009 Rates for Pilotage on the Great Lakes

AGENCY:  Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:  Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY:  The Coast Guard is proposing to update the rates for pilotage
on the Great Lakes by 9.41%, effective August 1, 2009, to generate
sufficient revenue to cover allowable expenses, target pilot
compensation, and returns on investment. The proposed update reflects
an August 1, 2009, increase in benchmark contractual wages and
benefits, as well as an increase in the ratio of pilots to ``bridge
hours.'' This rulemaking promotes the Coast Guard strategic goal of
maritime safety.

DATES:  Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management
Facility on or before May 26, 2009.

ADDRESSES:  You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2008-1126 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For questions on this proposed rule,
call Mr. Woo S. Kim, Program Analyst, Great Lakes Pilotage Branch,
Commandant (CG-54122), U.S. Coast Guard, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax 202-
372-1929, or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
    A. Submitting comments
    B. Viewing comments and documents
    C. Privacy Act
    D. Public Meeting:
II. Abbreviations
III. Background and Purpose
IV. Discussion of the Proposed Rule
V. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, (USCG-2008-1126), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address,
an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only one
means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received

during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of
them.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at
any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-1126)
in the Search box, and click ``Go >>.'' If you do not have access to
the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act system of
records notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008
issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

D. Public Meeting

    We do not plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that
one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

II. Abbreviations

AMOU American Maritime Officers Union
MISLE Coast Guard Marine Inspection, Safety, and Law Enforcement
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NVMC National Vessel Movement Center
OMB Office of Management and Budget

III. Background and Purpose

    This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is issued pursuant to
Coast Guard regulations in 46 CFR Parts 401-404. Those regulations
implement the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 93,
which requires foreign-flag vessels and U.S.-flag vessels engaged in
foreign trade to use federally registered Great Lakes pilots while
transiting the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes system, and
which requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to ``prescribe by
regulation rates and charges for pilotage services, giving
consideration to the public interest and the costs of providing the
services.'' 46 U.S.C. 9303(f).
    The 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 to operate a pilotage pool. It is important to
note that, while the Coast Guard sets rates, it does not control the
actual compensation that pilots receive. This is determined by each of
the three District associations, which use 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 Michigan, Huron, and
Superior. Area 3 is the Welland Canal, which is serviced exclusively by
the Canadian Great Lakes Pilotage Authority and, accordingly, is not
included in the U.S. rate structure. Areas 1, 5, and 7 have been
designated by Presidential Proclamation, pursuant to the Great Lakes
Pilotage Act of 1960, to be waters in which pilots must at all times be
fully engaged in the navigation of vessels in their charge. Areas 2, 4,
6, and 8 have not been so designated because they are open bodies of
water. Under the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960, pilots assigned to
vessels in these areas are only required to ``be on board and available
to direct the navigation of the vessel at the discretion of and subject
to the customary authority of the master.'' 46 U.S.C. 9302(a)(1)(B).
    The Coast Guard pilotage regulations require annual reviews of
pilotage rates and the setting of new rates at least once every five
years, or sooner, if annual reviews show a need. 46 CFR 404.1. To
assist in calculating pilotage rates, the pilotage associations are
required to submit to the Coast Guard annual financial statements
prepared by certified public accounting firms. In addition, every fifth
year, in connection with the mandatory rate adjustment, the Coast Guard
contracts with an independent accounting firm to conduct a full audit
of the accounts and records of the pilotage associations and prepare
and submit financial reports relevant to the ratemaking process. In
those years when a full ratemaking is conducted, the Coast Guard
generates the pilotage rates using Appendix A to 46 CFR Part 404.
Between the five-year full ratemaking intervals, the Coast Guard
annually reviews the pilotage rates using Appendix C to Part 404, and
adjusts rates when deemed appropriate. Terms and formulas used in
Appendix A and Appendix C are defined in Appendix B to Part 404.
    The last full ratemaking using the Appendix A methodology was
published on April 3, 2006 (71 FR 16501). Rates for the 2007 season
were adjusted based on an Appendix C review and the final rule was
published on September 18, 2007 (72 FR 53158). Rates for the 2008
shipping season were also adjusted based on an Appendix C review
published in an interim rule (73 FR 15092) on March 21, 2008 and a
final rule (74 FR 220) on January 5, 2009. The present rulemaking
proposes rate adjustments for the 2009 shipping season, based once
again on an Appendix C review.

IV. Discussion of the Proposed Rule

    The pilotage regulations require that pilotage rates be reviewed
annually. If the annual review shows that pilotage rates are within a
reasonable range of the base target pilot compensation set in the
previous ratemaking, no adjustment to the rates will be initiated.
However, if the annual review indicates that an adjustment is
necessary, then the Coast Guard will establish new pilotage rates
pursuant to 46 CFR 404.10.

A. Proposed Pilotage Rate Changes--Summarized

    The Appendix C to 46 CFR 404 ratemaking methodology is intended for
use during the years between Appendix A full ratemaking reviews and
adjustments. This section summarizes the rate changes proposed for
2009, and then discusses in detail how the proposed changes were
calculated under Appendix C. We are proposing an increase of 9.41%
across all Districts over the last pilotage rate adjustment. This
reflects an August 1, 2009, increase in benchmark contractual wages and
benefits, as well as an increase in the ratio of pilots to ``bridge
hours,'' which are the number of hours a pilot is aboard a vessel
providing pilotage service. Actual rate increases vary by Area, and are
summarized in Table 1.

                     Table 1--2009 Area Rate Changes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Then the proposed
                                                           percentage
                                                         increases over
         If pilotage service is required in:            the current rate
                                                              is:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Area 1 (Designated waters)..........................               3.89
 Area 2 (Undesignated waters)........................               4.44
 Area 4 (Undesignated waters)........................               4.54
 Area 5 (Designated waters)..........................               4.12
 Area 6 (Undesignated waters)........................              12.14
 Area 7 (Designated waters)..........................              23.07
 Area 8 (Undesignated waters)........................               2.18
 Overall Rate Change (percentage change in overall                  9.41
 prospective unit costs/base unit costs; see Table
 18).................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rates for cancellation, delay, or interruption in rendering
services (46 CFR 401.420), and basic rates and charges for carrying a
U.S. pilot beyond the normal change point, or for boarding at other
than the normal boarding point (46 CFR 401.428), have been increased by
9.41% in all Areas.

B. Calculating the Rate Adjustment

    The Appendix C ratemaking calculation involves eight steps:
    Step 1: Calculate the total economic costs for the base period
(i.e., pilot compensation expense plus all other recognized expenses
plus the return element) and divide by the total bridge hours used in
setting the base period rates;
    Step 2: Calculate the ``expense multiplier,'' the ratio of other
expenses and the return element to pilot compensation for the base
period;
    Step 3: Calculate an annual ``projection of target pilot
compensation'' using the same procedures found in Step 2 of Appendix A;
    Step 4: Increase the projected pilot compensation in Step 3 by the
expense multiplier in Step 2;
    Step 5: Adjust the result in Step 4, as required, for inflation or
deflation;
    Step 6: Divide the result in Step 5 by projected bridge hours to
determine total unit costs;
    Step 7: Divide prospective unit costs in Step 6 by the base period
unit costs in Step 1; and
    Step 8: Adjust the base period rates by the percentage changes in
unit cost in Step 7.
    The base data used to calculate each of the eight steps comes from
the 2008 Appendix C review. The Coast Guard also used the most recent
union contracts between the American Maritime Officers Union (AMOU) and
vessel owners and operators on the Great Lakes to determine target
pilot compensation. Bridge hour projections for the 2009 season have
been obtained from historical data, pilots, and industry. All documents
and records used in this rate calculation have been placed in the
public docket for this rulemaking and are available for review at the
addresses listed under ADDRESSES.
    Some values may not total exactly due to format rounding for
presentation in charts and explanations in this section. The rounding
does not affect the integrity or truncate the real value of all
calculations in the ratemaking methodology described below.
    Step 1: Calculate the total economic cost for the base period. In
this step, for each Area, we divide total economic costs for the base
period by the total bridge hours used in setting the base period rates,
to yield the base cost per bridge hour. Total base period economic
costs include pilot compensation expenses, plus all other recognized
expenses, plus the return on investment element set during the last
Appendix A review (2006). The calculations providing the total base
period economic costs for each Area are summarized in Table 16 of the
2008 final rule (74 FR 220; Jan. 5, 2009). Total bridge hours use in
setting the base period rates were calculated in Table 13 of the 2008
final rule. Tables 2 through 4 summarize the Step 1 calculations:

                           Table 2--Total Economic Cost for Base Period, District One
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Area 1 St.      Area 2 Lake   Total District
                                                                  Lawrence River      Ontario           One
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total base period economic costs................................      $2,078,551      $1,474,806      $3,553,357
Base bridge hours...............................................         / 5,661         / 5,650        / 11,311
Base cost per bridge hour.......................................       = $367.17       = $261.03       = $314.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Table 3--Total Economic Cost for Base Period, District Two
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Area 5
                                                                    Area 4 Lake      Southeast    Total District
                                                                       Erie        Shoal to Port        Two
                                                                                Huron, MI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total base period economic costs................................      $1,251,203      $2,334,169      $3,585,372
Base bridge hours...............................................         / 7,320         / 5,097        / 12,417
Base cost per bridge hour.......................................       = $170.93       = $457.95       = $288.75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Table 4--Total Economic Cost for Base Period, District Three
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Area 6 Lakes
                                                     Huron and      Area 7 St.      Area 8 Lake   Total District
                                                     Michigan      Mary's River      Superior          Three
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total base period economic costs................      $2,884,724      $1,427,515      $1,944,032      $6,256,273
Base bridge hours...............................        / 18,000         / 3,863        / 11,390        / 33,253
Base cost per bridge hour.......................       = $160.26       = $369.54       = $170.68       = $188.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Step 2. Calculate the expense multiplier. In this step, for each
Area, we calculate an expense multiplier by dividing the base operating
expense, shown in Table 16, Column B of the 2008 final rule, by base
pilot compensation, shown in Table 16, Column C of the 2008 final rule.
Tables 5 through 7 show the Step 2 calculations.

                                    Table 5--Expense Multiplier, District One
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Area 1 St.     Area 2b Lake   Total District
                                                                  Lawrence River      Ontario           One
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base operating expense..........................................        $516,138        $529,046      $1,045,185
Base target pilot compensation..................................    / $1,562,413      / $945,760    / $2,508,173
Expense multiplier..............................................        = .33035        = .55939        = .41671
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                    Table 6--Expense Multiplier, District Two
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Area 5
                                                                    Area 4 Lake      Southeast    Total District
                                                                       Erie        Shoal to Port        Two
                                                                                Huron, MI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base operating expense..........................................        $494,595        $771,756      $1,266,351
Base target pilot compensation..................................      / $756,608    / $1,562,413    / $2,319,021
Expense multiplier..............................................        = .65370        = .49395        = .54607
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   Table 7--Expense Multiplier, District Three
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Area 6 Lakes
                                                     Huron and      Area 7 St.      Area 8 Lake   Total District
                                                     Michigan      Mary's River      Superior          Three
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base operating expense..........................        $993,207        $384,201        $619,968      $1,997,375
Base target pilot compensation..................    / $1,891,520    / $1,041,609    / $1,324,064    / $4,257,193
Expense multiplier..............................        = .52508        = .36885        = .46823        = .46918
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Step 3. Calculate annual projection of target pilot compensation.
In this step, we determine the new target rate of compensation and the
new number of pilots needed in each pilotage Area, to determine the new
target pilot compensation for each Area.
    (a) Determine new target rate of compensation. Target pilot
compensation is based on the average annual compensation of first mates
and masters on U.S. Great Lakes vessels. Compensation includes wages
and benefits. For pilots in undesignated waters, we approximate the
first mates' compensation and, in designated waters, we approximate the
master's compensation (first mates' wages multiplied by 150% plus
benefits). To determine first mates' and masters' average annual
compensation, we use data from the most recent AMOU contracts with the
U.S. companies engaged in Great Lakes shipping. Where different AMOU
agreements apply to different companies, we apportion the compensation
provided by each agreement according to the percentage of tonnage
represented by companies under each agreement.
    On August 16, 2007, the Coast Guard received the two most recent
AMOU contracts. ``Agreement A'' covers vessels operated by American
Steamship Co. and Inland Lakes Management, Inc. Inland Lakes Management
operations continue to be covered by Agreement A, despite that
company's 2008 acquisition by Mittal Steel USA, Inc. ``Agreement B''
covers vessels operated by Key Lakes, Inc., and all other vessels
operated by Mittal Steel.
    Both Agreement A and Agreement B provide for a 3% wage increase
effective August 1, 2009. Under Agreement A, the daily wage rate will
be increased from $255.28 to $262.73. Under Agreement B, the daily wage
rate will be increased from $314.42 to $323.86.
    To calculate monthly wages, we apply Agreement A and Agreement B
monthly multipliers of 54.5 and 49.5, respectively, to the daily rate.
Agreement A's 54.5 multiplier represents 30.5 average working days,
15.5 vacation days, 4 days for four weekends, 3 bonus days, and 1.5
holidays. Agreement B's 49.5 multiplier represents 30.5 average working
days, 16 vacation days, and 3 bonus days.
    To calculate average annual compensation, we multiply monthly
figures by 9 months, the length of the Great Lakes shipping season.
    Table 8 shows new wage calculations based on Agreements A and B
effective August 1, 2009.

                             Table 8--Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Pilots on
                                             Pilots on      designated
            Monthly component              undesignated       waters
                                              waters       (undesignated
                                                              x 150%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGREEMENT A: $262.73 daily rate x 54.5           $14,319         $21,478
 days...................................
AGREEMENT A:
    Monthly total x 9 months = total             128,870         193,305
     wages..............................
AGREEMENT B:
    323.86 daily rate x 49.5 days.......          16,031          24,046
AGREEMENT B:
    Monthly total x 9 months = total             144,278         216,417
     wages..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both Agreements A and B include a health benefits contribution rate
of $80.69 effective August 1, 2009. Agreement A includes a pension plan
contribution rate of $33.35 per man-day. Agreement B includes a pension
plan contribution rate of $43.55 per man-day. Both Agreements A and B
provide a 401K employer matching rate, 5% of the wage rate. Neither
Agreement A nor Agreement B includes a clerical contribution that
appeared in earlier contracts. Per the AMOU, the multiplier used to
calculate monthly benefits is 45.5 days.
    Table 9 shows new benefit calculations based on Agreements A and B,
effective August 1, 2009.

                            Table 9--Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Pilots on       Pilots on
            Monthly component              undesignated     designated
                                              waters          waters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGREEMENT A:
    Employer contribution, 401(K) plan           $715.95       $1,073.92
     (Monthly Wages x 5%)...............
    Pension = 33.35 x 45.5 days.........        1,517.43        1,517.43
    Health = 80.69 x 45.5 days..........        3,671.40        3,671.40
AGREEMENT B:
    Employer contribution, 401(K) plan            801.54        1,202.32
     (Monthly Wages x 5%)...............
    Pension = 43.55 x 45.5 days.........        1,981.53        1,981.53
    Health = 80.69 x 45.5 days..........        3,671.40        3,671.40
AGREEMENT A:
    Monthly total benefits..............      = 5,904.77      = 6,262.74
AGREEMENT A:
    Monthly total benefits x 9 months...        = 53,143        = 56,365
AGREEMENT B:
    Monthly total benefits..............      = 6,454.46      = 6,855.24
AGREEMENT B:
    Monthly total benefits x 9 months...        = 58,090        = 61,697
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 10 totals the wages and benefits under each agreement.

                   Table 10--Total Wages and Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Pilots on        Pilots on
                                          undesignated      designated
                                             waters           waters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGREEMENT A: Wages....................         $128,870         $193,305
AGREEMENT A: Benefits.................         + 53,143         + 56,365
                                       ---------------------------------
    AGREEMENT A: Total................        = 182,013        = 249,670
AGREEMENT B: Wages....................          144,278          216,417
AGREEMENT B: Benefits.................         + 58,090         + 61,697
                                       ---------------------------------
    AGREEMENT B: Total................        = 202,368        = 278,114
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 11 shows that approximately one third of U.S. Great Lakes
shipping deadweight tonnage operates under Agreement A, with the
remaining two thirds operating under Agreement B.

        Table 11--Deadweight Tonnage, Agreement A and Agreement B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Company                    Agreement A     Agreement B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Steamship Company..............  ..............         664,215
Mittal Steel USA, Inc. (including Inland          12,656          96,544
 Lakes Management, Inc., vessels
 acquired by Mittal and continuing to
 operate under Agreement A).............
Key Lakes, Inc..........................         361,385
                                         -------------------------------
    Total tonnage, each agreement.......         374,041         760,759
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Percent tonnage, each agreement.       374,041 /       760,759 /
                                             1,134,800 =     1,134,800 =
                                                32.9600%        67.0400%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 12 applies the percentage of tonnage represented by each
agreement to the wages and benefits provided by each agreement, to
determine the projected target rate of compensation on a tonnage-
weighted basis.

                     Table 12--Projected Target Rate of Compensation, Weighted by Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Undesignated waters       Designated waters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGREEMENT A:
Total wages and benefits x percent tonnage....................        $182,013 x 32.96%        $249,670 x 32.96%
                                                                              = $59,993                = $82,294
AGREEMENT B:
Total wages and benefits x percent tonnage....................        $202,368 x 67.04%        $278,114 x 67.04%
                                                                             = $135,666               = $186,445
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Total weighted average wages and benefits = projected            $59,993 + $135,666       $82,294 + $186,445
     target rate of compensation..............................               = $195,659               = $268,738
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Determine number of pilots needed. Subject to adjustment by the
Coast Guard Director of Great Lakes Pilotage to ensure uninterrupted
service, we determine the number of pilots needed in each Area by
dividing each Area's projected bridge hours, either by 1,000
(designated waters) or by 1,800 (undesignated waters).
    Bridge hours are the number of hours a pilot is aboard a vessel
providing pilotage service. Projected bridge hours are based on the
vessel traffic that pilots are expected to serve. Based on historical
data and information provided by pilots and industry, the Coast Guard
projects that vessel traffic in Districts 1 and 2, for the 2009
navigation season, will remain at the same level as in 2007. In
District 3, the actual bridge hours for Areas 6 and 7 were down by more
than 17% and 6%, respectively, when compared to the projected bridge
hours in 2007. Consequently, District 3 has recommended, and we have
agreed, to reduce the projected 2009 Area 6 and Area 7 bridge hours by
10% from 2007. Consistent with this decrease in projected bridge hours,
we are also reducing the number of pilots in Area 6 by two. We are
projecting the same number of bridge hours for 2009 in Area 8 as we did
in 2007.
    Table 13 shows the projected bridge hours needed for each Area, and
the total number of pilots needed after dividing those figures either
by 1,000 or 1,800 and rounding up to the next whole pilot:

                                        Table 13--Number of Pilots Needed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Divided by 1,000
                                                                                (designated
                       Pilotage area                         Projected 2009   waters) or 1,800    Pilots needed
                                                              bridge hours      (undesignated     (total = 40)
                                                                                waters)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 1....................................................             5,661             1,000                 6
Area 2....................................................             5,650             1,800               * 5
Area 4....................................................             7,320             1,800                 4
Area 5....................................................             5,097             1,000                 6
Area 6....................................................            13,406             1,800                 8
Area 7....................................................             3,259             1,000                 4
Area 8....................................................            11,630             1,800                 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As indicated in the 2008 Final Rule, the Director has exercised his discretion to maintain 5 pilots in Area 2,
  to ensure facilitation of traffic.

    (c) Determine the projected target pilot compensation for each
Area. The projection of new total target pilot compensation is
determined separately for each pilotage Area by multiplying the number
of pilots needed in each Area (see Table 13) by the projected target
rate of compensation (see Table 12) for pilots working in that Area.
Table 14 shows this calculation.

                                  Table 14--Projected Target Pilot Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Multiplied by     Projected target
                     Pilotage area                         Pilots needed      target rate of         pilot
                                                            (total = 40)       compensation       compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 1.................................................                  6         x $268,738         $1,612,431
Area 2.................................................                  5          x 195,659            978,294
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total, District One................................                 11  .................          2,590,725
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 4.................................................                  4          x 195,659            782,635
Area 5.................................................                  6          x 268,738          1,612,431
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total, District Two................................                 10  .................          2,395,066
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 6.................................................                  8          x 195,659          1,565,271
Area 7.................................................                  4          x 268,738          1,074,954
Area 8.................................................                  7          x 195,659          1,369,612
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total, District Three..............................                 19  .................          4,009,836
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Step 4: Increase the projected pilot compensation in Step 3 by the
expense multiplier in Step 2. This step yields a projected increase in
operating costs necessary to support the increased projected pilot
compensation. Table 15 shows this calculation.

 Table 15--Projected Pilot Compensation, Multiplied by the Expense Multiplier Equals Projected Operating Expense
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Projected target    Multiplied by
                     Pilotage area                             pilot             expense           Projected
                                                            compensation        multiplier     operating expense
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 1.................................................         $1,612,431           x .33035           $532,661
Area 2.................................................            978,294           x .55939            547,246
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total, District One................................          2,590,725           x .41671          1,079,585
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 4.................................................            782,635           x .65370            511,609
Area 5.................................................          1,612,431           x .49395            796,463
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total, District Two................................          2,395,066           x .54607          1,307,877
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 6.................................................          1,565,271           x .52508            821,898
Area 7.................................................          1,074,954           x .36885            396,501
Area 8.................................................          1,369,612           x .46823            641,295
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total, District Three..............................          4,009,836           x .46918          1,881,322
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Step 5: Adjust the result in Step 4, as required, for inflation or
deflation, and calculate projected total economic cost. Based on data
from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics, we have
multiplied the results in Step 4 by a 1.027 inflation factor,
reflecting an average inflation rate of 2.7% in ``Midwest Economy--
Consumer Prices'' between 2006 and 2007, the latest years for which
data are available. Table 16 shows this calculation and the projected
total economic cost.

 Table 16--Projected Operating Expense, Adjusted for Inflation, and Added to Projected Target Pilot Compensation
                                      Equals Projected Total Economic Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            B. Increase,
                                         A. Projected      multiplied by       C. Projected       D. Projected
            Pilotage area             operating expense   inflation factor     target pilot      total economic
                                                           (= A x 1.027)       compensation      cost (= B + C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 1..............................           $532,661           $547,043         $1,612,431         $2,159,474
Area 2..............................            547,246            562,021            978,294          1,540,315
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total, District One.............          1,079,585          1,108,734          2,590,725          3,699,790
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 4..............................            511,609            525,422            782,635          1,308,058
Area 5..............................            796,463            817,967          1,612,431          2,430,398
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total, District Two.............          1,307,877          1,343,190          2,395,066          3,738,456
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Area 6..............................            821,898            844,090          1,565,271          2,409,360
Area 7..............................            396,501            407,206          1,074,954          1,482,160
Area 8..............................            641,295            658,610          1,369,612          2,028,221
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total, District Three...........          1,881,322          1,932,117          4,009,836          5,941,954
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Step 6: Divide the result in Step 5 by projected bridge hours to
determine total unit costs. Table 17 shows this calculation.

                                    Table 17--Prospective (Total) Unit Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Prospective
                                                              A. Projected      B. Projected      (total) unit
                       Pilotage area                         total economic      2009 bridge    costs (A divided
                                                                  cost              hours             by B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 1....................................................        $2,159,474             5,661           $381.47
Area 2....................................................         1,540,315             5,650            272.62
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total, District One...................................         3,699,790            11,311            327.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 4....................................................         1,308,058             7,320            178.70
Area 5....................................................         2,430,398             5,097            476.83
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total, District Two...................................         3,738,456            12,417            301.08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 6....................................................         2,409,360            13,406            179.72
Area 7....................................................         1,482,160             3,259            454.79
Area 8....................................................         2,028,221            11,630            174.40
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total, District Three.................................         5,941,954            28,295            210.00
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
        Overall...........................................        13,380,200            52,023            257.19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Step 7: Divide prospective unit costs (total unit costs) in Step 6
by the base period unit costs in Step 1. Table 18 shows this
calculation, which expresses the percentage change between the total
unit costs and the base unit costs. The results, for each Area, are
identical with the percentage increases listed in Table 1.

                       Table 18--Percentage Change, Prospective vs. Base Period Unit Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                C. Percentage
                                                                                change from base
                                                             A. Prospective    B. Base period   (A divided by B;
                       Pilotage area                           unit costs        unit costs          result
                                                                                expressed as
                                                                                percentage)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 1....................................................           $381.47           $367.17              3.89
Area 2....................................................            272.62            261.03              4.44
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total, District One...................................            327.07            314.15              4.11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 4....................................................            178.70            170.93              4.54
Area 5....................................................            476.83            457.95              4.12
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total, District Two...................................            301.06            288.75              4.26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 6....................................................            179.72            160.26             12.14
Area 7....................................................            454.79            369.54             23.07
Area 8....................................................            174.40            170.68              2.18
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total, District Three.................................            210.00            188.14             11.62
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
        Overall...........................................            257.19            235.08              9.41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Step 8: Adjust the base period rates by the percentage change in
unit costs in Step 7. Table 19 shows this calculation.

                    Table 19--Base Period Rates Adjusted by Percentage Change in Unit Costs *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                D. Adjusted
                                                                  B. Percentage   C. Increase in   rate (A + C,
                   Pilotage                     A. Base period   change in unit    base rate  (A    rounded to
                                                     rate             costs            x B%)          nearest
                                                                                dollar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area                                                                (Multiplying
                                                                         factor)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 1........................................  ..............     3.89 (1.0389)
    --Basic pilotage..........................      $14.94/km,  ................       $0.58/km,      $15.52/km,
                                                     $26.44/mi                          $1.04/mi       $27.48/mi
    --Each lock transited.....................          331.03  ................           12.89          343.92
    --Harbor movage...........................        1,083.89  ................           42.20        1,126.09
    --Minimum basic rate, St. Lawrence River..          722.98  ................           28.15          751.12
    --Maximum rate, through trip..............        3,173.51  ................          123.55        3,297.07
Area 2........................................  ..............     4.44 (1.0444)
    --6-hr. period............................          780.23  ................           34.66          814.89
    --Docking or undocking....................          744.24  ................           33.06          777.30
Area 4........................................  ..............     4.54 (1.0454)
    --6-hr. period............................          688.35  ................           31.28          719.63
    --Docking or undocking....................          530.49  ................           24.11          554.60
    --Any point on Niagara River below Black          1,354.15  ................           61.53        1,415.68
     Rock Lock................................
Area 5 between any point on or in.............  ..............     4.12 (1.0412)
    --Toledo or any point on Lake Erie W. of          1,243.75  ................           51.28        1,295.03
     Southeast Shoal..........................
    --Toledo or any point on Lake Erie W. of          2,104.72  ................           86.77        2,191.49
     Southeast Shoal & Southeast Shoal........
    --Toledo or any point on Lake Erie W. of          2,732.79  ................          112.66        2,845.45
     Southeast Shoal & Detroit River..........
    --Toledo or any point on Lake Erie W. of          2,104.72  ................           86.77        2,191.49
     Southeast Shoal & Detroit Pilot Boat.....
    --Port Huron Change Point & Southeast             3,665.60  ................          151.12        3,816.72
     Shoal (when pilots are not changed at the
     Detroit Pilot Boat)......................
    --Port Huron Change Point & Toledo or any         4,246.60  ................          175.07        4,421.67
     point on Lake Erie W. of Southeast Shoal
     (when pilots are not changed at the
     Detroit Pilot Boat)......................
    --Port Huron Change Point & Detroit River.        2,753.85  ................          113.53        2,867.38
    --Port Huron Change Point & Detroit Pilot         2,141.88  ................           88.30        2,230.18
     Boat.....................................
    --Port Huron Change Point & St. Clair             1,522.48  ................           62.77        1,585.25
     River....................................
    --St. Clair River.........................        1,243.75  ................           51.28        1,295.03
    --St. Clair River & Southeast Shoal (when         3,665.60  ................          151.12        3,816.72
     pilots are not changed at the Detroit
     Pilot Boat)..............................
    --St. Clair River & Detroit River/Detroit         2,753.85  ................          113.53        2,867.38
     Pilot Boat...............................
    --Detroit, Windsor, or Detroit River......        1,243.75  ................           51.28        1,295.03
    --Detroit, Windsor, or Detroit River &            2,104.72  ................           86.77        2,191.49
     Southeast Shoal..........................
    --Detroit, Windsor, or Detroit River &            2,732.79  ................          112.66        2,845.45
     Toledo or any point on Lake Erie W. of
     Southeast Shoal..........................
    --Detroit, Windsor, or Detroit River & St.        2,753.85  ................          113.53        2,867.38
     Clair River..............................
    --Detroit Pilot Boat & Southeast Shoal....        1,522.48  ................           62.77        1,585.25
    --Detroit Pilot Boat & Toledo or any point        2,104.72  ................           86.77        2,191.49
     on Lake Erie W. of Southeast Shoal.......
    --Detroit Pilot Boat & St. Clair River....        2,753.85  ................          113.53        2,867.38
Area 6........................................  ..............    12.14 (1.1214)
    --6-hr. period............................          553.62  ................           67.22          620.84
    --Docking or undocking....................          525.88  ................           63.86          589.74
Area 7 between any point on or in.............  ..............    23.07 (1.2307)
    --Gros Cap & De Tour......................        1,975.83  ................          455.84        2,431.67
    --Algoma Steel Corp. Wharf, Sault Ste.            1,975.83  ................          455.84        2,431.67
     Marie, Ont. & De Tour....................
    --Algoma Steel Corp. Wharf, Sault Ste.              744.10  ................          171.67          915.77
     Marie, Ont. & Gros Cap...................
    --Any point in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.,            1,656.11  ................          382.08        2,038.19
     except the Algoma Steel Corp. Wharf & De
     Tour.....................................
    --Any point in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.,              744.10  ................          171.67          915.77
     except the Algoma Steel Corp. Wharf &
     Gros Cap.................................
    --Sault Ste. Marie, MI & De Tour..........        1,656.11  ................          382.08        2,038.19
    --Sault Ste. Marie, MI & Gros Cap.........          744.10  ................          171.67          915.77
    --Harbor movage...........................          744.10  ................          171.67          915.77
Area 8........................................  ..............     2.18 (1.0218)
    --6-hr. period............................          535.92  ................           11.67          547.59

    --Docking or undocking....................          509.36  ................           11.09          520.45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Rates for ``Cancellation, delay or interruption in rendering services (Sec.   401.420)'' and ``Basic Rates and
  charges for carrying a U.S. pilot beyond the normal change point, or for boarding at other than the normal
  boarding point (Sec.   401.428)'' are not reflected in this table but have been increased by 9.41% across all
  areas.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below, we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993, requires a determination whether a regulatory
action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) and subject to the requirements of the
Executive Order. This rulemaking is not significant under Executive
Order 12866 and will not be reviewed by OMB.
    The Coast Guard is required to conduct an annual review of pilotage
rates on the Great Lakes and, if necessary, adjust these rates to align
compensation levels between Great Lakes pilots and industry. See the
``Background and Purpose'' section for a detailed explanation of the
legal authority and requirements for the Coast Guard to conduct an
annual review and provide possible adjustments of pilotage rates on the
Great Lakes. Based on our annual review for this rulemaking, we are
proposing an adjustment to the pilotage rates for the 2009 shipping
season to generate sufficient revenue to cover allowable expenses,
target pilot compensation, and returns on investment.
    This proposed rule would implement a 9.41 percent overall rate
adjustment for the Great Lakes system over the current rate as adjusted
in the 2008 final rule. These adjustments to Great Lakes pilotage rates
meet the requirements set forth in 46 CFR part 404 for similar
compensation levels between Great Lakes pilots and industry. They also
include adjustments for inflation and changes in association expenses
to maintain these compensation levels.
    In general, we expect an increase in pilotage rates for a certain
area to result in additional costs for shippers using pilotage services
in that area, while a decrease would result in a cost reduction or
savings for shippers in that area. This proposed rule would result in a
distributional effect that transfers payments (income) from affected
shippers (vessel owners and operators) to the Great Lakes' pilot
associations through Coast Guard regulated pilotage rates.
    The shippers affected by these rate adjustments are those owners
and operators of domestic vessels operating on register (employed in
the foreign trade) and owners and operators of foreign vessels on a
route within the Great Lakes system. These owners and operators must
have pilots or pilotage service as required by 46 U.S.C. 9302. There is
no minimum tonnage limit or exemption for these vessels. However, the
Coast Guard issued a policy position several years ago stating that the
statute applies only to commercial vessels and not to recreational
vessels.
    Owners and operators of other vessels that are not affected by this
proposed rule, such as recreational boats and vessels only operating
within the Great Lakes system, may elect to purchase pilotage services.
However, this election is voluntary and does not affect the Coast
Guard's calculation of the rate increase and is not a part of our
estimated national cost to shippers.
    We reviewed a sample of pilot source forms, which are the forms
used to record pilotage transactions on vessels, and discovered very
few cases of U.S. Great Lakes vessels (i.e., domestic vessels without
registry operating only in the Great Lakes) that purchased pilotage
services. We found a case where the vessel operator purchased pilotage
service in District One to presumably leave the Great Lakes system. We
assume some vessel owners and operators may also choose to purchase
pilotage services if their vessels are carrying hazardous substances or
were navigating the Great Lakes system with inexperienced personnel.
Based on information from the Coast Guard Office of Great Lakes
Pilotage, we have determined that these vessels voluntarily chose to
use pilots and, therefore, are exempt from pilotage requirements.
    We used 2006-2007 vessel arrival data from the Coast Guard's Marine
Inspection, Safety, and Law Enforcement (MISLE) system to estimate the
average annual number of vessels affected by the rate adjustment to be
208 vessels that journey into the Great Lakes system. These vessels
entered the Great Lakes by transiting through or in part of at least
one of the three pilotage Districts before leaving the Great Lakes
system. These vessels often make more than one distinct stop, docking,
loading, and unloading at facilities in Great Lakes ports. Of the total
trips for the 208 vessels, there were approximately 923 annual U.S.
port arrivals before the vessels left the Great Lakes system, based on
2006-2007 vessel data from MISLE.
    The impact of the rate adjustment to shippers is estimated from the
district pilotage revenues. These revenues represent the direct and
indirect costs (``economic costs'') that shippers must pay for pilotage
services. The Coast Guard sets rates so that revenues equal the
estimated cost of pilotage.
    We estimate the additional impact (costs or savings) of the rate
adjustment in this proposed rule to be the difference between the total
projected revenue needed to cover costs based on the 2008 rate
adjustment and the total projected revenue needed to cover costs in
this proposed rule for 2009. Table 20 details additional costs or
savings by area and district.

                        Table 20--Rate Adjustment and Additional Impact of Proposed Rule
                                           [$U.S.; non-discounted] \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Additional
                                                     Projected                       Projected       costs or
                                                    revenue in     Proposed rate    revenue in      savings of
                                                       2008           change           2009        proposed rule
                                                                                \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Area 1.........................................      $2,078,551          1.0389      $2,159,474         $80,923
 Area 2.........................................       1,474,806          1.0444       1,540,315          65,509
 District 1.....................................       3,553,357          1.0412       3,699,790         146,433
 Area 4.........................................       1,251,203          1.0454       1,308,058          56,855
 Area 5.........................................       2,334,169          1.0412       2,430,398          96,229
 District 2.....................................       3,585,372          1.0427       3,738,456         153,084
Area 6..........................................       2,884,724          0.8352       2,409,360   \3\ (475,364)
 Area 7.........................................       1,427,515          1.0383       1,482,160          54,645
 Area 8.........................................       1,944,032          1.0433       2,028,221          84,189
 District 3.....................................       6,256,273          0.9498       5,941,954   \3\ (314,319)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some values may not total due to rounding.
\2\ Additional cost or savings of this rule = `Projected revenue in 2009' - `Projected Revenue in 2008'.
\3\ Area 6 incurs a substantial cost savings that results in a net cost savings for pilotage services in
  District 3 and the system. The sum of the additional impacts from this rulemaking result in a net savings for
  the system of about $15,000.

    After applying the rate change in this proposed rule, the resulting
difference between the projected revenue in 2008 and the projected
revenue in 2009 is the annual impact to shippers from this proposed
rule. This figure will be equivalent to the total additional payments
or savings that shippers will incur for pilotage services from this
proposed rule. As discussed earlier, we consider a reduction in
payments to be a cost savings.
    The impact of the rate adjustment in this proposed rule to shippers
varies by area and district. The annual costs of the rate adjustments
in Districts 1 and 2 are approximately $146,000 and $153,000,
respectively, while District 3 will experience an annual savings of
approximately $314,000. To calculate an exact cost or savings per
vessel is difficult because of the variation in vessel types, routes,
port arrivals, commodity carriage, time of season, conditions during
navigation, and preferences for the extent of pilotage services on
designated and undesignated portions of the Great Lakes system. Some
owners and operators will pay more and some will pay less depending on
the distance and port arrivals of their vessels' trips. However, the
annual cost or savings reported above does capture all of the
additional cost the shippers face as a result of the rate adjustment in
this proposed rule.
    As Table 20 indicates, all areas will experience an increased
annual cost due to this proposed rate change except Area 6, which will
experience a savings. The projected savings for Area 6 is approximately
$475,000. This will cause a net savings for District 3, and is due to a
decrease in actual bridge hours in Area 6 from 2008 to 2009. This
decrease in bridge hours led to a decrease in the number of pilots
needed, from 10 pilots in 2008 to 8 pilots in 2009. This decrease in
the number of pilots would reduce the projected revenue needed to cover
costs of pilotage services in Area 6.
    The effects of a rate adjustment on costs and savings vary by year
and area. A decrease in projected expenses for individual areas or
districts is common in past pilotage rate adjustments. Most recently,
in the 2008 Final Rule, District 2 experienced a decrease in projected
expenses due to an adjustment in bridge hours from the 2008 Interim
Rule, which led to a savings for that district. However, this savings
was not large enough to outweigh the costs to the other districts.
    This proposed rate adjustment will result in a savings for District
3 that will outweigh the combined costs of Districts 1 and 2. We
measure the impact of this rulemaking by examining the changes in costs
to shippers for pilotage services. With savings in District 3 exceeding
the combined costs in Districts 1 and 2, the net impact of this
rulemaking would be a cost savings for pilotage services in the Great
Lakes system.

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
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000 people.
    We expect entities affected by the proposed rule would be
classified under the North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) code subsector 483-Water Transportation, which includes one or
all of the following 6-digit NAICS codes for freight transportation:
483111-Deep Sea Freight Transportation, 483113-Coastal and Great Lakes
Freight Transportation, and 483211-Inland Water Freight Transportation.
According to the Small Business Administration's definition, a U.S.
company with these NAICS codes and employing less than 500 employees is
considered a small entity.
    For the proposed rule, we reviewed recent company size and
ownership data from 2006-2007 Coast Guard MISLE data and business
revenue and size data provided by Reference USA and Dunn and
Bradstreet. We were able to gather revenue and size data or link the
entities to large shipping conglomerates for 22 of the 24 affected
entities in the United States. We found that large, mostly foreign-
owned, shipping conglomerates or their subsidiaries owned or operated
all vessels engaged in foreign trade on the Great Lakes. We assume that
new industry entrants will be comparable in ownership and size to these
shippers.
    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 classified with
the same NAICS industry classification and small entity size standards
described above, but they have far fewer than 500

employees: approximately 65 total employees combined. We expect no
adverse impact to these entities from this proposed rule since all
associations receive enough revenue to balance the projected expenses
associated with the projected number of bridge hours and pilots.
    Therefore, the Coast Guard has determined that this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under 5 U.S.C. Sec.  605(b). If you think that your
business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a
small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant
economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the Docket Management
Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why
you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this proposed rule
would economically affect it.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the proposed rule so that they could 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 call Mr. Woo Kim, Great
Lakes Pilotage Branch, (CG-54122), U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-
1538 or send him e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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
rule does not change the burden in the collection currently approved by
the Office of Management and Budget (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 State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism because there are no similar State regulations, and the
States do not have the authority to regulate and adjust rates for
pilotage services in the Great Lakes system.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule would not result in such expenditure, we do
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

    This rule would not affect 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 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 rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

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

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. 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 (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards.
Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 0023.1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a
preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment, and that therefore the proposed rule
will be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(a) of
the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Paragraph
34(a) pertains to minor regulatory changes that are editorial or
procedural in nature. This rule adjusts rates in accordance with
applicable statutory and regulatory mandates. A preliminary
``Environmental Analysis Check List'' supporting this determination is

available in the docket where indicated under the ``Public
Participation and Request for Comments'' section of this preamble. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 401

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 46 CFR Part 401 as follows:

PART 401--GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE REGULATIONS

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

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2104(a), 6101, 7701, 8105, 9303, 9304;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 46 CFR
401.105 also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507.

    2. In Sec.  401.405, revise paragraphs (a) and (b), including the
footnote to Table (a), to read as follows:

Sec.  401.405  Basic rates and charges on the St. Lawrence River and
Lake Ontario.

* * * * *
    (a) Area 1 (Designated Waters):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Service                        St. Lawrence River
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic Pilotage............................  $15.52 per Kilometer or
                                             $27.48 per mile \1\
Each Lock Transited.......................  $344 \1\
Harbor Movage.............................  $1,126 \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The minimum basic rate for assignment of a pilot in the St. Lawrence
  River is $751, and the maximum basic rate for a through trip is
  $3,298.

    (b) Area 2 (Undesignated Waters):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Service                           Lake Ontario
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six-Hour Period.........................................            $815
Docking or Undocking....................................            $777
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    3. In Sec.  401.407 revise paragraphs (a) and (b), including the
footnote to Table (b), to read as follows:

Sec.  401.407  Basic rates and charges on Lake Erie and the navigable
waters from Southeast Shoal to Port Huron, MI.

* * * * *
    (a) Area 4 (Undesignated Waters):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Lake Erie (east of
             Service               southeast Shoal)         Buffalo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six-Hour Period.................  $720..............  $720
Docking or Undocking............  $555..............  $555
Any Point on the Niagara River    N/A...............  $1,416
 below the Black Rock Lock.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Area 5 (Designated Waters):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Toledo or any
                                                   Point on Lake
       Any point on or in            Southeast     Erie west of    Detroit River   Detroit pilot     St. Clair
                                       Shoal         Southeast                         boat            River
                                                       Shoal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toledo or any port on Lake Erie           $2,192          $1,295          $2,846          $2,192             N/A
 west of Southeast Shoal........
Port Huron Change Point.........      \1\ $3,817      \1\ $4,422          $2,868          $2,230          $1,586
St. Clair River.................      \1\ $3,817             N/A          $2,868          $2,868          $1,295
Detroit or Windsor or the                 $2,192          $2,846          $1,295             N/A          $2,868
 Detroit River..................
Detroit Pilot Boat..............          $1,585          $2,192             N/A             N/A         $2,868
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ When pilots are not changed at the Detroit Pilot Boat.

    4. In Sec.  401.410, revise paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  401.410  Basic rates and charges on Lakes Huron, Michigan, and
Superior, and the St Mary's River.

* * * * *
    (a) Area 6 (Undesignated Waters):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Lakes Huron
           Service             and Michigan
--------------------------------------------
Six-Hour Period.............            $621
Docking or Undocking........            $590
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Area 7 (Designated Waters):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Area                                    De tour        Gros cap       Any harbor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gros Cap........................................................          $2,432             N/A             N/A
Algoma Steel Corporation Wharf at Sault Ste. Marie Ontario......          $2,432            $916             N/A
Any point in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, except the Algoma Steel           $2,038            $916             N/A
 Corporation Wharf..............................................
Sault Ste. Marie, MI............................................          $2,038            $916             N/A
Harbor Movage...................................................             N/A             N/A            $916
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Area 8 (Undesignated Waters):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Service                           Lake Superior
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six-Hour Period.........................................            $548
Docking or Undocking....................................            $521
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  401.420  [Amended]

    5. In Sec.  401.420--
    a. In paragraph (a), remove the number ``$102'' and add, in its
place, the number ``$112''; and remove the number ``$1,604'' and add,
in its place, the number ``$1,755''.
    b. In paragraph (b), remove the number ``$102'' and add, in its
place, the number ``$112''; and remove the number ``$1,604'' and add,
in its place, the number ``$1,755''.
    c. In paragraph (c)(1), remove the number ``$606'' and add, in its
place, the number ``$663''; in paragraph (c)(3), remove the number
``$102'' and add, in its place, the number ``$112''; and, also in
paragraph (c)(3), remove the number ``$1,604'' and add, in its place,
the number ``$1,755''.

Sec.  401.428  [Amended]

    6. In Sec.  401.428, remove the number ``$618'' and add, in its
place, the number ``$676''.

    Dated: April 21, 2009.
James A. Watson,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Prevention Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-9432 Filed 4-21-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: January 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 10)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 1954-1956]
[DOCID:fr17ja07-17]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2005-KY-0004-200609; FRL-8269-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Kentucky:
Performance Testing and Open Burning

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Kentucky State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky,
through the Kentucky Department of Air Quality (KDAQ), on September 6,
2005. The revisions include changes to Kentucky Administrative
Regulations (KAR) Title 401, Chapters 50:045, ``Performance tests,''
and 63:005, ``Open burning.'' The changes included in the proposed SIP
revisions are part of Kentucky's strategy to attain and maintain the 8-
hour ozone and fine particulate (PM2.5) national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) by reducing emissions of PM2.5 and
precursors to ozone. EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's SIP
revisions pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 16,
2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number, ``EPA-
R04-OAR-2005-KY-0004,'' by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2005-KY-0004,'' Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: James Hou, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Number, ``EPA-R04-
OAR-

2005-KY-0004.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI

or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an

``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or

in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Hou, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-8965. Mr. Hou can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of Proposed Action

    On September 6, 2005, KDAQ submitted to EPA proposed SIP revisions
for review and approval into the Kentucky SIP. The proposed revisions
include changes made by the Commonwealth of Kentucky to its performance
test and open burning regulations, found at 401 KAR 50:045 and 401 KAR
63:005, respectively. These changes became state effective on July 13,
2005. The rule changes were made to update Kentucky's regulations on
performance testing, and to establish additional requirements to reduce
emissions from open burning.
    Kentucky's performance testing rule, 401 KAR 50:045, provides
guidelines for the methodology, testing conditions, and reporting
requirements necessary for sources to demonstrate compliance with air
emissions limitations and standards. Corresponding federal rules on
performance tests, promulgated by EPA pursuant to Part D of title I of
the CAA (``Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas''), are found at
40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 63. These federal rules were
incorporated by reference into the Kentucky SIP on July 12, 1982 (47 FR
30059). Kentucky recently made changes to its rules such that the rule
previously containing the performance test requirements, 401 KAR
50:016, is being repealed, and the performance test requirements from
that rule are being placed in 401 KAR 50:045. Because 401 KAR 50:016
was not part of the Kentucky SIP, EPA is not addressing Kentucky's
repeal of that rule. Rather, today's action proposes approval of 401
KAR 50:045, which now includes the performance testing provisions
previously found in 401 KAR 50:016. As part of the movement of the
performance test provisions to 401 KAR 50:045, Kentucky made minor,
non-substantive, changes to the rule. Kentucky's performance testing
rule is consistent with applicable federal law. The proposed SIP
revision regarding performance testing is therefore approvable pursuant
to section 110 of the CAA.
    Kentucky's open burning rule, 401 KAR 63:005, establishes
restrictions on open burning designed to reduce emissions from such
activities. This rule was first approved into the Kentucky SIP on July
12, 1982 (47 FR 30059). The rule is structured such that open burning
in general is prohibited unless specified conditions are met. The
conditions are described in sections 3 and 4 of 401 KAR 63:005; section
5 also includes such restrictions but applies only to open burning for
fire training. Kentucky revised its open burning rule, effective July
13, 2005, in order to better control open burning of potentially
hazardous household garbage. This rule is part of Kentucky's strategy
to attain and maintain the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS by reducing
emissions of PM2.5 and ozone precursors resulting from open burning.
    The open burning rule changes made by Kentucky are intended to
protect air quality in areas where open burning is occurring. The rule
changes clarify instances when open burning of household garbage is
permitted and allow open burning of wood waste or clean lumber by
municipal and county governments. The changes added definitions for
``clean lumber,'' and ``land clearing,'' and modified the definition of
``household rubbish.'' The modification made to the definition of
``household rubbish'' now excludes from the definition any ``other
hazardous waste materials.'' The changes also included a new section,
section 5, which specifically addresses restrictions to open burning
for fire training. Among the new requirements are that substances being
burned for training purposes not contain hazardous or asbestos
containing materials (see, sections 5(3) and 5(4)). The changes made to
section 5 are at least as stringent as the previous regulation. As a
result, the SIP revision is approvable pursuant to section 110 of the
CAA.

II. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revisions submitted by Kentucky
on September 6, 2005. The revisions include changes to two state rules:
401 KAR 50:045, ``Performance tests,'' and 401 KAR 63:005, ``Open
burning.'' The SIP revisions include changes to rules that are part of
Kentucky's strategy to attain and maintain the NAAQS by reducing
emissions of particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen
oxides, and hazardous air pollutants.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this proposed action is also not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely approves state law as
meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also does not have
Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct
effects 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, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This proposed
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
As a result, it does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This proposed rule
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose
an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: January 3, 2007.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
 [FR Doc. E7-531 Filed 1-16-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P