Home/Federal/Federal Register/2023-25425

Proposed Rule2023-25425

Great Lakes Pilotage Modernization

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

November 21, 2023

Issuing agencies

Homeland Security DepartmentCoast Guard

Abstract

The Coast Guard is proposing to amend certain Great Lakes Pilotage regulatory requirements to align with current Coast Guard and U.S. pilot association operations and pilotage practices. This proposed rule would clarify the different phases of training and types of registrations for pilots who work on the Great Lakes, eliminate outdated practices and redundant requirements, and adds much needed structure regarding the billing dispute process.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 223 (Tuesday, November 21, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 21, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 81294-81336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25425]

[[Page 81293]]

Vol. 88

Tuesday,

No. 223

November 21, 2023

Part IV

Department of Homeland Security

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

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 401 and 402

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

Great Lakes Pilotage Modernization; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 223 / Tuesday, November 21, 2023 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 81294]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 401 and 402

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0025]
RIN 1625-AC79

Great Lakes Pilotage Modernization

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to amend certain Great Lakes
Pilotage regulatory requirements to align with current Coast Guard and
U.S. pilot association operations and pilotage practices. This proposed
rule would clarify the different phases of training and types of
registrations for pilots who work on the Great Lakes, eliminate
outdated practices and redundant requirements, and adds much needed
structure regarding the billing dispute process.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before January 22, 2024.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2022-0025 using the Federal Decision Making Portal at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document,
call or email Mr. Vincent Berg, Coast Guard; telephone 202-906-0835,
email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#25534c4b46404b510b430b4740574265505646420b484c49">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
II. Abbreviations
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Background
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
VI. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Small Entities
C. Assistance for Small Entities
D. Collection of Information
E. Federalism
F. Unfunded Mandates
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

The Coast Guard views public participation as essential to
effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the
outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision
Making Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. To do so, go to
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, type USCG-2022-0025 in the search box and click
``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the Search Results column,
and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If you cannot submit
your material by using <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, call or email the person in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for
alternate instructions.
Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> Frequently Asked Questions web
page. That page also explains how to subscribe for email alerts that
will notify you when comments are posted or if a final rule is
published. We review all comments received, but we will only post
comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not
to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we
receive.
Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> will include any personal information you
have provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to
this document, see the Department of Homeland Security's eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
We do not plan to hold a public meeting, but we will consider doing
so if based on public comments we determine that a meeting would be
helpful. We would issue a separate Federal Register notice to announce
the date, time, and location of such a meeting.

II. Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
Director Director, Great Lakes Pilotage
FR Federal Register
GLPAC Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee
GT Gross tonnage
MMC Merchant Mariner Credential
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Sec. Section
TWIC Transportation Workers Identification Credential
U.S.C. United States Code
WWM-2 Coast Guard Great Lakes Pilotage Division

III. Basis and Purpose

The legal basis of this proposed rulemaking is Title 46 of the
United States Code (U.S.C.) Chapter 93,\1\ which requires each foreign
vessel and each vessel of the U.S. operating ``on register,'' meaning
U.S. vessels engaged in foreign trade, to use United States or Canadian
pilots while transiting the U.S. waters of the St. Lawrence Seaway and
the Great Lakes system.\2\ For U.S. Great Lakes pilots, 46 U.S.C.
9303(a) requires the Secretary to prescribe, by regulation, standards
of competency to be met by each applicant for registration as a Great
Lakes pilot. Additionally, sections 9303(c) and (d) authorize the
Secretary to prescribe regulations establishing the validity period of
Great Lakes pilot's registration and other conditions for service
respectively. The Secretary's duties and authority under 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 93 have been delegated to the Coast Guard.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ 46 U.S.C. 9301-9308.
\2\ 46 U.S.C. 9302(a)(1).
\3\ Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph II (92)(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The purpose of this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is to
update the Great Lakes pilotage regulations in title 46 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 401 and 402 to reflect the current
pilotage terms and practices used by the Coast Guard and U.S. pilot
association operations. While the regulations in the current CFR do not
conflict with our current practices, they do not fully reflect the
current apprentice pilot training requirements and titles for pilot
progression. Accordingly, the Coast Guard proposes to update the
current CFR as follows:
1. To redefine the different phases of pilot registration, which
would generally follow this progression:

[[Page 81295]]

``Applicant,'' ``Applicant Trainee,'' ``Apprentice Pilot,'' ``Limited
Registration,'' ``Full Registration,'' and ``Temporary Registered
Pilot'';
2. To add ``marine accident'' to the definitions section to clarify
a pilot's reporting requirements;
3. To clarify training benchmarks to ensure registration of
qualified mariners and help retain experienced U.S. Registered Pilots.
4. To align medical requirements and radar observer training
requirements for U.S. Registered Pilots with the Merchant Mariner
Credential (MMC) and manning regulations in 46 CFR parts 10-15;
5. To clarify the pilotage billing dispute process with respect to
when a vessel is and is not liable for charges; and
6. To remove outdated provisions, including dates and terms, from
the Transportation Workers Identification Credential (TWIC), the
foreign language requirements for navigation, the one-year time limit
for applicants to complete training, and other regulations that were
written when both the Department of Commerce and the Coast Guard had
regulatory authority over U.S. pilotages services.
The Coast Guard believes that the updated registration process in
this proposed rule would ensure that regulations reflect current
training practices while keeping within the statutory mandate to
prescribe standards of competency in 46 U.S.C. 9303(a). The proposed
updates would also align with the program's goals of promoting
competent, safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage service throughout
the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway, promoting commerce, and
protecting the marine environment.

IV. Background

Chapter 93 of Title 46 of the U.S.C. establishes a system of
compulsory pilotage on the Great Lakes, requiring that each vessel of
the United States operating ``on register,'' meaning United States
vessels engaged in any commercial activity, and all foreign vessels,
use a United States or Canadian Registered Pilot when operating in the
Great Lakes.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ See The Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960, Public Law 86-555,
June 30, 1960, as amended (codified at 46 U.S.C. 9301 et seq.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Great Lakes pilots use in-depth local knowledge, seasoned
navigational and ship handling expertise, and informed independent
judgement to guide both U.S. and foreign oceangoing commercial vessels
safely in and out of Great Lakes' ports and waterways. Congress made
pilotage use compulsory in 1960, after becoming concerned that the 1959
opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway led to a surge in shipping traffic.
Congress addressed such a definite threat to safe navigation by passing
the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960.
The regulations for pilot application and registration appear in 46
CFR parts 401 and 402. These regulations require that mariners applying
for pilot registration meet minimum requirements and qualifications and
file an application form with the Director. While the Coast Guard is
responsible for publishing an annual rule that sets pilotage rates, 46
CFR parts 401 and 402 have not been otherwise substantively updated
since the early 1960s. As a result, these regulations are not in
alignment with current practices by the Coast Guard and the pilotage
industry operating on the Great Lakes.
In 2017, the Coast Guard asked the Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory
Committee (GLPAC) to help the Coast Guard identify existing
regulations, guidance, and collections of information (that fall within
the scope of the Committee's charter) for possible repeal, replacement,
or modernization.\5\ In March 2018, GLPAC made several recommendations
to update or remove outdated regulatory requirements from 46 CFR parts
401 and 402.\6\ In a September 10, 2018 meeting, GLPAC also recommended
that the Coast Guard explore deadlines for contesting pilotage service
invoices in part 402.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ 82 FR 34909, July 27, 2017.
\6\ See Meeting Minutes from the March 6, 2018, meeting of the
GLPAC Regulatory Reform Sub-Committee, which can be found in the
docket. To locate the docket for this rulemaking, see the Public
Participation and Request for Comments portion of this preamble.
\7\ The recommendation is on page 171 of the September 10, 2018,
GLPAC Meeting Transcript, which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, the Coast Guard has identified several other areas
that we propose revising. Ambiguities in regulatory text have caused
confusion for pilots regarding training and registration instructions.
A mariner qualifies for a given pilotage district in segments, allowing
the Coast Guard to provide limited credentials as a mariner completes
each stage of the pilot association's training program. This
progression is in the best interest of the mariners who can gain
responsibility during the training program while ensuring that safety
is not compromised. As explained above, with this rulemaking, the Coast
Guard proposes to clarify the different phases of training and types of
registrations for pilots who work on the Great Lakes. This includes
clarifying the differences between temporary and limited registrations,
and which pilots are eligible for those registrations.
This proposed rule would affect approximately 51 United States
Registered Pilots, 9 Apprentice Pilots, and 3 Temporary Registered
Pilots on the Great Lakes as well as 3 district pilot associations and
the owners and operators of approximately 293 vessels opting to use
those pilots or statutorily required to use those pilots.

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule

A. Summary of Proposed Changes

This proposed rule would make several changes to 46 CFR parts 401
and 402 to clarify nomenclature and align these regulations with
current practice and with other relevant regulations and plain language
guidelines. The changes are summarized here and discussed in detail,
section-by-section, below. The most substantial change that the Coast
Guard is proposing in is to update the definitions section in part 401,
subpart A, to clarify the phases of transition through the registration
process, as well as adding definitions for miscellaneous terms to help
clarify their application in other subparts. The Coast Guard is also
proposing to change each instance of the affected terms based on the
new definitions that appear elsewhere in parts 401 and 402.
Additionally, the Coast Guard is proposing to change the application
and training requirements for the different phases of pilotage
registration in part 401, subpart B, that would generally follow this
progression: ``Applicant,'' ``Applicant Trainee,'' ``Apprentice
Pilot,'' ``Limited Registration,'' ``Full Registration,'' and
``Temporary Registered Pilot.''
The Coast Guard proposes changing these regulations to align them
with current pilotage training practices and to clarify the obligations
that mariner applicants must fulfill before advancing to the next phase
of registration.
The Coast Guard is also proposing to change the regulations
covering the administration of registered pilots located in subparts B,
C, D, E, and G. The Coast Guard is proposing these changes to bring the
regulations into conformity with modern pilot administrative practices.
Many of the specific requirements reference outdated locations, contact
information, and procedures. These antiquated references make the
regulations difficult to understand, and the proposed changes will
bring much needed clarity to the regulations imposed on registered
pilots.
The last category of changes that the Coast Guard is proposing is a
series of

[[Page 81296]]

technical amendments that will bring the regulations into conformity
with the Plain Language Act and Information Network's Plain Language
guidelines. One such proposed technical amendment, for example, is
changing ``The Coast Guard shall'' to ``The Coast Guard must.''
A section-by-section description of the proposed changes follows.

B. Definitions

The Coast Guard is proposing to make a number of changes to Sec.
401.110 to update the phases of pilot registration, to add definitions
to terms that are commonly used by industry members but not reflected
in the CFR, to revise definitions for terms whose meaning has changed
since the last update to these regulations, and to remove definitions
for terms that are no longer used or applicable to these regulations.
Updated Phases of Pilot Registration
In Sec. 401.110, the Coast Guard is proposing to redefine the
different stages of pilot registration to clarify the transitions
through the registration process. At the present, there are training
phases that are commonly used by the pilots in practice but lack
precise legal definitions. This can lead to confusion for pilot
applicants as to what is required of them before advancing to the next
phase.
The Coast Guard proposes to add the following terms and their
definitions, currently used in practice, to the CFR: Applicant, Limited
Registration, and Temporary Registered Pilot. The Coast Guard proposes
to redefine the following terms already existing in the CFR: Apprentice
Pilot and Applicant Trainee. The proposed general progression would be
Applicant, Applicant Trainee, Apprentice Pilot, Limited Registration,
Full Registration (which we also refer to as a United States Registered
Pilot or U.S. Registered Pilot in the regulations), and Temporary
Registered Pilot. This would help clarify the differences between the
terms and phases. We describe these updates, in turn, below.
Applicant
The Coast Guard proposes to add the term Applicant and its
definition to the CFR. Applicant would mean a person who has submitted
an application (Form CG-4509) to the Director for consideration for
placement in an approved U.S. Great Lakes pilotage training and
qualification program at an association. The Director would review the
application to see if the Applicant meets the minimum requirements per
Sec. 401.210.
Applicant Trainee
The Coast Guard proposes to redefine the term Applicant Trainee
that currently appears in the CFR. Redefined, Applicant Trainee would
mean a person who is approved by the Director and is participating in
an approved U.S. Great Lakes pilot training and qualification program.
The mariner would meet the minimum requirements of the pilotage
regulations in proposed new Sec. 401.214 for Applicant Trainees. These
requirements are spelled out in further detail below in Section C.,
Updates to Training Requirements for Pilots. The Applicant Trainee does
not have the necessary 6 months of service or experience on the Great
Lakes or endorsement on their MMC to qualify as an Apprentice Pilot.
The Director would issue the Applicant Trainee a U.S. Coast Guard
Applicant Trainee Identification Card.
In practice, the Applicant Trainee would spend at least 6 months at
the district becoming familiar with the area waters. The Applicant
Trainee would conduct trips on vessels, accompanying a U.S. Registered
Pilot or Temporary Registered Pilot, to gain pilotage experience on the
Great Lakes. These trips, conducted as an Applicant Trainee, would not
count toward the minimum number of round trips required for Full
Registration. Once the Applicant Trainee completes the familiarization
in the district waters, the association could request the Applicant
Trainee become an Apprentice Pilot in the district's training and
qualification program. The Applicant Trainee is not eligible for a
Limited or Temporary Registration.
Apprentice Pilot
The Coast Guard proposes to redefine the term Apprentice Pilot that
currently appears in the CFR. Redefined, Apprentice Pilot would mean a
person who has been approved by the Director and is participating in an
approved U.S. Great Lakes pilot training and qualification program. The
mariner would meet the minimum requirements in revised Sec. 401.211.
The Director would issue the Apprentice Pilot a U.S. Coast Guard
Apprentice Pilot Identification Card. The proposed requirements for an
Apprentice Pilot are discussed further in the preamble with the
proposed changes to Sec. 401.211.
Apprentice Pilots would typically possess a minimum of 6 months of
pilotage experience on the Great Lakes and have a First Class Pilot
endorsement on their MMC for the waters in which Full Registration is
sought. The Apprentice Pilot would be required to complete round trips
until the Apprentice Pilot demonstrates proficiency, accompanying a
U.S. Registered Pilot or Temporary Registered Pilot, upbound and
downbound in the district's waters, and inbound to and outbound from
ports, in accordance with their individual training plan.
Limited Registration
The Coast Guard would add the term Limited Registration and its
definition to the CFR. Limited Registration would mean an authorization
issued by the Director via letter to an Apprentice Pilot, upon the
request of the pilotage association, that allows the Apprentice Pilot
to provide pilotage service without direct supervision from a U.S.
Registered Pilot or Temporary Registered Pilot in a specific area or
waterway to facilitate the Apprentice Pilot's training. The proposed
requirements for a Limited Registration are discussed with the proposed
changes to Sec. 401.211 in new paragraph (k).
Full Registration
The Coast Guard would add the term Full Registration and its
definition to the CFR. Full Registration would mean the issuance of a
Certificate of Registration ID card, by the Director, to an Apprentice
Pilot, who meets and completes all the Coast Guard's proposed
registration requirements in new Sec. Sec. 401.210, 401.211, 402.210,
and 402.220. These proposed requirements are discussed further below in
Section C., Updates to Training Requirements for Pilots.
Generally, if the Apprentice Pilot satisfies all the Coast Guard's
registration requirements and the pilotage association's requirements,
and has maintained favorable performance evaluations during the
training program, the Apprentice Pilot advances to Full Registration.
The pilotage association could request that the Director consider an
Apprentice Pilot for Full Registration as a United States Registered
Pilot. The Director could approve or deny the request. If approved, the
Director would issue the Apprentice Pilot a Certificate of
Registration, making them a fully registered pilot. Full Registration
would make the Apprentice Pilot a United States Registered Pilot who
may provide pilotage services for the relevant pilotage association in
accordance with the pilotage regulations.
Temporary Registered Pilot
The Coast Guard is proposing to add the term Temporary Registered
Pilot and its definition to the CFR. A Temporary

[[Page 81297]]

Registered Pilot means a person who is issued a Temporary Registration
by the Director, in accordance with proposed new Sec. 401.222. A
Temporary Registration would apply to pilots who desire to provide
pilotage services but who have either reached the age of 70, or
previously retired from pilotage service. The Coast Guard would require
that a Temporary Registered Pilot hold a valid MMC, have previously
held a Full Registration, meet the requirements of proposed Sec.
401.222, and have been requested to provide pilotage services by the
pilotage association. The new requirements in proposed Sec. 401.222
are discussed further below in Section C., Updates to Training
Requirements for Pilots. The Director may make the Temporary
Registration valid for a certain period of time, not to exceed 1 year
from the date of issuance.
New Definitions
In addition to the updated phases of pilot registration, the Coast
Guard also proposes to add definitions to the CFR for the following
terms that currently appear in the CFR to better clarify their
meanings: chemical test, gross tonnage, individual training plan,
marine accident, minimum number of round trips, officer endorsement,
round trip, and semi-annual performance evaluation report. These terms
clarified in the following paragraphs.
Chemical Test
The Coast Guard proposes to add the definition of ``chemical test''
to the definitions in Sec. 401.110 to clarify the kind of test that
will comply with the proposed new reporting requirements. Chemical test
would mean a scientifically recognized test that analyzes an
individual's breath, blood, urine, saliva, bodily fluids, or tissues
for evidence of dangerous drug, alcohol use, or any illegal substance,
in alignment with the existing definition in 46 CFR 4.03-7. The
definition of chemical test would apply to new requirements in parts
401 and 402 for mariners to submit chemical tests to the Coast Guard
either at the Applicant phase of their application to be a pilot, or
for marine accident reporting.
Gross Tonnage or GT
This proposed rule would add a definition for ``gross tonnage or
GT'' to align with the gross tonnage measurement of the vessel under 46
U.S.C. chapter 143, Convention Measurement. Though 46 U.S.C. chapter
143 does not apply to a vessel of United States or Canadian registry or
nationality, or a vessel operated under the authority of the United
States or Canada, and that is operating only on the Great Lakes, unless
the owner requests, the Coast Guard proposes to adopt the Convention
Measurement's definition of gross tonnage to clarify which tonnage
scheme the Great Lakes Pilotage regulations use. Parts 401 and 402 use
gross tonnage in the context of determining whether Applicants or
Apprentice Pilots (referred to as applicant pilots in the current CFR)
have had comparable experience on other vessels or integrated tugs and
tows on the Great Lakes or oceans to that of registered pilots on the
Great Lakes. This is the same definition used in 46 CFR 10.107 for MMCs
and in 46 CFR 69.57 for piloting regulations. As defined in parts 401
and 402, gross tonnage would require the mariner to obtain knowledge
and previous performance that is equivalent to the knowledge and
technical skills obtained by serving as an officer on vessels 4,000 GT
or over.
Individual Training Plan
The Coast Guard proposes to add the term ``individual training
plan'' and its definition to the CFR. This term and its definition are
consistent with its use in current pilot association training programs.
The individual training plan would outline the specific requirements of
the association for an Apprentice Pilot, including the length of time
to complete the training and the minimum number of round trips required
to demonstrate proficiency. The individual training plan would
communicate the qualifications and demonstrated skills that the
Apprentice Pilot would be required to complete to meet the proficiency
requirements for the training. The association would submit the
individual training plan to the Director for review and approval, and
the Director would then track the Apprentice Pilot's development
through the training period. This is consistent with current practice.
The association would establish an individual training plan's training
requirements based on the association's determination of proficiency,
the officer endorsement on the MMC, and the Apprentice Pilot's pilotage
experience on the Great Lakes.
Marine Accident
The Coast Guard proposes to add a definition for the term ``marine
accident'' that currently appears in the CFR. A marine accident would
include any of the following incidents that occur while a U.S.
Registered Pilot, Apprentice Pilot, Apprentice Pilot with Limited
Registration, or Temporary Registered Pilot is providing pilotage
services in U.S. or Canadian waters:
(i) Any allision or collision;
(ii) Any grounding;
(iii) A loss of main propulsion, primary steering, or any
associated component or control system that, due to its duration or
other circumstance, significantly impacts the maneuverability of the
vessel;
(iv) An occurrence, directly related to the provision of pilotage
services, involving significant harm to the environment as currently
defined in 46 CFR 4.03-65, and including Canadian waters throughout the
Great Lakes in addition to U.S. waters; or
(v) Any other incident, directly related to the provision of
pilotage services, causing property damage in excess of $75,000 U.S.
dollars (including the cost of labor and material to restore the
property to its condition before the incident, but excluding the cost
of such things as salvage, cleaning, gas-freeing, drydocking, or
demurrage).
The outlined instances in this proposed definition are based on the
definition in 46 CFR 4.05-1 for marine casualties, tailored for
reporting marine accidents related to the Great Lakes pilotage program.
This definition would be used to identify events or occurrences
where pilots must submit a marine accident report to the Director under
revised Sec. 401.260. Clearly defining marine accident would help
ensure that certain marine accidents are reported to the Director in
support of the Director's oversight. The reporting requirement would
clarify that this obligation to report marine accidents to the Director
does not alleviate any other marine casualty reporting requirements
elsewhere in Coast Guard or other agency regulations. We propose adding
the marine accident definition and reporting requirement to alleviate
concerns about accidents related to Great Lakes pilotage not being
reported to the Director.
Minimum Number of Round Trips
The Coast Guard proposes to add a definition for ``minimum number
of round trips'' to have one term to define the number of successful
round trips an Apprentice Pilot must complete to become eligible for
Full Registration. The phrase minimum number of round trips would mean
the fewest successful round trips that the Apprentice Pilot would be
required to perform under the direct supervision of a U.S. Registered
Pilot or Temporary Registered Pilot to demonstrate proficiency prior to
advancing and completing training. The minimum number of round trips
required would be prescribed in the Apprentice Pilot's approved
individual

[[Page 81298]]

training plan, discussed in revised Sec. 401.211. Section 402.220
contains the minimum number of round trips for certain officer
endorsements.
In practice, each round trip would be evaluated, and the evaluation
form would be retained in the mariner's training record. If, after
evaluation, the Apprentice Pilot does not satisfy the Director's or
association's proficiency requirements, additional trips in that area
or port could be required.
Officer Endorsement
Officer endorsement is currently used in the regulations governing
MMCs in 46 CFR part 10 to mean an annotation on an MMC that allows a
mariner to serve in the capacities listed in 46 CFR 10.109. We are
proposing to add a definition for ``officer endorsement'' that matches
the definition in 46 CFR part 10 to help ensure that the term is
interpreted consistently.
Round Trip
The Coast Guard proposes to add a definition for ``round trip'' to
clarify what is expected of the Apprentice Pilot, as outlined in their
individual training plan. We propose to define round trip as providing
pilotage service, in both directions, from one change point to another
change point or inbound and outbound in a port designated by an
authorized pilotage pool. This definition would also apply to the round
trip in the proposed definition minimum number of round trips. Defining
round trip would help clarify the minimum requirements for Apprentice
Pilots in their training.
Semi-Annual Performance Evaluation Report
The Coast Guard proposes to add a definition for ``Semi-annual
Performance Evaluation Report.'' Twice per shipping season, the
association would be required to submit to the Director a progress
report of how the Apprentice Pilot is progressing through their
training. The report would assess an Apprentice Pilot's progress in the
pilot association's training and qualification program, and the
Apprentice Pilot's performance in completing their individual training
plan.
Revised Definitions
We are also proposing to revise the definitions of association,
Commandant, comparable experience, Director, person, pilotage pool,
Rate computation definitions to determine Weighting Factors, Secretary,
and United States Registered Pilot or U.S. Registered Pilot to align
the regulatory definitions with industry usage and understanding. These
proposed revisions are detailed below.
Association
The Coast Guard proposes to remove the words ``or held'' from the
definition of ``association.'' This would clarify that if the Coast
Guard revokes an association's Certificate of Authorization, they are
no longer an association under the Act or Coast Guard regulations. In
addition, the Coast Guard proposes to specify in the definition of
association that the Director, instead of the Great Lakes Pilotage
Branch, issues the Certificate of Authorization to the association.
Commandant
In the definition of ``Commandant,'' our only proposed change is to
replace the outdated office symbol, CG-00, with the current office
designation, CCG.
Comparable Experience
The Coast Guard proposes to change the first sentence in the
definition of ``comparable experience'' to better define the
requirements. Currently, the definition suggests that comparable
experience is similar experience obtained by serving as an officer of a
vessel. The proposed changes would state that comparable experience
means knowledge and previous performance that is equivalent to the
knowledge and technical skills obtained by serving as an officer on
vessels of at least 4,000 GT or over. We propose adding this
requirement, that comparable experience must be obtained on vessels of
at least 4,000 GT, throughout the regulations to be consistent
regarding comparable experience and the requirements to be a registered
pilot in 46 U.S.C. 9303(a)(2). The existing regulations for qualifying
for registration in 46 CFR 401.210(a)(1) require service to be accrued
on vessels of 4,000 GT or over on the Great Lakes or oceans. This
experience, on vessels of 4,000 GT or over, also applies to Apprentice
Pilots (currently referred to as Applicant Pilots in the CFR) in
existing Sec. 401.211(a)(1).
Director
In the definition, this proposed rule would remove outdated
reference to Commandant (CG-WWW-2) and replace it with Director, Great
Lakes Pilotage. We would also update the mailing address for the
Director within the definition.
Person
In the definition of ``person,'' we propose changing ``pool'' to
``pilotage pool,'' to align with the new definition of ``pilotage
pool'' discussed below.
Pilotage Pool
The Coast Guard proposes to revise the current term and definition
of ``pool'' by revising the term and amending the definition. First, we
propose to revise the term pool by adding ``pilotage'' to identify it
more clearly. Throughout parts 401 and 402, this proposed rule would
update all references to ``pool'' to ``pilotage pool.'' In current
practice, the Director provides the pilotage pool a Certificate of
Authorization to operate as an association. Second, the definition of
pool in the current CFR text is an organization authorized to provide
pilotage services. We propose to revise the definition to account for
the requirement that an organization must hold a Certificate of
Authorization issued by the Director to provide pilotage services. The
new definition would clearly indicate what is required for a pilotage
pool authorization.
Rate Computation Definitions To Determine Weighting Factors
The Coast Guard proposes to add the words, ``to determine Weighting
Factors'' to the existing phrase, ``Rate computation definitions,'' at
Sec. 401.110(a)(10) to indicate to the public the purpose for these
rate computation definitions. The definitions of ``length'',
``breadth'', and ``depth'' at Sec. 401.110(a)(10)(i)-(iii) themselves
would remain unchanged. Weighting factors are used in the calculation
of a vessel's pilotage rate to determine the appropriate fee for a
vessel's pilotage services and are based on the size of the vessel.
Secretary
This proposed rule would revise the definition of ``Secretary'' to
align with the definition used in 46 U.S.C. 2101. The revised
definition would point to the Secretary of the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating, instead of the Secretary of Homeland
Security. This proposed change would promote consistency between
definitions used throughout statutes and Coast Guard implementing
regulations.
United States Registered Pilot or U.S. Registered Pilot
This rule proposes non-substantive changes to the definition of
``United States Registered Pilot or U.S. Registered Pilot.'' First, we
propose to remove an outdated reference to ``license'' and revise the
discussion of the authorization document to read ``an MMC with an
officer endorsement.'' We

[[Page 81299]]

propose to add the word ``areas'' to capture that the endorsements for
pilotage on the Great Lakes can be for routes or areas. We also propose
an edit to make clear that, under the newly proposed training stage
nomenclature, a United States Registered Pilot currently holds a
Certificate of Registration.
We would also update the outdated references to Title 52 of the
Revised Statutes of the United States with references to Title 46 of
the United States Code, which is where the Coast Guard's statutory
authority exists for Great Lakes pilotage regulations.
Removed Definitions
The Coast Guard proposes to remove the definition of Movage because
the ratemaking methodology no longer supports this action. Under the
ratemaking methodology before 2016, pilot districts charged the vessel
owners a defined movage fee to move a vessel from one place to another;
for example, from an anchorage to inside the harbor, or dock to dock.
Since the ratemaking methodology was updated in 2016, vessel owners are
charged an hourly rate for any vessel movement by a United States
Registered Pilot, rounded up or down to the nearest 15 minutes.
The Coast Guard also proposes to delete the definition of ``other
officer'' from the definition section because we are proposing to
delete the only reference to the term in Sec. 401.510(b)(3). The
definition would no longer be necessary because we would not reference
the term anywhere in part 400.
Organizational Changes
The Coast Guard proposes to revise Sec. 401.110 to list the
existing and new definitions in alphabetical order to make it easier
for the reader to find definitions. The changes to the definitions are
described in the alphabetical order they would appear in the revised
Sec. 401.110 definition section.
The Coast Guard is also proposing to update each instance of
affected terms in parts 401 and 402 to align with the new definitions.

C. Updates To Training Requirements for Pilots

The Coast Guard is proposing to update the regulations that govern
the application and training requirements to bring the CFR into
conformity with industry practice. These regulations, located in part
401, instruct an applicant pilot as to what specifically they must do
in order to apply and progress through the newly clarified phases of
pilot registration. Following is a section-by-section description of
the updates being proposed to the Great Lakes Pilotage application and
training requirements. These changes include formatting changes that
will improve the usability and readability of the CFR.
Sec. 401.200 Application for Registration
In Sec. 401.200, the Coast Guard proposes to add the email
address, ``<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f5b287909481b9949e9086a59c999a81949290b580869692db989c99">[email&#160;protected]</a>'', and physical mailing address,
``Great Lakes Pilotage Office, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE,
Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509'' to which Applicants for pilotage
on the Great Lakes must submit the Application for Registration as a
United States Registered Pilot (Form CG-4509). We propose allowing
either physical mail or electronic submission of the Application for
Registration as a United States Registered Pilot (Form CG-4509) form to
the Director to provide flexibility to the mariners. This change would
also provide clear guidance for where to submit the form.
In this section, the Coast Guard proposes to remove the requirement
to submit two full-face photographs when submitting Application Form
CG-4509. The passport photos are not needed at this stage of the
process. Following the submission of an application and an interview
process, passport-style photos would be requested from the Applicant if
they are approved to be placed into a U.S. Great Lakes pilot training
and qualification program. The requirement to submit the photos upon
the request of the Director would be in Sec. 401.211(e) for Apprentice
Pilots, and in proposed new Sec. 401.214(e) for Applicant Trainees.
In practice, if the Applicant does not submit the required
application materials, the Coast Guard Great Lakes Pilotage Office
works with the Applicant to obtain the required documentation to meet
the minimum requirements. Once the Applicant provides additional
information and meets the minimum requirements, the approved
application is forwarded to the pilot district(s) requested by the
applicant for consideration. The pilot associations maintain a list of
Applicants who meet the minimum requirements, and conduct interviews
based on the applications provided by the Great Lakes Pilotage Office
and the need for more pilots. If the Applicant is selected by the
association, the association submits a letter to the Director
requesting that the Applicant be placed in that district's approved
training and qualification program.
We are also proposing a formatting change to this section where we
would remove the paragraph (a) designation. All the text within this
section would be undesignated. Removing the paragraph (a) designation
would remove the need for the unused reserved paragraph (b) within this
section. There is no need for multiple paragraph designations within
this short section.
Sec. 401.210 Requirements and Qualifications for Full Registration
In paragraph (a)(1), the Coast Guard proposes to clarify that the
mariner must have an MMC with an officer endorsement issued in
accordance with 46 CFR subchapter B, part 11. We propose to delete the
outdated references to Title 52 of the Revised Statutes of the United
States. We also propose to change applicants qualifying with ``ocean
service'' to applicants qualifying with ``other than Great Lakes
service,'' because mariners may have different endorsements on their
MMC, such as Master Ocean or Master Inland Waters. This change would
help clarify that applicants qualifying with an endorsement on their
MMC other than Great Lakes service must obtain at least 6 months of
service as a deck officer or comparable experience on the Great
Lakes.\8\ We also propose to clarify in this section that the officer
experience must be ``deck'' officer experience. Deck officer experience
means the mariner is working on a vessel under the endorsement as per
their MMC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ See Meeting Minutes from the March 6, 2018, meeting of the
GLPAC Regulatory Reform Sub-Committee, which can be found in the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The paragraphs in paragraph (a) of this section contain several
requirements a pilot must meet to be eligible for full registration. We
propose making the following changes to the paragraphs and redesignate
the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (8).
In paragraph (a)(4), the Coast Guard proposes to add a reference to
46 CFR part 10, subpart C, for the mariners to find the applicable
medical requirements and standards prescribed by the Commandant.
In paragraph (a)(6), the Coast Guard proposes to remove the
requirement for a U.S. Registered Pilot to have a valid TWIC because
this requirement is duplicative of the TWIC requirement prescribed in
46 CFR 10.203 for obtaining an MMC. A mariner cannot be a U.S.
Registered Pilot without holding an MMC. This non-substantive change is
in accordance with GLPAC recommendation 1 from the GLPAC Subcommittee
Teleconference Meeting Minutes from March 5, 2018. Because we propose
to remove the text from paragraph (a)(6), we propose to redesignate the
subsequent paragraphs. We propose to move the existing requirement that
the mariner agrees to

[[Page 81300]]

be available for service, currently in paragraph (a)(7), into paragraph
(a)(6), without change.
In redesignated paragraph (a)(7), the Coast Guard proposes to
change ``Applicant Pilot'' to ``Apprentice Pilot'' to conform to the
proposed new definitions. Revised paragraph (a)(7) would require
mariners seeking Full Registration to complete the requirements for an
Applicant Pilot in Sec. 401.220(b). We are also proposing to delete
the text ``if applying for registration for waters in which a pilotage
pool is authorized'' because the requirements in Sec. 401.220(b) would
apply to all Apprentice Pilots.
In 401.210(a)(8), the Coast Guard also proposes to add that
Apprentice Pilots requesting full registration must meet chemical
testing requirements as defined in 46 CFR part 16. Currently, all U.S.
pilots on the Great Lakes are required to meet the chemical testing
requirements in part 16. The purpose of this proposed addition is to
clarify that this will also be part of the Apprentice Pilot
qualifications.
Sec. 401.211 Training requirements for Apprentice Pilots and Limited
Registration Authorization
The Coast Guard proposes to change the term ``Applicant Pilot'' to
``Apprentice Pilot'' throughout this section to align with the new
definition of Apprentice Pilot. Use of the term Apprentice Pilot falls
more in line with industry vernacular for this stage. We also propose
to add ``Limited Registration Authorization'' to the section name
because we propose to include the requirements for Apprentice Pilots to
obtain this authorization as part of their training program.
This proposed rule would separate the requirements for Apprentice
Pilots to be selected for training from existing paragraph (a) and put
the list into new paragraph (b). In the requirements for Apprentice
Pilots in redesignated paragraph (b)(1), this proposed rule would
update the cross-reference from Sec. 401.210(a)(7) to paragraph (a)(8)
to conform with proposed redesignations in that section.
In revised paragraph (b)(3), the Coast Guard proposes to revise the
radar observer requirement to state that the Apprentice Pilot must have
a radar observer (unlimited) endorsement on their MMC. We would also
include a cross-reference to the radar observer requirements in Sec.
11.480 for the public's reference. By removing the obsolete radar
competency certificate option, we would bring the regulations up to
date with the current radar observer endorsement requirements in 46 CFR
subchapter B, part 11. This conforming change would not be a new
requirement for mariners, because they are already expected to have a
radar endorsement issued by the Coast Guard.
In this section, we also propose to allow submission of the
Application Form CG-4509 to the email address
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#86c1f4e3e7f2cae7ede3f5d6efeae9f2e7e1e3c6f3f5e5e1a8ebefea">[email&#160;protected]</a> in addition to the physical mailing address
Great Lakes Pilotage Office, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop
7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509. Emailing the form could reduce the
administrative burden associated with submitting the form. We would
also clarify that the Director will request a signed passport-style
photograph from those applying to be an Apprentice Pilot, when needed.
The photographs would not be required when submitting Form CG-4509,
because the photos are not needed until the Coast Guard is ready to
issue an identification card.
In this revised section, the Coast Guard proposes to clarify the
issuance of the U.S. Coast Guard Apprentice Pilot Identification Card.
If the applicant meets the requirements in this section and is selected
to be placed in an association's training program, the association
would submit a letter to the Director for approval. If the Director
approves placing the applicant in the training program, the Coast Guard
would issue the applicant an Apprentice Pilot Identification Card.
The Coast Guard proposes to expand the list of circumstances when
an Apprentice Pilot Identification Card would become invalid to account
for the Director's statutory authority to set validity periods in 46
U.S.C. 9303(c). At the time of issuance of the Identification Card, the
Director would indicate a validity period for the card. For example,
the Director could coincide the expiration dates of the identification
card with the dates of the Semi-annual Performance Evaluation Reports,
August 15 and January 15. The other three existing grounds for
expiration for the Identification Card would remain substantively the
same, including when the Apprentice Pilot is registered as a pilot
under Sec. 401.210, when the Apprentice Pilot withdraws from the
training program, or when the card is ordered withdrawn by the
Director.
In new paragraph (g), we propose to add a requirement that all
Apprentice Pilots must have a Director-approved individual training
plan. The associations currently provide Director-approved individual
training plans to the Apprentice Pilots as guidance during the approved
U.S. Great Lakes pilot training and qualification program. We intend to
codify this current practice in the regulations. As stated in the
proposed definition, an individual training plan would outline the
specific requirements and expectations for each Apprentice Pilot. The
individual training plan would provide clear direction for the
Apprentice Pilot, association, and Director regarding the Apprentice
Pilot's goals and progression through the training program. The
Apprentice Pilot and the pilot association would record the round trips
outlined in the individual training plan and provide this information
to the Director for review.
In new paragraph (g) we also propose to clarify that round trips
completed as an Apprentice Pilot would count toward the minimum number
of round trips required for Full Registration. As a consequence of not
defining round trips previously, there has been confusion for Applicant
Trainees and Apprentice Pilots regarding when their trips do or do not
count towards the Full Registration certification. The trips outlined
in the Apprentice Pilot's individual training plan and conducted with a
U.S. Registered Pilot or Temporary Registered Pilot would have to be
recorded by the Apprentice Pilot and count towards Full Registration.
If the association feels the Apprentice Pilot is not ready to provide
pilotage services after completing the required minimum number of round
trips outlined in their individual training plan, the association could
require the Apprentice Pilot to continue conducting round trips until
they meet the association's requirements. Trips completed while an
Applicant Trainee would not count toward the minimum number of round
trips.
In addition, the Coast Guard is proposing at new paragraph (h) to
require that associations conduct Semi-annual Performance Evaluation
Reports for their Apprentice Pilots to assess the Apprentice Pilots'
progress in their training program. The associations currently provide
evaluation reports to the Director to share the Apprentice Pilot's
progress in the approved U.S. Great Lakes pilot training and
qualification program at the District. We propose to codify this
current practice in the regulations. The associations would submit
these reports to the Director by August 15 and January 15 of each year.
The report would include recommendations to the Director on whether
to keep the Apprentice Pilot in the training program. This report would
be intended to evaluate the Apprentice Pilot's progression through
their training and help keep the Director informed of that progress.
The report

[[Page 81301]]

would provide the Apprentice Pilot necessary feedback to stay on track
with their individual training plan and association expectations. By
requiring a semi-annual report submission to the Coast Guard, all
parties would remain informed of the progression of the Apprentice
Pilot's training throughout the Great Lakes. All requests for
Apprentice Pilots and Limited Registrations must contain a positive
endorsement from the pilot association's training committee or
president for the Director's consideration. The positive endorsement
does not guarantee issuance or renewal by the Director. The Director
considers the Apprentice's training progress, traffic projections, and
other relevant information when making the decision to issue a
certification.
Another proposed requirement for this section at new paragraph (i)
is that the Apprentice Pilot must be enrolled in the association's
chemical testing program, commonly known as drug testing, that meets
the requirements of 46 CFR part 16. We are proposing to add chemical
testing requirements and compliance into these regulations to ensure
Apprentice Pilots are being monitored by the associations in the
interest of maritime safety on the Great Lakes.
In new paragraph (j), the Coast Guard proposes procedures for how
an Apprentice Pilot may obtain a Limited Registration. Where the
Director determines a need for the pilot in order to meet the needs of
increased vessel traffic, a Limited Registration could be issued to an
Apprentice Pilot who has completed the requirements in Sec. 401.220(b)
and maintained a favorable performance evaluation in their Semi-annual
Performance Evaluation Reports.
Specifically, the Apprentice Pilot would be required to satisfy the
association's requirements in a specific area or port of the district
waters before being eligible for a Limited Registration, as set out in
the Apprentice Pilot's training plan. Thereafter, the association would
request approval for the Apprentice Pilot to provide pilotage services
in these specific areas without supervision by a United States
Registered Pilot or Temporary Registered Pilot. If approved, the
Director would issue the Apprentice Pilot a letter authorizing Limited
Registration for the area or port completed and requested by the
association. The Apprentice Pilot would be able to provide pilotage
services without supervision in the authorized area and would continue
to complete round trips in other areas and ports as opportunities are
provided by the association. Once all required round trips are
completed per their individual training plan, only the association may
make a request to the Coast Guard that the Apprentice Pilot take the
pilot's written exam.
The Director could revoke the Limited Registration if the Director
feels the Apprentice Pilot is not receiving the appropriate training
time to complete the remaining trips left in the District waters.
Limited registrations are valid for as long as the Director determines.
Last, we propose adding new paragraph (k), which would state
requirements for when an Apprentice Pilot may be eligible for a
Certificate of Registration. These requirements are distinct from the
requirements for Applicant Trainees contained in Sec. 401.210 and
reflect the value of an Apprentice Pilot's experience. The four
proposed requirements would be: completion of a Director-approved Great
Lakes pilot association's training program, a positive endorsement from
the association, successful completion of the Director's exam, and a
determination by the Director that there is a need for an additional
pilot in that association. These requirements exist in practice and are
referenced throughout parts 401 and 402. We propose codifying them here
so that it is clear to the Apprentice Pilot and associations what
conditions are necessary to reach Full Registration.
Sec. 401.214 Training Requirements for Applicant Trainees
In this new section, we propose to outline all the requirements for
Applicant Trainees, as we do for Full Registration and Apprentice
Pilots in other sections. This section would codify the Director's
authority to determine the number of Applicant Trainees needed to be in
training at a time for each association to ensure a sufficient number
of U.S. Registered Pilots in that district. This authority is exercised
in the ratemaking update every year, but this proposed rule would
codify it.
The requirements for Applicant Trainees would be similar to those
of Apprentice Pilots but would not require any prior Great Lakes
service experience. In the proposed requirements, the Applicant Trainee
must be a U.S. citizen, of good moral character and temperate habits,
physically competent, available for service, under the age of 60, in
compliance with the chemical testing requirements, and have a radar
observer (unlimited) endorsement on their MMC.
The Applicant Trainee would be required to obtain at least 6 months
of service as a credentialed officer on the Great Lakes before being
eligible to be considered for Apprentice Pilot. Training performed as
an Applicant Trainee would be under the supervision of a U.S.
Registered Pilot or Temporary Registered Pilot. This proposed section
states that the Director must approve the pilots designated to provide
training to Applicant Trainees, as an oversight measure. When an
Applicant Trainee is conducting trips with a U.S. Registered Pilot or
Temporary Registered Pilot to complete the 6-month familiarization
requirement or comparable experience on the Great Lakes, the round
trips would not count toward Full Registration certification.
In practice, Applicant Trainees would be required to receive a
positive endorsement from the pilot association's training committee or
president for the Director's consideration. The positive endorsement
would not guarantee issuance or renewal by the Director. The Director
would consider the Applicant Trainee's progress, traffic projections,
and other relevant information when making the decision to issue a
certification.
As we also propose in other sections, we propose clarifying that
the Applicant Trainee may submit the Application Form CG-4509 to the to
the email address <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#094e7b6c687d4568626c7a596065667d686e6c497c7a6a6e27646065">[email&#160;protected]</a> or the physical mailing
address Great Lakes Pilotage Office, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave.
SE, Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509. We also note that the
Director would request the signed passport-style photographs when they
are needed, but they would not need to be submitted with the
application. The Coast Guard does not need the photos until issuing the
identification card.
Applicant Trainees who are selected by the association and approved
by the Director would be issued a U.S. Coast Guard Applicant Trainee
Identification Card. The card would remain valid until the earliest of
an expiration date set by the Director, the date the Applicant Trainee
is registered as an Apprentice Pilot, the date the Applicant Trainee
withdraws from the training program, or the date the Director orders
the card returned.
Sec. 401.220 Registration of Pilots
The Coast Guard proposes to remove the 1-year time limit in
Sec. Sec. 401.220(b)(1) and 402.220(a) for Apprentice Pilots to
complete their round trips, and instead allow the applicable time limit
to be specified in an Apprentice Pilot's individual training plan. Due
to limited vessel traffic in some districts and ports, some Apprentice
Pilots are not able to complete the required number of

[[Page 81302]]

training trips in 1 year. This change would allow Apprentice Pilots
more time to complete these trips, in accordance with their individual
training plan. Currently, training takes 2-to-3 years, on average,
depending on which MMC endorsements the Apprentice Pilot holds and how
quickly they satisfy the requirements set forth by the association.
This proposed change is in accordance with GLPAC subcommittee
recommendations 4 and 5, described in the GLPAC Subcommittee
Teleconference Meeting Minutes from March 5, 2018, and adopted at the
GLPAC Teleconference meeting on April 11, 2018.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ See Meeting Minutes from the March 6, 2018, meeting of the
GLPAC Regulatory Reform Sub-Committee, which can be found in the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed revisions to Sec. 401.220(b) would align the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) with the new definition
for Apprentice Pilots. In proposed paragraph (b)(3), the Coast Guard
proposes to clarify when the written examination is to be taken by the
Apprentice Pilot. The written examination is the final step before
being considered for Full Registration. After all the requirements of
the regulations and the individual training plan have been met, and the
association is comfortable with the Apprentice Pilot's progress, the
association would send a request to the Director for the administration
of the written exam. The Director would then arrange for the Apprentice
Pilot to take the written exam at the nearest Regional Exam Center or
respective pilot association office. The proposed changes to paragraph
(b)(3) would indicate that the Apprentice Pilot is eligible to take the
exam after they complete their minimum number of round trips and
complete their approved course of instruction prescribed by the
association.
In paragraph (c), this proposed rule would provide that the pilot
association's recommendation for registering the Apprentice Pilot can
include reasons for or against their registration. Currently, the text
only requires the association include reasons for the registration. We
wish to clarify that the association should include any reasons, for or
against registration, that are relevant to the Director's decision.
The Coast Guard proposes to clarify in paragraph (d) that a
Certificate of Registration may be issued to an Apprentice Pilot who
has completed all the requirements and has been found qualified.
Last, in Sec. 401.220, this proposed rule would delete paragraph
(e). This paragraph authorizes the Director to issue a temporary
Certificate of Registration for a period of less than 1 year to
qualified persons regardless of age. We propose deleting this because
Temporary Registration is redefined and prescribed in new proposed
Sec. 401.222, discussed next.

D. Administration of Great Lakes Pilots

The Coast Guard is proposing to update various sections in parts
401 and 402 that govern the administration of Great Lakes pilots. The
proposed changes included in this section will modernize the mechanisms
and practices used by the Coast Guard to register, monitor, and ensure
the compliance of Great Lakes pilots. Following is a section-by-section
description of the proposed changes to each section.
Sec. 401.222 Temporary Registered Pilots on the Great Lakes
In conjunction with the new proposed definition for ``Temporary
Registered Pilot,'' the Coast Guard proposes a new Sec. 401.222
regarding the requirements and issuance of a Temporary Registration.
The mandatory retirement age for United States Registered Pilots is 70
years old. However, if a pilot maintains their MMC and meets the
medical requirements, they could, with the Director's approval, receive
a Temporary Pilot Identification Card to continue providing services
where the association requests their pilotage services and where there
is a need for the pilot. Alternatively, if a United States Registered
Pilot has previously retired and is requested by the association to
again provide pilotage services, the Director could consider issuing a
Temporary Registration for them as well.
A mariner seeking Temporary Registration under this section would
be required to meet all the requirements of a United States Registered
Pilot in Sec. 401.210, except the age requirement. This Temporary
Registration would be for pilots who have reached the age of 70 or who
have retired, but who desire to provide pilotage services. The
Temporary Registration would be valid for a period of time defined by
the Director but would not exceed 1 year from the date of issuance.
Current regulations in Sec. 401.222(e) for Temporary Registration have
the same 1-year validity period. Given the risks associated with
piloting large vessels through the Great Lakes and rivers, an annual
renewal requirement would continue to promote the safety goals on the
Great Lakes while allowing flexibility to mariners who wish to continue
to provide pilotage services after retirement or age 70.
Sec. 401.230 Certificates of Registration
In Sec. 401.230(a), when describing the waters where the
Certificate of Registration authorizes the pilot to perform pilotage
services, the Coast Guard proposes to use ``areas and routes'' in place
of ``part or parts.'' Using ``areas and routes'' better aligns with
language used throughout the pilotage regulations.
In paragraph (c), the Coast Guard proposes to clarify that a
Certificate of Registration may not be digitally reproduced or be used
to make a facsimile, in addition to the current prohibitions against
copying or Photostat. The original Certificate of Registration, issued
by the Director, is the only document allowed to be carried by a U.S.
Registered Pilot. These proposed changes would further clarify that no
copies, printed or electronic, are allowed.
The Coast Guard proposes to require that requests for replacement
of Certificates of Registration must be made on Form CG-4509, instead
of simply in writing, as the Coast Guard requires all the information
on the form be updated to issue a new Certificate of Registration. The
Coast Guard also proposes in paragraph (d) to clarify the style of
signed photographs needed to generate a replacement for a Certificate
of Registration that has been lost, damaged, or defaced. Because the
signature on the photo is needed to authenticate the certificate, the
signature would need to be as close to the head as possible, so that
the signature remains visible when the photo is trimmed to fit the
certificate during creation.
Sec. 401.240 Renewal of Certificates of Registration
The Coast Guard proposes to clarify in Sec. 401.240(a) that an
applicant for a renewal of Certificate of Registration must submit the
Application for Registration as a United States Registered Pilot, Form
CG-4905.
The Coast Guard proposes to clarify the style of photographs needed
to generate a Certificate of Registration for renewal. Specifically, we
propose stating that the signature on the photograph needs to be as
close to the head as possible, so that the signature remains visible
when the photo is trimmed to fit the certificate during creation.

[[Page 81303]]

Sec. 401.260 Reports
In paragraph (a), the Coast Guard proposes to clarify that, when a
marine accident occurs while a United States Registered Pilot,
Apprentice Pilot, Apprentice Pilot with Limited Registration, or
Temporary Registered Pilot is providing pilotage services, they must
report the accident to the Director in writing. We propose adding the
results of the pilot's post-casualty drug and alcohol test, if
required, to the report's mandatory contents. The existing requirements
would be put into a list format to better clarify what the pilot must
include in the report.
We propose redesignating as new paragraph (b) the existing
requirement from paragraph (a) that the report to the Director does not
relieve the pilot or others of responsibility for submitting any report
required by other government agencies of the United States or Canada.
We also propose clarifying in new paragraph (b) that this reporting
requirement does not affect any other reporting requirements in Coast
Guard regulations.
We propose to remove the requirement in 46 CFR 401.260(c) for the
pilotage pool to submit a monthly availability report to the Director.
As per 46 U.S.C. 9303(a)(3), ``the applicant will be available for
service when required.'' In 46 CFR 401.210(a)(6), pilots must agree to
be available for service. The Coast Guard sees no use for this monthly
availability report requirement because the associations notify the
Director when a pilot is not available to provide pilotage services. In
practice, the Director has not been requiring this monthly report.
Accordingly, we propose to remove the requirement from the regulations.
Sec. 401.420 Cancellation, Delay, or Interruption in Provision of
Services
In paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the Coast Guard proposes to
remove the words ``or movage'' and replace them with ``or transit,''
because the ratemaking methodology does not account for this movage
action. ``Transit'' aligns better with the terminology used in part
400.
In paragraph (c), the Coast Guard proposes revisions to the
existing provisions specifying that, when pilotage delay is due to ice
or weather, the vessel is not responsible for the additional charges
invoiced by the association. The regulations currently only state that
the vessel is not liable for charges under this part. We propose adding
language to explicitly extend this exemption to vessel owners to more
clearly establish the lack of liability for charges under this section.
We would also clarify that the decision to interrupt the voyage or
detain the pilot as a result of ice or weather must be jointly
determined by the vessel master and the United States Registered Pilot,
Apprentice Pilot with Limited Registration, or Temporary Registered
Pilot authorized to provide pilotage services to the vessel. This
interruption of the voyage or the detention of the pilot would be in
consideration of marine safety. Requiring them to reach this decision
in agreement is an equitable solution to resolve when the vessel or
owner is not liable for the pilotage charges. When possible, they
should make the determination to interrupt, detain, or delay the vessel
due to ice or weather prior to the pilot departing for the vessel. This
additional guidance on when the determination should be communicated to
the pilot would promote efficiency in the process of calling a pilot to
a vessel.
We also propose removing interruption or detention due to traffic
as a justification for this exemption for delayed pilotage charges.
Vessel traffic is a normal occurrence on the waterways that can be
expected during the normal course of business. On the other hand,
weather and ice delays are made in response to maritime safety, and
vessels should not be penalized for delays made in the interest of
safety. These exemptions are intended to relieve vessels for charges
brought on by forces outside of their control. While vessel traffic
used to be difficult to predict, the availability of the Vessel Traffic
System and Automated Information System data means that vessels are
able to predict traffic. Therefore, the Coast Guard is removing this
exemption and making vessels responsible for accurately predicting
vessel traffic.
Sec. 401.425 Provision for Additional Pilot
The Coast Guard proposes to remove the text, ``Great Lakes Pilotage
Staff, U.S. Coast Guard, or the General Manager, Great Lakes Pilotage
Authority, Ltd., Canada'' and all references to Canada and other U.S.
Coast Guard staff in this section to clarify who makes the decision as
to when an additional U.S. Registered Pilot is required. We would
clarify in the text that the Director makes this double pilotage
determination, when necessary, for the safe navigation of the vessel.
We also propose removing the statement that the provisions for an
additional pilot do not apply to a ship that is not required to have a
pilot on board in undesignated waters of Lake Erie between Southeast
Shoal and Port Colborne, because a pilot is always required in these
waters. As this exemption is obsolete and no longer applies, we propose
deleting it from the regulations.
Additional pilot determinations are currently made on a case-by-
case evaluation and are usually authorized for the opening and closing
of the shipping season. We propose noting in the regulations that this
is a case-by-case evaluation and include the potential reasons for the
need for additional pilots. The association or vessel representative
could request an additional pilot on the vessel for a specific time,
particular port or area, or situation. For example, an association or
vessel could need an additional pilot due to seasonal removal of aids
to navigation, ice conditions, weather forecasts, or other relevant
situations.
Sec. 401.431 Disputed Charges
The Coast Guard proposes to update this section to simplify and
streamline the billing dispute process. This would make it easier to
understand Coast Guard requirements and how the vessel, owner, or
master should provide the required data, such as via a written letter
from an authorized officer of a company. We would also define the
response time periods for the Coast Guard, the vessel owner or agent,
and the pilot association, to both shorten the process and hold all
involved stakeholders to regulatory timelines, per GLPAC recommendation
2 from the GLPAC 2018 Annual Meeting on September 10, 2018.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ See Meeting Minutes from the March 6, 2018, meeting of the
GLPAC Regulatory Reform Sub-Committee, which can be found in the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under revised paragraph (a), a vessel master, owner, or agent who
disputes the rate or charge for a pilot would be required to appeal to
the Director within 60 days of the date the pilot association issues
the bill. We propose clarifying that the pilot association may also
apply the charge to the vessel owner, master, or agent thereof, because
it is not always the pilot who applies the charge. The appeal would
continue to be for the Director to issue an advisory opinion as to
whether the disputed rate or charge is a prohibited charge or
incorrectly assessed/calculated charge.
In proposed revisions to paragraph (b), the vessel owner, Master,
an agent, or an employee empowered to speak on behalf of the owner or
an agent would deliver the appeal to the Director in the form of
official correspondence. The

[[Page 81304]]

rule would require the appeal correspondence to describe the pilotage
services, exact disputed charges, regulatory citation for the dispute,
and requested resolution.
The proposed rule would also require the owner or agent to provide
the pilot association with a copy of the appeal and inform them that
the disputed charges have been sent to the Director for an advisory
opinion.
The association would continue to have up to 20 days to provide the
Director and the entity that provided the complaint with any further
data or arguments in defense of the disputed charges. We propose
clarifying that they have 20 business days, starting upon receipt of
the notice of appeal from the charterer or owner. We also propose
removing ``rates'' from the subject of a dispute because the pilots and
associations do not create or set the rates; the Coast Guard sets the
rates through an annual rulemaking.
In paragraph (e), we propose adding a timeline of up to 30 business
days for the Director to issue an advisory opinion. We propose removing
the express recital that the Director considered all relevant material.
Per current paragraph (e), the advisory opinion must address the
disputed rates and charges, discuss the facts and information provided
by both parties, and include a statement of opinion, so a recital that
the Director considered the material is unnecessary.
If the Director's advisory opinion finds the disputed rates or
charges are prohibited, the association currently has a reasonable
time, but not more than 30 days, to return the amount of disputed
charges as per the advisory opinion. We propose revising the deadline
to simply say the association must issue any refund according to the
advisory opinion within 30 business days.
If the pilot association or the vessel owner feels the advisory
opinion is incorrect, under proposed new paragraph (h), they would be
able to appeal the advisory opinion to the Director of Marine
Transportation Systems (CG-5PW). The pilot association would be able to
submit an appeal for adjudication of the advisory opinion within 10
days of receiving the original advisory opinion.
Sec. 401.450 Pilot Change Points
In paragraph (b) of this section, the Coast Guard proposes to
remove the effective date for the addition of change point Iroquois
Lock. The change point went into effect on October 2, 2017, to provide
enough time for the association to hire more pilots. Since the
effective date has passed and the change point is currently in use, we
propose removing the start of the effective date, per GLPAC
recommendation 1 from the GLPAC 2017 Annual Meeting on September 26,
2017.\11\ In paragraph (b), we also propose to update the location of
the change point for the Iroquois Lock. The change no longer happens
between Iroquois Lock and the area of Ogdensburg, NY on the St.
Lawrence River; the pilot exchange now takes place in the Iroquois
Lock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ See Meeting Minutes from the March 6, 2018, meeting of the
GLPAC Regulatory Reform Sub-Committee, which can be found in the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In paragraph (i), the Coast Guard proposes to update change point
``Gros Cap'' to ``Buoy 33'' of the St. Marys River, Point Iroquois. The
GLPAC created a subcommittee to discuss all the pilot change points in
the St. Lawrence Seaway and Great Lakes system. They found that Gros
Cap was too far out of the St. Marys River, and weather conditions
created unsafe conditions for the pilot boat to transfer pilots. Buoy
33 of the St. Marys River is a better harbor to transfer pilots, as it
is safer for the pilots as they transit up and down the ladders of the
vessels. This proposed change is from GLPAC recommendation 1 from the
GLPAC 2017 Annual Meeting on September 26, 2017, and conforms to
current practice.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 401.510 Operation Without Registered Pilots
The Coast Guard proposes to remove outdated regulations in
paragraphs (b)(3) through (7) of this section that were codified when
both the Department of Commerce and the Coast Guard had regulatory
authority over U.S. pilotage services. From 1960 to 1967, primary
responsibility for Great Lakes pilotage resided with the Department of
Commerce. As the Coast Guard is now the sole Federal agency responsible
for enforcing the Great Lakes Pilotage Act, these regulations are
unnecessary or cumbersome. And, because all the regulatory authority is
now under the Coast Guard, we can coordinate more effectively and
efficiently with Coast Guard District 9 than was possible when the
authority was split between the Coast Guard and the Department of
Commerce.
The regulations in Sec. 401.510 addressing operation without
registered pilots would be significantly streamlined to reflect the
current operation requirements. For example, if a pilot is not
available when needed, the Director's pilotage office can coordinate
with Coast Guard District 9 much more effectively, because everything
is under one agency. The 6-hour rule in current paragraphs (b)(3) and
(4) has not been used since around the late-1980s or early-1990s. The
6-hour period was intended as a buffer to allow the Coast Guard time to
evaluate a situation before concurring with the Department of
Commerce's desire to pull a pilot off their rest period. The Coast
Guard monitors traffic throughout the 2,300 nautical miles in the Great
Lakes system for compulsory pilotage and is now able to make these
decisions in real time.
We propose deleting paragraph (b)(5) because the language is
obsolete and outlines practices that are no longer relevant to the
modern pilotage industry. The decision as to whether a vessel can
proceed without a pilot rests solely with the Director. It does not
require the concurrence of the Coast Guard officer to whom the
violation was reported. Removing this paragraph from the CFR will
prevent confusion by removing instructions that are contrary to the
practices being followed by modern-day pilots.
We also propose deleting paragraph (b)(6), which requires a
pilotage pool to obtain verification from the Canadian Supervisor of
Pilots that they do not have a pilot available, for the same reasons.
The parts we propose to retain in existing paragraphs (b)(1), (2),
and (8) outline the Director's authority to allow a vessel to depart
without a registered pilot and sufficiently articulate that the
Director will make each decision on a case-by-case basis. The Director
would continue to obtain Coast Guard District 9 concurrence before
providing this information to the vessel.
Sec. 401.710 Operating Requirements for Holders of Certificates of
Authorization
We propose updating the reference in this section to the Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) to reflect the most current issue of this
Memorandum issued in conjunction with the Canadian Government. The
updated version is the ``Memorandum of Understanding, Great Lakes
Pilotage, Between The United States Coast Guard and the Minister of
Transport of Canada,'' effective September 19, 2013, and can be found
at <a href="http://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/Office%20of%20Waterways%20and%20Ocean%20Policy/CG-WWM-2/2013%20MOU%20English.PDF?ver=2019-11-19-120352-133">www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/Office%20of%20Waterways%20and%20Ocean%20Policy/CG-WWM-2/2013%20MOU%20English.PDF?ver=2019-11-19-120352-133</a>. The previous
version mentioned in this section was issued in 1970 and is no longer
current.

[[Page 81305]]

Sec. 402.210 Requirements and Qualifications for Registration (Medical
Requirements)
The Coast Guard proposes to revise the language in this section to
align the medical and vision requirements for Apprentice Pilots, United
States Registered Pilots, and Temporary Registered Pilots with the
existing MMC medical certification standards. There is no reason to
duplicate the medical requirements in the pilot regulations that
already exist in 46 CFR part 10 subpart C. Aligning these regulations
would reduce the time and burden on pilots having to comply with
regulations in two separate parts of the CFR, per GLPAC recommendation
7 from a subcommittee meeting on April 11, 2018.\13\ We propose
revising the requirements in this section to say that United States
Pilots, Apprentice Pilots, and Temporary Registered Pilots must pass
the physical examination in accordance with 46 CFR, part 10 subpart C,
and removing the requirements from paragraphs (b) regarding disease and
impairment and from paragraph (c) regarding vision. 46 CFR part 10
subpart C sufficiently covers these medical requirements for pilots.
Pilots would still be required to meet the annual physical examination
requirements in 46 CFR 11.709.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ See Meeting Minutes from the March 6, 2018, meeting of the
GLPAC Regulatory Reform Sub-Committee, which can be found in the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 1: Medical Regulations Comparison compares the newly proposed
medical requirements under the two medical regulations addressing Great
Lakes pilots and the medical requirements for mariners with a First
Class Pilot endorsement on their MMC.

Table 1--Medical Regulations Comparison
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mariners'
requirements/first
Pilotage requirements 46 CFR class pilot Comments
402.210 endorsement 46 CFR
10.302
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use Form CG-719K............ Use Form CG-719K.... Both pilots and
mariners use the
same form for the
physical
examination. This
form is approved
under OMB No. 1625-
0040. No changes to
the form would be
required.
Examination performed by a Examination Great Lakes pilotage
medical doctor. performed, regulations allow
witnessed, or only a medical
reviewed by a doctor to perform
licensed medical their physical
doctor, licensed examination. This
physician limits the number
assistant, licensed of practitioners
nurse practitioner, eligible to perform
or a designated the examinations.
medical examiner. Many pilots on the
Great Lakes live in
remote areas where
it is difficult to
see a medical
doctor and must
travel to be seen
by a medical
doctor, which
increases the cost
of getting an exam.
46 CFR 402.210(c) An 46 CFR Sec. 10.305 The vision
applicant for original Vision requirements requirements for
registration must have a (a) Deck standard. pilots on the Great
visual acuity either with (1) A mariner must Lakes are more
or without glasses of at have correctable restrictive than
least 20/20 vision in one vision to at least those for mariners
eye and at least 20/40 in 20/40 in one eye holding an MMC.
the other. An applicant who and uncorrected Aligning these
wears glasses or contact vision of at least vision requirements
lenses must also pass a 20/200 in the same would meet the
test without glasses or eye. The color minimum
lens of at least 20/40 in sense must be requirements for
one eye and at least 20/70 determined to be pilotage.
in the other. Registered satisfactory when
Pilots, however, must have tested by any of
either with or without the following
glasses or lens visual methods or an
acuity of at least 20/30 in alternative test
one eye and at least 20/50 acceptable to the
in the other. A Registered Coast Guard,
Pilot who wears glasses or without the use of
lens must also pass a test color-sensing
without glasses or lens of lenses:.
at least 20/50 in one eye (i)
and at least 20/100 in the Pseudoisochromatic
other. The color sense of Plates (Dvorine,
original applicants and 2nd Edition;
Registered Pilots must be Approved Color
tested by a Vision Test (AOC);
pseudoisochromatic plate revised edition or
test. Passage of the Hardy Rand and
Williams lantern test or Rittler (AOC-HRR);
its equivalent is an Ishihara 14-, 24-,
acceptable substitute for a or 38-plate
pseudoisochromatic plate editions).
test. (ii) Farnsworth
Lantern..
(iii) Titmus Vision
Tester/OPTEC 2000..
(iv) Optec 900......
(v) Richmond Test,
2nd and 4th
edition..
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 402.220 Registration of Pilots
In this section, we propose updating the terminology for
``Apprentice Pilot'' and ``minimum number of round trips'' to reflect
changes made throughout part 401. In paragraph (a), we would clarify
that the pilot association training committee, pilot association
president, or Director may require additional round trips. The
additional rounds trips would be as needed to demonstrate proficiency
in a specific waterway or port to ensure maritime safety. We also
propose removing the 1-year time limit to complete the round trips
because of limited vessel traffic in some districts and ports, meaning
that some Apprentice Pilots are not able to complete the required
number of training trips within one year. We also propose including a
caveat that the minimum number of round trips listed in the regulations
or in an Apprentice Pilot's individual training plan does not guarantee
advancement to Full Registration. This way, the pilot association and
the Director would be able to reserve the discretion to require
additional round trips when necessary.
The Coast Guard proposes to remove foreign language requirements
from Sec. 402.220(b)(5) and knowledge of foreign-made navigational
equipment from Sec. 402.220(b)(10). The pilotage regulations in
paragraph (b)(5) require United States Registered Pilots to be able to
provide ``[instructions] in basic helm and engine telegraph orders in
Greek, Spanish, German, and Italian languages.'' These outdated foreign
language requirements and instructions are no longer necessary or
enforced because they have been superseded by international treaty
requirements. Under Chapter 5, Regulation 14, paragraph 4 of the
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), all
ships are required to use English as the working language for bridge-
to-bridge and bridge-to-shore safety communications, as well as for
communications between the pilot and the bridge watchkeeping personnel.
This change is in accordance with GLPAC recommendations 2 and 3 from
the subcommittee meeting on April 11, 2018.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ See Meeting Minutes from the March 6, 2018, meeting of the
GLPAC Regulatory Reform Sub-Committee, which can be found in the
docket.

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

[[Page 81306]]

In addition, we propose updating the reference to the 1977 version
of the MOU referenced in this section to reflect the most current issue
of this Memorandum. The updated version is the ``Memorandum of
Understanding, Great Lakes Pilotage, Between The United States Coast
Guard and the Minister of Transport of Canada,'' effective September
19, 2013. The MOU can be found online at <a href="https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/Office%20of%20Waterways%20and%20Ocean%20Policy/CG-WWM-2/2013%20MOU%20English.PDF?ver=2019-11-19-120352-133">https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/Office%20of%20Waterways%20and%20Ocean%20Policy/CG-WWM-2/2013%20MOU%20English.PDF?ver=2019-11-19-120352-133</a>.
Sec. 402.320 Working Rules
The Coast Guard proposes to remove the working rule references in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4), and instead provide an email address
where the public may request a copy of the approved working rules for
each District. Each association updates its working rules frequently.
It is impractical for the Coast Guard to issue regulations to update
this section every time an association issues new working rules. To
receive accurate information, the public can request the most current
copy of the working rules by emailing the Coast Guard.

E. Technical Revisions Throughout Parts 401 and 402

Throughout parts 401 and 402, this proposed rule would change most
instances of ``shall'' to ``must'' to conform to plain language
guidelines. We propose changing instances where the regulations require
the Director or the Coast Guard to act from ``shall'' to ``will'' to
clearly indicate how the Coast Guard will respond. However, we propose
changing instances where the Director or the Coast Guard needs to
reserve discretion in issuing certain endorsements or decisions from
``shall'' to ``may.''
We also propose changing uses of ``registered pilot'' within the
text of the regulations to specify exactly which phases of pilot
registration are meant and to align these references with defined
terms. We propose updating all references to ``pool'' to ``pilotage
pool'' to conform to the new definition for pilotage pool.
Additionally, in several sections, we propose updating the mailing
addresses in the regulations for the Great Lakes Pilotage Office to our
current address: 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Mail Stop 7509,
Washington, DC 20593-7509.
In certain places in the regulations, we propose to replace
``Commandant'' with ``Director'' for decisions that are made, in
practice, by the Director. This change would help clarify the
procedures and expectations for the public. For example, we propose
making this change in Sec. 401.220(b), because the Director prescribes
the minimum number of round trips and written examination for Full
Registration. These changes would reflect current practice.
Another nomenclature change proposed throughout part 401 and 402 is
changing instances of ``his'' to ``they'' or ``their'' to be gender
inclusive.
We propose several technical revisions and nomenclature changes in
the Administrative Law Judge decision sections in 46 CFR part 401,
subpart F, including sections 401.645 and 401.650. There are no
proposed substantive changes in subpart F.
This proposed rule also removes outdated references to Title 52 of
the Revised Statutes and replaces them with the current statutory
requirements for Great Lakes pilotage, Title 46 of the United States
Code. Public Law 98-99, 97 Stat. 558 consolidated these statutory
requirements into 46 U.S.C. on August 26, 1983.

VI. Regulatory Analyses

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. A summary of our analyses
based on these statutes or Executive orders follows.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended
by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review), and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this
proposed rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. OMB has not
reviewed this regulatory action. A regulatory analysis (RA) follows.
Affected Population
The affected population for this proposed rule includes an average
of 51 U.S. Great Lakes pilots, 9 Apprentice Pilots, and 3 Temporary
Registered Pilots over the last five years (2018-2022) all represented
by 3 pilot associations. Table 2 shows the population from 2018 to
2023, using projections provided by the pilotage associations published
in the annual ratemaking for each year. Some of the changes detailed
below impact a subset of this population, in which case we later detail
the average of that subset along with the cost estimate. Unless
otherwise noted, the change impacts the entire affected population
equally.

Table 2--Affected Population 2018-2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temporary
Pilots registered Apprentice Total
pilots pilots
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023............................................ 56 3 6 65
2022............................................ 51 2 9 62
2021............................................ 54 3 8 65
2020............................................ 52 3 13 68
2019............................................ 51 3 8 62
2018............................................ 49 3 7 59
Average (2018-2022)............................. 51.4 2.8 9 63.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: Data provided above for each year (inclusive of Year 2023) are projections based on pilot association
estimates. We have chosen to draw the average from the previous 5 years (2018-2022). Projected figures for
2023 are provided for transparency's sake.

[[Page 81307]]

Costs
Most of the cost impacts for this proposed rule have already been
realized by industry. As a result of the 2018 ratemaking final rule, a
new staffing model was established, and updates to the GLPMS data
management system occurred. 2018 also saw the Director provide industry
and associations informal guidance on many of the cost provisions found
in this rulemaking. This informal guidance directly impacted current
industry practices referenced in this proposed rulemaking.
Therefore, to provide a comprehensive estimate of the impacts of
this proposed rulemaking, the Coast Guard utilizes two baselines, a
``Pre-Guidance'' baseline'' and a ``No Action'' baseline. The ``Pre-
Guidance'' baseline captures costs across two different time horizons.
First, it provides transparency regarding costs realized from 2018-2022
due to informal guidance becoming industry practice. Second, it
captures new cost impacts across a 10-year period of analysis from
2023-2032 that stem from this proposed rulemaking. Therefore, the
entire period of analysis for the Pre-Guidance baseline is 2018-2032.
The ``No Action'' baseline represents the current state of the world as
if there were no proposed rulemaking. Quantifying costs against the No
Action baseline entails including only costs directly attributable to
this rule and excludes any costs derived from 2018 guidance. The period
of analysis for costs relative to the No Action baseline is 2023-2032.
See table 3 for a visual depiction of the baselines.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO23.007

Table 4 shows the summary of net costs, broken down by each of the
two baselines. The figures shown for each baseline are in 2022 dollars
and are discounted at 7-percent.

Table 4--Summary of Net Costs by Baseline
[2022 Dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Guidance
Baseline (2018- No action baseline
2032; discounted 7- (2023-2032;
percent) discounted 7-
percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Private Costs to Industry... Net Costs to Net Costs to
Industry: Industry:
($720,755.13). ($834,809.05).
Annualized Net Annualized Net
Costs to Costs to
Industry: Industry:
($56,422.19). ($118,858.03).
Net Costs to Government......... Net Costs to Net Costs to
Government: Government:
$12,540.65. $0.00.
Annualized Net Annualized Net
Costs to Costs to
Government: Government:
$981.71. $0.00.
---------------------------------------
Total Net Costs............. Total Net Costs: Total Net Costs:
($708,214.47). ($834,809.05).
Annualized Net Annualized Net
Costs: Costs:
($55,440.48). ($118.858.03).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: Components may not add to the totals due to rounding.

[[Page 81308]]

The no-cost category, summarized in table 5, includes changes that
have no cost because the change is administrative, where the regulatory
text needs revision for clarity to reflect reorganization of the text.
It also includes proposed changes that result in no costs for either
baseline, where the substantive action occurred prior to 2018 (through
either existing regulatory text or long-standing guidance). For many of
the cost items, the affected population already realizes the impact of
the changes from prior ratemakings and general changes to industry's
current practice. Certain items in table 5 solely represent information
collection costs, rather than new regulatory costs. Note that
information collection costs include any cost of ongoing reporting or
recordkeeping that must be submitted to the Coast Guard.

Table 5--Summary of No-Cost Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFR section Description of change Reason for no cost Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purpose: Sec. 401.100............ Adds the word This would be an Further clarifies the
``pilotage'' to clarify administrative change; purpose of the section
the part relates to the pilotage is an older and reduces confusion.
creation of ``pilotage term from the 60's
pools''. whereas pilotage pools
is more commonly used
today but both refer to
the same thing.
Purpose: Sec. 401.100............ Adds text to clarify This would be an Further clarifies the
that ``Registered administrative change purpose of the section
Pilots'' refers to that makes explicit and reduces confusion.
``United States that the regulation
Registered Pilots''. does not include
Canadian pilots, which
is implicit based on
the contextual language.
Definitions: Sec. 401.110........ Removes numbering of This would be an Eases finding
definitions and administrative change. definitions,
arrangement in increasing readability
alphabetical letter. and clarity.
Definitions: Sec. 401.110........ Adds the definition for This would be an Further clarifies the
``Applicant'' to administrative change differences between an
clarify that an that distinguishes an ``Applicant,''
``Applicant'' is a applicant that is ``Applicant Trainee,''
person who has awaiting an acceptance and ``Apprentice
submitted a Form CG- decision from an Pilot,'' Which were
4509 to the Director to applicant trainee that previously not
be considered for has been accepted into distinguished but all
placement in an training. referred to
approved U.S. Great synonymously as
Lakes pilot training ``applicant''.
and qualification
program at one of the
established pilotage
pools.
Definitions: Sec. 401.110........ Modifies the definition This would distinguish Further clarifies the
of ``Applicant an applicant trainee differences between an
Trainee'' to clarify that been accepted into ``Applicant,''
that an Applicant training from an ``Applicant Trainee,''
Trainee is a person who applicant that is and ``Apprentice
is approved and awaiting an acceptance Pilot.'' Which were
certified by the decision. previously not
Director who is distinguished but all
participating in an referred to
approved U.S. Great synonymously as
Lakes pilot training ``applicant''.
and qualification
program but does not
qualify as an
Apprentice Pilot.
Definitions: Sec. 401.110........ Removes the last The base definition of Clarifies how this
sentence from the Apprentice Pilot would definition would be
definition of be unchanged. used in conjunction
Apprentice Pilot, with the new
``This definition is definitions of
only applicable to Applicant and
determining which Applicant Trainee,
pilots may be included which were not used
in the operating when the term
expenses, estimates, Applicant Pilot was
and wage benchmark in first introduced.
Sec. Sec.
404.2(b)(7),
404.103(b), and
404.104(d) and (e)''.
Definitions: Sec. 401.110........ Modifies the definition This would be an Adds additional clarity
of ``association'' to administrative change to the source of the
clarify that the that does not change Director's authority
Director of Great Lakes the method of and reduces confusion
Pilotage issues a authorization but on what actions are
Certificate of clarifies the source of the responsibility of
Authorization, not the authority. the Coast Guard and
Great Lakes Pilotage what is the
Branch. responsibility of the
Director.
Definitions: Sec. 401.110........ Updates the abbreviation This would be an Adds additional clarity
of ``Commandant'' from administrative change. and reduces confusion.
CG-00 to CCG.
Definitions: Sec. 401.110........ Adds a definition for This would be an Adds additional clarity
``chemical test''. administrative change. and reduces confusion.
The new definition is
the same as the
existing definition in
46 CFR 4.03-7.
Definitions: Sec. 401.110........ Updates the address for This would be an Adds additional clarity
the Director from administrative change. and reduces confusion.
``Commandant (CG-WWM-
2), to Attn:'' to
``Director''.
Definitions: Sec. 401.110........ Updates the definition This would be an It has the
for ``comparable administrative change. unquantifiable benefit
experience''. It clarifies that of expanding the
experience similar to number of potential
experience on a vessel applicants using
of 4,000 GT or over can experience from other
be used to qualify as areas of the US to
an applicant. qualify as an
applicant. To date,
this has not occurred.
Definitions: Sec. 401.110........ Adds the definition of This would be an Further clarifies the
``Full Registration'' administrative change difference between
for additional clarity. that does not change Full, Limited, and
the requirements to Temporary
achieve full Registrations.
registration but
distinguishes the
different types of
registration.
Definitions: Sec. 401.110........ Creates a definition for This would be an Further clarifies the
``Limited administrative change difference between
Registration''. that distinguishes from Full, Limited, and
a temporary Temporary
registration where Registrations.
previously
``temporary'' referred
to multiple types of
registration. This does
not change the current
requirements for
receiving any of the
types of registration.
Definitions: Sec. 401.110........ Creates a definition for This would be an Further clarifies 46
``marine accident''. administrative change CFR 401.260(a),
that distinguishes incident reporting
between reportable requirements for
marine casualties that pilots on the Great
are sent to the Coast Lakes. The requirement
Guard under 46 CFR Part to notify the Director
4, and accident reports is not new, but
of those casualties differentiating the
that are sent to the kinds of reports makes
Director in the event it clearer to whom the
that the casualty would notice must be given.
affect pilotage.

[[Page 81309]]

Definitions: Sec. 401.110........ Creates a definition for This would not change Further clarifies round-
``minimum number of the existing minimum trip requirements for
round trips''. requirements which are Apprentice Pilots to
detailed in 401.220(b). be in line with added
This addition clarifies distinctions between
that the number of apprentice pilots and
trips applies to trips applicant trainees.
conducted by an
Apprentice, not by an
applicant trainee.
Definitions: Sec. 401.110........ Renames the term This would be an Further clarifies that
``pool'' to ``pilotage administrative change pilotage pools are
pool'' and adds that better aligns with organizations holding
additional text to the current authorization a Certificate of
definition. language. Authorization issued
by the Director, which
are the three existing
pilotage associations
for each of the three
districts.
Definitions: Sec. 401.110........ Adds additional text to This would be an Further clarifies how
the term ``rate administrative change. the weighting factors
computation are calculated.
definitions'' to
clarify that these
definitions are used to
determine the weighting
factors in the rate.
Definitions: Sec. 401.110........ Adds definition for This would be an Further clarifies what
``round trip''. administrative change. is considered a round
trip.
Definitions: Sec. 401.110........ Adds definition for This would be an Further clarifies the
``Semi-annual administrative change. Semi-annual
Performance Evaluation Performance Evaluation
Report''. Report.
Definitions: Sec. 401.110........ Adds definition for This would be an Further clarifies what
``Sponsoring administrative change. is considered a
Organization''. Sponsoring
Organization for the
chemical testing
requirement.
Definitions: Sec. 401.110........ Adds the additional text This would be an Updates text to
to the definition of administrative change. reference current U.S.
``United States Code sections and
Registered Pilot''. mariner credentialing
requirements.
Application for registration: Sec. Adds email address and This would be an Adds email address and
401.200. physical mailing administrative change. physical mailing
address for submission address to make it
of Form CG-4509. easier for the
regulated public to
submit the form.
Application for registration: Sec. Removes text requiring Form CG-4509 already Adds clarity by
401.200. two photographs be requires the submission removing duplicative
submitted with Form CG- of two signed text.
4509. photographs. This
change would merely
remove duplicative
text, not the
requirement to submit
the photographs.
Sec. 401.210(a).................. Changes ``Requirements This would be an Further clarifies Full
and qualifications for administrative change. Registration in
Registration''. comparison to
To ``Requirements and requirements for new
qualifications for Full definitions.
Registration''.
Sec. 401.210(a).................. Adds the word ``fully''. This would be an Adds clarity by
administrative change. matching title to
altered text in the
body paragraph.
Sec. 401.210(a)(1)............... Adds clarifying text This change would remove Adds clarity by making
updating authority from outdated language and citation more specific
``revised statutes'' to updates to the most Mariners are no longer
specify 46 CFR part 11, current authority issued licenses, but
removing ``license or citations to provide credentials with
MMC'' to read ``MMC clarity but does not endorsements so this
with an officer change existing change removes
endorsement'', and requirements. outdated language and
replacing ``tows'' with clarifies using more
``barge'' in current language and
``integrated tug and authorities. The
barge''. emphasis on barges
clarifies that pilots
must be credentialed
deck officers and the
tonnage requirements
apply to an integrated
tug and barge, not the
aggregate tonnage of a
tug and tow.
Sec. 401.210(a)(4)............... Adds ``applicable'' to This would be an Improves clarity of the
``applicable medical administrative change source of
requirements and because the requirements.
standards'' and the CFR requirements in the
citation to the cited CFR section are
existing requirements. unchanged.
Sec. 401.210(a)(6)............... Removes text specifying TWICs are already Increases clarity and
a requirement to hold a required to hold an MMC readability of the CFR
TWIC in addition to an so specifying both is by removing
MMC. redundant. unnecessary text.
Sec. 401.210(a)(7)............... Removes unnecessary text This would be an Increases clarity and
and changes the term administrative change readability of the CFR
``Applicant Pilots'' to necessary to make text by removing text
``Apprentice Pilots''. consistent with new specifying application
definitions added in for pilotage, which is
other sections that already specified in
clarify between the title of the
applicants, applicant section.
trainees, and Increases clarity by
apprentices. changing ``Applicant
Pilots'' to
``Apprentice Pilots''
to be consistent with
proposed definition
changes.
Sec. 401.210(a)(8)............... Adds new paragraph This would be an Adds clarity by making
requiring the administrative change citation more specific
individual to meet the that integrates and eliminating the
chemical testing references to the need to update text
requirements in 46 CFR existing source of when parts of 46 CFR
part 16 for Full requirements rather part 16 change.
Registration. than restating
requirements. This is
an existing requirement
for all mariners
holding a MMC, per 46
CFR 10.209(h) and 46
CFR Part 16.
Sec. 401.211..................... Changes text from This would be an Adds clarity and
``Applicant Pilots'' to administrative change consistency for
``Apprentice Pilots'' necessary to make text references to new
to be consistent with consistent with new definitions.
new terms. definitions added in
other sections.
Sec. 401.211(b).................. Creates new paragraph This would be an Adds clarity and better
(b) containing current administrative change readability by making
text. necessary to detail requirement list stand
changes in the out within the
organization of the paragraph.
text.
Sec. 401.211(b)(3)............... Adds citation to 46 CFR Pilots must already hold Adds clarity by making
part 11.480 to clarify a radar observer citation more specific
requirements to obtain qualification. and eliminating the
radar observer need to update text
qualification, but does when parts of 46 CFR
not change the existing part 11.480 change.
requirement to hold a
radar observer
qualification.

[[Page 81310]]

Sec. 401.211(e).................. Adds address for This would be an Adds email and mailing
submission of Form CG- administrative change. address to make it
4509. easier for the
regulated public to
submit forms.
Sec. 401.211(e).................. Adds text requiring two This would be an Clarifies the
photographs be administrative change requirements for
submitted with Form CG- that does not alter the submitting Form CG-
4509 to provide clarity existing requirements 4509 where methods of
since Sec. 401.200 of Form CG-4509. submission are
would no longer require discussed.
it.
Sec. 401.211(f).................. Modifies text to clarify This would be an Improves clarity and
who may be issued a administrative change. makes text consistent
U.S. Coast Guard with proposed
Apprentice Pilot definitions.
Identification Card.
Replaces the terms
``applicant'' and
``Applicant Pilot''
with ``Apprentice
Pilot''.
Sec. 401.211(f)(1)............... Adds new paragraph This would be an Improves clarity.
stating the Director administrative change.
may set an expiration
date for the Apprentice
Pilot Identification
Card.
Sec. 401.211(g)(4)............... Minor wording changes... This would be an Improves clarity by
administrative change. specifying the
identification card is
withdrawn.
Sec. 401.211(j).................. New paragraph requires This change would update Improves clarity of
Apprentice Pilots to be text as this is already applicability to make
enrolled in the required as part of all text consistent
association's chemical casualty reporting. across new sections
testing program. that specify
requirements for
applicants, applicant
trainees, and
apprentices.
Sec. 401.211(k).................. New paragraph outlines This change would update Creates clarity by
requirements for Full text to describe detailing section
Registration, including current practice. The title for Apprentice
passing an exam, a impact of the change Pilot to be consistent
positive endorsement from prior text has with new terms.
from the association, already been realized
and the determination in 401.220(b).
by the Director of the
need for an additional
pilot.
Sec. 401.214..................... Adds new section with This would be an Creates clarity by
requirements for administrative change codifying requirements
Applicant Trainees. to separate for Applicant Trainees
requirements to in a separate new
Applicant Trainees and section distinct from
Apprentice Pilots in apprentices so that
accordance with requirements are in
proposed definitions. clearly distinct
sections and
consistent with new
terms. The
requirements
themselves are not
new, as they were in
place when all stages
of training were
referred to
indistinguishably as
applicants.
Sec. 401.214(b).................. New paragraph adding This would be an Creates clarity by
qualifications to be administrative change listing requirements
considered an Applicant necessary to in clearly distinct
Trainee. distinguish Applicants sections and
from Applicant consistent with new
Trainees. Use of this terms. The
term is already common requirements
practice. themselves are not
new, as they were in
place when all stages
of training were
referred to
indistinguishably as
applicants.
Sec. 401.214(e).................. New paragraph clarifies Applicant Trainees have Improves clarity by
that Applicant Trainees already been submitting codifying the
must submit an these forms, but the requirement that
application on Form CG- regulatory text did not Applicant Trainees
4509. reference Applicant must submit an
Trainees specifically. application. The
This practice pre-dates requirement itself is
any guidance issued in not new and is a long-
2018 and is not a standing practice.
result of this proposed
rulemaking. This new
clarifying paragraph
would codify a
longstanding practice.
Therefore, this would
be a no-cost change in
both our Pre-Guidance
baseline (2018-2032)
and our No Action
baseline (2023-2032).
Sec. 401.220(b).................. Changes the term This would be an Creates clarity by
``Applicant Pilot'' to administrative change listing requirements
``Apprentice Pilot''. necessary to make text in clearly distinct
consistent with new sections and
definitions added in consistent with new
other sections. terms. The
requirements
themselves are not
new, as they were in
place when all stages
of training were
referred to
indistinguishably as
applicants.
Sec. 401.220(b)(2)............... Clarifies that This would be an Increased clarity of
Apprentice Pilots, not administrative change the CFR to specify
Applicant Pilots, must necessary to make text where ``Apprentice
complete the approved consistent with new Pilot'' would replace
course of instruction definitions for the previous term
prescribed by the applicant, applicant ``Applicant Pilot.''
association authorized trainee, and apprentice.
to establish the
pilotage pool.
Sec. 401.220(b)(3)............... Minor wording changes to This would be an Removes outdated and
improve clarity and administrative change gendered references
readability. necessary to make text consistent with
consistent with new changes in other
definitions added in sections.
other sections.
Sec. 401.220(c).................. Changes wording to be This would be an Increased clarity of
consistent with new administrative change the CFR to specify
definitions of necessary to make text where ``Apprentice
Apprentice Pilot and consistent with new Pilot'' would replace
Applicant. definitions added in the previous term
other sections. ``Applicant Pilot.''
Sec. 401.220(d).................. Changes wording to be This would be an Increased clarity of
consistent with new administrative change the CFR to specify
definitions. necessary to make text where ``Apprentice
consistent with new Pilot'' would replace
definitions added in the old language and
other sections. remove gendered
references.
Sec. 401.220(e).................. Deletes paragraph....... This would be an Increased clarity of
administrative change. the CFR necessary to
be consistent with new
sections.

[[Page 81311]]

Sec. 401.222..................... Moves Temporary This would be an Creates clarity by
Registration administrative that making requirements
requirements to their changes organization of clear and consistent
own section for clarity. the part. with a section for
each category of
applicant, applicant
trainee, apprentice,
pilot, and temporary
pilot.
Sec. 401.222(a).................. New paragraph that This would be an Creates clarity by
clarifies who may hold administrative making requirements
a Temporary alteration that changes clear and consistent a
Registration. organization of the section for each
text but does not category of applicant,
change the requirements. applicant trainee,
apprentice, pilot, and
temporary pilot.
Sec. 401.230(a).................. Minor wording change, This would be an Updates text to
updates statutory administrative change reference U.S. Code to
reference. necessary to make text improve clarity.
consistent with new
definitions added in
other sections.
Sec. 401.230(c).................. Modifies to include more This would be an Increased clarity as
up-to-date terms and administrative change ``Photostat'' is not a
methods of copying necessary to make text common term.
documents. consistent with new
definitions added in
other sections.
Sec. 401.240(d).................. Minor wording changes, This would be an Improves clarity by
replaces the word administrative change. better matching the
``Commandant'' with language used by
``Director''. industry.
Sec. 401.250(d).................. Removes the word This would be an Improves clarity and
``license''. administrative change eliminates confusion
that does not change as to what ``license''
the requirement to have refers.
an MMC.
Sec. 401.260(a).................. Clarifies reporting This would be an Creates clarity by
requirements also apply administrative change making requirements
to pilots on a Limited necessary to make text clear and consistent
or Temporary consistent with new with new terms.
Registration and other definitions added in
minor wording changes. other sections.
Sec. 401.260(a).................. Reformats report This would be an Improves clarity by
contents from a administrative change making the list of
paragraph to a numbered reflecting organization requirements more
list. of text. legible.
Sec. 401.260(a).................. Modifies 401.260(a) to This practice predates Improves clarity on the
add clarity regarding any 2018 guidance. The format of the
the existing practice Director's office submission and when
of receiving marine already receives these the marine accident
accident reports. It reports and does not report is required.
outlines that a written expect the trend in
report is required when reports received to
a marine incident change as a byproduct
occurs while an of this rulemaking. The
Apprentice Pilot, submission requirement
Apprentice Pilot with for these reports is
Limited Registration, found in Sec. 401.260
United States and originated in 31 FR
Registered Pilot, or 9065.\15\ Therefore, it
Temporary Registered is a no-cost change in
Pilot is providing both our Pre-Guidance
pilotage services. baseline (2018-2032)
and our No Action
baseline (2023-2032).
Sec. 401.260(a)(7)............... Adds requirement for This would not change Improves clarity by
pilot to share the the requirement for making requirements
results of post- testing governed by 46 easier to find in an
casualty drug and CFR Sec. 4.06-3. explicit list.
alcohol tests in the Rather, Sec.
notice to the Director. 401.260(a)(7) would
detail what information
must also be shared
with the Director in
the event that a
reportable casualty
affects pilotage.
Sec. 401.420(c).................. Minor wording changes, This would be an Further clarifies who
clarifies that a vessel administrative change determines whether an
master and a pilot since this is already interruption is caused
authorized to provide industry practice. by weather.
pilotage service to the
vessel determine
weather delays jointly.
Sec. 401.425..................... Removes provisions This would be an Adds additional
governing Canadian administrative change clarity, as the
approval of double since the Director does Director approves
pilotage. not have to confer with double pilotage for
the Canadians to the U.S. pilots but
approve pilotage and has no jurisdiction
has not had to. The over Canadian pilots.
reference to Canada was The Canadian pilots
erroneous. base their decisions
on different criteria,
though both countries
may notify each other
of their decision to
approve double
pilotage to assist in
pilotage assignments.
Sec. 401.425..................... Removes the undesignated This change would update Improves clarity by
waters of Lake Erie text as the Director removing outdated
from the Southeast can already require language.
Shoal to Colborne double pilotage as the
restrictions and states situation dictates. The
the director will regulatory text was
evaluate dual pilotage outdated, and double
on a case-by-case basis. pilotage is allowed in
this area when needed.
Sec. 401.431(a).................. Establishes 60-day There has only been one Improves clarity and
billing dispute instance of a dispute reduces the likelihood
deadline, minor word longer than 60 days. We of a dispute occurring
changes. do not expect any after the books have
further impacts. been closed.
Sec. 401.431(d).................. Minor wording changes to This process predates Improves clarity on who
clarify that the pilot the 2018 guidance. The is considered the
association is the ability to appeal (Sec. respondent and the
respondent, and they 401.431(d)) was exact timeline for any
have 20 business days initially added to the pilot association
to defend disputed CFR via 29 FR 10467 wishing to defend
charges starting from (July 28, 1964).\16\ No disputed charges.
when they receive the changes to this
notice of appeal. behavior occurred over
Previous text listed 20 2018-2022. The Coast
days without specifying Guard does not expect
business days or when wording changes in the
those days would begin proposed rulemaking to
counting. alter behavior from the
pilot association.
Therefore, it is a no-
cost change in both our
Pre-Guidance baseline
(2018-2032) and our No
Action baseline (2023-
2032).
No previous dispute
exceeded 20 days..
Sec. 401.431(e).................. Minor wording changes to No cost. This process Improves clarity for
clarify that the predates 2018 guidance. pilot associations
Director would respond Sec. 401.431(e) was submitting charge
with an advisory initially added to the disputes as to when an
opinion within 30 CFR via 29 FR 10467 advisory opinion can
working days.. (July 28, 1964).\17\ No be expected from the
Previous text did not changes to this Director.
specify a specific behavior occurred over
number of days. 2018-2022. The Coast
Guard does not expect
wording changes in the
proposed rulemaking to
alter the Director's
behavior in responding
with advisory opinions.
The text simply
clarifies a long-
standing practice.

[[Page 81312]]

Sec. 401.431(h).................. Creates new paragraph This process predates Improves clarity by
(h) that codifies the any 2018 guidance. This codifying the existing
existing practice of proposed paragraph is ability for pilotage
pilotage associations codifying this long- associations to appeal
appealing the advisory standing practice the advisory opinion
opinion made by the performed by the made by the Director.
Director. The proposed pilotage associations. The practice itself is
reg text specifies that Neither 2018 guidance not new and is a long-
the associations may do nor the proposed standing practice.
so within 10 days of rulemaking
receiving the opinion. substantively modifies
this pilot association
practice. Therefore, it
is a no-cost change in
both our Pre-Guidance
baseline (2018-2032)
and our No Action
baseline (2023-2032).
Sec. 401.450(b).................. Removes the effective This would be an Improves clarity as the
date for the administrative change text is outdated from
establishment of the since the date has when change point was
pilot change point at passed. first introduced.
Iroquois Lock.
Sec. 401.450(i).................. Replaces Gros Cap with This change would only Makes text consistent
Buoy 33, St. Mary's move the change point with change points
River, Point Iroquois. to a more convenient currently used. This
location; it would not change point is a new
change the number of location in the river,
change points. closer to the locks
and a safer location
to transfer pilots on
and off the pilot
boat. Gros Cap was too
far out in the bay
(about 2 nautical
miles) and the
transfers were
affected by the
weather and transit
time.
Sec. 401.450(k).................. Replaces Gros Cap with See above............... See above.
Buoy 33.
Sec. 401.510(b)(3)-(7)........... Deletes outdated text... This would be an Improves clarity of the
administrative change CFR by removing
removing outdated outdated text.
references that refer
to old systems of
communication in
paragraph (3) and
references to when the
Coast Guard was part of
the Department of the
Treasury in paragraphs
(4) through (7).
Sec. 401.710(b).................. Updates Memorandum of This would be an Improves clarity of the
Understanding reference administrative change CFR.
and date. removing outdated
references.
Sec. 402.220(a).................. Adds discretion for the This would codify an Improves clarity of the
Director or association existing practice that CFR.
to require additional would not change the
round trips in a total number of trips
particular area as part to meet the minimum but
of meeting the overall may change where those
minimum number of round trips occur in order to
trips requirement. ensure that the
experience in training
is representative of
future operations.
Sec. 402.220(a)(5)............... Removes section This would be an Improves clarity of the
describing requirement administrative change CFR.
for training in foreign removing outdated
languages. references as these
courses are no longer
required under STCW.
Sec. 402.220(a)(7)............... Updates Memorandum of This would be an Improves clarity of the
Understanding reference. administrative change CFR.
removing outdated
references.
Sec. 402.220(a)(10).............. Removes paragraph....... This would be an Improves clarity of the
administrative change CFR.
removing outdated
references.
Sec. 402.230(a).................. Updates statutory This would be an Improves clarity of the
references and makes administrative change CFR.
minor wording changes removing outdated
to improve clarity and references.
readability.
Sec. 402.320(a).................. Removes reference to This would be an Improves clarity and
each working rule administrative change electronic access of
individually and as the same information information by the
instead makes all rules remains available and public and eliminates
available the Coast Guard has the need to provide a
electronically by email never received a technical amendment
request. request for a paper whenever the date of a
copy of a working rule. working rule changes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The information collections in this proposed rule are actions that
the affected population of pilots and pilot associations have already
complied with in prior years. Prior to this proposed rulemaking, the
Coast Guard had not codified the burden for these collections into the
information collection request for the Great Lakes Pilotage Rate
Methodology (OMB Control Number 1625-0086).\18\ We present details on
past reporting and estimated future regulatory costs to industry in
table 6, broken down by each of the two baselines. Table 6 also details
relevant regulatory costs that concurrently act as information
collection costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ To access 31 FR 9065, please see <a href="https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/1966/7/1/9063-9067.pdf">https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/1966/7/1/9063-9067.pdf</a>.
Note that while the requirement is not new, a definition for
``marine accident'' is being proposed for Sec. 401.110 in this
NPRM.
\16\ Sec. 401.431(d) was initially added to the CFR via 29 FR
10467 (July 28, 1964). To read the referenced final rule, see
<a href="https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/1964/7/28/10461-10468.pdf#page=7">https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/1964/7/28/10461-10468.pdf#page=7</a>. For more information on the history of how the
requirement was redesignated and amended through the years, see
<a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-46/chapter-III/part-401/subpart-D/section-401.431">https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-46/chapter-III/part-401/subpart-D/section-401.431</a>.
\17\ Sec. 401.431(e) was initially added to the CFR via 29 FR
10467 (July 28, 1964). To read the referenced final rule, see
<a href="https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/1964/7/28/10461-10468.pdf#page=7">https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/1964/7/28/10461-10468.pdf#page=7</a>. For more information on the history of how the
requirement was redesignated and amended through the years, see
<a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-46/chapter-III/part-401/subpart-D/section-401.431">https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-46/chapter-III/part-401/subpart-D/section-401.431</a>.
\18\ To access the Great Lakes pilotage Rate Methodology ICR,
please see <a href="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201709-1625-004">www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201709-1625-004</a>.

[[Page 81313]]

Table 6--Summary of Costs by Baseline
[2022 Dollars, discounted at 7%]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-guidance baseline No action baseline
CFR section Description of change (2018-2032) (2023-2032)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitions: Sec. 401.110.......... Creates a definition The Coast Guard began No cost. No expected
for ``individual receiving changes in cost from
training plan.'' Prior individualized this rule when
to 2018, associations training plans in compared with cost of
used the same template 2018. Beginning in informal guidance
plan for the entire 2018, assume that issued in 2018. Our No
district, rather than individualized Action baseline
individualizing plans. training plans take 2 excludes any costs
hours to prepare. This directly attributed to
hour burden per the guidance.
training plan is
expected to remain
consistent (2 hours)
across 2018-2032.
Total Cost to Industry
2018-2032: $10,015.59..
Annualized Cost:
$784.04..
Sec. 401.211(g).................... Adds new paragraph that The Coast Guard began No cost. No expected
codifies existing requiring The Director changes in cost
practice of requiring approve these stemming from this
Apprentice Pilots to individual training rule when compared
have The Director plans in 2018 (same with informal guidance
approve their year the agency began issued in 2018. Our No
individual training receiving the Action baseline
plan. individualized excludes any costs
training plans). directly attributed to
Beginning in 2018, the guidance.
assume that it takes
the Director 30
minutes to review.
This hour burden per
training plan is
expected to remain
consistent (0.5 hours)
across 2018-2032.
Total Cost to
Government 2018-2032:
$3,899.46..
Annualized Cost:
$305.26..
Definitions: Sec. 401.110.......... Adds definition for 2018-2022: In the 2023 Any further impacts
``Temporary Registered annual ratemaking, the would be realized
Pilot''. Coast Guard utilized through a ratemaking.
the definition of
temporary pilot to
reduce the number of
temporary pilots
projected.
2023-2032: Any further
impacts would be
realized through a
ratemaking..
Sec. 401.211(h).................... Adds new section that This requirement began No cost. No expected
codifies existing via informal guidance changes in cost
practice of requiring in 2018. Average of 5 stemming from this
Apprentice Pilots to Apprentice Pilots rule when compared
have a Semi-annual annually submitting 18 with informal guidance
Performance Evaluation reports on average. issued in 2018. Our No
Report. Submission requires 6 Action baseline
hours per report. excludes any costs
Review of these directly attributed to
reports at the the guidance.
Director's office
takes 20 minutes (0.33
hours) per report.
These hourly burdens
remain unchanged
across 2018-2032.
Total Cost to Industry
2018-2032: $99,875.41..
Annualized Cost:
$7,818.45..
Total Cost to
Government 2018-2032:
$8,641.19.
Annualized Cost:
$1,053.61.
Sec. 401.230(d) and Sec. Adds additional text to 2018-2022: Applicants No additional cost
401.240(a). clarify the nature of have been asked to stemming from
photos submitted to resubmit photos only a rulemaking. Potential
the Coast Guard. handful of times since for cost savings if
Provides clarity by 2018. the number of photos
using common language 2023-2032: No cost. retaken is reduced.
for ``passport style'' Potential for cost This cost saving could
photographs that would savings if the number not be quantified
be more easily of photos retaken is given the limited
understood. The Coast reduced. This cost number of times a cost
Guard requires a saving could not be has been incurred to
signed photo inserted quantified given the retake photos and that
into Certificates of limited number of cost was never
Registration as the times a cost has been quantified.
photo with the incurred to retake
signature is used in photos and that cost
making certificates. was never quantified..
In some cases, the
photo submitted is too
far away from the face
of the subject, and in
order to capture the
signature a portion of
the person may be cut
off. This change would
help eliminate these
issues and needing new
photos to be submitted.

[[Page 81314]]

Sec. 401.260....................... Removes paragraph (d) 2018-2022: No cost Cost savings over 2023-
which required savings. This process 2032 are attributed
submission of monthly pre-dates 2018 only to this
availability reports. guidance and has not rulemaking and are not
changed in scope a byproduct of any
during 2018-2022 due guidance over the 2018-
to guidance. The 2022 timeframe.
requirement to provide Therefore, our cost
these originates in 31 savings in the No
FR 9065 (July 1, Action baseline equate
1966).\19\ From 2018- to those in our Pre-
2022, associations Guidance baseline.
kept record of Removing the submission
approximately 672 requirement results in
monthly availability cost savings over the
reports each year No Action Baseline
during the 10 months period of analysis
of the shipping (2023-2032).
season, for each pilot Total Cost Savings to
and apprentice on Industry (2023-2032):
roster. $(835,065.99).
2023-2032: If Coast Annualized Cost
Guard continued to Savings:
require these reports, $(118,894.61).
we would expect to
receive 650 annually.
It estimated that each
monthly report takes
2.5 hours to submit.
Removing this required
submission results in
cost savings over 2023-
2032..
Total Cost Savings to
Industry (2018-2032):
$(835,065.99)..
Annualized Cost
Savings: $(65,370.68)..
Sec. 401.431(b).................... Changes ``in writing'' 2018-2022: No cost. The
to ``official appeal process did not
correspondence'' and originate from 2018
adds requirements for guidance. The ability
what information must to appeal (Sec.
be in the appeal, 401.431(b)) was
rather than Coast initially added to the
Guard receiving CFR via 29 FR 10467
disputes in varying (July 28, 1964).\20\
formats. 2018 guidance did not
alter any aspect of
this existing
requirement.
2023-2032: With the
proposed changes, the
Coast Guard estimates
that forthcoming
submissions will take
one hour each, an
additional 30 minutes
per report. To avoid
double counting an
existing regulatory
cost associated with
these reports, the Pre-
Guidance baseline uses
0.5 hours for the time
burden. The Coast
Guard estimates
receiving one of these
reports annually over
2023-2032..
Total Cost to Industry
2018-2032: $256.94.
Annualized Cost: Costs over 2023-2032
$20.11. are attributed only to
this rulemaking and
are not a byproduct of
any guidance over the
2018-2022 timeframe.
Therefore, our cost
savings in the No
Action baseline equate
to those in our Pre-
Guidance baseline.
The proposed changes
result in costs over
our No Action baseline
period of analysis
(2023-2032).
Total Cost to Industry
2023-2032: $256.94.
Annualized Cost:
$36.58.
Sec. 402.210(a).................... Adds Apprentice Pilots This requirement began No cost. No expected
and Temporary via informal guidance changes in cost
Registered Pilots. in 2018. stemming from this
Adds citation to This change impacts rule when compared
current CFR mariners who submit with informal guidance
requirements for all Apprentice Pilot issued in 2018. Our No
pilots to pass a applications to the Action baseline
physical examination. Director. From 2018- excludes any costs
Given this edition, it 2022, the Coast Guard directly attributed to
equates to more than received an average of the guidance.
an editorial change. 15 such applications
annually. Each medical
certificate takes
about 18 minutes (0.3
hours) to draft and
submit. The Coast
Guard expects no
change in behavior or
burden over 2023-2032
as a result of this
rulemaking..
Total Cost to Industry
2018-2032: $4,162.92.
Annualized Cost:
$325.88.
Sec. 402.210(b).................... Removes paragraph...... Cost included in change No cost.
to Sec. 402.210(a).
Sec. 402.210(c).................... Removes paragraph...... Cost included in change No cost.
to Sec. 402.210(a).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs: Pre-Guidance Baseline
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ To access 31 FR 9065, please see <a href="https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/1966/7/1/9063-9067.pdf">https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/1966/7/1/9063-9067.pdf</a>.
\20\ Sec. 401.431(b) was initially added to the CFR via 29 FR
10467 (July 28, 1964). To read the referenced final rule, see
<a href="https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/1964/7/28/10461-10468.pdf#page=7">https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/1964/7/28/10461-10468.pdf#page=7</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This section outlines regulatory costs in accordance with the Pre-
Guidance baseline. Therefore, costs from 2018-2022 stemming from the
2018 guidance are included, as applicable. The Coast Guard estimates
that the annual time burden over the 2018-2022 period is zero in cases
where the proposed rulemaking is (1) instituting a brand-new
requirement; (2) making a substantive change to an industry practice
that pre-dates 2018; or (3)

[[Page 81315]]

makes a substantive change to an existing regulatory requirement that
pre-dates 2018. This is to avoid including new costs in 2018-2022 that
are not attributable to guidance and therefore out of scope for this
portion of the Pre-Guidance baseline's timeframe. The Coast Guard
estimates costs specifically stemming from this proposed rulemaking in
the 2023-2032 portion of the Pre-Guidance period of analysis. The
overall period

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on November 21, 2023.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.