I rise to voice opposition to the Coast Guard's current fee schedule that took effect on May 1, 1995. This user fee schedule is overly burdensome to small operators. The final rule states that as of May 1, 1995, all inspected commercial vessels, including vessels carrying as few as seven passengers, will be required to pay the Coast Guard a user fee for the inspection of their vessels. The fees for inspected operators with vessels less than 54 feet would be $670 per year, escalating up to $1,200 for larger vessels. For small seasonal marine businesses, this fee represents a large percentage of their net revenue. I believe these fees would have a disproportionate impact on small business. In my district, thousands of small operators would be hurt by this rule. The Coast Guard should adjust its proposed fees for small operators to ensure that they are not regressive. This can be done by basing user fees on the actual time it takes to inspect a small vessel, usually 2 to 4 hours, which would translate into a fee much lower than announced. The Coast Guard states that its fee is $87 per hour for inspections. The one topside inspection done each year and the one drydock inspection done every 18 months, takes approximately 3 hours per year per vessel. Therefore, the inspection fee should be no higher than $261 per year.
Wayne Gilchrest: “I rise to voice opposition to the Coast Guard's current fee schedule that took effect on May 1, 1995. This user fee…”
On the recordMay 9, 1995
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Opposing the Coast Guard's fee schedule for vessel inspections affecting small operators.
Share
More from Wayne Gilchrest
Dec 11, 2013
We have got to work these things out in a way that is a more general ecosystem-based approach to management.
Oct 2, 2007
In World War II, 25 percent of the soldiers had what was called shell shock. That's 25 percent. In the Vietnam War era it was the same. In this war, it is the same. Of the hundreds of thousands of young men and women that travel through…
Jul 25, 2007
So that's not clear. Did the border agents supervisors, or do you have any idea who spoke, if there was, in fact, a grand jury, to determine whether or not there was enough evidence?





