[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24793-24797]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11303]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 15

[CGD 92-061]
RIN-2115-AE28


Federal Pilotage Requirement for Foreign Trade Vessels

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending the regulations to require Federal 
pilots for foreign trade vessels: Navigating certain offshore marine 
oil terminals located within the U.S. navigable waters of the States of 
California and Hawaii; making intra-port transits within certain 
designated waters in the States of New York and New Jersey; and 
transiting certain designated waters of the State of Massachusetts. 
This action is necessary to ensure that vessels are navigated by 
competent, qualified individuals, who are knowledgeable of the local 
area. The Coast Guard believes this requirement will promote 
navigational safety, increase the level of accountability, and reduce 
the risk of an accident and the discharge of oil or other hazardous 
substances into these waters.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The final rule is effective on June 9, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Unless otherwise indicated, documents referenced in this 
preamble are available for inspection or copying at the office of the 
Executive Secretary, Marine Safety Council (G-LRA/3406), U.S. Coast 
Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., room 3406, Washington, DC 
20593-0001, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 267-1477.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John R. Bennett, Merchant Vessel 
Personnel Division (G-MVP/12), Room 1210, U.S. Coast Guard 
Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, 
telephone (202) 267-6102.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Drafting Information: The principal persons involved in drafting 
this rule are Mr. John R. Bennett, Project Manager, Office of Marine 
Safety, Security and Environmental Protection, and Mr. Nicholas 
Grasselli, Project Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel.

Regulatory History

    On July 9, 1993, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ``Federal Pilotage Requirement for Foreign 
Trade Vessels'' in the Federal Register (58 FR 36914). This NPRM 
proposed areas in waters of the States of California, Hawaii, New York, 
New Jersey, and Massachusetts where a vessel engaged in foreign 
commerce would be required to use a Federally licensed first class 
pilot. The Coast Guard received seventy-five letters in response to the 
NPRM. The majority of these letters addressed the proposed pilotage 
requirements for New York and New Jersey.

Background and Purpose

    The principal reason for this rulemaking is to enhance the safety 
of vessels performing difficult mooring maneuvers, or transiting 
congested or restricted waters. As noted in the NPRM, State laws do not 
require use of a pilot in the areas covered by this rule. Under 46 
U.S.C. 8503, the Coast Guard may prescribe pilotage regulations in 
waters not subject to State pilotage requirements.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

A. Summary

    Seventy nine comments were received. Many comments stated that this 
rulemaking was unnecessary because most of the vessels affected by this 
rulemaking are piloted by individuals who hold State and Federal 
pilot's licenses. While it is true that many vessels affected by this 
rule are piloted by individuals who hold State and Federal pilot's 
licenses, it is not always clear whether these individuals are 
operating under their State or Federal pilot's license. For 
clarification and disciplinary purposes, the Coast Guard needs: (1) To 
verify that certain vessels operating in certain waters are being 
piloted by an individual holding a pilot's license; and (2) to ensure 
that the pilot is operating under the authority of only one pilot's 
license.
    There have been several marine casualties involving pilots holding 
both State and Federal licenses. In cases where the individual was 
operating under the authority of a State license the Coast Guard could 
not take disciplinary action. This rulemaking will help to ensure that 
all foreign trade vessels operating in the areas described in this 
rulemaking are required to be under the direction and control of a 
Federally licensed pilot who is knowledgeable of the local navigational 
hazards and operating conditions, and who can be held accountable for 
his or her actions in the event of a casualty.
    Several comments requested a public hearing. However, it is the 
Coast Guard's belief that holding a public hearing would not result in 
additional or different information than was provided in the comments. 
Therefore, the Coast Guard decided not to hold a public hearing.

B. California

    Six comments supported this section of the rulemaking based on the 
belief that the Coast Guard needs to be able to improve its oversight 
of pilotage and ensure the pilot has local knowledge of the pilotage 
area.
    Two comments opposed this section of the rulemaking because of 
possible Federalism implications. They noted that the California State 
Lands Commission (the Commission) already has a regulation that 
addresses pilotage requirements at offshore terminals. The Commission's 
regulation requires a mooring master who holds a valid U.S. Coast Guard 
license as a master or mate, [[Page 24794]] with an endorsement as 
first class pilot for the area where the terminal is located. The 
mooring master must be on board vessels or barges during mooring and 
unmooring operations at an offshore terminal. The Coast Guard 
questioned the Commission concerning the intent of its regulation. The 
Commission stated that it has the authority to regulate the operations 
of offshore marine oil terminals in the safest manner possible. 
However, though it developed the mooring master requirements for 
offshore terminals, it did not intend that this action would establish 
a state pilotage requirement. The Commission further stated that it has 
no authority to assess penalties or take action against an individual's 
license. The Coast Guard also determined that the Commission's 
regulation does not apply to foreign trade vessels. Therefore, the 
Coast Guard concluded that this portion of the rulemaking had no 
Federalism implications.
    In response to the NPRM, the Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard 
District recommended that the size of certain Federal pilotage areas 
described in this section of the rulemaking be reduced and that San 
Luis Obispo and Estero Bay be separated into two distinct pilotage 
areas. Both recommendations were considered prudent and reasonable, and 
have been adopted.

C. Hawaii

    Four comments supported this section of the rulemaking stating that 
the Coast Guard needs to improve its oversight of pilotage in this 
region.
    One comment opposed this section of the rulemaking stating that a 
Federal pilotage requirement is unnecessary because vessels using a 
single point mooring buoy already have a mooring master on board who is 
``highly trained and familiar with the operation.'' While most vessels 
calling at the two offshore marine oil terminals in the State of Hawaii 
use a pilot to perform docking and undocking maneuvers, this is done 
voluntarily. There is no State requirement to use a pilot for these 
maneuvers.

D. New York and New Jersey

    Eight comments supported this section of the rulemaking stating 
that the Coast Guard needs to improve its accountability over pilots in 
this and other areas. One comment in support also quoted the 1991 
report from New York State Governor Cuomo's Task Force on Coastal 
Resources which specifically recommended that pilots be held 
accountable by the Federal or State agency which issues pilot's 
licenses. The comments also recognized the need to make pilotage of 
foreign trade vessels compulsory, stating that neither the States of 
New York nor New Jersey has a law or regulation in effect which would 
require a State pilot to be on board these foreign trade vessels when 
making an intra-port transit.
    Three other comments in support of this section of the rulemaking 
cited the court case of Baezler v. Mobil Oil Corporation, 375 F.Supp. 
1220, dated November 30, 1973. In this case, the District Court ruled 
that movements from New York harbor to Arthur Kill across Sandy Hook 
Bar did not amount to entering or departing from the Port of New York 
within New York or New Jersey compulsory pilotage statutes. This meant 
that vessels making this type of movement, which is defined as an 
intra-port transit in this rulemaking, were not required to take a 
State licensed Sandy Hook pilot.
    One comment suggested that the definition used to describe the term 
``intra-port transit'' should be expanded to include reference to the 
movement of a vessel ``from an anchorage to an anchorage.'' The Coast 
Guard agrees with this and has made the recommended change.
    One comment addressed the rulemaking's effect on small entities 
such as shipping companies and pilots, and indicated that the rule 
would have little impact on small entities. The comment supported the 
Coast Guard's position that vessels routinely use the services of a 
pilot during intra-port transits.
    Fifty comments opposed this section of the rulemaking. Thirty-one 
of these comments were from individuals who are current or past members 
of the New York or New Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots Association. There were 
six general reasons given in opposition to this section of the 
rulemaking.
    First, some comments questioned whether navigational safety would 
be enhanced by this rulemaking. The Coast Guard believes this 
rulemaking will enhance navigational safety because it will require 
pilots where none were required before, and it will raise the level of 
accountability for pilots involved in marine accidents.
    Second, some comments stated that State pilots are more competent 
than Federal pilots. The comments were made that an individual seeking 
to become a Sandy Hook pilot is required to complete nearly seven and 
one-half years of training with the Sandy Hook Pilots Association prior 
to being issued a full branch State pilot's license. Several comments 
also referred to the Coast Guard's ``Report of the Pilotage Study 
Group'' dated September 15, 1989. In this report, an assumption was 
made that a State license was indicative of greater training, 
education, and testing periods. This study is available for inspection 
or copying at the office listed under ADDRESSES.
    In response to these comments, it should be noted that the Coast 
Guard completed a study in January, 1993 which compared marine 
casualties involving pilots operating under the authority of a Federal 
license with pilots operating under the authority of a State license. 
The study concluded that a pilot operating under the authority of a 
Federal license is no more likely to be involved in a marine casualty 
than a pilot operating under the authority of a State license. This 
study is available for inspection or copying at the office listed under 
ADDRESSES. Additionally, though the Coast Guard believes that Federal 
pilots are as competent as State pilots, this rulemaking will help to 
ensure that all foreign trade vessels use a Federally licensed pilot in 
the areas described where no State pilotage requirement is in effect.
    Third, some comments believed that it is unsafe if a State pilot 
does not conn the vessel during intra-port transits. The Coast Guard is 
concerned with the safe navigation of vessels but notes that there is 
no Federal or State regulation which would require a State pilot to be 
aboard a foreign trade vessel making an intra-port transit. 
Consequently, this rulemaking will enhance navigational safety by 
requiring all foreign trade vessels to use a Federally licensed pilot 
during an intra-port transit in these waters.
    Fourth, some comments argued that the Coast Guard should establish 
minimum clearance standards for a vessel's keel-to-bottom, and mast-to-
overhead structure. The comment cited this approach as a better way to 
promote safety, accountability, and responsibility by limiting shipping 
companies from putting pressure on captains and pilots to get the 
vessel to or from the dock regardless of the circumstances. The Coast 
Guard believes that this proposal may be beneficial as an additional 
requirement, but it is not the subject of this rulemaking and should 
not be adopted as an alternative to requiring that those vessels making 
an intra-port transit have a licensed pilot on board. The Coast Guard 
believes this rulemaking will promote navigational safety, increase the 
level of accountability and reduce the risk of an accident and the 
discharge of oil or other hazardous substances by ensuring that vessels 
are navigated by competent, [[Page 24795]] qualified individuals, who 
are knowledgeable of the local area.
    Fifth, some comments questioned the effect of this rulemaking on 
small entities. Several comments expressed a concern that the Coast 
Guard was trying to inflict economic hardship on the New York and New 
Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots Association and that this rulemaking would 
allow holders of a Federal pilot's license to ``come out of the 
woodwork'' and obtain contracts with companies which would effectively 
decrease the earnings of all members of the New York and New Jersey 
Sandy Hook Pilots Association. As indicated in the rulemaking, the 
Coast Guard is concerned with promoting navigational safety and does 
not believe this rulemaking will have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities such as these pilots or shipping 
companies. Additionally, the Coat Guard notes that a State-licensed 
pilot may obtain a Federal license, and many pilots hold both licenses.
    Sixth, forty-four comments questioned the Federalism implications 
of the rulemaking on New York and New Jersey. The comments stated that 
the laws of New York or New Jersey already cover some or all of the 
areas where a Federal pilotage requirement for foreign trade vessels 
making an intra-port transit was being proposed. The Coast Guard 
reviewed the existing pilotage regulations of the States of New York 
and New Jersey, and does not believe that the laws of either State 
require a pilot to be aboard a foreign trade vessel for the areas 
indicated.
    Several comments also suggested that the Coast Guard delay 
implementation of the final rule citing legislative action being 
undertaken by the States of New York and New Jersey to close gaps in 
pilotage regarding intra-port transits. The Coast Guard delayed this 
rulemaking to provide the States of New York and New Jersey the 
opportunity to close these loopholes. If either State enacts 
legislation to require the use of a pilot for foreign trade vessels on 
intra-port transits for the areas indicated, and notifies the Secretary 
of that fact, the Coast Guard will withdraw its regulation for that 
region.

E. Cape Cod Canal

    Seven comments were in favor of this section of the rulemaking.
    One comment provided conditional support for the rulemaking. This 
conditional support requested that the Coast Guard delay its rulemaking 
and support a legislative effort by the State of Massachusetts that 
would satisfy the Coast Guard's concern. The Coast Guard reviewed the 
proposed legislation, and determined that this legislation would not 
require a State pilot to be on board foreign trade vessels in transit 
through the waters designated in the rulemaking. Therefore, this 
section of the rulemaking has been retained in the final rule.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an 
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of 
that order. It has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget under that order. It is not significant under the regulatory 
policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 
FR 11040; February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic 
impact of this proposal to be so minimal that a full Regulatory 
Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and 
procedures of DOT is unnecessary. The Coast Guard expects the economic 
impact of this rule to be minimal because this rule adopts practices 
that are already being followed by most of the industry.

Small Entities

    The only comments regarding the rulemaking's potential negative 
effect on small entities were made in reference to that section 
concerned with intra-port transits in the States of New York and New 
Jersey. The comments were reviewed, but the Coast Guard does not 
believe that this rulemaking will have a significant effect on the 
small entities referred to in this case, which would include shipping 
companies and certain pilot associations which may qualify as small 
entities. Therefore, because it expects the economic impact of this 
final rule to be minimal, the Coast Guard certifies under section 
605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that 
this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

Collection of Information

    This rule contains no collection-of-information requirements under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Federalism

    Congress specifically provided, under 46 U.S.C. 8503(a), that the 
Federal Government may require a Federally licensed pilot when a pilot 
is not required by State law. The States of California, Hawaii, New 
York and New Jersey, and Massachusetts do not have a requirement for a 
State pilot in the areas covered by this rule. Therefore, the Federal 
Government may act to require a Federally licensed pilot. However, 
under 46 U.S.C. 8503(b), the Federal government's authority to require 
pilots is only effective until the State having jurisdiction 
establishes a superseding requirement for a pilot, and notifies the 
Coast Guard of that fact. Since this action is intended to require the 
use of Federal pilots in instances where State pilots are not required, 
the Coast Guard does not believe that the preparation of a Federalism 
Assessment is warranted.
    If the States of California, Hawaii, New York and New Jersey, or 
Massachusetts adopt superseding legislation requiring State pilots for 
foreign vessels and U.S. vessels sailing on registry, the Coast Guard 
would be required to withdraw the respective requirement for a 
Federally licensed pilot. Thus, the States of California, Hawaii, New 
York and New Jersey, or Massachusetts could preempt this rule, if these 
States were to adopt a law consistent with the requirements adopted in 
this rule. Under these circumstances, the Coast Guard would revise its 
regulations.

Environment

    The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule 
and concluded that under section 2.B.2. of Commandant Instruction 
M16475.1B, this rule is categorically excluded from further 
environmental documentation. The Coast Guard believes that most 
individuals presently providing pilotage services to foreign trade 
vessels calling at the eight sites in California and two sites in 
Hawaii, and making intra-port transits within certain designated waters 
of New York and New Jersey, and transiting, but not bound to or 
departing from a port, within certain designated waters of 
Massachusetts will continue to provide pilotage services because most 
individuals already hold a Federal first class pilot's license for 
those waters. Therefore, this rule will permit affected vessels to 
continue to operate according to current industry practice. The Coast 
Guard also recognizes that this rule may have a positive effect on the 
environment by minimizing the risk of environmental harm resulting from 
collisions and groundings of vessels. However, this impact is not 
expected to be significant enough to warrant further documentation. A 
Categorical Exclusion Determination is available in the docket for 
inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 15

     Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen, Vessels.

     [[Page 24796]] For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast 
Guard amends 46 CFR Part 15 as follows:
PART 15--MANNING REQUIREMENTS
    1. The authority citation for Part 15 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3703, 8105; 49 CFR 1.46.

    2. Subpart I, consisting of Secs. 15.1001 through 15.1040, is added 
to read as follows:
Subpart I--Vessels in Foreign Trade

Sec.
15.1001  General.
15.1010  California.
15.1020  Hawaii.
15.1030  New York and New Jersey.
15.1040  Massachusetts.
Subpart I--Vessels in Foreign Trade
Sec. 15.1001  General.
    Self-propelled vessels engaged in foreign commerce are required to 
use a pilot holding an appropriately endorsed Federal first class 
pilot's license issued by the Coast Guard when operating in the 
navigable waters of the United States specified in this subpart.
Sec. 15.1010  California.
    The following offshore marine oil terminals located within U.S. 
navigable waters of the State of California:
    (a) Carlsbad, CA. The waters including the San Diego Gas and 
Electric, Encina Power Plant, lying within an area bounded by a line 
beginning at latitude 33 deg.10'06''N, longitude 117 deg.21'42''W, 
thence southwesterly to latitude 33 deg.08'54''N, longitude 
117 deg.24'36''W, thence southwesterly to latitude 33 deg.04'30''N, 
longitude 117 deg.21'42''W, thence northeasterly to latitude 
33 deg.05'36''N, longitude 117 deg.18'54''W, thence northwesterly along 
the shoreline to latitude 33 deg.10'06''N, longitude 117 deg.21'42''W.
    (b) Huntington Beach, CA. The waters including the Golden West 
Refining Company, Huntington Beach Marine Terminal, lying within an 
area bounded by a line beginning at latitude 33 deg.39'06''N, longitude 
118 deg.00'0''W, thence westerly to latitude 33 deg.39'18''N, longitude 
118 deg.05'12''W, thence southeasterly along a line drawn three 
nautical miles from the baseline to latitude 33 deg.35'30''N, longitude 
118 deg.00'00''W, thence easterly to latitude 33 deg.35'30''N, 
longitude 117 deg.52'30''W, thence northwesterly along the shoreline to 
latitude 33 deg.39'06''N, longitude 118 deg.00'00''W.
    (c) El Segundo, CA. The waters including the Chevron USA, El 
Segundo Marine Terminal, lying within an area bounded by a line 
beginning at latitude 33 deg.56'18''N, longitude 118 deg.26'18''W, 
thence westerly to latitude 33 deg.56'18''N, longitude 
118 deg.30'48##W, thence southeasterly along a line drawn three 
nautical miles from the baseline to latitude 33 deg.51'48''N, longitude 
118 deg.27'54''W, thence easterly to latitude 33 deg.51'48''N, 
longitude 118 deg.24'00''W, thence northwesterly along the shoreline to 
latitude 33 deg.56'18''N, longitude 118 deg.26'18''W.
    (d) Oxnard, CA. The waters including the Southern California Edison 
Company, Mandalay Generating Station, lying within an area bounded by a 
line beginning at latitude 34 deg.14'12''N, longitude 119 deg.16'00''W, 
thence westerly to latitude 34 deg.14'12''N, longitude 
119 deg.19'36''W, thence southeasterly along a line drawn three 
nautical miles from the baseline to latitude 34 deg.09'24''N, longitude 
119 deg.17'20''W, thence easterly to latitude 34 deg.09'24''N, 
longitude 119 deg.13'24''W, thence northwesterly along the shoreline to 
latitude 34 deg.14'24''N, longitude 119 deg.16'00''W.
    (e) Goleta, CA. The waters including the ARCO, Ellwood Marine 
Terminal, lying within an area bounded by a line beginning at latitude 
34 deg.26'12''N, longitude 119 deg.57'00''W, thence southerly to 
latitude 34 deg.22'48''N, longitude 119 deg.57'00''W, thence 
southeasterly along a line drawn three nautical miles from the baseline 
to latitude 34 deg.21'06''N, longitude 119 deg.50'30.5''W, thence 
northerly to latitude 34 deg.24'18''N, longitude 119 deg.50'30''W, 
thence northwesterly along the shoreline to latitude 34 deg.26'12''N, 
longitude 119 deg.57'00''W.
     (f) Gaviota, CA. The waters including the Texaco Trading and 
Transportation, Gaviota Marine Terminal, lying within an area bounded 
by a line beginning at latitude 34 deg.28'06''N, longitude 
120 deg.16'00''W, thence southerly to latitude 34 deg.25'06''N, 
longitude 120 deg.16'00''W, thence easterly along a line drawn three 
nautical miles from the baseline to latitude 34 deg.25'24''N, longitude 
120 deg.08'30''W, thence northerly to latitude 34 deg.28'24''N, 
longitude 120 deg.08'30''W, thence westerly along the shoreline to 
latitude 34 deg.28'06''N, longitude 120 deg.16'00''W.
    (g) Moss Landing, CA. The waters including the Pacific Gas and 
Electric Company Power Plant, lying within an area bounded by a line 
beginning at latitude 36 deg.49'00''N, longitude 121 deg.47'42''W, 
thence westerly to latitude 36 deg.49'00''N, longitude 
121 deg.51'00''W, thence southerly to latitude 36 deg.47'00''N, 
longitude 121 deg.51'00''W thence easterly to latitude 36 deg.47'00''N, 
longitude 121 deg.47'54''W, thence northerly along the shoreline to 
latitude 36 deg.49'00''N, longitude 121 deg.47'42''W.
    (h) Estero Bay, CA. The waters including various moorings, 
including the Pacific Gas and Electric Company mooring and the two 
Chevron Oil Company Terminals lying within an area bounded by a line 
beginning at latitude 36 deg.25'00''N, longitude 120 deg.52'30''W, 
thence westerly to latitude 36 deg.25'00''N, longitude 
120 deg.56'00''W, thence southerly to latitude 36 deg.22'00''N, 
longitude 120 deg.56'00''W, thence easterly to latitude 
36 deg.22'00''N, longitude 120 deg.52'12''W, thence northerly along the 
shoreline to latitude 36 deg.25'00''N, longitude 120 deg.52'30''W.
    (i) San Luis Obispo Bay, CA. The waters including the Unocal 
Corporation Avila Terminal and the approaches thereto, lying in an area 
bounded by a line beginning at latitude 35 deg.09'42''N, longitude 
120 deg.46'00''W, thence southerly to latitude 35 deg.07'00''N, 
longitude 120 deg.46'00''W, thence easterly to latitude 
35 deg.07'00''N, longitude 120 deg.43'00''W, thence northerly to 
latitude 35 deg.10'24''N, longitude 120 deg.43'00''W, thence westerly 
along the shoreline to latitude 35 deg.09'42''N, longitude 
120 deg.46'00''W.


Sec. 15.1020  Hawaii.

    The following offshore marine oil terminals located within U.S. 
navigable waters of the State of Hawaii: Barbers Point, Island of Oahu. 
The waters including the Hawaiian Independent Refinery, Inc. and the 
Chevron moorings lying within an area bounded by a line bearing 180 
degrees true from Barbers Point Light to latitude 21 deg.14.8'N, 
longitude 158 deg.06.4'W, thence easterly to latitude 21 deg.14.8'N, 
longitude 158 deg.03.3'W, thence northeasterly to latitude 
21 deg.15.6'N, longitude 158 deg.01.1'W, thence northwesterly to 
latitude 21 deg.18.5'N, longitude 158 deg.02.0'W, thence westerly along 
the shoreline to latitude 21 deg.17.8'N, longitude 158 deg.06.4'W.


Sec. 15.1030  New York and New Jersey.

    The following U.S. navigable waters located within the States of 
New York and New Jersey when the vessel is making an intra-port 
transit, to include, but not limited to, a movement from a dock to a 
dock, from a dock to an anchorage, from an anchorage to a dock, or from 
an anchorage to an anchorage, within the following listed operating 
areas:
    (a) East River from Execution Rocks to New York Harbor, Upper Bay;
    (b) Hudson River from Yonkers, New York to New York Harbor, Upper 
Bay; [[Page 24797]] 
    (c) Raritan River from Grossman Dock/Arsenal to New York Harbor, 
Lower Bay;
    (d) Arthur Kill Channel;
    (e) Kill Van Kull Channel;
    (f) Newark Bay;
    (g) Passaic River from Point No Point to Newark Bay;
    (h) Hackensack River from the turning basin to Newark Bay; and
    (i) New York Harbor, Upper and Lower Bay.


Sec. 15.1040  Massachusetts.

    The following U.S. navigable waters located within the State of 
Massachusetts when the vessel is in transit, but not bound to or 
departing from a port within the following listed operating areas:
    (a) Cape Cod Bay south of latitude 41 deg.48'54''N;
    (b) The Cape Cod Canal; and
    (c) Buzzards Bay east of a line extending from the southernmost 
point of Wilbur Point (latitude 41 deg.34'55''N longitude 
70 deg.51'15##W) to the easternmost point of Pasque Island (latitude 
41 deg.26'55''N longitude 70 deg.50'30''W).

     Dated: April 24, 1995.
G.N. Naccara,
Acting Chief, Office of Marine Safety, Security and Environmental 
Protection.
[FR Doc. 95-11303 Filed 5-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-P