[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
