Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 24793

1. The Secretarial Orders dated

February 27, 1934, which established

Powersite Classification No. 283, and

October 28, 1921, which established

Powersite Classification No. 16, are

hereby revoked in their entireties for the

following described land:

Salt Lake Meridian

T. 13 S., R. 5 E.,

Sec. 31, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 and NE1⁄4SE1⁄4.

The area described contains 80 acres in

Sanpete County.

2. The State of Utah has a preference

right for public highway rights-of-way

or material sites for a period of 90 days

from the date of publication of this

order and any location, entry, selection,

or subsequent patent shall be subject to

any rights granted the State as provided

by the Act of June 10, 1920, 16 U.S.C.

818 (1988).

3. At 9 a.m. on August 9, 1995, the

land described in paragraph 1 shall be

opened to operation of the public land

laws generally, subject to valid existing

rights, the provisions of existing

withdrawals, other segregations of

record, and the requirements of

applicable law. All valid applications

received at or prior to 9 a.m. on August

9, 1995, shall be considered as

simultaneously filed at that time. Those

received thereafter shall be considered

in the order of filing.

The land described in paragraph 1 has

been open to mining under the

provisions of the Mining Claims Rights

Restoration Act of 1955, and these

provisions are no longer required.

Dated: April 21, 1995.

Bob Armstrong,

Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

[FR Doc. 95–11459 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–DQ–P

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 seventyfive 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,
24794 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

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 intraport 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-tooverhead 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,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 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 intraport 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-ofinformation 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.
24796 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

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 §§ 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

§ 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.

§ 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°10′06′′N,

longitude 117°21′42′′W, thence

southwesterly to latitude 33°08′54′′N,

longitude 117°24′36′′W, thence

southwesterly to latitude 33°04′30′′N,

longitude 117°21′42′′W, thence

northeasterly to latitude 33°05′36′′N,

longitude 117°18′54′′W, thence

northwesterly along the shoreline to

latitude 33°10′06′′N, longitude

117°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°39′06′′N, longitude 118°00′0′′W,

thence westerly to latitude 33°39′18′′N,

longitude 118°05′12′′W, thence

southeasterly along a line drawn three

nautical miles from the baseline to

latitude 33°35′30′′N, longitude

118°00′00′′W, thence easterly to latitude

33°35′30′′N, longitude 117°52′30′′W,

thence northwesterly along the

shoreline to latitude 33°39′06′′N,

longitude 118°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°56′18′′N, longitude 118°26′18′′W,

thence westerly to latitude 33°56′18′′N,

longitude 118°30′48W, thence

southeasterly along a line drawn three

nautical miles from the baseline to

latitude 33°51′48′′N, longitude

118°27′54′′W, thence easterly to latitude

33°51′48′′N, longitude 118°24′00′′W,

thence northwesterly along the

shoreline to latitude 33°56′18′′N,

longitude 118°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°14′12′′N,

longitude 119°16′00′′W, thence westerly

to latitude 34°14′12′′N, longitude

119°19′36′′W, thence southeasterly

along a line drawn three nautical miles

from the baseline to latitude

34°09′24′′N, longitude 119°17′20′′W,

thence easterly to latitude 34°09′24′′N,

longitude 119°13′24′′W, thence

northwesterly along the shoreline to

latitude 34°14′24′′N, longitude

119°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°26′12′′N,

longitude 119°57′00′′W, thence

southerly to latitude 34°22′48′′N,

longitude 119°57′00′′W, thence

southeasterly along a line drawn three

nautical miles from the baseline to

latitude 34°21′06′′N, longitude

119°50′30.5′′W, thence northerly to

latitude 34°24′18′′N, longitude

119°50′30′′W, thence northwesterly

along the shoreline to latitude

34°26′12′′N, longitude 119°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°28′06′′N, longitude

120°16′00′′W, thence southerly to

latitude 34°25′06′′N, longitude

120°16′00′′W, thence easterly along a

line drawn three nautical miles from the

baseline to latitude 34°25′24′′N,

longitude 120°08′30′′W, thence

northerly to latitude 34°28′24′′N,

longitude 120°08′30′′W, thence westerly

along the shoreline to latitude

34°28′06′′N, longitude 120°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°49′00′′N, longitude

121°47′42′′W, thence westerly to

latitude 36°49′00′′N, longitude

121°51′00′′W, thence southerly to

latitude 36°47′00′′N, longitude

121°51′00′′W thence easterly to latitude

36°47′00′′N, longitude 121°47′54′′W,

thence northerly along the shoreline to

latitude 36°49′00′′N, longitude

121°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°25′00′′N, longitude

120°52′30′′W, thence westerly to

latitude 36°25′00′′N, longitude

120°56′00′′W, thence southerly to

latitude 36°22′00′′N, longitude

120°56′00′′W, thence easterly to latitude

36°22′00′′N, longitude 120°52′12′′W,

thence northerly along the shoreline to

latitude 36°25′00′′N, longitude

120°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°09′42′′N, longitude 120°46′00′′W,

thence southerly to latitude 35°07′00′′N,

longitude 120°46′00′′W, thence easterly

to latitude 35°07′00′′N, longitude

120°43′00′′W, thence northerly to

latitude 35°10′24′′N, longitude

120°43′00′′W, thence westerly along the

shoreline to latitude 35°09′42′′N,

longitude 120°46′00′′W.

§ 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°14.8′N,

longitude 158°06.4′W, thence easterly to

latitude 21°14.8′N, longitude

158°03.3′W, thence northeasterly to

latitude 21°15.6′N, longitude

158°01.1′W, thence northwesterly to

latitude 21°18.5′N, longitude

158°02.0′W, thence westerly along the

shoreline to latitude 21°17.8′N,

longitude 158°06.4′W.

§ 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;
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 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.

§ 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°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°34′55′′N

longitude 70°51′15W) to the easternmost

point of Pasque Island (latitude

41°26′55′′N longitude 70°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

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 74–09; Notice 40]

RIN 2127–AE61

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Child Restraint Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions

for reconsideration.

SUMMARY: This document amends the

labeling requirements of Standard 213

that were adopted in a rule facilitating

the manufacture of belt-positioning

child seats (booster seats designed to be

used with a vehicle’s lap/shoulder belt

system). Specifically, this document

amends the requirements for a type of

belt-positioning seat known as a dualpurpose booster (a booster that can be

used with either a lap or a lap/shoulder

belt when used with a shield-type

component to restrain the upper torso of

a child seated in the booster, but only

with a lap/shoulder belt when used

without the shield). In response to a

petition for reconsideration from Gerry

Baby Products, NHTSA is amending

several of the labeling requirements to

exclude dual-purpose boosters that are

designed such that the shoulder belt is

not placed in front of the child when the

booster is used with a shield and a lap/

shoulder belt. This rule also corrects

labeling requirements adopted in the

rule by excluding from those

requirements car beds and rear-facing

restraints, restraints for which the

requirements were not intended.

DATES: This rule is effective August 8,

1995.

Manufacturers may voluntarily

comply with the amendments

promulgated by this final rule on or

after June 9, 1995.

Petitions for reconsideration of the

rule must be received by June 9, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration

should refer to the docket and number

of this document and be submitted to:

Administrator, Room 5220, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington,

D.C., 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

George Mouchahoir, Office of Vehicle

Safety Standards (telephone 202–366–

4919), or Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Office of

the Chief Counsel (202–366–2992),

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W.,

Washington, D.C., 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 21, 1994 (59 FR 37167),

NHTSA published a final rule amending

Standard 213 to facilitate the

manufacture of ‘‘belt-positioning’’ child

booster seats (i.e., booster seats designed

to be used with a vehicle’s lap/shoulder

belt system). The amendment adopted

performance and labeling requirements

and test criteria for belt-positioning

booster seats. The labeling requirements

were intended to decrease the

likelihood that positioning booster seats

will be misused. The rule adopted

requirements in S5.5.2(i)(2) for ‘‘dual

purpose’’ boosters (boosters that can be

used with either a lap or a lap/shoulder

belt when used with a shield-type

component to restrain the upper torso of

the restrained child, but only with a lap/

shoulder belt when used without the

shield).

To ensure that dual purpose boosters

are used with the proper vehicle belt

system, S5.5.2(i)(2) requires dual

purpose boosters to be labeled with the

following warning:

WARNING! USE ONLY THE VEHICLE’S

LAP BELT SYSTEM, OR THE LAP BELT

PART OF A LAP/SHOULDER BELT SYSTEM

WITH THE SHOULDER BELT PLACED

BEHIND THE CHILD, WHEN RESTRAINING

THE CHILD WITH THE insert description of

the system element provided to restrain

forward movement of the child’s torso when

used with a lap belt (e.g., shield), AND ONLY

THE VEHICLE’S LAP AND SHOULDER

BELT SYSTEM WHEN USING THIS

BOOSTER WITHOUT THE insert above

description.

The agency adopted the warning

regarding the placement of the shoulder

belt portion of the belt system behind

the child in response to test data. Those

data showed that, for small shield

booster seats, ‘‘the routing of the

shoulder belt (three point belt) in front

of the dummy significantly affected the

[head injury criterion] HIC, 3 msec chest

clip [acceleration], and head excursion

values, regardless of dummy size.’’

Specifically, the study stated that:

The 3 year old dummy/three point belt

tests had 80% to 90% higher HIC values than

the corresponding lap only belt tests, while

for the 6 year old dummy, the three point belt

tests were 18% to 59% higher. The 3 year

old/three point belt tests were the only test

conditions that produced HIC values above

1000.

The study also showed that routing

the shoulder belt in front of the dummy

caused the chest clip acceleration to

increase for the 3-year-old dummy

tested in two shield booster seats, from

31G to 44G and from 38G to 45G,

respectively. The chest acceleration

increases for these seats were from

about 36G to 52G and 28G to 44G,

respectively, when tested using a sixyear-old dummy. NHTSA stated that it

did not know of any shield-type booster

seat that performs well when the booster

seat is used with a lap/shoulder belt

system and the restraining system

element (i.e., the shield) and the

shoulder portion of the belt system is

left in front of the child. In view of

safety concerns about the performance

of boosters when the restraining system

element (shield) is used and the

shoulder belt is in front of the child,

NHTSA required dual purpose boosters

to be labeled with an instruction to

consumers to place the shoulder belt

behind the child when the restraining

system element (shield) is used, and

required this instruction to be included

in the printed instructions for each of

these boosters (S5.6.1.9).

Petition for Reconsideration

Gerry Baby Products Company

petitioned for reconsideration of the

final rule. Gerry informed NHTSA that

the Gerry Double Guard, a dual purpose

booster, is designed to have the lap/

shoulder belt threaded through a