1995-F2
View/download document
Cite as N.Y. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 1995-F2
1The facts related to us are as follows. The ship was
scheduled to sail from a terminal in the Port of
New York/New Jersey to sea on January 12, 1994. When the
board-licensed pilot arrived, he discovered that the ship's draft
was several feet greater than he had expected. The pilot advised
the ship's captain that he believed the ship was too deep to sail
safely at that time and stage of the tide. A dispute with the
docking master followed. The docking master convinced the
captain that it was safe to sail. The pilot insisted that the
docking master keep a tug in attendance due to his safety
concerns. After the ship left the terminal, the captain observed
that the fathometer showed no clearance beneath the ship, which
continued to sail at slow speed with the tug in attendance until
it arrived at Red Bank Reach. A second pilot who was observing
the departure for training purposes informed the Board that the
ship appeared to be making contact with mud or sand in the
NAVIGATION LAW §§ 90, 91, 91-a, 91-b, 92; 21 NYCRR 50.5, 52.3(a),
52.5, 52.10; 46 USC §§ 8501, 8502, 9302.
The Board may suspend or revoke the license of a Hudson
River pilot for piloting actions he took while he was not acting
under the auspices of his Hudson River pilot license.
May 4, 1995
Hon. Robert H. Pouch
Formal Opinion
Secretary
No. 95-F2
Board of Commissioners
of Pilots of the
State of New York
17 Battery Place
New York, NY 10004-1207
Dear Secretary Pouch:
You have asked whether the Board of Commissioners of Pilots
has the authority to proceed against the license of a
State-licensed Hudson River pilot for actions taken while he was
acting as a docking master and, therefore, not acting under the
auspices of his State license.
You have advised that, upon the complaint of a
State-licensed pilot, the Board investigated an incident
involving a ship leaving its terminal in the Arthur Kill and
heading to sea through the Port of New York/New Jersey. The
Board concluded that the docking master directed the ship to
leave the terminal, over the objection of the pilot, in
circumstances where a "prudent pilot would not commence an
outbound passage".1 You ask whether the Board may consider this
2
channel bottom.
finding as a basis for suspending or revoking the pilot's Hudson
River license. While the Board does not license or regulate
docking masters, it does license and regulate Hudson River
Pilots. Similarly, the Federal government does not separately
license docking masters, who supervise intraport movements, often
with a tug in attendance. Many docking masters do have a Federal
pilot's license.
The Federal government regulates pilotage of vessels on the
Great Lakes and American flag vessels sailing between American
ports. 46 USC §§ 8502, 9302. The states have authority over the
pilotage of American vessels sailing under register, that is,
engaged in foreign trade and all foreign flag vessels. See,
46 USC § 8501. New York has exercised this authority through
enactment of its Navigation Law. The Navigation Law authorizes
the Board to license pilots for Long Island Sound and Block
Island Sound (§ 91-6); the port of New York by way of Sandy Hook,
Sands Point or Execution Rocks (§ 90); and a specified portion of
the Hudson River (§ 91-a).
The Navigation Law establishes licensing standards. It
provides:
It shall be the duty of the commissioners, before they shall
grant a license to any person applying therefor, to call such applicant
before them, within one month thereafter, and in the presence of one
or more pilots licensed for the waters regarding which such applicant
seeks to be examined, who shall be notified to attend, examine such
applicant or cause him to be examined, with relation to his
qualifications for the office of pilot. In case of the nonattendance of
any licensed pilot so notified, the examination may be conducted in
his absence. Each applicant shall be examined in particular touching
his knowledge of the tides, soundings, bearings and distances of the
several shoals, rocks, bars and points of land and night lights in the
navigation for which he applies for a license to act as a pilot, and
also touching any other matter relating thereto which the
commissioners may deem proper. If upon the examination the
person so applying shall be found to be of good moral character and
temperate habits, and possessed of sufficient ability, skill and
experience, the commissioners may grant him a license.
Id., § 92. The Board's regulations establish training
requirements and provide that every license applicant shall take
3
a written examination prescribed by the Board before appearing
for oral examination. 21 NYCRR 52.3(a). The term of each
license issued by the Board is one year. 21 NYCRR 52.5. A pilot
who wishes to renew a license must appear before the Board in
person not more than thirty days before the license expires.
21 NYCRR 52.10. The pilot must submit a memorandum describing
his or her work during the past year and may be required to pass
an examination prescribed by the Board. Id.
The Board regulates piloting practices to reduce the
possibility of marine disasters such as collisions and pollution
caused by oil spills. It imposes the requirements discussed
above to ensure that the State-licensed pilots charged with
responsibility for safety are qualified by high levels of
training and experience. See, 21 NYCRR 50.5 and 21 NYCRR
Part 51. The licensing criteria are permeated by requirements of
skill, experience and judgment for license applicants and the
Board has broad examination authority. The brevity of the
license period, which provides for yearly re-evaluation,
indicates the concern that pilots maintain their high level of
performance and expertise in order to ensure safe operation of
the ships they pilot.
The Navigation Law empowers the Board to suspend or revoke
licenses. The statute provides in part:
a. The commissioners may suspend any pilot licensed under
this article at any time for any period they may deem proper, and
may revoke and annul any license which shall have been granted
upon satisfactory proof of negligence, carelessness, wilful dereliction
of duty, or wilful disobedience by such pilot of any lawful rule or
regulation duly made and promulgated by the commissioners. The
pilot so suspended, at any time, upon due notice, may appeal to the
commissioners for a re-hearing of his case, and such commissioners
shall have power to confirm or reverse the previous decision.
Navigation Law § 94(2).
Thus, the Board has broad general authority to suspend or
revoke licenses in circumstances where pilots fail to adhere to
the criteria under which the license was granted. As discussed
above, in order to obtain a license, a pilot must demonstrate
that he has sufficient ability, skill and experience to exercise
the judgment needed to pilot ships safely. The incident you
describe bears directly upon the docking master's judgment and
his ability to pilot ships safely. This is evident in your
determination that a prudent pilot would not have commenced an
outbound passage in the circumstances.
4
Under the pilot licensing criteria, this incident involving
the pilot's activities as a docking master could have been taken
into consideration in deciding whether to grant a license. The
incident bore directly on the pilot's judgment, the soundness of
his decision making as a pilot, and his ability to pilot ships
safely. The Board has specific statutory authority to consider
charges of negligence or carelessness in determining whether to
suspend or revoke a pilot's license. While the actions in issue
did not occur while the individual was acting as a pilot, they
related directly to the individual's ability to pilot boats
safely on Board-regulated waters. To conclude that the Board
could consider such an incident in deciding whether to grant or
renew a license but not as a basis for suspension or revocation
defeats the clear statutory intent, which is to ensure at all
times that pilots are capable of performing their important
functions.
We note that the Board has limited its action to the pilot
license and has in no way interfered with the individual's
ability to work as a docking master.
We conclude that the Board of Commissioners of Pilots may
proceed against the license of a State-licensed Hudson River
pilot for actions taken while he was acting as a docking master.
Very truly yours,
DENNIS C. VACCO
Attorney General