Navigation and Waterways Management Improvements, Providence River Regulated Navigation Area; Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island and Mt. Hope Bay, MA, 70052-70054 [05-22951]

Download as PDF 70052 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 223 / Monday, November 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: ‘‘A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.’’ Corrective Actions (i) If any crack or corrosion is found during any inspection required by this AD, before further flight, do the applicable corrective action in paragraph (i)(1) through (i)(3) of Table 4 of this AD, except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD. TABLE 4.—CORRECTIVE ACTIONS If— Then— In accordance with the accomplishment instructions of— (1) Any crack or corrosion is found during any inspection required by paragraph (f) of this AD. (2) Any crack or corrosion is found during any repetitive inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD. (3) Any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD. Repair the cracked or corroded part ............... Airbus Service Bulletin A310–53–2030, Revision 06, dated July 2, 1996. Repair the cracked or corroded part ............... Airbus Service Bulletin A310–53–2041, Revision 02, dated July 2, 1996. Repair the cracked part ................................... Airbus Service Bulletin A310–53–2037, Revision 02, dated November 27, 2000. (j) If any crack or corrosion is found during any inspection required by this AD, and the service bulletin recommends contacting Airbus for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the cracked or corroded part in accordance with a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, Transport Airplane ´ ´ Directorate; or the Direction Generale de l’Aviation Civile (DGAC) (or its delegated agent). Terminating Modification for Repetitive Inspection of Corner Doublers, Fail-Safe Ring, and Door Frames (k) Modify the passenger/crew door structures in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310–53–2017, Revision 09, dated May 17, 2004. Do the modification at the applicable time in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of Table 5 of this AD. Accomplishment of this modification constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD. The inspections required by paragraph (f) of this AD must be done before accomplishing this modification. TABLE 5.—COMPLIANCE TIME FOR TERMINATING MODIFICATION For model— Compliance time (1) A310–203, –204, –221, and –222 airplanes ...................................... Before the accumulation of 40,000 flight cycles since the date of issuance of the original standard Airworthiness Certificate or the date of issuance of the original Export Certificate of Airworthiness, or during the next inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, whichever occurs later. Before the accumulation of 35,000 flight cycles since the date of issuance of the original standard Airworthiness Certificate or the date of issuance of the original Export Certificate of Airworthiness, or during the next inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, whichever occurs later. (2) A310–304, –322, –324, and –325 airplanes ...................................... Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (l)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. (2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 9, 2005. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 05–22971 Filed 11–18–05; 8:45 am] DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BILLING CODE 4910–13–P [CGD01–05–094] Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 Navigation and Waterways Management Improvements, Providence River Regulated Navigation Area; Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island and Mt. Hope Bay, MA Related Information AGENCY: (m) French airworthiness directives 1991– 132–124(B) R1, issued November 29, 2000, and F–2004–103, issued July 7, 2004, also address the subject of this AD. ACTION: VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:16 Nov 18, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Coast Guard, DHS. Notice; request for public comments. SUMMARY: The First Coast Guard District announces that it is considering changing, rescinding, or maintaining certain navigation regulations currently in effect for the Providence River, and Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP1.SGM 21NOP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 223 / Monday, November 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules is also considering what, if any, navigation safety measures should be implemented within Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island and Mt. Hope Bay, Massachusetts [hereafter ‘‘Bays’’]. DATES: Comments are due on or before December 21, 2005. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number CGD01– 05–094 to the Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Providence. That office maintains the public dockets for this rulemaking. Comments and documents will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the same address between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods: (1) Mail or delivery to Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Providence, 20 Risho Avenue, East Providence, RI, 02914–1208. (2) Fax to 401–435–2399. (3) Electronically via e-mail at EleBlanc@msoprov.uscg.mil. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice, address mail to Mr. Edward G. LeBlanc, c/o Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Providence, 20 Risho Avenue, East Providence, RI 02914–1208, call 401–435–2351, e-mail at EleBlanc@msoprov.uscg.mil, or fax 401–435–2399. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Submitting Comments We encourage you to participate in this request for public comments by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this notice (CGD01– 05–094), indicate the question to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material by mail, hand delivery, fax, or electronic means to the project officer at the addresses or phone numbers listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Providence, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:16 Nov 18, 2005 Jkt 208001 Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting, but you may submit a request for one to U. S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Providence at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that a public meeting would aid the Coast Guard in determining what type, if any, of rulemaking is appropriate, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register. Background and Purpose On May 1, 1994, the Coast Guard established a Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) in the Providence River, Providence, Rhode Island. That RNA is described at 33 CFR 165.122. The RNA was designed to protect the maritime community from hazards to navigation associated with the extreme shoaling that had previously occurred in the northern section of the Providence River channel. Generally, the RNA imposed certain navigation restrictions in various segments of the Providence River including, among other requirements, a maximum draft of 35 feet for most vessels, one-way vessel traffic, and a requirement that vessels over 65 feet in length make periodic SECURITE calls via VHF radio. In September 2005, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (‘‘The USACE’’) completed a major maintenance dredging of the Providence River to remove most shoaling and restore the channel to a depth of 40′ at Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), and a minimum channel width of 600′. (The USACE ‘‘Results of Survey’’ dated September 16, 2005, is available for review in the docket, CGD 01–05–094.) The restoration of the Providence River Channel to the above described dimensions should permit sufficient depth and width for typical commercial and recreational vessels to navigate within the channel without the special restrictions and reporting requirements currently imposed by the RNA. Consequently, the Coast Guard is considering disestablishing the RNA and restoring the Providence River to normal navigation practices, revising the RNA, or leaving the current RNA in effect. Concurrently, the Coast Guard seeks public comment and recommendations on what, if any, navigation safety regulations may be appropriate for the waterways that encompass Narragansett Bay and Mt. Hope Bays in their entirety, including the Providence River and Taunton River. On September 7 and September 8, 2004, the Coast Guard sponsored a Ports and Waterways Safety PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 70053 Assessment (PAWSA) of Narragansett Bay, which was conducted by a crosssection of key waterways users and stakeholders. The report produced by the PAWSA participants identified several issues and areas within the Bays where navigation safety was of particular concern. (A copy of the PAWSA report is available in the docket, CGD01–05–094.) Although the Coast Guard has taken several nonregulatory actions to improve navigation safety, such as public outreach, education and improved aids to navigation, we seek public comment with respect to the need, if any, for additional navigation safety regulations within the Bays. Questions We invite the public to answer the following questions. In responding to each question, please explain your reasoning as fully as possible so that we can carefully weigh the consequences and impacts of any future regulatory actions the Coast Guard may take. In preparing your responses to these questions, please indicate your position in the maritime community, if applicable. 1. Now that the shoaling has been removed subsequent to a major dredging operation by the USACE, should the Providence River RNA as currently defined in 33 CFR 165.122 be maintained? Why, or why not? What specific hazards to navigation would be mitigated by maintaining this RNA? How would navigation safety be enhanced? 2. Should the Providence River RNA be maintained in some form other than as it currently exists? Are there less severe or more severe restrictions that should be implemented? How, specifically, would your recommendations reduce risk, mitigate hazards to navigation, and improve navigation safety? 3. Should the Providence River RNA be expanded to cover any or all other portions of Narragansett Bay, including Mt. Hope Bay and the Taunton River? If so, what type of navigation safety regulations would be beneficial and why? What hazards to navigation would be mitigated? How would risks be reduced? (Comment on such possible restrictions as one-way traffic areas, under keel clearance requirements, security call requirements, equipment carriage requirements, anchorage regulations, etc.) 4. If you recommend the Coast Guard adopt certain regulatory measures, what would be the cost (or savings), if any, to commercial and recreational vessel E:\FR\FM\21NOP1.SGM 21NOP1 70054 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 223 / Monday, November 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules owners and operators to comply with your recommendations? 5. If you recommend the Coast Guard adopt certain regulatory measures, what would be the economic impact to small entities, if any? ‘‘Small entities’’ is defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act [5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.], and generally refers to an enterprise or business that ‘‘is independently owned and operated and is not dominant it its field * * *’’ 5 U.S.C. 601. Comments are not limited to the preceding questions and are invited on any aspect of navigation safety within the Bays. • Fax: 503–820–2299. • Mail: Dr. Donald McIsaac, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Pl., Suite 200, Portland, OR, 97220. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John DeVore, Pacific Fishery Management Council, phone: 503–820– 2280, fax: 503–820–2299 and email: john.devore@noaa.gov; or Yvonne de Reynier NMFS, Northwest Region, phone: 206–526–6129, fax: 206–526– 6426 and email: yvonne.dereynier@noaa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Dated: November 10, 2005. Mark J. Campbell, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 05–22951 Filed 11–18–05; 8:45 am] Electronic Access This Federal Register document is available on the Government Printing Office’s website at: www.gpoaccess.gov/ fr/. BILLING CODE 4910–15–P Description of the Proposal The proposed action, which will be the subject of the EIS and considered by the Pacific Council for recommendation to NMFS, would establish new allocations among sectors of the groundfish fishery. Existing allocations may or may not be revised as part of the proposed action. These allocations are needed to support recent Pacific Council decisions to use sector-specific total catch limits (sector caps) to control bycatch (Bycatch Mitigation Program Final Environmental Impact Statement), would be useful in supporting the Pacific Council’s biennial management decisions, and would be needed to support the trawl individual quota program currently under consideration in a separate, but closely related EIS. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [I.D. 111505A] Pacific Fishery Management Council; Notice of Intent National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS); request for comments; preliminary notice of public scoping meetings. AGENCY: NMFS and the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) announce their intent to prepare an EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 to analyze proposals to allocate groundfish among various sectors of the non-tribal Pacific Coast groundfish fishery. DATES: Public scoping meetings will be announced in the Federal Register at a later date. Written comments will be accepted at the Pacific Council office through February 8, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, on issues and alternatives, identified by 111505A by any of the following methods: • E-mail: ##GFAllocationEIS.nwr@noaa.gov. Include [111505A] and enter ‘‘Scoping Comments’’ in the subject line of the message. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. SUMMARY: VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:51 Nov 18, 2005 Jkt 208001 General Background The Pacific Council implemented a Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) in 1982. Groundfish stocks are harvested in numerous commercial, recreational, and tribal fisheries in state and Federal waters off the West Coast. The nontribal commercial seafood fleet taking groundfish is generally regulated as three sectors: Limited entry trawl, limited entry fixed gear, and directed open access. Groundfish are also harvested incidentally in nongroundfish commercial fisheries, most notably fisheries for pink shrimp, spot and ridgeback prawns, Pacific halibut, California halibut, and sea cucumbers (incidental open access fisheries). The recreational fleet also takes groundfish as targeted catch, as well as incidentally in, for example, salmon and halibut fisheries. The Pacific Council has previously established a number of formal allocations among sectors. PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 • An allocation of sablefish between the fixed gear and trawl sectors was first established by emergency regulation in 1986. An adjustment was made on April 26, 1989, and the allocation has remained stable since then. • Amendment 6 to the FMP (fully implemented in 1994 established rules for allocating any groundfish species between the limited entry and open access commercial fisheries based on relative catch histories of the two fleets from July 11, 1984 through August 1, 1988. Numerous groundfish species and species groups are allocated on the basis of this allocation rule. • An allocation of whiting among domestic segments of the fleet was first established in 1991, when the joint venture fleet was entirely displaced by domestic processors. Several adjustments were made before the current allocation was established. The current allocation is among vessels delivering whiting shoreside, vessels delivering to motherships and catcher processors, and was first implemented for the 1997 fishery. Other allocations are indirect and result from the preseason planning process. The management measures developed during the preseason process are intended to: achieve, but not exceed, optimum yields (OYs); prevent overfishing; rebuild overfished species; reduce and minimize the bycatch and discard of overfished and depleted stocks; provide equitable harvest opportunity for the recreational and commercial fishing sectors; and, within the commercial fisheries, achieve harvest guidelines and limited entry and open access allocations to the extent practicable. When this preseason process is complete, a table is developed (called the ‘‘score card’’) which summarizes the expected harvest of overfished species for each segment of the fleet. During the year, the catch by each sector is estimated, and adjustments to the score card are made using inseason information. If it appears the OY for an overfished species may be exceeded, the Pacific Council recommends changes to the management measures based on the same criteria used during the preseason process. As part of this inseason process, the expected harvests on the scorecard for each sector may be adjusted upwards or downwards. The explicit allocations that would be established under the proposed action would replace some or all of those that are currently the indirect result of the preseason planning process and management regulations flowing from that process. E:\FR\FM\21NOP1.SGM 21NOP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 223 (Monday, November 21, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70052-70054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22951]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD01-05-094]


Navigation and Waterways Management Improvements, Providence 
River Regulated Navigation Area; Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island and Mt. 
Hope Bay, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: The First Coast Guard District announces that it is 
considering changing, rescinding, or maintaining certain navigation 
regulations currently in effect for the Providence River, and

[[Page 70053]]

is also considering what, if any, navigation safety measures should be 
implemented within Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island and Mt. Hope Bay, 
Massachusetts [hereafter ``Bays''].

DATES: Comments are due on or before December 21, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number CGD01-
05-094 to the Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office 
Providence. That office maintains the public dockets for this 
rulemaking. Comments and documents will become part of this docket and 
will be available for inspection and copying at the same address 
between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following 
methods:
    (1) Mail or delivery to Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Marine 
Safety Office Providence, 20 Risho Avenue, East Providence, RI, 02914-
1208.
    (2) Fax to 401-435-2399.
    (3) Electronically via e-mail at EleBlanc@msoprov.uscg.mil.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice, 
address mail to Mr. Edward G. LeBlanc, c/o Commanding Officer, U.S. 
Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Providence, 20 Risho Avenue, East 
Providence, RI 02914-1208, call 401-435-2351, e-mail at EleBlanc@
msoprov.uscg.mil, or fax 401-435-2399.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this request for public comments 
by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please 
include your name and address, identify the docket number for this 
notice (CGD01-05-094), indicate the question to which each comment 
applies, and give the reason for each comment. You may submit your 
comments and material by mail, hand delivery, fax, or electronic means 
to the project officer at the addresses or phone numbers listed under 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, but please submit your comments and 
material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or hand 
delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 
inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them 
by mail and would like to know that they reached U.S. Coast Guard 
Marine Safety Office Providence, please enclose a stamped, self-
addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and 
material received during the comment period.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting, but you may submit a 
request for one to U. S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Providence at 
the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If 
we determine that a public meeting would aid the Coast Guard in 
determining what type, if any, of rulemaking is appropriate, we will 
hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal 
Register.

Background and Purpose

    On May 1, 1994, the Coast Guard established a Regulated Navigation 
Area (RNA) in the Providence River, Providence, Rhode Island. That RNA 
is described at 33 CFR 165.122. The RNA was designed to protect the 
maritime community from hazards to navigation associated with the 
extreme shoaling that had previously occurred in the northern section 
of the Providence River channel. Generally, the RNA imposed certain 
navigation restrictions in various segments of the Providence River 
including, among other requirements, a maximum draft of 35 feet for 
most vessels, one-way vessel traffic, and a requirement that vessels 
over 65 feet in length make periodic SECURITE calls via VHF radio. In 
September 2005, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (``The USACE'') 
completed a major maintenance dredging of the Providence River to 
remove most shoaling and restore the channel to a depth of 40' at Mean 
Lower Low Water (MLLW), and a minimum channel width of 600'. (The USACE 
``Results of Survey'' dated September 16, 2005, is available for review 
in the docket, CGD 01-05-094.) The restoration of the Providence River 
Channel to the above described dimensions should permit sufficient 
depth and width for typical commercial and recreational vessels to 
navigate within the channel without the special restrictions and 
reporting requirements currently imposed by the RNA. Consequently, the 
Coast Guard is considering disestablishing the RNA and restoring the 
Providence River to normal navigation practices, revising the RNA, or 
leaving the current RNA in effect.
    Concurrently, the Coast Guard seeks public comment and 
recommendations on what, if any, navigation safety regulations may be 
appropriate for the waterways that encompass Narragansett Bay and Mt. 
Hope Bays in their entirety, including the Providence River and Taunton 
River. On September 7 and September 8, 2004, the Coast Guard sponsored 
a Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment (PAWSA) of Narragansett Bay, 
which was conducted by a cross-section of key waterways users and 
stakeholders. The report produced by the PAWSA participants identified 
several issues and areas within the Bays where navigation safety was of 
particular concern. (A copy of the PAWSA report is available in the 
docket, CGD01-05-094.) Although the Coast Guard has taken several non-
regulatory actions to improve navigation safety, such as public 
outreach, education and improved aids to navigation, we seek public 
comment with respect to the need, if any, for additional navigation 
safety regulations within the Bays.

Questions

    We invite the public to answer the following questions. In 
responding to each question, please explain your reasoning as fully as 
possible so that we can carefully weigh the consequences and impacts of 
any future regulatory actions the Coast Guard may take. In preparing 
your responses to these questions, please indicate your position in the 
maritime community, if applicable.
    1. Now that the shoaling has been removed subsequent to a major 
dredging operation by the USACE, should the Providence River RNA as 
currently defined in 33 CFR 165.122 be maintained? Why, or why not? 
What specific hazards to navigation would be mitigated by maintaining 
this RNA? How would navigation safety be enhanced?
    2. Should the Providence River RNA be maintained in some form other 
than as it currently exists? Are there less severe or more severe 
restrictions that should be implemented? How, specifically, would your 
recommendations reduce risk, mitigate hazards to navigation, and 
improve navigation safety?
    3. Should the Providence River RNA be expanded to cover any or all 
other portions of Narragansett Bay, including Mt. Hope Bay and the 
Taunton River? If so, what type of navigation safety regulations would 
be beneficial and why? What hazards to navigation would be mitigated? 
How would risks be reduced? (Comment on such possible restrictions as 
one-way traffic areas, under keel clearance requirements, security call 
requirements, equipment carriage requirements, anchorage regulations, 
etc.)
    4. If you recommend the Coast Guard adopt certain regulatory 
measures, what would be the cost (or savings), if any, to commercial 
and recreational vessel

[[Page 70054]]

owners and operators to comply with your recommendations?
    5. If you recommend the Coast Guard adopt certain regulatory 
measures, what would be the economic impact to small entities, if any? 
``Small entities'' is defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act [5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.], and generally refers to an enterprise or business 
that ``is independently owned and operated and is not dominant it its 
field * * *'' 5 U.S.C. 601.
    Comments are not limited to the preceding questions and are invited 
on any aspect of navigation safety within the Bays.

    Dated: November 10, 2005.
Mark J. Campbell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, First Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 05-22951 Filed 11-18-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.