[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 59 (Monday, March 29, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15343-15348]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6859]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG-2009-0143 (Formerly Docket Nos. D01-05-094 and Docket
No. USCG-01-06-052)]
RIN 1625-AA11
Regulated Navigation Area: Narragansett Bay, RI and Mount Hope
Bay, RI and MA, Including the Providence River and Taunton River
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule modifies provisions contained in the existing
Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) that were originally implemented to
address severe shoaling in the Providence River. Based on
recommendations made in several public comments responding to the
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), this rule includes additional
navigation safety measures for vessels transiting Narragansett Bay,
namely a requirement to make periodic Safety Signal (SECURITE) calls at
certain points along the transit, and a requirement to maintain a
minimum underkeel clearance to prevent groundings. Based on
recommendations made in several other comments, some measures proposed
in the NPRM for the Taunton River and Mount Hope Bay in the vicinity of
the two Brightman Street bridges have not been adopted and are
therefore not included in this final rule.
DATES: This rule is effective April 28, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2009-0143 and are available online by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-0143 in the ``Keyword''
box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Mr. Edward G. LeBlanc at Coast Guard Sector Southeastern
New England; telephone 401-435-2351, e-mail [email protected].
If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Information
On November 21, 2005, the Coast Guard issued a Federal Register
notice and request for comments at 70 FR 70052, under the heading
``Navigation and Waterways Management Improvements, Providence River
Regulated Navigation Area, Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island and Mt. Hope
Bay, MA.'' The notice was prompted primarily by two events: (1) The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was nearing completion of a major
maintenance dredging project in the Providence River, and (2) enactment
of Public Law 109-59, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) signed on
August 10, 2005 by President Bush. Section 1948 of SAFETEA-LU resulted
in retention of the old Brightman Street Bridge across the Taunton
River between Somerset and Fall River, MA. The proximity of the old and
new Brightman Street bridges to each other, which will both remain in
place as a result of SAFETEA-LU, prompted formal adoption of the
navigation safety measures that are currently practiced either
voluntarily or through Captain of the Port (COTP) orders to particular
commercial vessels.
[[Page 15344]]
We received three public comments in response to our November 2005
notice. On May 26, 2006, we published a Federal Register notice of
proposed rulemaking at 71 FR 30108, under the heading ``Regulated
Navigation Area: Narragansett Bay, RI and Mount Hope Bay, MA, including
the Providence River and Taunton River''. We received six comments in
response to the NPRM, including requests from the Rhode Island Attorney
General and the city of Fall River, Massachusetts, that the Coast Guard
extend the public comment period and hold public hearings on the
regulations. On October 6, 2006, we published a notice extending the
public comment period and announcing two public meetings in the Federal
Register at 71 FR 57893, under the heading ``Navigation and Waterways
Management Improvements, Providence River Regulated Navigation Area,
Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island and Mt. Hope Bay, MA''. Public meetings
were subsequently held on October 16, 2006 in Fall River, and on
October 19, 2006, in Warwick, Rhode Island. The public comment period
ended on November 1, 2006. Thirteen months later in December 2007,
USACE completed its major maintenance dredging of the Providence River,
restoring the waterway to its authorized controlling depth of 40 feet.
Completion of the dredging project removed the need for certain
navigation safety measures implemented in 1994 to address shoaling in
the Providence River, and also prompted adoption of this final rule.
The removal of the navigation safety measures is discussed below.
Background and Purpose
1. Providence River: On May 1, 1994, the Coast Guard established a
Regulated Navigation Area in the Providence River, Providence, Rhode
Island, described at 33 CFR 165.122 (59 FR 18487, April 19, 1994). It
was designed to protect the maritime community from hazards to
navigation resulting from the extreme shoaling that occurred in the
northern section of the Providence River Channel.
Generally, the existing RNA imposes certain navigation safety
measures in various segments of the Providence River including, among
other requirements, a maximum draft of 38 feet for most vessels, one-
way vessel traffic in certain portions of the river, and a requirement
that vessels over 65 feet in length make periodic SECURITE calls via
VHF radio. In September 2005, USACE substantially 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'. While most shoaling was
removed, there remained nine rock mounds that required blasting (as
opposed to dredging) and removal. Those nine rock mounds were not
blasted and removed until September 2007, and a final ``Results of
Survey'' was issued by USACE on December 14, 2007.
The restoration of the Providence River Channel to the above
described dimensions provides sufficient depth and width for commercial
and recreational vessels of appropriate length, breadth, and draft, to
navigate safely within the channel. Consequently, because the original
conditions that warranted the RNA no longer exist, we are making
modifications as described in this final rule.
We are also adopting some navigation safety measures that were
recommended in the public comments. These measures include maintaining
an under-keel clearance equal to at least 10% of a vessel's draft when
not assisted by tugs, and a requirement for certain vessels to make
SECURITE calls at certain points during their transit to notify other
waterway users of their intentions.
2. Taunton River: Construction of a new Brightman Street bridge
(the new bridge) across the Taunton River approximately 1100 feet north
of the existing Brightman Street Bridge (the old bridge) has presented
navigation challenges, particularly for larger self-propelled
commercial vessels. The opening of the old bridge is only 98 feet while
the opening of the new bridge is 200 feet, and the openings of the two
bridges are not aligned with each other. This configuration requires
commercial vessels to transit through one opening, stop, be pushed
transversely (sideways) by tugs for approximately 100 feet to align
with the next bridge opening, and then proceed forward. Local marine
pilots, working with operators of commercial vessels delivering coal
and oil to the electric power plant north of the bridges, have devised
a method of transiting the two bridges that involves the use of a
marine pilot, three tugs (in most cases), and navigating only in
daylight, only when steady winds are no greater than 12 knots and wind
gusts are no greater than 15 knots, and transiting outbound only on a
flood tide. These voluntary measures were initially intended to be
temporary and employed only until the old bridge was demolished after
completion of the new bridge, in accordance with the bridge
construction permit issued by the Coast Guard on December 5, 1997.
However, section 1948 of SAFETEA-LU prohibits the expenditure of
Federal funds for the demolition of the old bridge. It states:
``Notwithstanding any Federal law, regulation, or policy to the
contrary, no Federal funds shall be obligated or expended for the
demolition of the existing Brightman Street Bridge connecting Fall
River and Somerset, Massachusetts, and the existing Brightman Street
Bridge shall be maintained for pedestrian and bicycle access, and as an
emergency service route.'' We believe the practical effect of this law
is that the old bridge will remain in place.
The unique maneuvers required to navigate safely between these two
bridges are of concern to the Coast Guard; however, the safety measures
proposed in the NPRM are the ones currently being practiced by the
maritime community either voluntarily or through COTP orders to
specific commercial vessels. Further, the sole commercial entity (a
coal-fire power plant) north of the two Brightman Street bridges which
received bulk cargo (coal) via ship or barge has shut down, further
reducing marine traffic through the bridges. Consequently, the Coast
Guard believes further regulation is not necessary as the current
system in place provides an appropriate and effective method to address
the navigation safety issues related to the fewer (and smaller)
commercial vessels that may now transit the Taunton River and Brightman
Street bridges. The navigation safety measures are discussed below.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
Three comments were submitted in response to our November 2005
notice and six comments were submitted in response to our May 2006
NPRM. After we extended the NPRM comment period, and in response to our
two October 2006 public meetings, we received 57 additional written and
106 verbal comments, respectively. Most comments expressed opposition
to a proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) waterfront facility on the
Taunton River in Fall River, MA, but few comments addressed the current
RNA or suggested any specific navigation safety measures.
Several comments in particular captured the sentiment of most. In
one comment, the writer was ``appalled that the United States Coast
Guard is even contemplating modifying the existing Regulated Navigation
Area in Providence River, Narragansett Bay, and Mount Hope Bay which
would then allow LNG tankers to use these waterways.'' Another comment
suggested that the proposed regulations were ``inextricably linked to
the
[[Page 15345]]
[Weaver's Cove Energy] LNG vessel transit plan * * *.'' A third comment
suggested that the proposed regulations were ``creative maneuvers to
bring LNG tankers in Fall River.'' A commenter at a public meeting
stated that the proposed regulations would allow LNG passage to Fall
River ``by right.''
However, as stated by the Captain of the Port at the October 2006
public meetings, ``it is important to note that these proposed
regulations are intended to address navigation safety issues as they
currently exist for vessels and mariners currently using the waterways
of Narragansett Bay and Mount Hope Bay, such as the ships and barges
carrying coal and occasional fuel oil that transit through the
Brightman Street bridges some 50 times each year in connection with
deliveries to the power plant in Somerset.''
As stated earlier in this preamble, the unique maneuvers required
to navigate safely between these two bridges concern the Coast Guard.
But the safety measures proposed in the NPRM are currently being
practiced by the maritime community either voluntarily or through
Captain of the Port orders to specific commercial vessels. And, the
sole commercial entity (a coal-fire power plant) north of the two
Brightman Street bridges which received bulk cargo (coal) via ship or
barge has shut down, further reducing marine traffic through the
bridges. Consequently, the Coast Guard believes further regulation for
the Taunton River and Brightman Street Bridges is not necessary as the
current system in place provides an appropriate and effective method to
address the navigation safety issues related to the fewer (and smaller)
commercial vessels that may now transit the Taunton River and Brightman
Street bridges.
Specifically, the NPRM included proposed maximum weather parameters
and a proposed requirement for assist tugs for commercial vessels
transiting through the two Brightman Street bridges. Those proposed
requirements have been removed. Maximum weather parameters are
currently defined, when necessary, via a Captain of the Port order. Tug
assistance is currently dictated by either the Federal or state
licensed pilot directing a commercial vessel through the two Brightman
Street bridges, or via a Captain of the Port order on a case by case
basis as conditions dictate. The Coast Guard believes those methods are
currently sufficient to provide the appropriate level of safety to
ensure the safe navigation of vessels through the waterway.
One comment addressed the condition of the fendering system at the
old Brightman Street Bridge. The Massachusetts Highway Department, the
bridge owner, completed a major renovation project in September 2007
that restored all of the bridge fendering to its original design
specifications.
Two comments addressed the physical condition of the old bridge and
the navigation concerns related to the waterway configuration resulting
from the proximity of the old and new bridges. Specifically, there is
only 1100 feet of distance between the bridges, the opening of the old
bridge is only 98 feet while the opening of the new bridge is 200 feet,
and the openings of the two bridges are not aligned with each other.
This configuration requires a vessel to transit through one
opening, stop, be pushed transversely (sideways) by tugs for
approximately 100 feet to align with the next bridge opening, and then
proceed forward.
One comment stated that it ``strongly advocates physical demolition
and removal of the existing [Brightman Street] bridge * * *.'' Another
comment discussed at some length the need to demolish the old bridge
once the new bridge was completed. Those comments are more
appropriately addressed via the mechanisms contemplated by 33 CFR part
116, ``Alterations of Unreasonably Obstructive Bridges.'' That part
describes the procedures by which the Coast Guard determines a bridge
to be an unreasonable obstruction to navigation. Consequently, the
Commander, First Guard District, forwarded a letter on April 3, 2006,
to Commandant (G-PWB) (currently CG-5411), Coast Guard Headquarters,
Washington, DC, to begin the 33 CFR part 116 process regarding the old
bridge. On May 8, 2007, the Coast Guard issued a ``Navigation Review''
regarding the old and new Brightman Street bridges which found, in
part, that retention of the old bridge ``makes navigation more
difficult'' in that area of the Taunton River, but recommended no
specific action. As a follow-up to this report, the Coast Guard's
Office of Bridge Administration will undertake further investigation in
accordance with the procedures set forth in 33 CFR part 116. Any such
effort, however, is separate and apart from this rulemaking.
One comment suggested:
(1) A reduction in several voice reporting requirements via VHF
radio in Narragansett Bay and the Providence River;
(2) Removal of the one-way traffic restriction in the Providence
River;
(3) Addition of a voice reporting requirement via VHF radio for
vessels in Narragansett Bay either enroute to or from Mount Hope Bay;
and
(4) Addition of an under-keel clearance requirement for deep draft
vessels transiting Narragansett Bay.
The major dredging project completed by USACE in December 2007 has
reduced the need for voice reporting requirements in Narragansett Bay
and the Providence River, and removed the need for one-way traffic
restrictions in the river. Consequently, the commenter's first two
recommendations have been incorporated into this rule.
We believe that voice reporting requirements recommended in the
aforementioned comment are prudent and should enhance navigation
safety. Accordingly, those reporting requirements are also included in
this rule.
The commenter's recommendation for an under-keel clearance
requirement was also considered. In the NPRM for this rule, specific
maximum drafts were proposed. The maximum drafts varied according to
the channel depth in which a vessel was navigating. One comment to the
NPRM (the only comment addressing the draft issue) recommended that a
blanket minimum under-keel clearance requirement of 10% of a vessel's
draft be maintained, which would allow a safety factor to account for
variables such as wave height, squat, accuracy of tidal predictions,
water density, etc. We re-examined the issue of under-keel clearance
and found that under-keel clearance standards are in place in at least
one other major port (Los Angeles/Long Beach). Additionally, Federal
regulations mandating under-keel clearance for single-hull tank ships
(including those calling on Narragansett and Mount Hope bays) already
exist at 33 CFR 157.455. We agree that a blanket under-keel clearance
requirement is less confusing than the variable draft restrictions
proposed in the NPRM. Therefore, we have adopted a standard under-keel
clearance requirement in this final rule.
One comment suggested that the Coast Guard's determination that
this rulemaking is categorically excluded from further environmental
review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was
incorrect, and that a full NEPA analysis was required. It argued that
the proposed regulations create ``substantial controversy'' because
they are ``inextricably linked'' to the Weaver's Cove LNG proposal.
Another comment disagreed with our finding that the proposed
regulations would ``not have a substantial economic impact'' on small
entities. It cited a purported lack of economic analysis of the impact
of ship transits with ``volatile cargo'' and the impact(s) to maritime
[[Page 15346]]
enterprise of security zones around LNG vessels transiting through
Narragansett Bay.
We disagree that further environmental or economic analysis is
required. The Coast Guard did conduct a NEPA review of this rule and
determined that no additional analysis was necessary based upon the
findings that any foreseeable impacts would not be significant. Further
economic analysis is not required because the effect of this rule would
not be significant: It only removes some more restrictive navigation
safety measures, adds a standard under-keel clearance requirement, and
modifies already-existing voice reporting requirements in the affected
waterways.
This final rule makes the following modifications to the current
RNA at 33 CFR 165.122:
1. Remove certain navigation restrictions and minimum visibility
requirements in the Providence River, especially for vessels with
drafts of 35 feet or greater;
2. Remove the one-way-traffic restriction for vessels over 65 feet
in length that currently exists in certain areas of the Providence
River;
3. Reduce the number of required SECURITE calls while transiting
Narragansett Bay and the Providence River; and
4. Define minimum under-keel clearance requirements for vessels
transiting within the RNA.
This final rule was prompted primarily by the completion of a major
dredging project in the Providence River. Navigation safety measures
implemented in 1994 to address the shoaling in that river are no longer
required. This final rule is promulgated under the authority of 33
U.S.C. 1321, pursuant to the re-delegation of that authority contained
in 33 CFR 1.05-1(g)(4). Vessels or persons violating this section may
be subject to the civil and criminal penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C.
1232.
Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
Regulatory Planning and Review
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a
full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures
of DHS is unnecessary. The effect of this rule would not be significant
as it removes some more restrictive navigation safety measures, adds a
standard under-keel clearance requirement, and modifies already-
existing voice reporting requirements in the affected waterways. This
rule will be entered into the local notice to mariners, and maritime
advisories will be broadcast.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
This rule may affect the following entities, some of which might be
small entities: the owners or operators of vessels 65 feet in length or
greater transiting the waterways of Narragansett Bay and the Providence
River.
This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This
rule only modifies current regulations and/or codifies current
navigation practices. Because of the changes to the previously proposed
regulatory text discussed above, this rule does not impose new
requirements which would affect vessels' schedules or their ability to
transit the RNA, nor does it require the purchase of any new equipment
or the hiring of any additional crew.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.
Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule does not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and
[[Page 15347]]
does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that
may disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of
the Instruction. This rule fits the category selected from paragraph
(34)(g), as it establishes a Regulated Navigation Area. An
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
2. Revise Sec. 165.122 to read as follows:
Sec. 165.122 Regulated Navigation Area: Navigable waters within
Narragansett Bay and the Providence River, Rhode Island.
(a) Description of the regulated navigation area (RNA). The
Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) encompasses all of the navigable waters
of Narragansett Bay north of the COLREGS demarcation line and west of
the Mt. Hope Bridge, and all of the navigable waters of the Providence
River from Conimicut Point to the Providence hurricane barrier.
(b) Regulations. (1) All commercial vessels must:
(i) Maintain a minimum 10% of the vessel's draft as an under-keel
clearance when not assisted by tugs, or when not moored at an assigned
berth. Under-keel clearance is the minimum clearance available between
the deepest point on the vessel and the bottom of the waterway, in calm
water.
(ii) Have at least one mile of visibility to transit the Providence
River between 41[deg]43'01.4'' N; 071[deg]20'41.7'' W (Conimicut Light
(LLNR 18305)) and 41[deg]47'38.8'' N; 071[deg]22'46.7'' W (Channel
Light 42 (LLNR 18580)).
(2) Vessels over 65 feet in length inbound for berths in the
Providence River are required to make Safety Signal (SECURITE) calls on
both VHF channels 13 and 16 at the following geographic locations:
(i) Pilot Boarding Area;
(ii) Abeam of Castle Hill;
(iii) Abeam of Sandy Point;
(iv) Abeam of 41[deg]43'01.4'' N; 071[deg]20'41.7'' W (Conimicut
Point Light (LLNR 18305));
(v) Abeam of Sabin Point; and
(vi) Upon mooring.
(3) Vessels over 65 feet in length inbound for berths in Mount Hope
Bay or in the Taunton River are required to make SECURITE calls on both
VHF channels 13 and 16 at the following geographic locations:
(i) Pilot Boarding Area;
(ii) Abeam of Castle Hill;
(iii) Abeam of Sandy Point; and
(iv) At position 41[deg]39'32.4'' N; 071[deg]14' 02.6'' W (Mount
Hope Bay Junction Lighted Gong Buoy ``MH'' (LLNR 18790)).
(4) Vessels over 65 feet in length outbound for sea down the
Providence River Channel shall make SECURITE calls on VHF channels 13
and 16 at the following geographic locations:
(i) One-half hour prior to departure from the berth;
(ii) At departure from the berth;
(iii) Abeam of Sabin Point;
(iv) Abeam of Gaspee Point; and
(v) Abeam of position 41[deg]43'01.4'' N; 071[deg]20'41.7'' W
(Conimicut Light (LLNR 18305)).
(5) Vessels over 65 feet in length outbound for sea down from Mount
Hope Bay through Narragansett Bay are required to make SECURITE calls
on VHF channels 13 and 16 at the following geographic locations:
(i) One-half hour prior to departure from the berth;
(ii) At departure from the berth; and
(iii) At position 41[deg]39'32.4'' N; 071[deg]14' 02.6'' W (Mount
Hope Bay Junction Lighted Gong Buoy ``MH'' (LLNR 18790)).
(6) Vessels 65 feet and under in length, and all recreational
vessels, when meeting deep draft commercial vessel traffic in all
locations within this RNA shall keep out of the way of the oncoming
deep draft commercial vessel. Nothing in this regulation, however,
relieves a vessel of any duty prescribed in the Inland Navigation Rules
(set forth in 33 U.S.C. 2005 et seq.)
(7) The Captain of the Port (COTP) Southeastern New England may
authorize a deviation from these regulations. Parties wishing to
request a deviation must do so in advance by contacting the COTP
Southeastern New England, at 508-457-3211, or via VHF Channel 13 (156.7
MHz), or VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Any person or vessel receiving
permission from the
[[Page 15348]]
COTP to deviate from these regulations must comply with any specific
instructions provided by the COTP.
(c) Enforcement. Violations of this RNA should be reported to the
COTP Southeastern New England at 508-457-3211. Persons found in
violation of these regulations may be subject to civil or criminal
penalties as provided for in 33 U.S.C. 1232.
Dated: March 6, 2010.
Joseph L. Nimmich,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010-6859 Filed 3-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P