[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