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.

Repair the cracked or corroded part ............... Airbus Service Bulletin A310–53–2030, Revision 06, dated July 2, 1996. 

(2) Any crack or corrosion is found during any 

repetitive inspection required by paragraph 

(g) of this AD.

Repair the cracked or corroded part ............... Airbus Service Bulletin A310–53–2041, Revision 02, dated July 2, 1996. 

(3) Any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD.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 Ge ́ne ́rale 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. 

(2) A310–304, –322, –324, and –325 airplanes ...................................... 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. 

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. 

Related Information 

(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. 

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] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 223 / Monday, November 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules 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 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. 

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 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 

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. 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[I.D. 111505A] 

Pacific Fishery Management Council; 

Notice of Intent 

AGENCY: 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. 

SUMMARY: 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: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• 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: 

Electronic Access 

This Federal Register document is 

available on the Government Printing 

Office’s website at: www.gpoaccess.gov/ 

fr/index/html. 

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. 

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. 

• 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.