Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed special conditions

13,083 words·~59 min read·/register/2006/03/29/06-3014

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 3410-EN-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. NM340; Notice No. 25-06-01-SC] Special Conditions: Airbus Model A380-800 Airplane, Design Roll Maneuver AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions. SUMMARY: This notice proposes special conditions for the Airbus A380-800 airplane. This airplane will have novel or unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes.

Many of these novel or unusual design features are associated with the complex systems and the configuration of the airplane, including its full-length double deck. For these design features, the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for design roll maneuvers. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Additional special conditions will be issued for other novel or unusual design features of the Airbus Model A380-800 airplane. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate, Attention: Rules Docket (ANM-113), Docket No. NM340, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; or delivered in duplicate to the Transport Airplane Directorate at the above address.

All comments must be marked: Docket No. NM340. Comments may be inspected in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Thorson, FAA, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone

(425)227-1357; facsimile

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments. We will file in the docket all comments we receive as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning these proposed special conditions. The docket is available for public inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section of this notice between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late, if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change the proposed special conditions in light of the comments we receive. If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it back to you. Background Airbus applied for FAA certification/validation of the provisionally designated Model A3XX-100 in its letter AI/L 810.0223/98, dated August 12, 1998, to the FAA. Application for certification by the Joint Aviation Authorities

(FAA)proposes the following special condition as part of the type certification basis for the Airbus A380-800 airplane. In lieu of compliance with 14 CFR 25.349(a), the following special condition is proposed: The following conditions, speeds, and cockpit roll control motions (except as the motions may be limited by pilot effort) must be considered in combination with an airplane load factor of zero and two-thirds of the positive maneuvering factor used in design. In determining the resulting control surface deflections, the torsional flexibility of the wing must be considered in accordance with § 25.301(b): a. Conditions corresponding to steady rolling velocities must be investigated. In addition, conditions corresponding to maximum angular acceleration must be investigated for airplanes with engines or other weight concentrations outboard of the fuselage. For the angular acceleration conditions, zero rolling velocity may be assumed in the absence of a rational time history investigation of the maneuver. b. At V A , sudden movement of the cockpit roll control up to the limit is assumed. The position of the cockpit roll control must be maintained, until a steady roll rate is achieved and then must be returned suddenly to the neutral position. c. At V C , the cockpit roll control must be moved suddenly and maintained so as to achieve a roll rate not less than that obtained in paragraph b. above. d. At V D , the cockpit roll control must be moved suddenly and maintained so as to achieve a roll rate not less than one third of that obtained in paragraph b. above. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 20, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-4509 Filed 3-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. NM342; Notice No. 25-06-03-SC] Special Conditions: Airbus Model A380-800 Airplane, Extendable Length Escape System AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions. SUMMARY: This notice proposes special conditions for the Airbus A380-800 airplane. This airplane will have novel or unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. Many of these novel or unusual design features are associated with the complex systems and the configuration of the airplane, including its full-length double deck. For these design features, the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards regarding extendable length escape slides. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards. Additional special conditions will be issued for other novel or unusual design features of the Airbus Model A380-800 airplane. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate, Attention: Rules Docket (ANM-113), Docket No. NM342, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; or delivered in duplicate to the Transport Airplane Directorate at the above address. All comments must be marked: Docket No. NM342. Comments may be inspected in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Thorson, FAA, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone

(425)227-1357; facsimile

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments. We will file in the docket all comments we receive as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning these proposed special conditions. The docket is available for public inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section of this notice between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late, if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change the proposed special conditions in light of the comments we receive. If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it back to you. Background Airbus applied for FAA certification/validation of the provisionally-designated Model A3XX-100 in its letter AI/L 810.0223/98, dated August 12, 1998, to the FAA. Application for certification by the Joint Aviation Authorities

(JAA)of Europe had been made on January 16, 1998, reference AI/L 810.0019/98. In its letter to the FAA, Airbus requested an extension to the 5-year period for type certification in accordance with 14 CFR 21.17(c). The request was for an extension to a 7-year period, using the date of the initial application letter to the JAA as the reference date. The reason given by Airbus for the request for extension is related to the technical challenges, complexity, and the number of new and novel features on the airplane. On November 12, 1998, the Manager, Aircraft Engineering Division, AIR-100, granted Airbus' request for the 7-year period, based on the date of application to the JAA. In its letter AI/LE-A 828.0040/99 Issue 3, dated July 20, 2001, Airbus stated that its target date for type certification of the Model A380-800 had been moved from May 2005, to January 2006, to match the delivery date of the first production airplane. In a subsequent letter (AI/L 810.0223/98 issue 3, dated January 27, 2006), Airbus stated that its target date for type certification is October 2, 2006. In accordance with 14 CFR 21.17(d)(2), Airbus chose a new application date of December 20, 1999, and requested that the 7-year certification period which had already been approved be continued. The FAA has reviewed the part 25 certification basis for the Model A380-800 airplane, and no changes are required based on the new application date. The Model A380-800 airplane will be an all-new, four-engine jet transport airplane with a full double-deck, two-aisle cabin. The maximum takeoff weight will be 1.235 million pounds with a typical three-class layout of 555 passengers. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Airbus must show that the Model A380-800 airplane meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-98. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Airbus A380-800 airplane because of novel or unusual design features, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.16. In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Airbus Model A380-800 airplane must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. In addition, the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy pursuant to section 611 of Public Law 93-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.” Special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, are issued in accordance with 14 CFR 11.38 and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with 14 CFR 21.17(a)(2), Amendment 21-69, effective September 16, 1991. Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101. Discussion of Novel or Unusual Design Features The Airbus Model A380-800 airplane has 16 emergency exits and 16 escape slides to be used for evacuation of passengers in case of emergency. Of these, 14 are fixed-length escape slides, and two (at door M1) are extendable length escape slides. The extendable length escape slides have a 16-foot extension packed at the toe. Typically, airplanes have fixed length escape slides. However, it was not possible to use fixed length escape slides for the A380 door M1 because of the extreme difference between normal sill height and high sill height associated with collapse of some of the landing gear in an emergency. Some combinations of landing gear collapse could cause the airplane to tip back on its tail. On the door, there is an electronic sensor that evaluates the attitude of the airplane and determines whether the extension is needed. During normal operation, the extension remains packed at the toe end of the escape slide. When the extension is needed, the system sends a signal to a squib that allows the extension to be inflated during deployment. If the system detects that the slide extension has failed to deploy, a warning is activated that tells the flight attendants that the slide should not be used. The warning will also activate—if after initial deployment of the slide without the extension deploying—the attitude of the airplane changes to the extent that the extension should be deployed. The slide system design cannot accommodate deploying the extension after deployment of the main body of the slide. The performance requirements for escape systems are contained in 14 CFR 25.810 and address several abnormal operating conditions as well as failure conditions and reliability. The requirements of § 25.810 remain applicable for the slide in the unextended mode, and for the most part, in the extended mode. The special conditions indicate where the requirements differ from the requirements of § 25.810 for the slide in the extended mode. The extension is intended only for use at high sill heights. A typical fixed-length slide operating at high sill height does not satisfy all of the performance requirements of § 25.810, but its variations in performance are understood and largely predictable. Certain performance criteria are valid regardless of sill height, whereas other aspects of performance can be expected to decline at higher sill heights. With an extendable slide, there is a step change in configuration and potentially a step change in performance. Therefore, special conditions are needed to ensure acceptable performance in the extended mode. Section 25.810 specifies the basic performance requirements for escape slides including wind testing, repeatability testing, and testing at adverse sill heights. Section 25.1309(a) requires that systems perform under foreseeable operating conditions, such as extreme temperatures, and a demonstration that the system design is appropriate for its intended function. Standards for the equipment itself are contained in Technical Standard Order C69c and contribute to a satisfactory installation. Existing 14 CFR part 25 regulations governing the certification of the A380 do not adequately address certification requirements of an extendable length escape slide. The FAA is proposing special conditions to ensure that an extendable length escape slide performs adequately in both the unextended and the extended configuration. Technical Standard Order C69c addresses many detailed aspects of escape slide performance that are not specified in 14 CFR part 25 but are generally considered essential to assuring adequate escape slide performance. These special conditions supplement the requirements of 14 CFR part 25, for the slide in its extended mode. However, because of the novel nature of this design, the special conditions will require that the escape slide receive TSO authorization or satisfy an equivalent standard. Wind tests are typically conducted only on fixed length slides at normal sill height. Since the regulations require that the 25 knot standard is met at the most critical wind angle, escape slides usually exceed 25 knots performance at other than the critical angle. The same is expected to be true of the slide in its extended mode, but some reduction in the required wind velocity is appropriate since the slide will be in an abnormal condition. Available data indicates that a value of 22 knots is appropriate to cover the slide in its extended mode at normal sill height. This corresponds to roughly 75% of the wind energy required for the slide in its normal attitude and will ensure that the slide can function in its extended mode at least as well as a fixed length slide under similar abnormal conditions. The special conditions also specify a rate for evacuation of passengers which is consistent with that of fixed length escape slides. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Airbus A380-800 airplane. Should Airbus apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design features, these special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101. Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features of the Airbus A380-800 airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704. The Proposed Special Conditions Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for the Airbus A380-800 airplane. In addition to the provisions of 14 CFR part 25, the following special conditions apply: 1. The extendable escape slide must receive TSO C69c authorization or the equivalent. 2. In addition to the requirements of § 25.810(a)(1)(iii) for usability in conditions of landing gear collapse, the deployed escape slide in the extended mode must demonstrate an evacuation rate of 45 persons per minute per lane at the sill height corresponding to activation of the extension. 3. In lieu of the requirements of § 25.810(a)(1)(iv), the escape slide deployed in the extended mode must be capable of being used in 22 knot winds directed from the critical angle, with the airplane on all its landing gear. 4. Pitch sensor tolerances and accuracy must be taken into account when demonstrating compliance with § 25.1309(a) for the escape slide in both the extended and unextended modes. 5. Design of the “slide extension” warning must be such that the cabin crew is made aware of a non usable slide ( *i.e.* , the main slide has deployed, and the door sill height is such that the extension should be deployed but cannot be deployed), even if this is due to the airplane attitude changing during the evacuation. The ability to provide such a warning must be available for ten minutes after the airplane is immobilized on the ground. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 20, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-4511 Filed 3-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24095; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-21-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; DORNIER LUFTFAHRT GmbH Models 228-100, 228-101, 228-200, 228-201, 228-202, and 228-212 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for all DORNIER LUFTFAHRT GmbH (DORNIER) Models 228-100, 228-101, 228-200, 228-201, 228-202, and 228-212 airplanes. This proposed AD would require you to repetitively inspect the wiring in the flight deck overhead panels (locations 5VE and 6VE) for chafing and damage and repair any chafed or damaged wires. Regardless of the results of each inspection, this proposed AD would require you to assure correct installation of the wiring in the flight deck overhead panels by reattaching or replacing the wire tie attachment holders and securing any loose wires to the wire tie attachment holders with plastic wire ties. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)issued by the airworthiness authority for Germany. We are proposing this AD to detect, correct, and prevent chafed or damaged wires in the flight deck overhead panels, which could result in short-circuiting of related wiring. This condition could lead to electrical failure of affected systems and potential fire in the flight deck. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 27, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD: • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • Fax:

(202)493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact RUAG Services GmbH, P.O. Box 1253, D-82231 Wessling; telephone: (08153) 302506; fax: (08153) 304601. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4146; fax:

(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, “FAA-2006-24095; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-21-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive concerning this proposed AD. Discussion The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), which is the airworthiness authority for Germany, notified FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on all DORNIER Models 228-100, 228-101, 228-200, 228-201, 228-202, and 228-212 airplanes. The LBA reports that vibrations are causing the plastic wire tie attachment holder in the flight deck overhead panels to lose its adhesiveness and become detached. When the wire tie attachment holder becomes detached, the wiring in the flight deck overhead panels is loose and may rub against the pins of the switches in the overhead panel causing chafing and damage to the wiring insulation. This condition, if not corrected, could result in electrical failure of affected systems and potential fire in the flight deck. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed RUAG AOT Dornier 228, All Operators Telefax service information No. AOT-228-24-028, Date of Issue: November 9, 2005. The service information specifies: • Repetitively inspecting the wiring in the flight deck overhead panels (locations 5VE and 6VE) for chafing and damage; • Repairing any chafed or damaged wire(s); and • Assuring correct installation of the wiring in the flight deck overhead panels by reattaching or replacing the wire tie attachment holders and securing any loose wires to the wire tie attachment holders with plastic wire ties. Foreign Airworthiness Authority Information The LBA classified the service information as mandatory and issued German AD Number D-2005-438, Effective Date: December 14, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Germany. These DORNIER Models 228-100, 228-101, 228-200, 228-201, 228-202, and 228-212 airplanes are manufactured in Germany and are type-certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Under this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the LBA has kept us informed of the situation described above. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we have examined the LBA's findings, evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This proposed AD would require you to repetitively inspect the wiring in the flight deck overhead panels (locations 5VE and 6VE) for chafing and damage and repair any chafed or damaged wires. Regardless of the results of each inspection, this proposed AD would require you to assure correct installation of the wiring in the flight deck overhead panels by reattaching or replacing the wire tie attachment holders and securing any loose wires to the wire tie attachment holders with plastic wire ties. Costs of Compliance *How many airplanes would this proposed AD impact?* We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 14 airplanes in the U.S. registry. *What would be the cost impact of this proposed AD on owners/operators of the affected airplanes?* We estimate the following costs to do the proposed inspection: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 2 work hours × $80 per hour = $160 Not applicable $160 $160 × 14 = $2,240 We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need this repair: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane 3 work hours × $80 per hour = $240 $100 $240 + $100 = $340 Note: The cure time for the adhesive that is recommended in the service information is 48 hours at 25 degrees Celsius (77 degrees Fahrenheit) or 2 hours at 65 degrees Celsius (149 degrees Fahrenheit). Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **DORNIER LUFTFAHRT GmbH:** Docket No. FAA-2006-24095; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-21-AD. Comment Due Date

(a)We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive

(AD)action by April 27, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD affects Models 228-100, 228-101, 228-200, 228-201, 228-202, and 228-212 airplanes, all serial numbers, that are certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)issued by the airworthiness authority for Germany. We are issuing this AD to detect, correct, and prevent chafed or damaged wires in the flight deck overhead panels, which could result in short-circuiting of related wiring. This condition could lead to electrical failure of affected systems and potential fire in the flight deck. Compliance

(e)To address this problem, you must do the following: Actions Compliance Procedures

(1)Inspect the wiring in the flight deck overhead panels (locations 5VE and 6VE) for chafing and damage Within the next 100 hours time-in-service

(TIS)after the effective date of this AD. Repetitively inspect thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months Follow RUAG AOT Dornier 228, All Operators Telefax service information No. AOT-228-24-028, Date of Issue: November 9, 2005.

(2)If you find any chafed or damaged wires during any inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, repair the affected wire(s) and assure correct installation of the wiring in the flight deck overhead panels by reattaching or replacing the wire tie attachment holders and securing any loose wires to the wire tie attachment holders with plastic wire ties Before further flight after each inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD. Continue to repetitively inspect as specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD Follow RUAG AOT Dornier 228, All Operators Telefax service information No. AOT-228-24-028, Date of Issue: November 9, 2005.

(3)If you do not find any chafed or damaged wires during any inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, assure correct installation of the wiring in the flight deck overhead panels by reattaching or replacing the wire tie attachment holders and securing any loose wires to the wire tie attachment holders with plastic wire ties Before further flight after each inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD. Continue to repetitively inspect as specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD Follow RUAG AOT Dornier 228, All Operators Telefax service information No. AOT-228-24-028, Date of Issue: November 9, 2005. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(f)The Manager, Standards Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA, ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4146; fax:

(816)329-4090, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information

(g)German AD Number D-2005-438, Effective Date: December 14, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. To get copies of the documents referenced in this AD, contact RUAG Services GmbH, P.O. Box 1253, D-82231 Wessling; telephone: (08153) 302506; fax: (08153) 304601. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC, or on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* The docket number is Docket No. FAA-2006-24095; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-21-AD. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 22, 2006. William J. Timberlake, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-4556 Filed 3-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Parts 161 and 165 [CGD01-04-133] RIN 1625-AA11 Regulated Navigation Area; Buzzards Bay, MA; Navigable Waterways With the First Coast Guard District AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: Subsequent to an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in the October 26, 2004, edition of the **Federal Register** , the Coast Guard proposes to revise the regulations governing the Regulated Navigation Area

(RNA)in First Coast Guard District waters to require that certain tank vessels and tug/barge combinations transiting Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts be accompanied by escort tugs and federally licensed pilots. The Coast Guard also proposes to establish a Vessel Movement Reporting System

(VMRS)for Buzzards Bay and to require mandatory participation in the VMRS by vessels subject to the Vessel Bridge-to-Bridge VHF Radiotelephone regulations, including tug/barge combinations. Participation in the Buzzards Bay VMRS could be accomplished either automatically through a vessel's Automatic Identification System

(AIS)or via VHF radiotelephone. The purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to reduce the likelihood of an incident that might result in a collision, allision, or grounding and the aftermath discharge or release of oil or hazardous material into the navigable waters of the United States. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 27, 2006. ADDRESSES: The Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New England maintains the public docket for this notice. 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. You may submit comments and related material by:

(1)Mail or delivery to Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New England, 20 Risho Avenue, East Providence, RI 02914-1208.

(2)Fax to 401-435-2399.

(3)Electronically via e-mail at *EleBlanc@msoprov.uscg.mil.*

(4)The entire public docket may be viewed at the Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New England Web site at *http://www.uscg.mil/d1/units/msoprov/.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Edward G. LeBlanc at Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New England, Providence, RI, 401-435-2351. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to submit comments and related material pertaining specifically to the navigation safety and waterways management aspects of the proposed rule. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD01-04-133), 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 Sector Southeastern New England, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meetings We do not intend to hold additional public meetings on this proposed rule. As part of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking announced in the October 26, 2004, edition of the **Federal Register** , (Vol. 69, No. 206, pages 62427 to 62430) two public meetings were held to obtain direct feedback from the public on November 16, 2004, at the New Bedford Whaling Museum, and on November 17, 2004, at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy. Comments received at those meetings, as well as written comments, are summarized below. You may submit a request for an additional public meeting to the address contained in ADDRESSES above, explaining why an additional public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that an additional public meeting is necessary, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose This NPRM is subsequent to an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) published on October 26, 2004 in Volume 69, No. 206, pages 62427 to 62430 of the **Federal Register** , under the heading “Navigation and Waterways Management Improvements, Buzzards Bay, MA”. Congress designated Buzzards Bay as an Estuary of National Significance in 1985, one of only five estuaries in the U.S. so designated. The Bay has some of Massachusetts' most productive shellfish beds. It interacts with three very different marine systems, the Atlantic Ocean to the south, Vineyard Sound to the east, and Cape Cod Bay to the north. In 2002, there were nearly 10,000 commercial vessel transits and over 1200 tank barge transits in Buzzards Bay. An estimated 80% of those tank barges were single hull vessels. Note that the term “single hull” and other terms used in this proposed rule have the same meaning as those found in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), § 165.100(b). Since 1969 there have been several incidents of tank barge groundings with oil spills in Buzzards Bay. These include the grounding of the tank barge Florida in 1969 with a spill of approximately 175,000 gallons of No. 2 fuel oil; the grounding of the tank barge Bouchard in 1977 with a spill of approximately 81,000 gallons of No. 2 fuel oil; the grounding of the tank barge ST-85 in 1986 with a spill of approximately 119,000 gallons of gasoline; the grounding of the tug Marie J. Turecamo and its asphalt-laden barge in 1999; the grounding of the tug Mary Turecamo and its barge Florida in 1999 carrying 4.7 million gallons of No. 6 fuel oil; and the grounding of the barge B-120 in April 2003 with a spill of No. 6 oil estimated to be of approximately 22,000 to 98,000 gallons. Groundings, allisions, or collisions of tank barges or other laden vessels could lead to a discharge or release of oil or other hazardous materials, as demonstrated by the incidents noted above, with potentially adverse impacts to people, property, the coastal and maritime environment, and the local economy. The purpose of these proposed regulations for navigation safety and waterways management improvements in Buzzards Bay is to reduce the likelihood of another incident that might result in the discharge or release of oil or hazardous material, or other serious harm, on the navigable waters of the United States. After a previous oil spill from the tank barge North Cape off of Point Judith, Rhode Island, in 1996, the Coast Guard chartered a Regional Risk Assessment Team (RRAT), comprised of government, commercial, and environmental entities, to examine navigation safety issues within New England waters. The RRAT recommended, and the Coast Guard implemented, a RNA that imposed certain requirements on single-hulled tank barges transiting New England waters, including Buzzards Bay. Regulations governing the RNA in First Coast Guard District waters are contained in 33 CFR § 165.100. Subsequent to an oil spill in Buzzards Bay in April, 2003, noted above, the Coast Guard sponsored a Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment (PAWSA), which was conducted by a cross-section of key Buzzards Bay waterways users and stakeholders, resulting in numerous suggestions for improving navigation safety in the Bay. The safety assessment process is a disciplined approach to identify major waterway safety hazards, estimate risk levels, evaluate potential mitigation measures, and set the stage for implementation of selected measures to reduce risk. The process involves convening a select group of waterway users/stakeholders and conducting a two-day structured workshop to meet these objectives. The assessment process represents a significant part of joint public-private sector planning for mitigating risk in waterways. When applied consistently and uniformly in a number of waterways, the process is expected to provide a basis for making best value decisions for risk mitigation investments, both on the local and national level. For further information on PAWSA visit: *http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/projects/pawsa/PAWSA_home.htm.* The PAWSA report suggested, in part, that the risk for oil or hazardous material discharge in Buzzards Bay is relatively high, and that one method of reducing that risk, among many that were suggested, might be to “establish requirements for escort tugs.” (The PAWSA report is available in docket CGD01-04-133. See ADDRESSES above on procedures to access the docket.) The PAWSA also recommended that Recommended Routes be established to help assist vessel traffic and provide safer transit routes for commercial vessels. Additionally, in a letter from several members of the U.S. Congressional delegation from Massachusetts, the Coast Guard was asked to consider measures similar to those recommended in the PAWSA, specifically: assist tugs, Recommended Routes, and an Automatic Identification System (AIS). This letter, along with the Coast Guard's response, is available in the docket. Automatic Identification System

(AIS)is a data transmission system for ship-to-ship, ship-to-shore, and shore-to-ship communication adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). AIS shipboard equipment consists of a transceiver that continually transmits and receives vessel navigational information (position, course, speed, etc.) over VHF-FM maritime frequencies. AIS units operating in proximity to each other automatically create a virtual network. Shore stations can also join these virtual networks, and they may receive shipboard AIS signals, perform network and frequency management and send additional broadcast or individual informational messages to AIS equipped vessels. As of December 31, 2004, AIS is required on most commercial vessels either navigating abroad or within a Vessel Traffic Service area. (See 33 CFR § 164.46.) Under a separate regulatory initiative, the Coast Guard sought public comments on the notion of expanding AIS requirements beyond the regulations of 33 CFR § 164.46. Expansion of AIS requirements may apply to Buzzards Bay and/or tug/barge combinations. This initiative is still in progress. See **Federal Register** Vol. 68, No. 128 of July 1, 2003, pages 39369 to 39371 and docket [USCG 2003-14787] at *http://dms.dot.gov/* . The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), at the request of the Coast Guard, has already overlaid Recommended Routes on navigational charts for Rhode Island Sound, Narragansett Bay, and Buzzards Bay. These recommended Routes are currently included on all new editions of charts 13205, 13218, 13221, and 13230. To allow maximum operating flexibility to meet differing conditions and situations, at this time the Coast Guard is not proposing to make the recommended vessel routes depicted on these charts mandatory. Currently, an escort tug is required in Buzzards Bay only for single hull tank barges, unless the single hull tank barge is being towed by a primary towing vessel with twin-screw propulsion and with a separate system for power to each screw. Consequently, the vast majority of tug and barge combinations transiting Buzzards Bay (of which most barges are single hull) employ tugs with twin screws and twin engines, but with no additional positive control. On October 26, 2004, the Coast Guard published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) that sought public comments regarding the necessity and type, if any, of additional navigation safety measures that might be implemented within Buzzards Bay (See **Federal Register** , Vol. 69, No. 206, pages 62427 to 62430). Approximately forty written comments were received. Additionally, two public meetings were held to obtain direct feedback from the public on November 16, 2004, at the New Bedford Whaling Museum, and on November 17, 2004, at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy. There were 76 and 47 speakers offering comments at each meeting, respectively. Written comments, and a roster of speakers from each meeting, are available for viewing in the docket at *http://www.uscg.mil/d1/units/msoprov/* . Comments (both oral and written) generally fell within the following categories: *Root Cause:* Comments noted that the root cause of most maritime incidents in Buzzards Bay could be attributed to human error rather than equipment failure, hazardous weather, or other factors. The Coast Guard agrees that the root cause of many maritime incidents and casualties, including the B-120 oil spill in Buzzards Bay, may be attributed to human factors. Consequently, in this rulemaking the Coast Guard proposes certain measures such as mandatory pilotage by a federally licensed pilot, escort tugs, and a vessel monitoring system, to reduce the likelihood that human factors may cause an accident, and to mitigate the adverse impact of any casualties that may occur. *Pilotage:* Comments noted that the proficiency standards for federally licensed pilots were inadequate and in need of revision, and that federally licensed pilots were generally not as experienced in tug/barge navigation as were the captains of the tugs themselves. Currently, to obtain a Federal pilot's license (or endorsement) to operate a vessel in Buzzards Bay, a person must pass a comprehensive examination, which includes, but is not limited to, performing a chart sketch of the area, demonstrating proficiency in the use of navigational aids, and maneuvering and handling ships in high winds, tides, and currents. Further, a person must complete a specific number of round trips and demonstrate specialized knowledge of the waters for which the license (or endorsement) is issued. The Coast Guard considers these proficiency standards to be sufficient for monitoring and guiding the movements of tug/barge combinations through Buzzards Bay. *Crewing:* Comments noted that the crewing requirements for tugs towing barges were inadequate, and recommend increased crewing requirements. The Coast Guard concurs with the view that current crewing requirements may be insufficient for the navigational demands associated with transiting Buzzards Bay, and so has proposed in this rule to require a federally licensed pilot in addition to the crew to advise the master and assist in the navigation of the vessel. *Cost/Availability of Escort Tug:* Comments expressed concern regarding the cost of escort tugs and pilotage, and also the availability, or lack of, escort tugs within Buzzards Bay of sufficient capability to provide escort services. Based on interviews with representatives from various components of the maritime industry, the Coast Guard considers escort tug capacity to be sufficient to meet the projected demand for escort tugs. In our Regulatory Evaluation that accompanies this rulemaking and is available in the docket (CGD01-04-133), the Coast Guard projects that the demand for escort tugs will decrease over time as progressively fewer transits of Buzzards Bay are made with single hull tank barges. Also, in our Regulatory Evaluation we have documented anticipated costs associated with escort tugs and federally licensed pilots and found those costs, when compared to the benefits realized by the avoidance of vessel casualties and oil spills, to be reasonable. *Definition of Escort Tug:* Comments noted that “escort tug” should be well-defined in any regulation, and also provided suggestions on what that definition should include. “Escort tug” as used in this proposed rule has the same meaning as the description of escort tug already found in 33 CFR 165.100(d), *i.e.* , the escort tug must be of “sufficient capability to promptly push or tow the tank barge away from danger or grounding in the event of—

(A)A propulsion failure;

(B)A parted tow line;

(C)A loss of tow;

(D)A fire;

(E)Grounding;

(F)A loss of steering; or

(G)Any other casualty that affects the navigation or seaworthiness of either vessel.” *Aids to Navigation:* Comments expressed a need for improved aids to navigation within Buzzards Bay, including a wave height indicator at the Buzzards Bay tower, a weather buoy at the east end of the Cape Cod Canal, and auxiliary navigation channels adjacent to the Buzzards Bay recommended vessel route. The Coast Guard has reviewed the aids to navigation system in Buzzards Bay and has re-positioned several buoys, and has plans to install some new lighted aids and ranges, particularly in Cleveland Ledge and Hog Island channels, in 2006 or 2007, pending funding. Additionally, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA)operates a wave height indicator at the Buzzards Bay tower. *Increased Navigation Risks Due to Presence of Escort Tugs:* Comments noted that escort tugs themselves could increase danger due to additional vessels in the constrained channels of Buzzards Bay and the Cape Cod Canal. Voluntary use of escort tugs in Buzzards Bay and the Cape Cod Canal has long been practiced with no adverse impacts on the ability of other vessels to navigate safely. The amount of good water in lower Buzzards Bay is considered sufficient for vessels to navigate safely, even with the addition of escort tugs. Additionally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' authority for (and control of) the Cape Cod Canal encompasses in their entirety the constrained waterways of Cleveland Ledge Channel, Hog Island Channel, and the canal itself (the canal land cut). On those few occasions (primarily in winter when home heating oil deliveries increase) where several tugs with tows and escort tug may converge, or approach converging, near one of these constrained waterways, the Corps would direct vessel traffic to minimize risk of collision. Lastly, this proposed rule includes establishment of a Vessel Movement Reporting System

(VMRS)in Buzzards Bay that would provide for monitoring of all tug and tank vessel traffic in the Bay, and would provide an opportunity for the Coast Guard to issue advisories should traffic be congested to a point that adversely affects navigation safety. Consequently, because most tug and tank vessel operators that routinely navigate in Buzzards Bay are already familiar with the Corps' requirements and practices for transiting the Cape Cod Canal, and because VMRS would add an additional means to monitor vessel traffic, it is felt that tug and tank vessel operators should experience little or no difficulty accommodating an escort tug in accordance with this proposed rule. *Increased Danger to Pilots:* Comments suggested there may be increased danger to a pilot required to embark either an escort tug or primary tug ( *i.e.* , the tug towing the tank vessel) from a pilot boat, where no special accommodations to embark a pilot at sea are normally available on a tug. The Coast Guard recognizes the danger inherent in pilots embarking escort tugs or primary tug while underway within Buzzards Bay. In this proposed rule we permit the federally licensed pilot to monitor the navigation of the tug/barge combination from the escort tug, assuming the federally licensed pilot would embark the escort tug pierside before departing for its escort duty. This practice has been in effect since at least March 10, 2004, when Bouchard Transportation Company agreed to accommodate federally licensed pilots in this manner. *Recommendation for Draft Restrictions:* Comments noted that an effective way to improve navigation safety and reduce the likelihood of a spill would be to reduce the allowable draft of laden barges transiting Buzzards Bay. Regulations in 33 CFR 157.455 currently address under-keel clearance requirements ( *i.e.* , “draft restrictions”) for single-hull tank vessels. Those regulations require, among other things, that owners/operators of single-hull tank barges provide written guidance to towing vessel masters regarding under-keel clearance, and include factors to consider such as controlling depth of water, deepest navigation draft, weather, and other environmental conditions. While under-keel clearance restrictions may expand the margin of error afforded tank vessels being towed through Buzzards Bay, the Bay remains a confined waterway and history has demonstrated that such regulations alone are insufficient to attain the level of navigation safety required for Buzzards Bay. For example, despite being subject to (and complying with) these under-keel clearance regulations, tank vessels continue to ground and spill oil in Buzzards Bay, notably the barge Florida in 1999 and the barge B-120 in 2003. Additionally, more severe under-keel clearance requirements would most likely reduce the amount of oil carried each transit and thus may have the unintended consequence of actually increasing the risk of vessel casualties and oil spills as more vessel traffic would be required to carry a similar amount of oil to meet demand for heating and electrical generation. Lastly, should draft restrictions result in additional voyages with smaller cargoes of oil, the cost of the delivery would rise and would almost assuredly be passed to consumers. Consequently, the Coast Guard considers under-keel regulations in addition to those already found in 33 CFR 157.455 to be unnecessary as they would not add significant value in terms of preventing an incident. *Miscellaneous:* Some comments noted that current regulations were insufficient to prevent accidents and spills in Buzzards Bay; others commented that current regulations were sufficient, if only they were properly enforced. Other comments suggested that, as an alternative to escort tugs, rescue tugs be strategically stationed in Buzzards Bay, ready to respond at a moment's notice. Although the comments did not specifically recommend the nature or specific mission of a “rescue tug,” generally a rescue tug is considered to be a dedicated tugboat equipped to respond and provide assistance to distressed vessels, primarily by towing. Rescue tugs typically have capabilities for pumping, fire fighting, and pollution response. Normally a rescue tug is continuously manned and “on station”, which means it is either at its berth or assigned location (e.g., a designated anchorage) ready for immediate dispatch, or underway presumably involved in a rescue. Evaluations of the potential benefit of rescue tugs in other waterways of the country (specifically, Puget Sound) have determined them to be a high-cost, low-benefit alternative as they have little or no capability to prevent collisions, allisions, or groundings, which is a primary goal of this proposed rule. (See “Regulatory Assessment, Use of Tugs to Protect Against Oil Spills, in the Puget Sound Area”, Report Number 9522-022, November 15, 1999, available in the docket.) The Coast Guard examined both our current regulations and our enforcement policies and determined that additional regulations, as proposed in this rule, were required to achieve our goal of preventing vessel casualties and spills within Buzzards Bay. Discussion of Proposed Rule The proposed amendments to the current First Coast Guard District RNA would require that all single-hull tank barges carrying 5000 or more barrels of oil or other hazardous material and being towed through Buzzards Bay, meet the following requirements: 1. Be accompanied by an escort tug between the west entrance to Buzzards Bay and the east end of the Cape Cod Canal. 2. Be accompanied by a federally licensed pilot, who may remain on the escort tug vessel, to monitor the navigation of the tug/barge, and to advise the master of the tug/barge accordingly. Additionally, this rule proposes to establish a Vessel Movement Reporting System

(VMRS)(33 CFR part 161, subpart B) within Buzzards Bay to monitor the movements of all vessels subject to Vessel Bridge-to-Bridge VHF Radiotelephone regulations (33 CFR part 26), either by AIS, and/or via voice reporting via VHF radiotelephone. Daily operations of the VMRS would be monitored and managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at its Cape Cod Canal control center on behalf of the Coast Guard. (The Corps has indicated its willingness and ability to perform this function.) The Coast Guard would retain authority to enforce this proposed rule and other regulations to ensure navigation safety. Should the VMRS proposed in this rule ultimately be established, the Coast Guard and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will enter into a Memorandum of Understanding to delineate the functions and responsibilities of each agency in operating the VMRS. This MOU will be a public record and would be available in the final docket CGD01-04-133. This proposed rule is needed for navigation safety reasons to protect people, property, waterways users, the environment, and the economy from the adverse affects of a spill of oil or other hazardous material. Vessels subject to this proposed rule would be required to have a escort tug and federally licensed pilot, and would also be required to participate in a Vessel Movement Reporting System. This regulation is proposed under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1321, in addition to the authority contained in 33 CFR 1.05-1(g)(4). Vessels or persons violating this section would be subject to the civil or criminal penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232. Regulatory Evaluation Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review”, 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993, requires a determination whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)and subject to the requirements of the Executive Order. This rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866 and has not been reviewed by OMB. During the period of analysis, 2006-2014, this rule is expected to cost approximately $3.9 million net present value (7 percent discount rate). A copy of the regulatory evaluation, which further describes the expected costs and benefits of this proposed rule, is posted in the docket and is available to the public at *http://www.uscg.mil/d1/units/msoprov/.* Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed 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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of tugs and/or single hull barges carrying 5000 or more barrels of oil or other hazardous materials and intending to transit or anchor in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts. This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This proposed rule requires escort tugs and federally licensed pilots only for single hull barges, which are being phased out of operation in accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), specifically 46 U.S.C. 3703a, and will be prohibited from operating effective January 1, 2015. Additionally, the VMRS proposed in the rule making applies only to vessels subject to the bridge-to-bridge radiotelephone regulations in § 26.03 (and therefore already equipped with VHF radios), so no additional costs will be incurred to participate in the VMRS. Those vessels with a type-approved, properly installed, operational AIS would be relieved from the voice reporting requirements as proposed in this rule making. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES above) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Mr. Edward G. LeBlanc at Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New England, Providence, RI, 401-435-2351. 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 proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The reports required by this rule are considered to be operational communications, transitory in nature, and, do not constitute a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 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. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the cases of *United States* v. *Locke,* 529 U.S. 89

(2000)and *Ray* v. *Atlantic Richfield Co* ., 435 U.S. 151

(1978)has ruled that certain categories of regulation issued pursuant to the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972, as amended, are reserved exclusively to the Coast Guard, and that state regulation in these areas is preempted. On August 4, 2004, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts enacted Chapter 251 of the Acts of 2004, an Act Relative to Oil Spill Prevention and Response in Buzzard's Bay and other Harbors and Bays of the Commonwealth. It is the view of the Coast Guard that several provisions of the Massachusetts Act touch categories of regulation reserved to the Federal Government and are preempted per the rulings in Locke and Ray. The regulations proposed in this notice of proposed rule would likewise touch categories of regulation reserved to the Federal Government, thus becoming further indicia of preemption. For example, section 11 of the Massachusetts Act purports to impose escort tug requirements on vessels operating in Buzzards Bay. The issue of escort tugs is already addressed in the regulations governing the First District RNA at 33 CFR 165.100 and further addressed in this notice. Section 11 also purports to make the recommended route depicted on the NOAA charts described earlier in this notice mandatory. The Coast Guard has decided not to make this route mandatory at this time. Section 17 of the Massachusetts Act purports to impose a state pilotage requirement on certain vessels engaged in the coastwise trade. It is the view of the Coast Guard that this provision is void by operation of law pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 8501. This notice of proposed rulemaking proposes pilotage by federally licensed pilots for single hull tank barges operating in Buzzards Bay. Because of the preemption issues described above, the Coast Guard will conduct a Federalism analysis pursuant to E.O. 13132 for any rules promulgated as a result of this notice. Sections 4 and 6 of E.O. 13132 require that for any rules with preemptive effect, the Coast Guard shall provide elected officials of affected state and local governments and their representative national organizations the notice and opportunity for appropriate participation in any rulemaking proceedings, and to consult with such officials early in the rulemaking process. Although it is the view of the Coast Guard that certain sections of the Massachusetts law are preempted for reasons independent of any potential rulemaking action here, in order to comply with the spirit of E.O. 13132, the Coast Guard has already begun consultations with the state government of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In addition, at the public meetings held in November 2004, the towns of Bourne, Marion, and Westport, Massachusetts also requested consultations, as did 10 other communities in the vicinity of Buzzards Bay through letters to the docket. Such consultations will continue throughout the rulemaking process and we invite comments from those who have expressed a desire to be consulted. We also invite other affected state and local governments and their representative national organizations to indicate their desire for participation and consultation in the rulemaking process by submitting comments to this notice. 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 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect 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 proposed 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment As required under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), a preliminary “Environmental Analysis Checklist” was completed for this NPRM. The Checklist is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. The level of NEPA documentation for the Rule is recommended in the Checklist. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether or not the rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review. List of Subjects 33 CFR Part 161 Harbors, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels, Waterways. 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR parts 161 and 165 as follows: PART 161—VESSEL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT 1. The authority citation for part 161 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. In § 161.12, amend Table 161.12(c) by adding an entry for Buzzards Bay in alphabetical order to read as follows: § 161.12 Vessel operating requirements. Table 161.12(c).—VTS and VMRS Centers, Call Signs/MMSI, Designated Frequencies, and Monitoring Areas Center MMSI 1 Designated frequency (Channel designation)— purpose 2 Monitoring area 3 4 * * * * * * * Buzzards Bay Traffic MMSI# 156.600 MHz (Ch. 12) The waters east and north of a line drawn from the southern tangent of Sakonnet Point, Rhode Island, in approximate position latitude 41°-27.2′N, longitude 70°-11.7′W, to the Buzzards Bay Entrance Light in approximate position latitude 41°-23.5′N, longitude 71°-02.0′W, and then to the southwestern tangent of Cuttyhunk Island, Massachusetts, at approximate position latitude 41°-24.6′N, longitude 70°-57.0′W, and including all of the Cape Cod Canal to its eastern entrance, except that the area of New Bedford Harbor within the confines (north of) the hurricane barrier, and the passages through the Elizabeth Islands, would not be considered to be “Buzzards Bay”. * * * * * * * 1 Maritime Mobile Service Identifier

(MMSI)is a unique nine-digit number assigned that identifies ship stations, ship earth stations, coast stations, coast earth stations, and group calls for use by a digital selective calling

(DSC)radio, an INMARSAT ship earth station or AIS. AIS requirements are set forth in §§ 161.21 and 164.46 of this subchapter apply in those areas denoted with a MMSI number. 2 In the event of a communication failure, difficulties or other safety factors, the Center may direct or permit a user to monitor and report on any other designated monitoring frequency or the bridge-to-bridge navigational frequency, 156.650 MHz (Channel 13) or 156.375 MHz (Ch. 67), to the extent that doing so provides a level of safety beyond that provided by other means. The bridge-to-bridge navigational frequency, 156.650 MHz (Ch. 13), is used in certain monitoring areas where the level of reporting does not warrant a designated frequency. 3 All geographic coordinates (latitude and longitude) are expressed in North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). 4 Some monitoring areas extend beyond navigable waters. Although not required, users are strongly encouraged to maintain a listening watch on the designated monitoring frequency in these areas. Otherwise, they are required to maintain watch as stated in 47 CFR 80.148. PART 165—WATERWAYS SAFETY; REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 3. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 4. Amend § 165.100 by revising paragraphs (d)(1)(i) introductory text and (d)(1)(i)(G) and adding paragraph (d)(5) to read as follows: § 165.100 Regulated Navigation Area: Navigable waters within the First Coast Guard District.

(d)*Regulations* —(1) *Positive control for barges.*

(i)Except as provided in paragraph (d)(1)(iii) and paragraph (d)(5) of this section, each single-hull tank barge, unless being towed by a primary towing vessel with twin-screw propulsion and with a separate system for power to each screw, must be accompanied by an escort tug of sufficient capability to promptly push or tow the tank barge away from danger of grounding or collision in the event of—

(G)Any other time a vessel may be operating in a Hazardous Vessel Operating Condition as defined in § 161.2 of this chapter.

(5)*Special Buzzards Bay regulations.*

(i)For the purposes of this section, “Buzzards Bay” is the body of water east and north of a line drawn from the southern tangent of Sakonnet Point, Rhode Island, in approximate position latitude 41°-27.2′ North, longitude 70°-11.7′ West, to the Buzzards Bay Entrance Light in approximate position latitude 41°-23.5′ North, longitude 71°-02.0′ West, and then to the southwestern tangent of Cuttyhunk Island, Massachusetts, at approximate position latitude 41°-24.6′ North, longitude 70°-57.0′ West, and including all of the Cape Cod Canal to its eastern entrance, except that the area of New Bedford harbor within the confines (north of) the hurricane barrier, and the passages through the Elizabeth Islands, would not be considered to be “Buzzards Bay”.

(ii)*Additional positive control for barges.* Except as provided in paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section, each single-hull tank barge transiting Buzzards Bay and carrying 5000 or more barrels of oil or other hazardous material must, in addition to its primary tug, be accompanied by an escort tug of sufficient capability to promptly push or tow the tank barge away from danger of grounding or collision in the event of—

(A)A propulsion failure;

(B)A parted tow line;

(C)A loss of tow;

(D)A fire;

(E)Grounding;

(F)A loss of steering; or

(G)Any other time a vessel may be operating in a Hazardous Vessel Operating Condition as defined in § 161.2 of this Chapter.

(iii)*Federal pilotage.* Each single-hull tank barge transiting Buzzards Bay must be accompanied by a pilot holding an appropriately endorsed Federal first class pilot's license issued by the Coast Guard (“federally licensed pilot”). The federally licensed pilot may embark upon the primary tug, or may embark upon the escort tug. In either instance, the federally licensed pilot will monitor the navigation of the tug and tank barge and advise the master of the primary tug if/when the tank barge may be standing into danger.

(iv)*Vessel Movement Reporting System* . Effective (date), all vessels subject to the Vessel Bridge-to-Bridge Radiotelephone regulations, § 26.03, including tug/barge combinations, shall participate in the Buzzards Bay Vessel Movement Reporting System (VMRS). The purpose, intent, and applicability of VMRS Buzzards Bay are found in § 161.15 and § 161.16 of this chapter. The Buzzards Bay VMRS Vessel Movement Center (“Center”) is designated as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cape Cod Canal Control, which can be reach via marine radio at VHF 156.600 MHz (VHF CH-12). All vessels will make reports via VHF CH-12, except those vessels with a properly operating Automatic Information System

(AIS)that is broadcasting all required information in accordance with § 161.18 of this chapter need not do so. The International Maritime Organization

(IMO)Standard Ship Reporting System, found in § 161.18, will be used for the Buzzards Bay VMRS.

(A)A VMRS Buzzards Bay user shall: ( *1* ) Not enter or get underway in the area without prior approval of the VMRS Center; ( *2* ) Not enter VMRS Buzzards Bay if a Hazardous Vessel Operating Condition or circumstance per § 161.2 exists; ( *3* ) If towing astern, do so with as short a hawser as safety and good seamanship permits; ( *4* ) Not meet, cross, or overtake any other VMRS User in the area without prior approval of the VMRS center; ( *5* ) Before meeting, crossing, or overtaking any other VMRS User in the area, communicate on the designated vessel bridge-to-bridge radiotelephone frequency, intended navigation movements, and any other information necessary in order to make safe passing arrangements. This requirement does not relieve a vessel of any duty prescribed by the International Regulations for Prevention of Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS) or the Inland Navigation Rules. ( *6* ) Make reports and provide other specific information required, and follow other VMRS participation guidelines, as contained in the Buzzards Bay VMRS Operating Manual and/or the Local Notice to Mariners, which will be published and available to the public at least 30 days prior to the effective implementation date of the Buzzards Bay VMRS. Dated: March 21, 2006. David P. Pekoske, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 06-3014 Filed 3-24-06; 4:14 pm]

Connectionstraces to 27

Traces to 27 documents

CFR