43012 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

This AD will not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This AD will 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 this AD: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska to the extent that it justifies 

making a regulatory distinction, and 

(4) 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. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 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 airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

2015–14–05 Pratt & Whitney: Amendment 

39–18203; Docket No. FAA–2014–1127; 

Directorate Identifier 2014–NE–16–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD is effective August 25, 2015. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to all Pratt & Whitney 

(PW) JT8D–217C and JT8D–219 turbofan 

engines with low-pressure turbine (LPT) 

shaft part numbers 783319, 783319–001, 

783319–003, 783319–004, 783320, 783320– 

001, 783320–003, 783320–004, 820514–001, 

820514–003, 820514–004, or 820514–005, 

installed. 

(d) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by reports of 

cracking in the LPT shaft. We are issuing this 

AD to prevent failure of the LPT shaft, which 

could lead to an uncontained engine failure 

and damage to the airplane. 

(e) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(1) If the LPT shaft has 15,000 or fewer 

cycles-since-new (CSN) on the effective date 

of this AD, remove it from service before it 

accumulates 20,000 CSN. 

(2) If the LPT shaft has more than 15,000 

CSN on the effective date of this AD, remove 

it from service before it accumulates 5,000 

additional cycles in service, or at the next 

piece-part exposure after accumulating 

20,000 CSN, whichever occurs first. 

(3) After the effective date of this AD, do 

not install any LPT shaft listed in paragraph 

(c) of this AD that is at piece-part exposure 

and exceeds the new life limit of 20,000 CSN, 

into any engine. 

(f) Definition 

For the purpose of this AD, piece-part 

exposure is when the LPT shaft is completely 

disassembled from the engine. 

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

The Manager, Engine Certification Office, 

FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use 

the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to 

make your request. You may email your 

request to: ANE-AD-AMOC@faa.gov. 

(h) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Jo-Ann Theriault, Aerospace 

Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 

Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803; phone: 781–238–7105; fax: 781–238– 

7199; email: jo-ann.theriault@faa.gov. 

(2) PW Service Bulletin No. JT8D 6504, 

dated November 5, 2014, which is not 

incorporated by reference in this AD, can be 

obtained from PW using the contact 

information in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main 

St., East Hartford, CT 06108; phone: 860– 

565–8770; fax: 860–565–4503. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 

12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, 

MA. For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125. 

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference 

None. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

June 26, 2015. 

Ann C. Mollica, 

Acting Directorate Manager, Engine & 

Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–17710 Filed 7–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 91 and 119 

[Docket No. FAA–FAA–2015–0517] 

Policy Regarding Living History Flight 

Experience Exemptions for Passenger 

Carrying Operations Conducted for 

Compensation and Hire in Other Than 

Standard Category Aircraft 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of policy statement. 

SUMMARY: With this document, the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

cancels all previous agency policies 

pertaining to the carriage of passengers 

for compensation on Living History 

Flight Experience (LHFE) flights. This 

policy statement announces the end of 

FAA moratorium on new petitions for 

exemption, or amendments to 

exemptions from certain sections of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR) for the purpose of carrying 

passengers for compensation or hire on 

LHFE Flights. 

DATES: The moratorium will end on July 

21, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

General Aviation and Commercial 

Division, General Aviation Operations 

Branch (AFS–830), Flight Standards 

Service, FAA, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–1100; 9-AFS-800- 

Correspondence-Mail@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The FAA has historically found the 

preservation of U.S. aviation history to 

be in the public interest, including 

preservation of certain former military 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 43013 

aircraft transferred to private 

individuals or organizations for the 

purpose of restoring and operating these 

aircraft. In 1996, the FAA received 

exemption requests from not-for-profit 

organizations to permit the carriage of 

persons for compensation in both 

Limited and Experimental category, 

former-military, historically-significant 

aircraft. These requests offered to 

provide a short in-flight experience to 

these aircraft in exchange for 

compensation, leading to the term 

Nostalgia Flights, then later Living 

History Flight Experience (LHFE), and 

provided a means for private civilian 

owners to offset the considerable 

restoration, maintenance and 

operational costs. The FAA determined 

that, in certain cases, operators could 

conduct LHFE flights at an acceptable 

level of safety and in the public interest, 

in accordance with appropriate 

conditions and limitations. 

These original requests involved 

large, crew-served, piston-powered, 

multi-engine World War II (WWII) 

vintage aircraft. In order to maintain 

safe operations of these aircraft, the 

FAA required flight crewmembers to 

meet certain qualifications and training 

requirements that included FAAapproved training, maintaining training 

records, and reporting procedures. As 

the public availability of purchase for 

former military aircraft increased, along 

with an increase in public interest for 

maintaining and operating these aircraft, 

so grew the requests for LHFE relief. 

In 2004, to address a range of new 

aircraft requests and clarify the FAA’s 

position, the FAA published a notice of 

policy statement (FAA–2004–17648). 

The policy limited LHFE relief to 

slower, piston-powered, multi-engine 

airplanes of WWII or earlier vintage, 

citing the unique opportunity to 

experience flight in aircraft such as the 

B–17 Flying Fortress and B–24 Liberator 

which could still be operated safely, 

considering limited parts and specialtyfuel supplies. In addition, qualifying 

aircraft would have no similar standard 

airworthiness counterpart that could 

allow a similar experience without the 

need for regulatory relief. The FAA also 

determined supersonic jets would not 

be considered because their operational 

speeds made it likely that any in-flight 

emergency may result in serious injuries 

or fatalities. The policy detailed that, in 

permitting the carriage of passengers, 

flight crewmembers were required to 

meet more stringent pilot qualifications 

as well as training requirements that 

included an FAA-approved training 

program, maintenance of training 

records, and reporting procedures. 

In the years that followed, the FAA 

received petitions to operate a broad 

range of aircraft, including large 

turbojet-powered aircraft, foreignmanufactured aircraft and aircraft 

models that remained in military 

service, or were readily available in the 

open market. The petitions raised 

significant concerns within the FAA, 

and led to a reexamination and 

refinement of the criteria for issuing 

exemptions pertaining to LHFE flights. 

In 2007, after requesting and receiving 

public comment on the matter, the FAA 

published an updated policy statement 

(72 FR 57196) that provided 

consideration for any aircraft on a caseby-case basis, so long as the petitioner 

demonstrates that (1) there is an 

overriding public interest in providing a 

financial means for a non-profit 

organization to continue to preserve and 

operate these historic aircraft, and (2) 

adequate measures, including all 

conditions and limitations stipulated in 

the exemption, will be taken to ensure 

safety. Additionally, the FAA refined 

and expanded its previous list of 

criteria, requiring numerous aircraftoperation components, including crew 

qualification and training, aircraft 

maintenance and inspection, passenger 

safety and training, safety of the nonparticipating public, as well as 

manufacturing criteria, and a 

petitioner’s non-profit status. The FAA 

also included consideration for the 

number of existing operational aircraft 

and petitioners available to provide the 

historic service to the public. 

The evolution of LHFE operations in 

the private sector, along with the 

availability of newer and more capable 

former military aircraft, raised new 

public safety and public policy 

concerns. The FAA accommodated 

several requests to operate more modern 

military jet aircraft. Conditions and 

limitations for operations grew in 

number, and were, in some cases, 

misinterpreted as permitting operations 

that the FAA did not contemplate or 

intend. Examples included cases of 

passengers manipulating the aircraft 

flight controls to proposals of LHFE 

flights performing aerobatic maneuvers, 

simulating aerial combat in the interest 

of ‘‘historical experience.’’ 

Consequently, in 2011, the FAA 

published a new policy statement 

announcing a moratorium on LHFE 

exemptions for new operators and the 

addition of aircraft to existing LHFE 

exemptions. The moratorium permitted 

existing exemption holders to continue 

operations, and to renew their 

exemptions, but stated that the FAA 

would add clarifying limitations to all 

LHFE petitions renewed or extended 

during that time. 

In June of 2012, the FAA held public 

meetings to gather additional technical 

input. Discussion addressed 35 

questions posed by the FAA and 

included as part of the meeting notice. 

In addition to statements provided by 

the public meeting attendees, over 500 

comments were received in the docket 

(Docket No. FAA–2012–0374) 

established for public input. The 

meeting was focused to address industry 

comments related to the LHFE policy 

notices of 2004 and 2007 and areas of 

concern based on safety 

recommendations, FAA internal 

discussions, and post 2007 

developments. Small work groups were 

formed to discuss general policy, 

exemption issuance, limitations, 

weather minimums, pilot qualification 

and currency, and maintenance and 

inspection. The area of interest that 

generated the most discussion was 

regarding limitations placed on LHFE 

operations—specifically, passengers 

occupying crew seats or positions, 

aerobatics, and requirements for 

arresting gear for high performance jets. 

The largest general policy topic 

discussed was regarding whether the 

FAA planned on excluding turbojets or 

supersonic aircraft in the policy. The 

work groups also explored criteria for 

determining historical significance, 

replicas, operational control and 

responsible persons, manuals, 

compliance history, and training 

requirements. 

The majority of the 519 written 

comments were either in favor of 

keeping the existing exemption policy 

or expanding on its provisions. Fiftynine (11%) comment submissions 

desired no changes to the current LHFE 

policy. Eight commenters provided 

detailed comments to each of the 

questions posed within the FAA’s areas 

of interest. In regards to training, safety 

and operational control, a commenter 

stated his belief that the employees/

pilots/crew of the aircraft for hire have 

annual training and that the aircraft 

should be on an FAA/manufacturer 

approved inspection program, and that 

this training and adherence to the 

required and recommended inspections/ 

maintenance provides a reasonable level 

of government protection to the flying 

and non-flying public. Eight 

commenters suggested a more restrictive 

LHFE Exemption policy, and one 

commenter supported the use of drug 

testing for LHFE flight crews. One 

commenter suggested that good 

guidance already exists in the A008 

Operations Specification of Part 135 

certificate holders, and that much of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
43014 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

that guidance can be reasonably applied 

to LHFE. The FAA concurs and finds 

good reason to include certain elements 

found in part 135; specifically those 

related to operational control and 

document structure. 516 (99%) written 

comments expressed support for LHFE 

exemptions, while three (1%) were 

opposed. 

The FAA also held meetings with 

curators at the Smithsonian National Air 

and Space Museum and reviewed the 

United States General Accounting Office 

(GAO) report on Preserving DOD 

Aircraft Significant to Aviation History 

to understand how other organizations 

determine ‘‘historical significance’’ as 

part of determining criteria to satisfy 

‘‘public interest’’. 

Also during the moratorium, two 

accidents involving LHFE operators 

occurred which led the FAA to further 

research and develop safety mitigations 

to operational and maintenance issues 

highlighted by the investigations. The 

need to develop a safety and risk 

management system as part of the new 

policy was evident, and supported by 

comments received. One such comment 

stated, in part that it is important to try 

and mitigate some of the risks and to 

inform the public about the risks of the 

activity. 

Therefore, based on FAA research, 

comments and transcripts of the public 

meeting, as well as an evaluation of 

public safety risks, the FAA finds good 

reason to publish a new policy. While 

the FAA is lifting the 2011 moratorium 

with this policy, we are also setting 

forth specific criteria that the FAA will 

use in considering any LHFE petition 

for exemption, or petition to extend or 

amend an existing exemption. 

FAA Policy 

The FAA announces the end of the 

FAA-imposed moratorium on new 

petitions for exemption, or amendments 

to existing exemptions, from certain 

sections of 14 CFR for the purpose of 

carrying passengers for compensation or 

hire on LHFE flights. The FAA is also 

cancelling all previously issued LHFE 

policy statements. The FAA will now 

consider new petitions for exemption, 

or requests for extensions or 

amendments to current exemptions in 

accordance with the following criteria. 

A. Aircraft Must Be ‘‘Historically 

Significant’’ 

Each aircraft must be ‘‘historically 

significant’’ according to the following 

criteria: 

1. U.S. operated: The aircraft must 

meet a documented set of U.S. military 

standards for its airworthiness and 

operations in U.S. military service. 

2. Not in service: Aircraft currently 

operated by the U.S. military or in 

civilian service will not be considered. 

This exclusion includes variants of 

those aircraft. 

3. Fragile: The aircraft must be 

‘‘fragile.’’ Accepted practices in the 

collection of aircraft include ‘‘fragility’’ 

as a factor that necessitates preservation. 

If there are hundreds of models of a 

particular aircraft still flying, that 

aircraft’s existence would not be 

considered ‘‘fragile.’’ If, on the other 

hand, there are few remaining aircraft 

and the model could become ‘‘extinct’’ 

without preservation efforts, that aircraft 

would be considered ‘‘fragile.’’ Each 

aircraft request will be reviewed for 

‘‘fragility’’ on a case-by-case basis. 

4. Age: The original type design must 

be at least 50 years old. This 

requirement is consistent with the 

policy used by the National Register of 

Historical Places to determine historical 

significance (Reference: National 

Register Bulletin: Guidelines for 

Evaluating and Documenting Historic 

Aviation Properties. US Department of 

Interior, 1998, p. 34–35). 

5. No Available Standard Category 

Aircraft: Aircraft for which a standard 

category civilian model is available will 

not be considered. (e.g., the T–28A 

achieved certification as a standard 

aircraft, while the other versions, T– 

28B/C, etc. were strictly military 

variants and not eligible for certification 

in the standard category). 

Replicas will not be considered. This 

element relates to the ‘‘integrity’’ of the 

structure or object as defined by the 

National Register of Historical Places, as 

described in the GAO report on Aircraft 

Preservation (Reference: Aircraft 

Preservation: Preserving DOD Aircraft 

Significant to Aviation History, GAO/

NSIAD–8–170BR, May 1988, Appendix 

III, p. 13). 

B. Designation of a Responsible Person 

and Operational Control Structure 

The FAA will review each petition to 

identify a responsible party, and an 

operational control structure or chain of 

command within the manual system for 

pilots, maintenance, and support 

personnel. Consequently, each petition 

should designate a responsible person 

whom the FAA can contact for both 

operations and maintenance functions. 

C. Safety & Risk Analysis 

The FAA will use Safety Risk 

Management (SRM) and Equal Level of 

Safety (ELoS) principles to guide its 

safety review in connection with any 

future LHFE exemption petition or 

request. This safety review will include, 

but will not be limited to, an analysis 

of whether hazards and risks have been 

identified and responded to through 

appropriate mitigating strategies. As 

such, each petitioner should be guided 

by the following criteria: 

• An understanding and use of Safety 

Risk Management (SRM) principles. 

• A plan to mitigate risks as they 

become known, or to correct an unsafe 

condition or practice. This includes, but 

is not limited to, risks in design, 

manufacturing, maintenance and 

operations. 

• A detailed explanation of all 

supporting and historical safety-related 

data, such as: Maintenance history, 

airworthiness status, conformity to the 

Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS—for 

Limited category airworthiness 

certificates), operational failure modes, 

aging aircraft factors, and civilian and 

military accident rates. For example, the 

FAA will consider: 

Æ Operator history, including 

accidents and incidents, regulatory 

compliance and FAA surveillance 

history. 

Æ Maintenance records, including 

modifications. 

Æ Training records. 

Æ The aircraft’s operational history, 

including the operator’s proposed 

mitigation of known risks. 

Æ Operating limitations to enhance 

safety, clarify, and remediate differences 

in like aircraft. 

Æ The FAA will assess and, if 

necessary, require changes to passenger 

safety in terms of configuration, seats, 

crashworthiness, and emergency egress, 

etc. 

• The operator should be able to 

demonstrate to the FAA, upon request, 

the passenger’s ability to egress each 

aircraft in the event of an emergency in 

which the crewmember(s) is unable to 

assist. 

D. Manual System 

LHFE operators should be able to 

demonstrate the existence of a manual 

system similar in terms of intent and 

scope of those in 14 CFR part 135. The 

FAA will evaluate the operator’s 

manuals, including: 

• Operations Manual (General 

Operations Manual-GOM). 

• Pilot Training Manual and 

Qualifications. 

• Maintenance and Line Support 

Training Manuals. 

• Maintenance Manual (AIP) 

including, but not limited to: 

Æ Review of previously approved 

AIPs as provided by 14 CFR 91.415 

Æ Maintenance training elements. 

Æ Replacement plan for time-limited 

parts or development of an on-condition 

inspection program for such parts. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 43015 

Æ Aging aircraft inspection program. 

Æ Corrosion inspection program. 

Æ Continued Operational Safety 

(COS). 

• SMS Manual. 

E. Other Considerations 

LHFE operations, as it applies to the 

passenger(s) experience, is limited to 

the sole purpose of being onboard the 

aircraft during flight. The FAA will not 

consider expanded operations such as 

flight training, aerobatics, and passenger 

manipulation of the flight controls. 

The FAA will always consider 

whether a request benefits the public as 

a whole and how the request would 

provide a level of safety at least equal 

to that provided by the rule in 

accordance with 14 CFR 11.81. 

Moreover, the FAA may impose 

additional conditions and limitations or 

deny petitions regardless of this policy 

statement to adequately mitigate safety 

concerns and risk factors as they 

become known. 

Filing a Petition for Exemption or To 

Request an Amendment or Extension to 

an Existing Exemption 

To submit a petition for exemption or 

to request an amendment or extension 

to an existing exemption, all petitioners 

must follow the procedures set forth in 

part 11 of title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 10, 

2015. 

John S. Duncan, 

Director, Flight Standards Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–17966 Filed 7–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2015–0647] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Maritime Museum Party, 

San Diego Bay; San Diego, CA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone on 

the navigable waters of the San Diego 

Bay for a fireworks display on the 

evening of July 23, 2015. This action is 

necessary to provide for the safety of the 

participants, crew, spectators, 

participating vessels, and other vessels 

and users of the waterway. Persons and 

vessels are prohibited from entering 

into, transiting through, or anchoring 

within this safety zone unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port or 

his designated representative. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 8:30 

p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on July 23, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in 

this preamble are part of docket [USCG– 

2015–0647]. To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to http://

www.regulations.gov, type the docket 

number in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click 

‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket 

Folder on the line associated with this 

rulemaking. You may also visit the 

Docket Management Facility in Room 

W12–140 on the ground floor of the 

Department of Transportation West 

Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email Petty Officer Nick Bateman, 

Waterways Management, U.S. Coast 

Guard Sector San Diego; telephone (619) 

278–7656, email D11-PFMarineEventsSanDiego@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Cheryl 

Collins, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone (202) 366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Acronyms 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

TFR Temporary Final Rule 

A. Regulatory History and Information 

The Coast Guard is issuing this 

temporary final rule safety zone for a 

planned fireworks show on San Diego 

Bay without prior notice and 

opportunity to comment pursuant to 

authority under section 4(a) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 

U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision 

authorizes an agency to issue a rule 

without prior notice and opportunity to 

comment when the agency for good 

cause finds that those procedures are 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast 

Guard finds that good cause exists for 

not publishing a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this 

rule because publishing an NPRM 

would be impracticable because 

immediate action is needed to minimize 

potential danger to the participants and 

the public during the event. 

Furthermore, the necessary information 

to determine whether the marine event 

poses a threat to persons and vessels 

was provided 15 days before the event, 

which is insufficient time to publish an 

NPRM. Because fireworks barges on the 

navigable waterways poses significant 

risk to public safety and property and 

the likely combination of large numbers 

of recreation vessels and congested 

waterways could easily result in serious 

injuries or fatalities, this safety zone is 

necessary to safeguard spectators, 

vessels and the event participants. For 

the safety concerns noted, it is 

important to have these regulations in 

effect during the event and 

impracticable to delay the regulations. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast 

Guard finds that good cause exists for 

making this rule effective less than 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register. For these same reasons, the 

Coast Guard finds good cause for 

implementing this rule less than thirty 

days before the effective July 23, 2015. 

B. Basis and Purpose 

The legal basis and authorities for this 

temporary rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 

1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 

6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; and 

Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1, which 

collectively authorize the Coast Guard 

to propose, establish, and define 

regulatory safety zones. 

The Coast Guard believes establishing 

a temporary safety zone on the 

navigable waters of the San Diego Bay 

is necessary to ensure public safety for 

the fireworks display. A temporary 

safety zone will provide for the safety of 

the event participants, spectators, safety 

vessels, and other public users of the 

waterway. This event involves a 

planned fifteen minute fireworks 

display on a portion of San Diego Bay. 

C. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The Coast Guard is establishing a 

temporary safety zone that will be 

enforced from 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on 

July 23, 2015. This safety zone is 

necessary to provide for the safety of the 

event participants, event spectators, 

safety patrol craft and to protect other 

vessels and users of the waterway. 

Persons and vessels will be prohibited 

from entering into, transiting through, or 

anchoring within this safety zone unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port, or 

their designated representative. Before 

the effective period, the Coast Guard 

will publish a local notice to mariners 

(LNM). Just prior to the event and 

during the enforcement of the event, the 

Coast Guard will issue a broadcast 

notice to mariners (BNM) alert via VHF 

Channel 16. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES