80 FR 43012 - Policy Regarding Living History Flight Experience Exemptions for Passenger Carrying Operations Conducted for Compensation and Hire in Other Than Standard Category Aircraft
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 139 (July 21, 2015)
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 139 (July 21, 2015)
| Page Range | 43012-43015 | |
| FR Document | 2015-17966 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 139 (Tuesday, July 21, 2015)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 43012-43015] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-17966] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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; [email protected]. 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 [[Page 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 FAA-approved 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 specialty-fuel 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, foreign-manufactured 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 case-by-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 aircraft-operation components, including crew qualification and training, aircraft maintenance and inspection, passenger safety and training, safety of the non-participating 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. Fifty-nine (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 [[Page 43014]] 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: [cir] Operator history, including accidents and incidents, regulatory compliance and FAA surveillance history. [cir] Maintenance records, including modifications. [cir] Training records. [cir] The aircraft's operational history, including the operator's proposed mitigation of known risks. [cir] Operating limitations to enhance safety, clarify, and remediate differences in like aircraft. [cir] 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: [cir] Review of previously approved AIPs as provided by 14 CFR 91.415 [cir] Maintenance training elements. [cir] Replacement plan for time-limited parts or development of an on-condition inspection program for such parts. [[Page 43015]] [cir] Aging aircraft inspection program. [cir] Corrosion inspection program. [cir] 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
![43012 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Authority for This Rulemaking § 39.13 [Amended] (3) For service information identified in
■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main
Title 49 of the United States Code St., East Hartford, CT 06108; phone: 860–
specifies the FAA’s authority to issue the following new airworthiness
565–8770; fax: 860–565–4503.
rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, directive (AD): (4) You may view this service information
section 106, describes the authority of 2015–14–05 Pratt & Whitney: Amendment at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate,
the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: 39–18203; Docket No. FAA–2014–1127; 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
Aviation Programs, describes in more Directorate Identifier 2014–NE–16–AD. MA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125.
detail the scope of the Agency’s (a) Effective Date
authority. This AD is effective August 25, 2015. (i) Material Incorporated by Reference
We are issuing this rulemaking under None.
(b) Affected ADs
the authority described in Subtitle VII, Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on
Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: None.
June 26, 2015.
‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that (c) Applicability Ann C. Mollica,
section, Congress charges the FAA with This AD applies to all Pratt & Whitney Acting Directorate Manager, Engine &
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in (PW) JT8D–217C and JT8D–219 turbofan Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
air commerce by prescribing regulations engines with low-pressure turbine (LPT) Service.
for practices, methods, and procedures shaft part numbers 783319, 783319–001,
[FR Doc. 2015–17710 Filed 7–20–15; 8:45 am]
the Administrator finds necessary for 783319–003, 783319–004, 783320, 783320–
001, 783320–003, 783320–004, 820514–001, BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
safety in air commerce. This regulation
820514–003, 820514–004, or 820514–005,
is within the scope of that authority
installed.
because it addresses an unsafe condition DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
that is likely to exist or develop on (d) Unsafe Condition
products identified in this rulemaking This AD was prompted by reports of Federal Aviation Administration
action. cracking in the LPT shaft. We are issuing this
AD to prevent failure of the LPT shaft, which 14 CFR Parts 91 and 119
Regulatory Findings could lead to an uncontained engine failure
This AD will not have federalism and damage to the airplane. [Docket No. FAA–FAA–2015–0517]
implications under Executive Order (e) Compliance Policy Regarding Living History Flight
13132. This AD will not have a Comply with this AD within the Experience Exemptions for Passenger
substantial direct effect on the States, on compliance times specified, unless already Carrying Operations Conducted for
the relationship between the national done.
Compensation and Hire in Other Than
government and the States, or on the (1) If the LPT shaft has 15,000 or fewer
cycles-since-new (CSN) on the effective date Standard Category Aircraft
distribution of power and
of this AD, remove it from service before it AGENCY: Federal Aviation
responsibilities among the various
accumulates 20,000 CSN.
levels of government. (2) If the LPT shaft has more than 15,000
Administration (FAA), DOT.
For the reasons discussed above, I CSN on the effective date of this AD, remove ACTION: Notice of policy statement.
certify that this AD: it from service before it accumulates 5,000
(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory additional cycles in service, or at the next SUMMARY: With this document, the
action’’ under Executive Order 12866, piece-part exposure after accumulating Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 20,000 CSN, whichever occurs first. cancels all previous agency policies
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (3) After the effective date of this AD, do pertaining to the carriage of passengers
not install any LPT shaft listed in paragraph for compensation on Living History
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), (c) of this AD that is at piece-part exposure
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation Flight Experience (LHFE) flights. This
and exceeds the new life limit of 20,000 CSN,
in Alaska to the extent that it justifies policy statement announces the end of
into any engine.
making a regulatory distinction, and FAA moratorium on new petitions for
(f) Definition exemption, or amendments to
(4) Will not have a significant
economic impact, positive or negative, For the purpose of this AD, piece-part exemptions from certain sections of
exposure is when the LPT shaft is completely Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
on a substantial number of small entities disassembled from the engine.
under the criteria of the Regulatory (14 CFR) for the purpose of carrying
Flexibility Act. (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance passengers for compensation or hire on
(AMOCs) LHFE Flights.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 The Manager, Engine Certification Office, DATES: The moratorium will end on July
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use 21, 2015.
safety, Incorporation by reference, the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
make your request. You may email your General Aviation and Commercial
Safety.
request to: ANE-AD-AMOC@faa.gov.
Division, General Aviation Operations
Adoption of the Amendment (h) Related Information Branch (AFS–830), Flight Standards
Accordingly, under the authority (1) For more information about this AD, Service, FAA, 800 Independence
delegated to me by the Administrator, contact Jo-Ann Theriault, Aerospace Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, telephone (202) 267–1100; 9-AFS-800-
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
follows: Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New Correspondence-Mail@faa.gov.
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 01803; phone: 781–238–7105; fax: 781–238–
DIRECTIVES 7199; email: jo-ann.theriault@faa.gov. Background
(2) PW Service Bulletin No. JT8D 6504,
dated November 5, 2014, which is not The FAA has historically found the
■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 preservation of U.S. aviation history to
incorporated by reference in this AD, can be
continues to read as follows: obtained from PW using the contact be in the public interest, including
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. information in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD. preservation of certain former military
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Jul 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21JYR1.SGM 21JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_43151/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 43015
Æ Aging aircraft inspection program. vessels are prohibited from entering to determine whether the marine event
Æ Corrosion inspection program. into, transiting through, or anchoring poses a threat to persons and vessels
Æ Continued Operational Safety within this safety zone unless was provided 15 days before the event,
(COS). authorized by the Captain of the Port or which is insufficient time to publish an
• SMS Manual. his designated representative. NPRM. Because fireworks barges on the
E. Other Considerations DATES: This rule is effective from 8:30 navigable waterways poses significant
p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on July 23, 2015. risk to public safety and property and
LHFE operations, as it applies to the the likely combination of large numbers
ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in
passenger(s) experience, is limited to of recreation vessels and congested
the sole purpose of being onboard the this preamble are part of docket [USCG–
waterways could easily result in serious
aircraft during flight. The FAA will not 2015–0647]. To view documents
injuries or fatalities, this safety zone is
consider expanded operations such as mentioned in this preamble as being
necessary to safeguard spectators,
flight training, aerobatics, and passenger available in the docket, go to http://
vessels and the event participants. For
manipulation of the flight controls. www.regulations.gov, type the docket
the safety concerns noted, it is
The FAA will always consider number in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click
important to have these regulations in
whether a request benefits the public as ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket
effect during the event and
a whole and how the request would Folder on the line associated with this
impracticable to delay the regulations.
provide a level of safety at least equal rulemaking. You may also visit the Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
to that provided by the rule in Docket Management Facility in Room Guard finds that good cause exists for
accordance with 14 CFR 11.81. W12–140 on the ground floor of the making this rule effective less than 30
Moreover, the FAA may impose Department of Transportation West days after publication in the Federal
additional conditions and limitations or Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Register. For these same reasons, the
deny petitions regardless of this policy Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. Coast Guard finds good cause for
statement to adequately mitigate safety and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, implementing this rule less than thirty
concerns and risk factors as they except Federal holidays. days before the effective July 23, 2015.
become known. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this rule, call or B. Basis and Purpose
Filing a Petition for Exemption or To email Petty Officer Nick Bateman, The legal basis and authorities for this
Request an Amendment or Extension to Waterways Management, U.S. Coast temporary rule are found in 33 U.S.C.
an Existing Exemption Guard Sector San Diego; telephone (619) 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1,
To submit a petition for exemption or 278–7656, email D11-PF- 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; and
to request an amendment or extension MarineEventsSanDiego@uscg.mil. If you Department of Homeland Security
to an existing exemption, all petitioners have questions on viewing or submitting Delegation No. 0170.1, which
must follow the procedures set forth in material to the docket, call Cheryl collectively authorize the Coast Guard
part 11 of title 14 of the Code of Federal Collins, Program Manager, Docket to propose, establish, and define
Regulations. Operations, telephone (202) 366–9826. regulatory safety zones.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard believes establishing
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 10,
2015. a temporary safety zone on the
Table of Acronyms navigable waters of the San Diego Bay
John S. Duncan,
DHS Department of Homeland Security is necessary to ensure public safety for
Director, Flight Standards Service.
FR Federal Register the fireworks display. A temporary
[FR Doc. 2015–17966 Filed 7–20–15; 8:45 am] NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking safety zone will provide for the safety of
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P TFR Temporary Final Rule the event participants, spectators, safety
A. Regulatory History and Information vessels, and other public users of the
waterway. This event involves a
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND The Coast Guard is issuing this planned fifteen minute fireworks
SECURITY temporary final rule safety zone for a display on a portion of San Diego Bay.
planned fireworks show on San Diego
Coast Guard Bay without prior notice and C. Discussion of the Final Rule
opportunity to comment pursuant to The Coast Guard is establishing a
33 CFR Part 165 authority under section 4(a) of the temporary safety zone that will be
[Docket Number USCG–2015–0647] Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 enforced from 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on
U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision July 23, 2015. This safety zone is
RIN 1625–AA00 authorizes an agency to issue a rule necessary to provide for the safety of the
without prior notice and opportunity to event participants, event spectators,
Safety Zone; Maritime Museum Party, comment when the agency for good safety patrol craft and to protect other
San Diego Bay; San Diego, CA cause finds that those procedures are vessels and users of the waterway.
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary Persons and vessels will be prohibited
ACTION: Temporary final rule. to the public interest.’’ from entering into, transiting through, or
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast anchoring within this safety zone unless
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is Guard finds that good cause exists for authorized by the Captain of the Port, or
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
establishing a temporary safety zone on not publishing a notice of proposed their designated representative. Before
the navigable waters of the San Diego rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this the effective period, the Coast Guard
Bay for a fireworks display on the rule because publishing an NPRM will publish a local notice to mariners
evening of July 23, 2015. This action is would be impracticable because (LNM). Just prior to the event and
necessary to provide for the safety of the immediate action is needed to minimize during the enforcement of the event, the
participants, crew, spectators, potential danger to the participants and Coast Guard will issue a broadcast
participating vessels, and other vessels the public during the event. notice to mariners (BNM) alert via VHF
and users of the waterway. Persons and Furthermore, the necessary information Channel 16.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Jul 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21JYR1.SGM 21JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_43151/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-23 09:23:34
Document Modified: 2018-02-23 09:23:34
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Notice of policy statement. | |
| Dates | The moratorium will end on July 21, 2015. | |
| 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; [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 43012 | |
| CFR Citation | 14
CFR
119 14 CFR 91 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR