Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 54679 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new AD: 

2008–19–11 Turbomeca S.A.: Amendment 

39–15678; Docket No. FAA–2008–0461; 

Directorate Identifier 2008–NE–14–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) 

becomes effective October 8, 2008. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Turbomeca S.A. 

Arrius 2B1, 2B1A, 2B2, and 2K1 turboshaft 

engines. These engines are installed on, but 

not limited to, Eurocopter Deutschland 

GmbH EC135, and Agusta S.p.A. A109E 

helicopters. 

Reason 

(d) European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) AD No. 2008–0018, dated January 24, 

2008, states: 

A short circuit of some tantalum capacitors 

inside certain electronic control (EEC) units 

may lead to an in-flight shutdown on one of 

the two engines resulting from: 

—Direct activation of the overspeed 

electronic protection; 

—Non-direct activation of the electronic 

overspeed protection by lowering the 

threshold; 

—Spurious activation of the starting 

sequence; or 

—Loss of power control with no freeze of the 

fuel-metering valve. 

This AD requires identifying, and replacing 

or modifying affected EEC units that have 

tantalum capacitors installed that could have 

become brittle during their acceptance test. 

We are issuing this AD to prevent in-flight 

engine shutdowns and possible forced 

autorotation landing or accident. 

Actions and Compliance 

(e) Unless already done, within the next 

100 flight hours or 2 months, whichever 

occurs first after the effective date of this AD, 

do the following actions: 

(1) Identify the EEC units as listed in 

Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin 

No. 319 73 2835, Update No. 1, dated 

December 21, 2006; and 

(2) For affected EECs, modify or replace the 

EEC units using the instructions of 

Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin 

No. 319 73 2835, Update No. 1, dated 

December 21, 2006. 

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

not install an EEC with a serial number listed 

in Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service 

Bulletin No. 319 73 2835, Update No. 1, 

dated December 21, 2006 on any helicopter, 

unless it has been modified using the 

instructions of Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory 

Service Bulletin No. 319 73 2835, Update No. 

1, dated December 21, 2006. 

FAA AD Differences 

(f) This AD requires modification or 

replacement of both EECs if both EECs are 

affected on the same helicopter, whereas 

MCAI EASA AD 2008–0018, dated January 

24, 2008, requires modification of at least one 

EEC, if both EECs are affected, and 

modification or replacement of the remaining 

EEC, within 300 flight hours or 12 months, 

whichever occurs first. 

(g) This AD immediately prohibits 

installation of any EECs that are affected, 

whereas MCAI EASA AD 2008–0018, dated 

January 24, 2008, prohibits installation of 

those EECs after February 7, 2009. 

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, Engine Certification 

Office, FAA, has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Related Information 

(i) Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2008–0018, 

dated January 24, 2008 for related 

information. 

(j) Contact James Lawrence, Aerospace 

Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 

Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803; e-mail: james.lawrence@faa.gov; 

telephone (781) 238–7176; fax (781) 238– 

7199, for more information about this AD. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(k) You must use Turbomeca S.A. 

Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 319 73 2835, 

Update No. 1, dated December 21, 2006, to 

do the actions required by this AD. 

(l) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

this service information under 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

(m) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 

Tarnos, France; telephone 33 05 59 74 40 00, 

fax 33 05 59 74 45 15. 

(n) You may review copies at the FAA, 

New England Region, Office of the Regional 

Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, 

Burlington, MA; or at the National Archives 

and Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, or go 

to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/ 

cfr/ibr-locations.html. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

September 11, 2008. 

Peter A. White, 

Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–21834 Filed 9–22–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 901 

[SATS No. AL–074–FOR; Docket No. OSM– 

2008–0015] 

Alabama Regulatory Program 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule; approval of 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(OSM), are approving an amendment to 

the Alabama regulatory program 

(Alabama program) under the Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977 (SMCRA or the Act). At its own 

initiative, Alabama proposed revisions 

to its regulations regarding permit fees 

and civil penalties to improve 

operational efficiency. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 23, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sherry Wilson, Director, Birmingham 

Field Office. Telephone: (205) 290– 

7282. E-mail: swilson@osmre.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on the Alabama Program 

II. Submission of the Amendment 

III. OSM’s Findings 

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments 

V. OSM’s Decision 

VI. Procedural Determinations 

I. Background on the Alabama Program 

Section 503(a) of the Act permits a 

State to assume primacy for the 

regulation of surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations on non-Federal 

and non-Indian lands within its borders 

by demonstrating that its State program 

includes, among other things, ‘‘a State 

law which provides for the regulation of 

surface coal mining and reclamation 

operations in accordance with the 

requirements of this Act * * *; and 

rules and regulations consistent with 

regulations issued by the Secretary 

pursuant to this Act.’’ See 30 U.S.C. 

1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these 

criteria, the Secretary of the Interior 

(Secretary) conditionally approved the 

Alabama program on May 20, 1982. You 

can find background information on the 

Alabama program, including the 

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of 

comments, and the conditions of 

approval, in the May 20, 1982, Federal 

Register (47 FR 22030). You can find 

later actions on the Alabama program at 

30 CFR 901.10, 901.15, and 901.16. 

II. Submission of the Amendment 

By letter dated July 18, 2008 

(Administrative Record No. AL–0658), 

and at its own initiative, Alabama sent 

us an amendment to its program under 

SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). The 

amendment also included changes to its 

regulations regarding permit fees and 

civil penalties. 

We announced receipt of the 

proposed amendment in the August 8, 

2008, Federal Register (73 FR 46213). In 

the same document, we opened the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
54680 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

public comment period and provided an 

opportunity for a public hearing or 

meeting on the adequacy of the 

amendment. We did not hold a public 

hearing or meeting because no one 

requested one. The public comment 

period ended on September 8, 2008. We 

did not receive any comments. 

III. OSM’s Findings 

Following are the findings we made 

concerning the amendment under 

SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 

30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are 

approving the amendment to the 

Alabama Surface Mining Commission 

(ASMC) regulations as described below. 

A. ASMC 880–X–8B–.07. Permit Fees 

Alabama stated that its permit fees 

have remained unchanged for 26 years 

while the costs of reviewing, 

administering, and enforcing permits 

have increased substantially over this 

time. As a result, Alabama proposed to 

revise its regulations at ASMC 880–X– 

8B–.07 by: 

(1) Increasing the acreage fee from $25 

to $35 per acre for each acre in a permit, 

(2) Requiring an acreage fee on all 

‘‘bonded’’ acreage covered in a permit 

renewal instead of on ‘‘all’’ acreage in a 

permit renewal, and 

(3) Increasing the basic fees for the 

following types of applications: 

(a) Permit application—the fee 

increases from $2500 to $5000, 

(b) Coal exploration application—the 

fee increases from $1000 to $2000, 

(c) Permit renewal—the fee increases 

from $500 to $1000, 

(d) Permit transfer—the fee increases 

from $100 to $200, 

(e) Permit revision involving only an 

incidental boundary revision—the fee 

increases from $250 to $500, 

(f) Permit revision involving an 

insignificant alteration to the mining 

and reclamation plan—the fee increases 

from $750 to $1500, and 

(g) Permit revision involving a 

significant alteration to the mining and 

reclamation plan—the fee increases 

from $1500 to $3000. 

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 

777.17, concerning permit fees, provide 

that applications for surface coal mining 

permits must be accompanied by a fee 

determined by the regulatory authority. 

The Federal regulations also provide 

that the fees may be less than, but not 

more than the actual or anticipated cost 

of reviewing, administering, and 

enforcing the permit. In its letter dated 

July 18, 2008 (Administrative Record 

No. AL–0658), Alabama advised us that 

the increase in the permit fees will not 

exceed the actual or anticipated costs of 

reviewing, administering, and enforcing 

the permit. 

We find that Alabama’s proposed 

permit fees are reasonable and are 

consistent with the discretionary 

authority provided by the Federal 

regulations at 30 CFR 777.17. Therefore, 

we are approving them. 

B. ASMC 880–X–11D–.06. 

Determination of Amount of Penalty 

To help offset increased costs of 

agency operations, Alabama proposed to 

increase the dollar amounts of its civil 

penalties. The current penalties begin 

with $20 and increase to a maximum 

penalty of $5,000. The revised penalties 

begin with $150 and increase to a 

maximum penalty of $5,000. 

Section 518(i) of SMCRA requires that 

the civil penalty provisions of each 

State program contain penalties which 

are ‘‘no less stringent than’’ those set 

forth in SMCRA. Our regulations at 30 

CFR 840.13(a) specify that each State 

program shall contain penalties which 

are no less stringent than those set forth 

in section 518 of the Act and that they 

be consistent with 30 CFR part 845. 

However, in a 1980 decision on OSM’s 

regulations governing civil monetary 

penalties (CMPs), the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Columbia held that 

because section 518 of SMCRA fails to 

enumerate a point system for assessing 

civil penalties, the imposition of this 

requirement upon the States is 

inconsistent with SMCRA. In response 

to the Secretary’s request for 

clarification, the Court further stated 

that it could not uphold requiring the 

States to impose penalties as stringent 

as those appearing in 30 CFR 845.15. 

Instead, section 518(i) of the Act 

requires only the incorporation of 

penalties and procedures explained in 

section 518. The system proposed by the 

State must incorporate the four criteria 

of section 518(a) of SMCRA: (1) History 

of previous violations, (2) seriousness of 

the violation, (3) negligence of the 

permittee, and (4) good faith of the 

permittee in attempting to achieve 

compliance. As a result of the litigation, 

30 CFR 840.13(a) was suspended in part 

on August 4, 1980 (45 FR 51548) by 

suspending the requirement that 

penalties shall be consistent with 30 

CFR part 845. Consequently, we cannot 

require that the CMP provisions 

contained in a State’s regulatory 

program mirror the penalty provisions 

of our regulations at 30 CFR 845.14 and 

845.15. 

We are approving Alabama’s revised 

penalties because when determining the 

amount of the civil penalty, ASMC 880– 

X–11D uses the four criteria specified in 

the Federal statute at section 518(a). 

IV. Summary and Disposition of 

Comments 

Public Comments 

We asked for public comments on the 

amendment, but did not receive any. 

Federal Agency Comments 

On August 12 and 21, 2008, under 30 

CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) 

of SMCRA, we requested comments on 

the amendment from various Federal 

agencies with an actual or potential 

interest in the Alabama program 

(Administrative Record No. AL–0658– 

01). We did not receive any comments. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Concurrence and Comments 

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we 

are required to get a written concurrence 

from EPA for those provisions of the 

program amendment that relate to air or 

water quality standards issued under 

the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act 

(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). 

None of the revisions that Alabama 

proposed to make in this amendment 

pertain to air or water quality standards. 

Therefore, we did not ask EPA to concur 

on the amendment. 

On date, under 30 CFR 

732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested 

comments on the amendment from EPA 

(Administrative Record No. AL–0658– 

01). EPA did not respond to our request. 

State Historical Preservation Officer 

(SHPO) and the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (ACHP) 

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are 

required to request comments from the 

SHPO and ACHP on amendments that 

may have an effect on historic 

properties. On August 12, 2008, we 

requested comments on Alabama’s 

amendment (Administrative Record No. 

AL–0658–01), but neither responded to 

our request. 

V. OSM’s Decision 

Based on the above findings, we 

approve the amendment Alabama sent 

us on July 18, 2008. 

To implement this decision, we are 

amending the Federal regulations at 30 

CFR part 901, which codify decisions 

concerning the Alabama program. We 

find that good cause exists under 5 

U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this final rule 

effective immediately. Section 503(a) of 

SMCRA requires that the State’s 

program demonstrate that the State has 

the capability of carrying out the 

provisions of the Act and meeting its 

purposes. Making this rule effective 

immediately will expedite that process. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 54681 

SMCRA requires consistency of State 

and Federal standards. 

VI. Procedural Determinations 

Executive Order 12630—Takings 

This rule does not have takings 

implications. This determination is 

based on the analysis performed for the 

counterpart Federal regulation. 

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This rule is exempted from review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866. 

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice 

Reform 

The Department of the Interior has 

conducted the reviews required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and 

has determined that this rule meets the 

applicable standards of subsections (a) 

and (b) of that section. However, these 

standards are not applicable to the 

actual language of State regulatory 

programs and program amendments 

because each program is drafted and 

promulgated by a specific State, not by 

OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of 

SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 

730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), 

decisions on proposed State regulatory 

programs and program amendments 

submitted by the States must be based 

solely on a determination of whether the 

submittal is consistent with SMCRA and 

its implementing Federal regulations 

and whether the other requirements of 

30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have 

been met. 

Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

This rule does not have Federalism 

implications. SMCRA delineates the 

roles of the Federal and State 

governments with regard to the 

regulation of surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations. One of the 

purposes of SMCRA is to ‘‘establish a 

nationwide program to protect society 

and the environment from the adverse 

effects of surface coal mining 

operations.’’ Section 503(a)(1) of 

SMCRA requires that State laws 

regulating surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations be ‘‘in 

accordance with’’ the requirements of 

SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires 

that State programs contain rules and 

regulations ‘‘consistent with’’ 

regulations issued by the Secretary 

pursuant to SMCRA. 

Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13175, we have evaluated the potential 

effects of this rule on Federallyrecognized Indian tribes and have 

determined that the rule does not have 

substantial direct effects 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. 

This determination is based on the fact 

that the Alabama program does not 

regulate coal exploration and surface 

coal mining and reclamation operations 

on Indian lands. Therefore, the Alabama 

program has no effect on Federallyrecognized Indian tribes. 

Executive Order 13211—Regulations 

That Significantly Affect the Supply, 

Distribution, or Use of Energy 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 which requires 

agencies to prepare a Statement of 

Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) 

considered significant under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Because 

this rule is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866 and is not 

expected to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects 

is not required. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

This rule does not require an 

environmental impact statement 

because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 

U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency 

decisions on proposed State regulatory 

program provisions do not constitute 

major Federal actions within the 

meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not contain 

information collection requirements that 

require approval by OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3507 et seq.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Department of the Interior 

certifies that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal, 

which is the subject of this rule, is based 

upon counterpart Federal regulations for 

which an economic analysis was 

prepared and certification made that 

such regulations would not have a 

significant economic effect upon a 

substantial number of small entities. In 

making the determination as to whether 

this rule would have a significant 

economic impact, the Department relied 

upon the data and assumptions for the 

counterpart Federal regulations. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

This rule is not a major rule under 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

This rule: (a) Does not have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million; 

(b) Will not cause a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, Federal, State, or 

local government agencies, or 

geographic regions; and (c) Does not 

have significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of U.S.-based enterprises to compete 

with foreign-based enterprises. This 

determination is based upon the fact 

that the State submittal, which is the 

subject of this rule, is based upon 

counterpart Federal regulations for 

which an analysis was prepared and a 

determination made that the Federal 

regulation was not considered a major 

rule. 

Unfunded Mandates 

This rule will not impose an 

unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector 

of $100 million or more in any given 

year. This determination is based upon 

the fact that the State submittal, which 

is the subject of this rule, is based upon 

counterpart Federal regulations for 

which an analysis was prepared and a 

determination made that the Federal 

regulation did not impose an unfunded 

mandate. 

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 901 

Intergovernmental relations, Surface 

mining, Underground mining. 

Dated: September 12, 2008. 

Alfred E. Whitehouse, 

Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent 

Region. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 30 CFR part 901 is amended 

as set forth below: 

PART 901—ALABAMA 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 901 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. 

■ 2. Section 901.15 is amended in the 

table by adding a new entry in 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
54682 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

chronological order by ‘‘Date of final 

publication’’ to read as follows: 

§ 901.15 Approval of Alabama regulatory 

program amendments. 

* * * * * 

Original amendment 

submission date Date of final publication Citation/description 

* * * * * * * 

July 18, 2008 ......... September 23, 2008 ............................................................... ASMC 880–X–8B–.07 and 880–X–11D–.06. 

[FR Doc. E8–22171 Filed 9–22–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[USCG–2008–0896] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Long Island, New York Inland 

Waterway From East Rockaway Inlet to 

Shinnecock Canal, Nassau County, NY, 

Maintenance 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation 

from regulations. 

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast 

Guard District, has issued a temporary 

deviation from the regulations 

governing the operation of the Loop 

Parkway Bridge, mile 0.7, across Long 

Creek, Nassau County, New York. Under 

this temporary deviation the bridge may 

remain in the closed position for three 

hours on two days to facilitate bridge 

maintenance. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

8:20 a.m. on September 22, 2008 

through 11:20 a.m. on September 30, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2008– 

0896 and are available online at 

www.regulations.gov. They are also 

available for inspection or copying at 

two locations: The Docket Management 

Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays, 

and the First Coast Guard District, 

Bridge Branch Office, 408 Atlantic 

Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, 

between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call Judy Leung-Yee, Project 

Officer, First Coast Guard District, at 

(212) 668–7165. If you have questions 

on viewing the docket, call Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone (202) 366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Loop 

Parkway Bridge, across Long Creek at 

mile 0.7, at Nassau County, New York, 

has a vertical clearance in the closed 

position of 21 feet at mean high water 

and 25 feet at mean low water. The 

existing drawbridge operation 

regulations are listed at 33 CFR 

117.799(f). 

The waterway has seasonal 

recreational vessels and fishing vessels 

of various sizes. The facilities were 

notified regarding this closure and no 

objections were received. 

The owner of the bridge, New York 

State Department of Transportation, 

requested a temporary deviation to 

facilitate electrical maintenance at the 

bridge. 

Under this temporary deviation the 

Loop Parkway Bridge at mile 0.7, across 

Long Creek, may remain in the closed 

position between 8:20 a.m. and 11:20 

a.m. on September 22, 2008 and 

September 23, 2008. In the event of 

inclement weather the alternate rain 

dates are September 29, 2008 and 

September 30, 2008. Vessels that can 

pass under the bridge without a bridge 

opening may do so at all times. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the bridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the designated time period. This 

deviation from the operating regulations 

is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: September 11, 2008. 

Gary Kassof, 

Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard 

District. 

[FR Doc. E8–22156 Filed 9–22–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2008–0320] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; IJSBA World Finals; 

Colorado River, Lake Havasu City, AZ 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a safety zone on the 

navigable waters of Lake Havasu on the 

lower Colorado River in support of the 

IJSBA World Finals. This safety zone 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 6 a.m. 

on October 4, 2008, until 6 p.m. on 

October 12, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, are part 

of docket USCG–2008–0320 and are 

available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This material is 

also available for inspection or copying 

at two locations: the Docket 

Management Facility (M–30), U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays and the U.S. 

Coast Guard Sector San Diego, 2710 N. 

Harbor Drive, San Diego, CA 92101 

between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

rule, call Petty Officer Kristen Beer, 

USCG, Waterways Management, U.S. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES