Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 54757 

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 Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 

by removing amendment 39–15522 (73 

FR 29042, May 20, 2008) and adding the 

following new airworthiness directive 

(AD): 

Boeing: Docket No. FAA–2008–1006; 

Directorate Identifier 2008–NM–110–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The FAA must receive comments on 

this AD action by November 7, 2008. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 2008–10–15. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 747– 

100, 747–100B, 747–200B, 747–200C, 747– 

200F, 747–300, 747SR, and 747SP series 

airplanes, certificated in any category; as 

identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2748, dated May 9, 2008. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from a report of cracked 

fastener holes at the right stringer 6 (S–6) lap 

splice between station (STA) 340 and STA 

380. We are issuing this AD to prevent 

cracking in the fuselage skin, which could 

result in rapid decompression and loss of 

structural integrity of the airplane. 

Compliance 

(e) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Requirements of AD 2008–10–15 

Service Bulletin Reference Paragraph 

(f) The term ‘‘alert service bulletin,’’ as 

used in this AD, means the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2748, dated May 9, 2008. 

Inspection for Acceptable External Skin 

Doublers 

(g) For airplanes identified as Group 1, 

Configuration 2, in Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2748, dated May 9, 2008: At 

the latest of the times specified in paragraphs 

(g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, do an 

external general visual inspection to 

determine if acceptable external skin 

doublers are installed at the left- and rightside S–6 lap splices, in accordance with Part 

1 of the alert service bulletin. 

(1) Prior to the accumulation of 10,000 

total flight cycles. 

(2) Within 8,000 flight cycles after a 

modification was done in accordance with 

Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53–2253. 

(3) Within 15 days or 100 flight cycles after 

May 20, 2008 (the effective date of AD 2008– 

10–15), whichever occurs first. 

Acceptable External Skin Doublers Found at 

Both Sides 

(h) If, during the inspection required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD, acceptable external 

skin doublers in accordance with the alert 

service bulletin are found installed at both 

the left- and right-side S–6 lap splices, no 

further work is required by this AD. 

Acceptable External Skin Doublers Not 

Found—Repetitive Related Investigative 

Actions and Corrective Actions 

(i) If, during the inspection required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD, acceptable external 

skin doublers in accordance with alert 

service bulletin are not found installed at 

either the left- or right-side S–6 lap splice: 

Before further flight, do all applicable related 

investigative and corrective actions by doing 

all actions specified in Part 2 of the alert 

service bulletin. Repeat the applicable related 

investigative actions thereafter at intervals 

not to exceed 300 flight cycles until the 

modification specified in paragraph (j) of this 

AD is done. 

New Requirement of This AD 

Terminating Modification 

(j) If, during the inspection required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD, acceptable external 

skin doublers as specified in the alert service 

bulletin are not found installed at either the 

left- or right-side S–6 lap splice: Within 3,000 

flight cycles after doing the initial related 

investigative actions in paragraph (i) of this 

AD, or within 300 flight cycles after the 

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs 

later, install acceptable external skin 

doublers at both the left- and right-side S–6 

lap splices, as applicable. The installation of 

the acceptable skin doublers is required on 

the side of the airplane that does not have the 

doublers already. The installation includes 

doing an open-hole high-frequency eddy 

current (HFEC) inspection of the skin for 

cracking, and trimming out cracking as 

applicable. Do all actions in accordance with 

the alert service bulletin. Doing this 

installation terminates the repetitive related 

investigative actions required by paragraph 

(i) of this AD. 

Note 1: The alert service bulletin refers to 

Boeing Service Bulletins 747–53–2253, 

Revision 3, dated March 24, 1994; and 747– 

53–2272, Revision 18, dated May 16, 2002; as 

additional sources of service information for 

accomplishment of the modification 

(installation of acceptable external skin 

doublers). 

Note 2: AD 90–06–06, amendment 39– 

6490, requires, among other actions, a 

modification as specified in Boeing Service 

Bulletin 747–53–2253, dated December 14, 

1984. 

Note 3: AD 90–23–14, amendment 39– 

6801, requires inspections as specified in 

Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53–2253, 

Revision 2, dated March 29, 1990. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(k)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, ATTN: Ivan 

Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, 

ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

3356; telephone (425) 917–6437; fax (425) 

917–6590; has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(2) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector 

(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District 

Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local 

FSDO. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD, if it is approved by an 

Authorized Representative for the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option 

Authorization Organization who has been 

authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to 

make those findings. For a repair method to 

be approved, the repair must meet the 

certification basis of the airplane and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(4) AMOCs approved previously in 

accordance with AD 2008–10–15 are 

approved as AMOCs for the corresponding 

provisions of this AD. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 12, 2008. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–22211 Filed 9–22–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2008–0070] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zone; Port of Mayaguez, 

Puerto Rico 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish moving and fixed security 

zones around cruise ships entering, 

departing, mooring or anchoring at the 

Port of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. This 

proposed regulation is necessary to 

protect cruise ships operating in this 

port. All vessels, with the exception of 

servicing pilot boat and assisting tug 

boats, would be prohibited from 

entering the security zones without the 

express permission of the Captain of the 

Port San Juan or a designated 

representative. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

November 24, 2008. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
54758 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by Coast Guard docket 

number USCG–2008–0070 to the Docket 

Management Facility at the U.S. 

Department of Transportation. To avoid 

duplication, please use only one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Online: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Mail: 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– 

0001. 

(3) Hand delivery: Room W12–140 on 

the Ground Floor of the West Building, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The telephone 

number is 202–366–9329. 

(4) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call Ensign Rachael Love of Sector 

San Juan, Prevention Operations 

Department at (787) 289–2071. If you 

have questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted, 

without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation (DOT) 

to use the Docket Management Facility. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2008–0070), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 

comment. We recommend that you 

include your name and a mailing 

address, an e-mail address, or a phone 

number in the body of your document 

so that we can contact you if we have 

questions regarding your submission. 

You may submit your comments and 

material by electronic means, mail, fax, 

or delivery to the Docket Management 

Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; 

but please submit your comments and 

material by only one means. If you 

submit them by mail or delivery, submit 

them in an unbound format, no larger 

than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for 

copying and electronic filing. If you 

submit them by mail and would like to 

know that they reached the Facility, 

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. 

Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time, 

click on ‘‘Search for Dockets,’’ enter the 

docket number for this rulemaking 

(USCG–2008–0070) in the Docket ID 

box, and click enter. You may also visit 

either the Docket Management Facility 

in Room W12–140 on the ground floor 

of the DOT West Building, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 

20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays; or the U.S. Coast Guard, 

Sector San Juan, 5 Calle La Puntilla, San 

Juan, Puerto Rico 00901 between 7 a.m. 

and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of all comments received into any 

of our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act, system of records notice regarding 

our public dockets in the January 17, 

2008 issue of the Federal Register (73 

FR 3316). 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for one to the Docket Management 

Facility at the address under ADDRESSES

explaining why one would be 

beneficial. If we determine that one 

would aid this rulemaking, we will hold 

one at a time and place announced by 

a later notice in the Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist 

attacks on the World Trade Center in 

New York, the Pentagon in Arlington, 

Virginia, and Flight 93, the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has issued 

several warnings concerning the 

potential for additional terrorist attacks 

within the United States. In addition, 

the ongoing operations in the Middle 

East have made it prudent for U.S. ports 

to be on a higher state of alert because 

the Al-Qaeda organization and other 

similar organizations have declared an 

ongoing intention to conduct armed 

attacks on U.S. interests worldwide. Due 

to these concerns, security zones around 

passenger vessels are necessary to 

ensure the safety and protection of the 

passengers aboard. As part of the 

Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism 

Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99–399), Congress 

amended section 7 of the Ports and 

Waterways Safety Act (PWSA), 33 

U.S.C. 1226, to allow the Coast Guard to 

take actions, including the 

establishment of security zones, to 

prevent or respond to acts of terrorism 

against individuals, vessels, or public or 

commercial structures. Moreover, the 

Coast Guard has authority to establish 

security zones pursuant to the Act of 

June 15, 1917, as amended by the 

Magnuson Act of August 9, 1950 (50 

U.S.C. 191 et seq.) (the ‘‘Magnuson 

Act’’), and implementing the regulations 

promulgated by the President in 

subparts 6.01 and 6.04 of part 6 of title 

33 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

The Coast Guard has established 

similar rules in the ports of San Juan, St. 

Thomas (33 CFR 165.762), and 

Frederiksted (33 CFR 165.763). This 

regulation was not necessary in the past 

because cruise ships only recently began 

to hail at the port of Mayaguez. 

For the aforementioned reasons, the 

Coast Guard proposes to establish 

moving and fixed security zones to 

prevent vessels or persons from 

accessing the navigable waters around 

and under passenger vessels in the Port 

of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. Due to the 

continued heightened security concerns, 

this proposed rule is necessary to 

provide for the safety of the port, the 

vessels, and the passengers and crew on 

the vessels. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

This proposed rule would require all 

persons and vessels to remain at least 50 

yards from any cruise ship in the Port 

of Mayaguez while the cruise ship is 

transiting, anchored, or moored. The 

main purpose of the proposed rule is to 

ensure the safety of all persons onboard 

the cruise ship, the cruise ship itself, the 

environment, and the Port of Mayaguez 

during a cruise ship’s presence in the 

port. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 54759 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, and does not 

require an assessment of potential costs 

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 

Order. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under that 

Order. 

This rule may impact the public, but 

these potential impacts would be 

minimized for the following reason: 

there is ample room for vessels to 

navigate around this proposed security 

zone. Also, the Captain of the Port San 

Juan may, on a case-by-case basis, allow 

persons or vessels to enter the proposed 

security zone. 

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 rule would affect the 

following entities, some of which might 

be small entities: The owners or 

operators of vessels intending to transit, 

anchor, or moor within 50 yards of a 

cruise ship in the Port of Mayaguez. 

This proposed regulation will not have 

a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities because cruise 

ships infrequently visit the Port of 

Mayaguez and small vessel traffic would 

be able to safely transit around the 

security zones. The Captain of the Port 

San Juan may, on a case-by-case basis, 

allow persons or vessels to enter the 

proposed security zone. 

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) 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 proposed rule would affect your 

small business, organization, or 

governmental jurisdiction and you have 

questions concerning its provisions or 

options for compliance, please contact 

Ensign Rachael Love of Sector San Juan, 

Prevention Operations Department at 

(787) 289–2071. 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). 

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. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

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 an 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. 

We invite your comments on how this 

proposed rule might impact tribal 

governments, even if that impact may 

not constitute a ‘‘tribal implication’’ 

under the Order. 

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. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
54760 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 5100.1 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

under the Instruction that this action is 

not likely to have a significant effect on 

the human environment. An 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this preliminary 

determination is available in the docket 

where indicated under ADDRESSES. We 

seek any comments or information that 

may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 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 part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

1. 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, 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. Add § 165.778 to read as follows: 

§ 165.778 Security Zone; Port of 

Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. 

(a) Security zone. A moving and fixed 

security zone is established around all 

cruise ships entering, departing, 

mooring, or anchoring in the Port of 

Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. The regulated 

area includes all waters from surface to 

bottom within a 50-yard radius of the 

vessel. The zone is activated when a 

cruise ship on approach to the Port of 

Mayaguez enters within 1 nautical mile 

of the Bahia de Mayaguez Range Front 

Light located in position 18°13′12′′ N, 

067°10′46′′ W. The zone is deactivated 

when a cruise ship departs the Port of 

Mayaguez and is no longer within 1 

nautical mile of the Bahia de Mayaguez 

Range Front Light. 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section: 

Cruise ship means a passenger vessel 

greater than 100 feet in length that is 

authorized to carry more than 150 

passengers for hire, except for a ferry. 

Designated representative means 

Coast Guard Patrol Commanders 

including Coast Guard coxswains, petty 

officers and other officers operating 

Coast Guard vessels and Federal, State, 

and local officers designated by or 

assisting the COTP San Juan in the 

enforcement of the safety zone. 

Vessel means every description of 

watercraft or other artificial contrivance 

used, or capable of being used, as a 

means of transportation on water, 

except U.S. Coast Guard or U.S. naval 

vessels and servicing pilot and tug 

boats. 

(c) Regulations. (1) No person or 

vessel may enter into the security zone 

under this section unless authorized by 

the Captain of the Port San Juan. 

(2) Vessels seeking to enter a security 

zone established in this section, may 

contact the COTP on VHF channel 16 or 

by telephone at (787) 289–2041 to 

request permission. 

(3) All persons and vessels granted 

permission to enter the security zone 

must comply with the orders of the 

COTP and designated on-scene U.S. 

Coast Guard patrol personnel. On-scene 

U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel 

include commissioned, warrant, and 

petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard. 

Dated: September 2, 2008. 

E. Pino, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port San Juan. 

[FR Doc. E8–22242 Filed 9–22–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2008–0456; SW FRL– 

8713–2] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant a 

petition submitted by BAE Systems, Inc. 

(BAE) to exclude (or delist) a certain 

solid waste generated by its Sealy, 

Texas, facility from the lists of 

hazardous wastes. EPA used the 

Delisting Risk Assessment Software 

(DRAS) Version 3.0 in the evaluation of 

the impact of the petitioned waste on 

human health and the environment. 

DATES: We will accept comments until 

October 23, 2008. We will stamp 

comments received after the close of the 

comment period as late. These late 

comments may not be considered in 

formulating a final decision. Your 

requests for a hearing must reach EPA 

by October 8, 2008. The request must 

contain the information prescribed in 40 

CFR 260.20(d) (hereinafter all CFR cites 

refer to 40 CFR unless otherwise stated). 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

RCRA–2008–0456 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: jacques.wendy@epa.gov. 

3. Mail: Wendy Jacques, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 

6PD–F, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 

75202. 

4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to: Wendy Jacques, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 

6PD–F, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 

75202. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–RCRA–2008– 

0456. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS