[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 99 (Friday, May 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 29700]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12476]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 5307-002]

Sweetwater Hydroelectric, Inc.; Sweetwater Hydroelectric, LLC;
Notice of Transfer of Exemption

    1. By letter filed April 24, 2015,\1\ William B. Conway, Jr.,
Counsel for Enel Green Power North America, Inc. (EGPNA),\2\ informed
the Commission that the exemption from licensing for the Woodsville
Reactivation Project, FERC No. 5307, originally issued February 5,
1982,\3\ has been transferred to Sweetwater Hydroelectric, LLC, an
affiliate of Enel Green Power. The project is located on the Ammonoosuc
River in Grafton County, New Hampshire. The transfer of an exemption
does not require Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Seventeen other exempted projects which are to be
transferred were included in the April 24, 2015 letter. These
exemptions will be handled under separate proceedings.
    \2\ Enel Green Power North America, Inc. is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Enel Green Power. Enel Green Power is a well-
capitalized publicly traded company.
    \3\ 18 FERC ] 62,158, Order Granting Exemption from Licensing of
a Small Hydroelectric Project of 5 Megawatts or Less and Denying
Competing Application for Preliminary Permit (1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Sweetwater Hydroelectric, LLC is now the exemptee of the
Woodsville Reactivation Project, FERC No. 5307. All correspondence
should be forwarded to: Sweetwater Hydroelectric, LLC, c/o Enel Green
Power North America, Inc., Attn: General Counsel, 1 Tech Drive, Suite
220, Andover, MA 01810.

    Dated: May 18, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-12476 Filed 5-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 12, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32157-32159]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14606]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0108]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Tombigbee River, Near Jackson,
Alabama

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating schedule that
governs the Norfolk Southern Railroad (NSRR) Vertical Lift Span Bridge
across Tombigbee River, mile 44.90, near Jackson, between Washington
and Clarke Counties, Alabama. This rule proposes to move the current
on-site bridge tender control station to a geographically remote
centralized control point located in Decatur, Alabama.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before September 11, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2017-0108 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instruction on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Ms. Donna Gagliano; Bridge Administration Branch,
Eighth Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive Order
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
U.S.C. United States Code
NSRR Norfolk Southern Railroad
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.42, the District Commander may
authorize a drawbridge to operate under an automated system or from a
remote location. The purpose of this rule is to allow the draw of this
bridge to operate from a remote location. The draw will continue to be
maintained in the open to navigation position except during the passage
of trains. Mariners should not experience any changes in the level of
service.

III. Discussion of the Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard, at the request of NSRR, is changing the method of
operation for the NSRR Vertical Lift Bridge across Tombigbee River,
mile 44.90, near Jackson, Alabama. Due to the need for increased
efficiency in railroad operations, NSRR requested a change to the
method of operating the draw from on-site to a draw tender operating
the bridge remotely.
    Presently, the draw is maintained in the open-to-navigation
position and closed only for the passage of trains or maintenance. The
bridge owner would like to operate the draw remotely using a drawtender
at a centralized railroad operation in Decatur, Alabama, rather than
maintaining the current on-site operation and drawtender. The
implementation of this rule, in effect, removes the requirement that a
drawtender be present on site at all times.
    Under the new remote operation procedure, the draw will continue to
be maintained in the open-to-navigation position and lowered only for
the passage of trains or for maintenance. There will be no
modifications to the operation of the bridge as it relates to the
passage of vessels. Instead, this change will allow the bridge owner to
increase efficiency by coordinating bridge operations and vessel
transits with train dispatch operations in Decatur, AL.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statues and Executive Orders and we discuss
First Amendment rights of protesters.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, NPRM it has not
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
    This interim rule is not a significant regulatory action because
the draw will be maintained in the open-to-navigation position.
Therefore, mariners will experience no changes in transiting through
the bridge site. No new restrictions on or actions from the mariner are
required by this rule.
    The intent of the proposed rule is to improve safety and efficiency
of bridge operations as it relates to vessel and railroad traffic.
    Centralizing the bridge tender would have no impact on the existing
regulations regarding hours or methods of bridge operations.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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 will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    ``While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
the bridge

may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above
this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.''
    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.
    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. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. 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).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does 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. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. 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 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply
promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges.
Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review,
under Table 3-2, (L49), of the Instruction.
    Under Table 3-2, (L49), of the Instruction, a Memorandum for the
Record (MFR) is not required for this rule. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in
our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by
following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the
online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when
comments are posted or a final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  117.118, redesignate introductory text as paragraph (a) and
revise paragraphs (a) through (d) as paragraph (a)(1) through (a)(4);
and add new paragraph (b) Tombigbee River to read as follows:

Sec.  117.118  Tombigbee River.

* * * * *
    (b) The draw of the NSRR Vertical Lift Bridge across the Tombigbee
River, mile 44.90, near Jackson, Washington and Clarke Counties,
Alabama shall be maintained as follows:
    (1) The draw shall be maintained in the fully open-to-navigation
position for vessels at all times, except during periods when it is
closed for the passage of rail traffic or to perform periodic
maintenance authorized in accordance with subpart A of this part.
    (2) The draw shall be remotely operated by the draw tender at
Norfolk Southern Railroad's drawbridge in

Decatur, Alabama. The estimated duration that the bridge will remain
closed for the passage of rail traffic is 10 to 15 minutes per
operation.
    (3) When a train approaches the bridge, the draw tender will
initiate the bridge closing warning signal, consisting of radio calls
via VHF-FM channels 13 and 16 and activation of flashing red warning
lights at each end of the span. The radio calls will be broadcast at
five (5) minutes prior to bridge closing and at two (2) minutes prior
to bridge closing. Photoelectric (infrared) boat detectors will monitor
the waterway beneath the bridge for the presence of vessels.
    (4) The drawtender will continuously monitor waterway traffic in
the area using closed-circuit cameras mounted on the bridge. The draw
will only be closed if the draw tender's visual inspection indicates
that the channel is clear and there are no vessels transiting in the
area. The draw tender will maintain constant surveillance of the
navigation channel to ensure that no conflict with maritime traffic
exists. If two or more closed-circuit cameras are inoperable or if
there is inclement weather, the draw will only be operated by a draw
tender located on site at the bridge.
    (5) At the end of the two-minute warning period, if no vessels have
been detected by the draw tender, the draw closing sequence will
automatically proceed.
    (6) Upon passage of the train, the draw will be returned to the
fully open-to-navigation position to allow marine traffic to pass. The
warning lights will continue to flash red until the draw has returned
to the fully open-to-navigation position at which time they will
deactivate.
    (7) After the passage of each train, the draw must be returned to
it fully open-to-navigation position.
    (8) To request openings of the draw when the vertical lift span is
in the closed-to-navigation position, mariners may contact NSRR via
VHF-FM channel 13 or by telephone at the number displayed on the signs
posted at the bridge.
    (9) The draw will be operated locally if:
    (i) Communication is lost between the drawbridge and the draw
tender in Decatur, Alabama;
    (ii) More than two closed-circuit cameras are not working;
    (iii) The marine radio is inoperable;
    (iv) Weather conditions warrant; or
    (v) Ordered by the Coast Guard.
* * * * *

    Dated: June 22, 2017.
D.R. Callahan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-14606 Filed 7-11-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: April 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 72)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19967-19968]
[DOCID:fr14ap08-4]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0175; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-105-AD;
Amendment 39-15455; AD 2008-08-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    To prevent electrical malfunction from causing damage to the
wiring that may result in arcing or fire, accomplish Pacific
Aerospace Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/008.

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 19, 2008.
    On May 19, 2008, the Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February, 15, 2008
(73 FR 8831). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    To prevent electrical malfunction from causing damage to the
wiring that may result in arcing or fire, accomplish Pacific
Aerospace Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/008.

The MCAI requires the addition and replacement of certain pitot heat
sensor circuit breakers and the addition of a cooling fan circuit.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 7 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 1.5 work-hours per product to
comply with basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is
$80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $181 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $2,107, or $301 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that 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 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); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the

regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2008-08-03 Pacific Aerospace Limited: Amendment 39-15455; Docket No.
FAA-2008-0175; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-105-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective May 19,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL
airplanes, serial numbers 101 through 107, certificated in any
category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 31:
Instruments.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    To prevent electrical malfunction from causing damage to the
wiring that may result in arcing or fire, accomplish Pacific
Aerospace Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/008.
    The MCAI requires the addition and replacement of certain pitot
heat sensor circuit breakers and the addition of a cooling fan
circuit.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, within 100 hours time-in-service May
19, 2008 (the effective date of this AD), do the following actions
following Pacific Aerospace Corporation Limited Mandatory Service
Bulletin PACSB/XL/008, dated July 8, 2004:
    (1) For airplanes only authorized to operate under visual flight
rules (VFR) flight:
    (i) Add a ten-amp circuit breaker supplying the pitot heat
system to the left hand switch panel;
    (ii) Replace the switching circuit breaker used as the pitot
heat selector with a switch; and
    (iii) Add a three-amp fuse at the power bus at the supply to the
avionics cooling fan connection.
    (2) For airplanes with serial numbers 101 through 107 that have
been modified to operate under instrument flight rules (IFR) flight,
contact Pacific Aerospace Corporation Limited at Pacific Aerospace
Limited, Private Bag HN3027, Hamilton, New Zealand, telephone: +(64)
7-843-6144, fax: +(64) 7-843-6134, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
for FAA-approved procedures to comply with this AD, and follow the
procedures prior to further flight.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
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.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et.seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand AD
DCA/750XL/2, dated September 30, 2004; and Pacific Aerospace
Corporation Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/008, dated
July 8, 2004, for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (h) You must use Pacific Aerospace Corporation Limited Mandatory
Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/008, dated July 8, 2004; Pacific Aerospace
Corporation Ltd 750XL Maintenance Manual Drawing 11-81101, Assembly,
Switch Panel--LH, dated October 15, 2003; and Pacific Aerospace
Corporation Ltd 750XL Maintenance Manual Drawing 11-81519,
Schematics Miscellaneous Circuits, dated October 10, 2003, to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) 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.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Pacific Aerospace Corporation Limited at Pacific Aerospace Limited,
Private Bag HN3027, Hamilton, New Zealand, telephone: +(64) 7-843-
6144, fax: +(64) 7-843-6134, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of
the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-
register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 31, 2008.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8-7167 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


28 June, 2004 Dr. Paul Gilman Dr. Larry Reiter Assistant Administrator Director, NHEERL Laboratory U. S. Environmental Protection Agency U. S. Environ. Protection Agency Ronald Reagan Office Building Research Triangle Park Washington, DC 20460 Durham, North Carolina Re: ORD Biotechnology Program Framework Dear Drs. Gilman and Reiter:

This is a letter report from the Board of Scientific Counselors ( BOSC) reviewing the EPA ORD Biotechnology Research Program. An overview of the Program was presented by Dr. Reiter to the BOSC executive committee on May 13 14, 2004, at their meeting in Research Triangle Park. This was the third time that BOSC had been briefed on ORD Biotechnology research, beginning with the ____, 2002 meeting of the BOSC, and following with the ____, 2003 meeting.

The Framework document on the ORD Biotechnology Research Program was provided to members of the BOSC Ad hoc Subcommittee on Biotechnology in the spring of 2004, and other executive committee members who requested it. The Subcommittee consisted of Jerry Schnoor, Chair, and members James Johnson, James Clark, George Daston, Rogene Henderson, and Gary Sayler. Schnoor made notes of executive committee members' comments during the meeting on May 13, and wrote a draft letter report which was circulated to members of the Subcommittee at the end of June. Subcommittee members made revisions to the initial draft, and these suggestions were incorporated into the final letter report by James Johnson, Chair of BOSC. The letter report was then approved by the entire BOSC executive committee.

The BOSC Subcommittee understands that EPA's role in the area of genetically modified crops is largely defined by statutory jurisdictional authority under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA). The Act requires that EPA ensures pesticides will not pose unreasonable risk to human health or the environment, so plant incorporated protectorants ( PIPs), which serve in lieu of pesticide applications, are properly within EPA's regulatory control, and ORD seeks to provide research relevant to this mission of the Agency. The four areas of research that ORD has identified ( risk to human health, risk to non target organisms, the potential for gene flow, and insect resistance and management plans) are important and proper. BOSC believes that the greatest emphasis in the ORD research portfolio at the present time should address genetically modified crops which contain genes for production of Bacillus thuringensis toxin ( Bt) because these could conceivably cause all four effects: allergenicity, resistance in target populations, risks to non target organisms, and conveyance of a selective advantage to cross hybridized wild type plants.

Human allerginicity has been addressed by ORD as a risk to human health, and BOSC recommends that not all research in this area be related to digestibility. Respiratory allergenicity should also be included, and SAR based approaches should be considered such as epitope mapping. ORD should not assume that they know how to detect all allergenicities to humans. However, developing an animal model ( mouse model) for identifying mechanisms of allergenicity is believed to be important by BOSC, as stated in the Framework document. In addition, ORD should consider how their approach on BTproducts can be extrapolated to other GM crops that may be developed in the future, such as herbicide resistant spring wheat and others. Collaboration that has already been established with NIAID and NIEHS, in matters of human allerginicity is encouraged, and use of the pharmaceutical models of FDA for safety testing ( levels 1, 2, and 3) may prove helpful.

Risks to non target organisms and the environment remain as one of the largest potential problems of GM crops in the minds of the public. The findings so far by EPA ORD, that Bt proteins have narrow spectrum insecticidal activity and that no serious effects are anticipated on non target organisms, seems justified, but ORD should be ever vigilant to the possibility of subtle, long term effects that are difficult to measure without an expensive monitoring program. BOSC agrees that the approach to monitor a few key indicator organisms and habitats over a long period of time is the proper approach to this problem. BOSC further recommends that the ORD Biotechnology program include the recent ecological field studies of GM crops in the U. K. in their research data base. These studies indicated that ecological diversity could either increase or decrease due to the use of GM crops, depending on the crops, non target organisms, and cropping practices considered. It would be prudent to learn whatever can be gleaned from these studies and not to reproduce them. Also, the Agency should track closely the overall use of pesticides ( both herbicides and insecticides) on GM cropland in the U. S. A recent report by the Northwest Science & Environmental Policy Center states that in the three year period from 2001 to 2003, the cultivation of such crops increased herbicide applications on herbicide tolerant crops to keep up with community composition changes and tougher to control weed species ( http:// www. biotechinfo. net/ technicalpaper6. html).

BOSC asks ORD to consider whether their research on biotechnology and its effects on the environment is properly focused to address concerns in countries of the European Union, Asia, Africa, and South America?

The potential for gene flow between GM crops and wild type plants is recognized by BOSC as a consequence of all hybrid crops from conventional plant breeding programs, as well as from genetically modified crops. As stated by ORD, the issue is whether cross hybridization with wild type plants ( such as Bt corn with wild maize in Mexico) is a serious consequence and whether it conveys a selective advantage to crops in the wild. The Framework document outlines a good program to study gene flow from transgenic plants to non crop hybrids using genomic techniques to confirm expression of transgenes and to evaluate the fitness and ecological effects on crops and non crop hybrids. Canola and creeping bentgrass are model plants being utilized. Gene introgression ( retention of the genetic characteristics in subsequent generations of the non crop hybrids) and gene expression after 3 5 years in mesocosms is a good approach for studying these important ecological questions.

The insect resistance and management plan of ORD is an important component in the research portfolio of its biotechnology program. The idea to work with NASA on remote sensing of crops for risk management is excellent. The provision for creation of refuges is logical, but there should be some social/ behavioral research considered that measures how and under what circumstances farmers actually perform the recommended practices. The rapid PCR screens and modeling strategy to assess resistance management is a good approach by ORD. But what are the markers being used to detect insect resistance? In the high dose, structured refuge resistance management research, BOSC recommends that a population genetics study of resistance genes in root worm populations under Bt crops be considered. Overall, however, since there are only two organisms that have ever been reported to become resistant to Bt toxin in 30 years of use as a pure insecticide, BOSC wonders whether proportionally there are too many resources being allocated to the resistance question. The risk of loss of a technology is important to consider but, ultimately, it is a risk that the agrochemical industry must bear.

Finally, BOSC discussed other social justice issues of biotechnology including the potential for countries, especially in the developing world, to become dependent on a few companies for their food production system, rendering such countries vulnerable to price increases or even embargoes. These are important issues of food security which are recognized by the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and other international legal instruments. In addition, countries in sub Saharan Africa have refused food aid from the United States during times of famine because they perceived a problem with the safety of the crops and because they worried that farmers might be unable to trade with the European Union if grain bins became contaminated with GM products. Another issue is the perception that organic farmers cannot assure that their produce is free from GM pollen and GM proteins because of the possibility of cross hybridization with genetically modified crops. It was stated that this is not EPA's role to regulate intellectual property, global trade, or food security impacts. It is the role of the USDA to regulate organic food and of the World Trade Organization to oversee trade. But BOSC asks that EPA and ORD be aware and sensitive to such concerns as they develop research products, interact with federal agencies, and communicate risks to the public.

In conclusion, members of BOSC believe that EPA ORD is on the right track and making good progress with its Biotechnology Program. Please let us know if you need any further information regarding this report.

Sincerely yours, James Johnson, Chair Board of Scientific Counselors