[Federal Register: August 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 157)]
[Notices]
[Page 47154-47162]
[DOCID:fr13au08-67]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[OW-FRL-8703-9]

Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Expected Changes to the Grant Allocation Formula for
Awarding Grants Under the BEACH Act.

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

SUMMARY: The Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health
(BEACH) Act authorizes EPA to award program development and
implementation grants to eligible States, Territories, Tribes, and
local governments to support microbiological monitoring and
notification of the public of the potential for exposure to disease-
causing microorganisms in coastal recreation waters. EPA awards BEACH
Act grant funds to eligible States, Territories and Tribes each year
using an allocation formula to determine the amount of federal funds
available for award to each State and Territory. EPA is considering
changes to this allocation formula for the award of grants in 2010 and
is providing States, Territories, and Tribes advance notice of expected
changes.

ADDRESSES: EPA recognizes that reviewers may wish to express their
views and should send them to the Docket. Submit your views, identified
by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0539, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting scientific views.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC). Water Docket, MC 2822T; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Ave,
NW., EPA West, Room 3334, Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lars Wilcut, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., (4305T), Washington, DC 20460. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. What Is the BEACH Act?

    The Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act
of 2000 amends the Clean Water Act to better protect public health at
our Nation's beaches through improved water quality standards and beach
monitoring and notification programs. The BEACH Act authorizes EPA to
award grants to develop and implement monitoring and public
notification programs for coastal recreation waters, consistent with
EPA's required performance criteria. EPA published the required
performance criteria for grants in its ``National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants'' (EPA-823-B-02-004), on July
19, 2002. Currently, all 35 eligible States and Territories operate
beach monitoring and notification programs using BEACH Act grant funds.

B. Who Is Eligible To Apply for BEACH Act Grants?

    Coastal and Great Lake States and Territories that meet the
requirements of CWA section 406(b)(2)(A) are eligible for BEACH Act
grants. These are the States adjacent to the Great Lakes, the Atlantic
and Pacific Oceans, and the Gulf of Mexico as well as the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Tribes may also be
eligible for BEACH Act grants. In order to be eligible, a Tribe must
have coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of
access that are used by the public, and the Tribe must demonstrate that
it meets the ``treatment in the same manner as a State'' criteria in
CWA Section 518(e) for the purposes of receiving a Section 406 BEACH
Act grant.

C. How Much Funding Is Available?

    After the first year of funding of approximately two million
dollars in 2001, funding for the years between

2002 and 2007 has been approximately $10 million per year distributed
among all eligible States, Territories, and Tribes. The actual grant
total awards are $1,812,580 in 2001; $9,999,990 in 2002; $9,935,000 in
2003; $9,891,000 in 2004; $9,870,000 in 2005; $9,803,100 in 2006;
$9,900,000 in 2007; and $9,745,500 in 2008.

II. Current Allocation Formula

A. Why Did EPA Develop an Allocation Formula?

    BEACH Act grants are awarded annually to eligible States,
Territories and Authorized Tribes for the purpose of running a
continuing environmental program for beach monitoring and notification;
therefore, it is appropriate to award these grants using an allocation
formula rather than to award the grants competitively. EPA uses an
allocation formula in other State and Tribal continuing environmental
programs for which EPA awards grants. EPA chose to develop and use an
allocation formula for BEACH grants to help ensure objectivity in
allocations to the 35 eligible States and Territories. On an annual
basis, EPA reserves $50,000 for eligible tribes from the total grant
amount appropriated. To date, one tribe has applied for and received a
grant award. Should other Tribes become eligible, EPA will reserve more
funds for grants to Tribes.

B. How Did EPA Develop the Current Allocation Formula?

    In 2001, EPA, with assistance from the Association of State and
Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA), held a
conference call with States to inform them that EPA was developing an
allocation formula for use in distributing BEACH Act funds. In
developing an allocation formula, EPA wanted a method that distributed
more funds to States and Territories that had a greater number of
highly-used beaches, because EPA expected that monitoring needs would
be greater in these States. EPA also wanted an allocation formula that
used verifiable data for each of the various factors in the formula.
EPA developed a series of possible allocation scenarios, assuming at
the time that the funding would approach the full authorized amount of
$30 million. EPA then had follow-up calls with States, obtained their
views and input, and developed a proposed allocation formula. EPA then
consulted with the States, the Coastal States Organization, and ASIWPCA
on the proposed formula. Although some States and the contacted
associations thought the allocation formula could be improved upon,
they were generally satisfied with this approach because it used the
most reliable data then available. There was not an agreement among
parties on a better or preferred method.

C. What Is the Current Allocation Formula?

    The current allocation formula is used to allocate funds to States
or Territories where the monitoring needs are greatest, that is,
towards States and Territories with more miles of beaches that are open
for longer periods during the year, and are used by more people. EPA
considers the miles of beaches and the length of a beach season to be
good indicators of the need for (and cost of) monitoring and
notification. A State or Territory with many beaches open for the
entire year would be expected to monitor more than a State or Territory
with few beaches only open during the summer. EPA considers beach use
(represented by the number of people who visit and use the beach) to be
a good indicator of the importance of monitoring and notification to
protect public health at beaches. Notifications of exceedance of water
quality standards at beaches with more people would be expected to
prevent more cases of illness, and thus reduce the overall public
health risk nationally more than notifications at beaches that
experience low visitation. This is consistent with the requirement in
the BEACH Act that grantees ``prioritize the use of grant funds for
particular coastal recreation waters based on the use of the water and
the risk to human health presented by pathogens and pathogen
indicators'' and the beach prioritization step in EPA's ``National
Beach Guidance and Performance Criteria for Grants'' See CWA Section
406(b) (2) A (ii) and EPA-823-B-02-004. Chapter 3 of this document
describes the risk-based beach evaluation and classification process,
including the evaluation steps and recommended information that a
State, Territory, or Tribe should consider when ranking beaches.
    The current allocation formula sums three parts. The first part is
a base amount for all States and Territories that varies with the
length of the beach season. This base amount is scaled in $50,000
increments from $150,000 for States with the shortest beach season to
$300,000 for States and Territories with the longest beach season.
States and Territories with long seasons are allotted two times the
base amount of grant funds as those with short beach seasons (Table 1).
The second part of the formula allots half of the total remaining funds
(i.e. what is left after subtracting the total base amount) on the
basis of the ratio of shoreline miles in a State or Territory to the
total length of shoreline miles across the entire United States. For
example, if a State has 4 percent of the total coastal and Great Lakes
shoreline, that State would be allotted 4 percent of 50 percent (or 2
percent) of total funds remaining after the Agency allotted the base
amount (i.e. part one of the formula) to all States and Territories.
The third part of the formula allots the remaining funds on the basis
of the ratio of coastal population in a State or Territory to the total
coastal population. For example, if a State has 2 percent of the total
coastal and Great Lakes population, that State would receive 2 percent
of 50 percent (or 1 percent) of the total funds remaining after the
Agency allotted the funds for the first two parts. The following table
summarizes the allocation formula:

                 Table 1--BEACH Grant Allocation Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       For the factor--             The part of the allocation is--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beach season length..........  <3 months: $150,000 (States and
                                Territories with a season <3 months
                                receive season-based funding only.)
                               3-4 months: $200,000.
                               5-6 months: $250,000.
                               >6 months: $300,000.
Shoreline miles..............  50% of funds remaining after allocation
                                of season-based funding.
Coastal population...........  50% of funds remaining after allocation
                                of season-based funding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA reserves $50,000 from the total amount appropriated for grants
to eligible Tribes. To date, one tribe has applied for and received a
grant award. Should other Tribes become eligible, EPA will reserve more
funds for grants to Tribes.
    The current allocation formula was originally developed assuming
EPA would receive the full amount of funds authorized to be
appropriated for grants under the BEACH Act ($30 million). At an annual
appropriation level of $30 million, the beach season component of the
formula ($8.15 million) would represent 27% of the annually available
funds. At this funding level, the beach length and beach use components
would each be $10.92 million, representing together 73% of the
allocated funds. Since 2002, annual appropriations for BEACH Act grants
have been approximately $10 million. At an annual appropriation level
of $10 million, the beach season component (still $8.15 million)
represents 82% of the appropriation, and the beach length and beach use
components ($0.92 million each) together represent 18% of the available
funds. Therefore, because the appropriation has been much lower than
the authorization, the ratio of the different components of the
allocation formula has shifted from being roughly equal, which was the
intention, to being heavily dominated by the beach season length
component. The result is that a State or Territory with a longer beach
season would receive substantially more money than a State or Territory
in a colder climate with a shorter beach season but with more beaches
and more people using them.

D. How Are the Factors in the Allocation Formula Quantified?

1. Beach Season Length
    EPA selected beach season length as a factor because it represents
the amount of time in a year when a government would conduct its
monitoring and notification program. The longer the beach season, the
more resources a government would need to conduct monitoring and
notification. The Agency obtained the information on the length of a
beach season from the ``National Health Protection Survey of Beaches''
for the States or Territories that submitted a completed survey.
However, because Alaska was not included in the survey, EPA estimated
the beach season length for Alaska on the basis of air and water
temperature, available information on recreation activities, and data
from the ``1993 National Water Based Recreation Survey.'' EPA then
grouped the States and Territories into four categories of beach season
lengths as shown in Table 2.

                            Table 2--Distribution of States by Beach Season Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    For beaches in--                                  The beach season category is--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska..................................................  <3 months.
Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine,          3-4 months.
 Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New
 Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon,
 Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington,
 Wisconsin.
Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North           5-6 months.
 Carolina, South Carolina.
American Samoa, California, Florida, Guam, Hawaii,        9-12 months.
 Northern Mariana, Puerto Rico, Texas, U.S. Virgin
 Islands.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Shoreline Miles
    EPA wanted to use miles of beach as a factor because it is
indicative of the geographical extent over which a government would be
expected to conduct monitoring. The more miles of beaches, the more
resources a government would need to conduct monitoring and
notification. EPA did not have current beach mileage data in a format
that could be used for the allocation formula. Therefore, EPA has used
shoreline miles as a surrogate for beach miles in the allocation
formula. Shoreline miles data overestimate beach miles in some States
and Territories; however, EPA and States agreed that this is the best
way to estimate beach miles as it was the best available data at that
time. EPA used the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) publication, ``The Coastline of the United States,'' to quantify
shoreline miles.
3. Coastal Population
    EPA wanted to use beach use as a factor because it reflects the
magnitude of potential human exposure to pathogens at recreational
beaches. In short, States and Territories can prevent more total
illnesses when they notify the public of pollution problems at heavily-
used beaches than when they notify the public at less-used beaches. EPA
presently uses the coastal population of counties (from the 2000 Census
data) to quantify the coastal population that is wholly or partially
within the State's or Territory's legally-defined coastal zone, as a
surrogate for actual beach usage.

E. What Do States Receive Under the Current Allocation Formula?

    For 2008, the total available for BEACH Act grants to States and
Territories was $9,745,500. EPA reserved $50,000 for authorized Tribes.
Assuming all 35 States and Territories with coastal recreation waters
apply and meet the eligibility requirements for implementation grants
(and have met the statutory grant conditions applicable to previously
awarded CWA section 406 grants), the allocation of the funds for fiscal
year 2008 is the following:

             Table 3--Distribution of 2008 BEACH Act Grants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               The year
                                                                 2008
              For the State or Territory of--                 allocation
                                                                 is--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama....................................................     $258,390
Alaska.....................................................      147,650
American Samoa.............................................      297,460
California.................................................      514,720
Connecticut................................................      220,500
Delaware...................................................      207,730
Florida....................................................      526,320
Georgia....................................................      282,700
Guam.......................................................      297,930
Hawaii.....................................................      318,590
Illinois...................................................      240,290
Indiana....................................................      202,730
Louisiana..................................................      320,270
Maine......................................................      252,220
Maryland...................................................      266,900
Massachusetts..............................................      251,930
Michigan...................................................      276,210
Minnesota..................................................      201,190
Mississippi................................................      253,680
New Hampshire..............................................      201,450
New Jersey.................................................      275,480
New York...................................................      347,300
North Carolina.............................................      299,150
Northern Marianas..........................................      298,670
Ohio.......................................................      220,780
Oregon.....................................................      225,970
Pennsylvania...............................................      219,650
Puerto Rico................................................      324,080

Rhode Island...............................................      209,650
South Carolina.............................................      293,270
Texas......................................................      379,140
U.S. Virgin Islands........................................      298,510
Virginia...................................................      274,650
Washington.................................................      267,980
Wisconsin..................................................      222,420
------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. How Much Are States Spending Using the Current Allocation Formula?

    All 35 eligible States and Territories have developed and are now
implementing a beach monitoring and notification program consistent
with the requirements of the ``National Beach Guidance and Required
Performance Criteria for Grants'' for the past 6 years. As a result of
awarding grants to these States and Territories for the last seven
years, EPA now has a clear picture of their spending patterns.
    First, States and Territories fund their beach monitoring and
notification programs using funds awarded in the previous year. For
example, a State will use its 2007 grant to fund 2008 beach monitoring
and notification. The reason for this is the timing of the award of
annual BEACH Act grants. EPA typically receives its appropriation
between December and March of each fiscal year. Once EPA is aware of
the total appropriation for BEACH Act grants, EPA publishes a notice of
the availability of grants. States and Territories apply for the
grants, and the grants are awarded by summer with a project period that
generally covers the following summer. This is generally too late to
fund the current year's monitoring, so States and Territories typically
use grant funds awarded in one year to fund activities in the following
year's beach season. Some grant awards are made by amending the
previous year's grant award and extending the project period.
    Second, some States and Territories delay expending BEACH Act
grants until the end of the beach season, or in a few situations, the
following year. For example, a State may not expend the grant funds
awarded in FY 07 until FY 08. Since this State would use funds awarded
in 2006 for the 2007 monitoring, this means that some year 2006 funds
may not be expended until year 2008.
    Overall, EPA expects that in any year, States and Territories could
have some grant funds remaining from the preceding two federal fiscal
years, but should have used and invoiced all the funds from the federal
fiscal years prior to the preceding two federal fiscal years. For
example, in FY 2008, EPA expects that States and Tribes could have
funds remaining from years FY 2006 and FY 2007, but would not have
funds remaining from years up through FY 2005. Table 4 shows the
current status of funds as of July 22, 2008 remaining from the
beginning of BEACH Act grants (2001) through 2005.

                          Table 4--Distribution of BEACH Act Grant Awards as of 7/22/08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total grant   % Grants funds
                                                                    Total grant        funds      un-invoiced FY
                              State                               funds received   remaining FY      2001-2005
                                                                   FY 2001-2005      2001-2005       (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.........................................................      $1,108,677              $0               0
Alaska..........................................................         660,178         151,989              23
American Samoa..................................................       1,207,142               0               0
California......................................................       2,178,117               0               0
CNMI............................................................       1,270,938               0               0
Connecticut.....................................................         957,854               0               0
Delaware........................................................         902,802               0               0
Florida.........................................................       2,211,738               0               0
Georgia.........................................................       1,210,365               0               0
Guam............................................................       1,208,932               0               0
Hawaii..........................................................       1,354,901               0               0
Illinois........................................................       1,185,881               0               0
Indiana.........................................................         882,484               0               0
Louisiana.......................................................       1,471,127               0               0
Maine...........................................................       1,090,713               0               0
Maryland........................................................       1,153,021               0               0
Massachusetts...................................................       1,090,645               0               0
Michigan........................................................       1,151,672               0               0
Minnesota.......................................................         875,555               0               0
Mississippi.....................................................       1,088,902               0               0
New Hampshire...................................................         876,994           3,522              <1
New Jersey......................................................       1,189,459           7,477              <1
New York........................................................       1,493,065           4,998              <1
North Carolina..................................................       1,280,231               0               0
Ohio............................................................         960,193          52,842               6
Oregon..........................................................         972,673               0               0
Pennsylvania....................................................         821,766               0               0
Puerto Rico.....................................................       1,382,783         547,201              40
Rhode Island....................................................         911,670               0               0
South Carolina..................................................       1,255,358               0               0
Texas...........................................................       1,620,223               0               0
Virgin Islands..................................................       1,270,325          64,184               5
Virginia........................................................       1,258,772               0               0
Washington......................................................       1,153,133               0               0
Wisconsin.......................................................         965,890               0               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As Table 4 shows, 28 States and Territories have invoiced all funds
from years 2001 through 2005, but 7 States and Territories have funds
remaining from grants awarded prior to 2006. Most of those States and
Territories have only a few percent of these funds remaining. However,
Alaska and Puerto Rico have over 20% of their funds remaining from the
years 2001 through 2005.

G. What Problems Occur Under the Current Allocation Formula?

    As discussed in section II.C., EPA developed the current allocation
formula assuming that the BEACH Act grant program would be funded to
its full authorization of $30 million. Approximately $8.15 million of
the currently available $10 million in BEACH Act grant funds are
allocated on the basis of what EPA expects is the minimum amount of
dollars needed to establish and run a beach program, according to the
length of a beach season in a State or Territory. As a result, the
shoreline miles and coastal population factors are under-represented in
the allocation formula, each receiving 9% of the total (based on $10
million of available grant funds). The dominating influence of the
beach season length can cause some issues. First, States and
Territories with longer shorelines (and thus likely many beaches)
receive fewer funds per beach than States and Territories with shorter
shorelines (likely fewer beaches). This can result in a lower
percentage of beaches monitored or less intense monitoring in the
States and Territories with many beaches, which may result in less
protection of public health that in other States or Territories.
    Second, States and Territories with shorter shorelines (likely
fewer beaches) may receive more funds than they can effectively spend,
thus leaving unspent funds intended for beach monitoring.
    Third, the current allocation formula uses miles of State shoreline
as a surrogate for miles of beaches. For States with extensive
coastline but fewer miles of beaches, this factor overestimates the
miles of beaches, resulting in larger grant awards than perhaps
warranted, and increases the potential for unused funds.
    Fourth, the current allocation formula uses coastal county
population data provided by the Census Bureau as a surrogate for actual
beach use. This results in a larger grant allocation for States and
Territories with high coastal populations whether or not beach use in
those States and Territories is high, and the potential for targeting
funds away from beaches where the potential to prevent more illnesses
is higher because of greater use there.
    The Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified these factors
as shortcomings of the current allocation formula in its 2007 report on
the beach program. GAO recommended that EPA allocate grant funds to
better reflect monitoring needs and help States and Territories improve
the consistency of their monitoring and notification activities.

III. Discussions of Expected Changes to the Grant Allocation Formula

A. What Process Did EPA Use To Analyze Potential Changes to the
Allocation Formula?

    EPA first made public its intention to revisit the allocation
formula in the Federal Register (FR) notice announcing the availability
of fiscal year 2006 grants (71 FR 1744, 1746, January 11, 2006). On
February 15, 2006, EPA convened a workgroup made up of EPA and State
representatives to explore issues and problems with the current
formula, and to discuss possible changes to the formula that would
address these problems. Of the 35 BEACH Act eligible States, 25
participated in the workgroup which met monthly. The workgroup
carefully evaluated alternatives to the three component factors used in
the allocation formula. The workgroup continued its work through May
2007.

B. What Factors Did EPA and States Discuss?

    EPA and States discussed all three factors in the current
allocation formula, including better ways to quantify these factors and
to address the issues discussed in Section II.G.
1. Beach Season Length
    As discussed in Section II.D.1, this factor recognizes, all other
things being equal, that the longer the beach season, the more funds
that a State or Territory needs to operate a beach monitoring and
notification program. Under the current formula, States and Territories
with long beach seasons receive more funds than States and Territories
with short beach seasons for this factor. As summarized in Table 1,
above, the base funding level of the current grant allocation formula
is based on the beach season length and ranges from $150,000 to
$300,000.
    During the conference calls, the workgroup evaluated options for
uniformly reducing the amounts associated with this factor by either
$50,000 or $100,000 so that more funds would be ``available'' to be
allotted based on the other two factors. Uniformly reducing the beach
season length component of the allocation formula (i.e., by $50,000 or
$100,000) affects the minimum amount of funding a State or Territory
receives to implement its BEACH Act monitoring and notification program
and would have the effect of shifting funds toward those States and
Territories with longer shorelines and greater shoreline populations.
For a $10 million appropriation for BEACH Act grants, reducing this
factor by $50,000 (i.e. changing the values in Table from 150,000 to
100,000; 200,000 to 150,000; 250,000 to 200,000) would result in a
total of $6.5 million for this factor, or 65% of the funds. Likewise,
reducing this factor by $100,000 would result in a total of $4.75
million for this factor, or 48% of the funds distributed by the
formula. Either of these changes would reduce the significance of the
length of beach season in the allocation formula, and increase the
significance of the other two factors, but would leave all States and
Territories with enough funds to operate a basic beach monitoring and
notification program. EPA estimates that this minimum base amount is
$150,000 based on 1 full-time equivalent and other costs associated
with the collection and transmittal to EPA of monitoring and advisory
data.
    The workgroup also discussed the implications of reducing the beach
season length component by $150,000. Most state workgroup
representatives believed this could reduce the grant amounts at a $10
million appropriation for States and Territories with fewer beach miles
or beach use to a level below which the States and Territories believed
necessary to operate a basic monitoring and notification program. As a
result, the workgroup only considered reductions of $50,000 and
$100,000.
2. Beach Miles
    As discussed in section II.D.2, this factor recognizes that the
greater number of beach miles in a State or Territory, the more funds
are needed to monitor beaches and notify the public at those beaches.
From this component, States and Territories with more miles of beaches
would receive more funds than States and Territories with fewer miles
of beaches. Because there was no verifiable source of the total beach
mileage for each State and Territory when EPA developed the original
allocation formula, EPA used NOAA shoreline length as a surrogate for
beach length.
a. Considerations About Total Beach Miles
    Beach mileage was a factor that received special attention from the

workgroup. The workgroup considered options for changing the surrogate
for the beach mileage component from the current shoreline miles (taken
from a NOAA data set) to a more precise measure. They started their
discussions with a common view that actual beach miles would be the
most preferable measure because it is a direct measurement, rather than
a surrogate and is also available as a data field in EPA's PRogram
tracking, beach Advisories, Water quality standards, and Nutrients
(PRAWN) database. PRAWN is used by EPA to store information on State
and Territorial beach advisories and closings. However, the workgroup
found several issues with the current information in PRAWN on actual
total beach miles.
    The workgroup noted significant differences in reported beach
mileage due to several factors. First, States and Territories have
different ways for computing total beach miles in the data that they
input into PRAWN. Second, not all States and Territories had input
complete information about beach length into PRAWN. Finally, the
workgroup noticed what appeared to be inconsistencies between entries
in PRAWN and similar data from other sources.
    As a result, the workgroup recommended that EPA improve the
completeness and accuracy of the total beach mile data in PRAWN before
considering using it in the allocation formula. EPA is continuing to
compile and review for accuracy beach mileage information for all the
BEACH Act States and Territories and expects to have more reliable data
on beach mileage by mid-2009. EPA has designed this effort to address
all of the data limitations discussed above, as well as any additional
limitations or concerns that may arise during this effort. The effort
includes using the same latitude/longitude data standards as used in
other EPA and State databases and a quality assurance review of all
data used to generate the beach lengths. EPA is conducting this effort
with the States and Territories to ensure that beach mileage amounts
are accurate and thus would be appropriate to use for BEACH Act grant
allocation formula purposes in the future.
    Given their concerns about using current total beach miles in the
allocation formula, the workgroup then considered whether current
monitored beach miles (i.e. lengths of beaches where sampling occurs)
would be a better measure to use. Lengths of beaches with no monitoring
would not be considered. One advantage of using monitored beach miles
data that the workgroup recognized is that this information is updated
annually by States and Territories as they submit their beach
monitoring and notification information to EPA. The workgroup favored
using monitored beach miles because they were aware of the quality,
accuracy and representativeness of this information. The workgroup
reviewed the monitored beach mile data from PRAWN for the 2005 swimming
season, which was the most current information at the time of the
workgroup deliberations, and agreed that monitored beach miles is a
reasonable substitute for total beach miles.
    The workgroup categorized monitored beach miles data into groups
that were relatively close in magnitude. The workgroup observed that
monitored beach miles tended to fall into five groups: less than 32
miles, 32-63 miles, 64-249 miles, 250-500 miles, and greater than 500
miles. Grouping information in this way has the effect of minimizing
differences between the lowest and highest data points. EPA considers
grouping data appropriate when there is a wide disparity between the
high and low points of data.
b. Considerations of Alternatives to Beach Miles
    The workgroup evaluated several other alternatives for distributing
grant funds based on the monitoring need for the length of beaches.
These included the total number of Tier 1 beaches, the total number of
Tier 1 and Tier 2 beaches combined (using EPA's recommended tiers),
frequency of sampling or the total number of samples taken during the
beach season at Tier 1 beaches, and total number of monitoring
stations. In discussing other alternatives for characterizing beach
length, the workgroup looked for ways to better represent the actual
monitoring and notification need by using data of comparable quality
between the States and Territories.
    A Tier 1 or Tier 2 beach represents the relative priority that
States and Territories place on a beach for monitoring and
notification. Consistent with the ``National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants'' (EPA-823-B-02-004), States
and Territories evaluate and classify beaches based on the potential
risk of disease and to protect public health. For states that use EPA's
recommended process to categorize or ``tier'' their beaches, a
classification of Tier 1, for example, could indicate that waters are
of such importance and/or receive such high usage that significant
resources should be devoted to more intensive monitoring and public
notification efforts for that area. In theory, a State or Territory
with a higher number of Tier 1 beaches (or combination of Tier 1 and
Tier 2 beaches) would have a greater need for monitoring, and thus
would warrant more grant funds.
    However, the workgroup did not believe that using the Tier 1 or a
combination of Tier 1 and Tier 2 beaches would be a good alternative
for beach length. First, States and Territories classify their beaches
differently. For example, some states count each point of access to the
ocean as a beach whereas other states consider the length of beach when
counting beaches.
    Second, States and Territories use different criteria for defining
Tier 1 beaches. Some beaches are classified as Tier 1 beaches because
they are highly used, and others are classified as Tier 1 because they
have higher contamination levels. The workgroup also discussed creating
a matrix of factors related to monitoring at beaches, and using this to
quantify the component to allocate grant funds based on monitoring
need. This matrix would include factors such as operating costs, number
of monitored beaches, frequency of monitoring, and number of monitoring
stations.
    The workgroup concluded that there are several issues with using a
matrix of factors, and decided it would not be appropriate to use it as
a surrogate for beach length. The first issue is that there is no
current verifiable collection of these data and thus constructing a
matrix would require a data collection effort that the workgroup did
not believe could be completed with verifiable data.
    The second issue relates to using the frequency of monitoring as a
metric. Some States and Territories would likely monitor more intensely
if they had funds to do so. Therefore, a state's current level or
frequency of monitoring does not necessarily reflect a need for
monitoring but rather the resources available to monitor. Some
workgroup members pointed out that collecting more water samples at
more stations is not always necessary to ensure protection of public
health. If a beach has a documented history of good water quality and
officials well understand what is impacting water quality at a
particular beach, then taking more samples at the beach may not provide
any more information for determining the need for a beach advisory or
protect any more people from illness. In addition, increased monitoring
at a beach with good water quality could direct funds away from beaches
that do not have such a good history and thus where additional
monitoring would be

helpful and lead to preventing additional illness.
    Third, EPA expects that States and Territories have made decisions
on the intensity of monitoring and notification priorities based on
risk, the need to protect public health, and local circumstances. EPA's
guidance in this area is in the ``National Beach Guidance and
Performance Criteria for Grants'' EPA-823-B-02-004). Including
frequency of sampling or number of sampling stations in the allocation
formula could change this. EPA recognizes that States and Territories
may want to reduce or increase sampling frequencies at individual
beaches, focus on problem beaches, conduct intensive sampling efforts,
or respond to community requests, and that States and Territories need
to be able to make these decisions as needed during a swimming season
without considering how it might affect the distribution of grant funds
the following year.
3. Beach Use
    As discussed in section II.D.3, this factor recognizes that the
greater the beach use in a State or Territory, the greater the
potential to reduce the absolute number of people who get sick by
monitoring and notifying the public at these beaches. States and
Territories with beaches with more visitors would receive more funds
than States and Territories with beaches with fewer visitors. Because
there was no verifiable source of the number of people visiting beaches
when EPA developed the allocation formula, EPA used 2000 census data of
county coastal population as a surrogate for beach use.
    During its deliberations, the workgroup investigated different ways
of finding a better estimate of beach use. EPA identified a reliable,
and independently-verifiable data source: ``Current Participation
Patterns in Marine Recreation'' (November 2001), which the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published as part of the 1999-
2000 National Survey of Recreation and the Environment (NSRE). The NSRE
is the eighth in a series of national surveys that was started in 1960
by the federal government to assess outdoor recreation participation in
the United States. The survey was conducted as an ``in-the-home'' phone
survey of 50,000 households across all ethnic groups throughout the
United States. The survey provides a quantitative measure of the number
of people who swim at marine beaches, including mixed fresh/saltwater
in tidal portions of rivers and bays. Thus, the survey better reflects
the swimming beach activity for marine States than does coastal
population. The NSRE information overcomes the bias of using coastal
population as a surrogate for beach use. However, the report does not
include data for the Great Lakes States or the Territories.
    The workgroup looked for other sources of beach use or swimming
information regarding the Great Lakes and Territories. Not finding such
information, the workgroup then considered whether it could estimate
the number of people who swim at beaches on the Great Lakes and the
Territories by projecting a ratio between the NSRE report data and
coastal population data for marine States and then applying this ratio
to the coastal population for the Great Lakes States and the
Territories. This process could replace use of the year 2000 coastal
county population data on the distribution of funds in the allocation
formula.
    However, application of those ratios produced results in some
instances that seemed inappropriate to the workgroup. For example,
applying the ratio to estimate the number of people swimming in the
Chicago area was about 50% higher than the NSRE data for the New York
City area. Applying the ratio to Puerto Rico gave a result that was
only slightly higher than the NSRE data for California. EPA discussed
the consequences of using the ratio to estimate the number of people
swimming at Great Lakes and Territorial beaches with representatives
from Great Lakes States and EPA Region 9 personnel representing the
Pacific Territories. The representatives suggested that the ratio
estimates should be based on known local information if available.
Thus, EPA is now working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration to address the need for an update to the NSRE that would
obtain information about Great Lakes beaches.
    As was the case with the beach length data, the workgroup
categorized the beach use data to minimize the effect of any
imprecision in the data or inconsistencies in reporting on the
allocation formula calculations. By grouping the data into categories,
beach use totals that are relatively close in magnitude would be
considered to be the same magnitude. The beach use data tended to fall
into four groups: fewer than 1 million swimmers, 1-4 million swimmers,
4-8 million swimmers, and greater than 8 million swimmers.

C. What Potential Solutions Were Developed?

    From these evaluations of the components of the formula, the
workgroup formed four options for a revised formula. The options were
designed to overcome the two primary issues with the current allocation
formula: the overly-large influence of the beach season component of
the formula at the current level of appropriations, and the
shortcomings of the surrogates for beach use and beach length. To
reduce the influence of the beach season component, reductions in this
component by either $50,000 or $100,000 per state were considered. To
overcome the shortcomings of the current indices for beach miles and
beach use, EPA considered monitored beaches as a surrogate for the
beach season length factor and the NSRE data as a surrogate for the
beach use factor. The options differ in that they investigate different
combinations of reducing the beach season length and the effect of
grouping monitored beach mile and NSRE use data within range categories
as replacements for the surrogates as shown in Table 5. Grouping, as
opposed to calculating an allocation based on discrete beach mile and
use data, is more tolerant of imprecision in measurement while
reflecting the effects of broader variation for this type of purpose.

                                 Table 5--Allocation Formula Options Considered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           The beach season       The monitored beach     The NSRE data for the
             For option--                component is reduced      miles data for the    beach use component is--
                                                 by--                component is--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................  $50,000................  Grouped................  Ungrouped.
2....................................  $100,000...............  Grouped................  Ungrouped.
3....................................  $50,000................  Grouped *..............  Grouped.**
4....................................  $100,000...............  Grouped *..............  Grouped.**
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 5 Groupings: less than 32 miles, 32-63 miles, 64-249 miles, 250-500 miles, and greater than 500 miles.
**5 Groupings: fewer than 1 million swimmers, 1-4 million swimmers, 4-8 million swimmers, and greater than 8
  million swimmers.

    All four options resulted in more States losing funding than those
gaining funding. The 2006 BEACH Act grants were used as a baseline to
evaluate each option. In 2006, the allocation calculated awards ranging
between $150,000 and $528,410. In Option 1, the calculated grant awards
ranged from $132,610 to $717,290. Nine States and one Territory would
receive increased funding, with increases ranging from $13,665 to
$331,211. Six States and one Territory would receive increases of more
than 20%. Twenty-one States and four Territories would receive
decreased funding, with decreases ranging from $2,458 to $170,949. Nine
States would receive decreases of more than 20%.
    In Option 2, the calculated grant awards ranged from $127,430 to
$687,770. Twelve States and three Territories would receive increased
funding, with increases ranging from $888 to $159,354. Five States and
one Territory States would receive increases of more than 20%. Eighteen
States and two Territories States would receive decreased funding, with
decreases ranging from $2,770 to $138,124. Four of those 20 States
would receive decreases of more than 20%.
    In Option 3, the calculated grant awards ranged from $131,060 to
$561,960. Fourteen States and three Territories would receive increased
funding, with increases ranging from $769 to $114,510. Three States
would receive increases of more than 20%. Sixteen States and two
Territories would receive decreased funding, with decreases ranging
from $7,120 to $140,951. Two States would receive decreases of more
than 20%.
    In Option 4, the calculated grant awards ranged from $153,800 to
$490,220. Twelve States and five Territories would receive increased
funding, with increases ranging from $464 to $84,618. Two States would
receive increases of more than 20%. Eighteen States would receive
decreased funding, with decreases ranging from $275 to $118,216. One
State would receive a decrease of more than 20%.
    In evaluating the options, EPA recognized that under any option,
some States and Territories would gain funding and some would lose. EPA
was most interested in options that would not result in many States or
Territories losing significant funds such that their programs would
possibly be unable to continue. Option 1 would result in nine States
and Territories losing over 20% of their current annual funds, which
could adversely affect their ability to carry out their program. Under
option 2, only four States and Territories would lose over 20% of their
funds, but more States and Territories would lose funds than gain
funds. Under option 3, only 2 States would lose over 20% of their funds
and the number of States and Territories losing and gaining funds were
about the same. Under option 4 only one State would lose over 20% of
its current allocation and the number of States and Territories losing
and gaining funds were about the same. EPA prefers option 4. Each of
the evaluated options maintained at least $150,000 for all States
except Alaska, which was reduced to as low as $127,430 in option two.

D. How Did States React to the Options?

    During the course of successive meetings, State representatives in
the workgroup made it clear that any significant reduction in beach
grant funds could cause severe effects to many State beach monitoring
and notification programs. State representatives identified effects
including discontinuing monitoring at some beaches, especially those
that are in remote areas; discontinuing funding to entire counties or
Tribes that are subcontracted to monitor beaches, thereby reducing
monitoring and notification at multiple beaches; and reducing the
frequency of monitoring at Tier 1 beaches in high-population areas,
thereby increasing the risk of missing high pathogen concentrations and
thus increasing the risk to public health.
    The State representatives on the workgroup recommended that EPA
maintain its current allocation formula (i.e., the ``no change''
option) for the current level of funding (which is about $10 million
annually) to prevent significant State and Territorial program
reductions or cuts. To many State representatives, the annual beach
grant amount had become the financial foundation upon which they built
their programs. In addition to funding the actual beach monitoring and
notification, the annual beach grant supports other elements essential
to maintaining a viable beach program: A State or Territory beach
coordinator, the maintenance of a database of beach monitoring and
notification, and the electronic transmittal of these data to EPA. Some
State budgets are very tight, and funds for recreational water
monitoring and notification are limited to the amount received in BEACH
Act grant funding. These States, which may not have had any beach
monitoring and notification program prior to the BEACH Act, are
extremely sensitive to any reduction in their grant amounts. Some State
workgroup representatives indicated that they might choose to opt out
of EPA's BEACH Act grant program if their grant amounts are
significantly reduced.

E. What Is EPA's Reaction and Why?

    EPA has reviewed the beach grant allocation formula and has
recognized issues and some imbalance in the allocation of grant funds
among States and Territories. EPA has sought input from the States in
having them participate in a workgroup formed to review the allocation
formula. EPA and the State workgroup identified and have reviewed a
range of options for improving the formula.
    EPA has reviewed the data on the allocation of beach grant funds
and concludes that the current formula provides a base amount of
approximately $150,000 that is the minimum required to maintain a beach
program that meets the requirements of the BEACH Act. The data indicate
that the distribution of fund grant funds is for the most part
equitable and that States are expending the grant funds consistent with
program requirements. EPA recognizes, however, outstanding needs
presented by long beach seasons, heavy use of beaches, and/or long
coastlines with many beaches represent burdens that some State partners
must manage.
    Our evaluation led EPA to choose an incremental process in
considering changes to the grant allocation formula, starting with
modest changes to address outstanding needs. The first step to be
piloted by EPA in adjusting the grant process employs two techniques:
(1) The re-allocation of older unexpended grant funds and (2) making
changes to be employed effective in 2010 as to how these and any other
additional funds over an annual appropriation of $10 million would be
allocated to States and Territories.

IV. Future Change to the Grant Allocation Formula Under Consideration

A. What Change Is EPA Considering?

    EPA is today announcing that it is considering a change to its
allocation formula that would shift funding from States and Territories
that are not fully using all of their previously awarded BEACH Act
grant funds to those States and Territories that: (1) Use their annual
funds and (2) have more beach miles at which they could conduct
monitoring and notification to increase public health protection. To do
this, EPA would develop and use a new allocation formula based on beach
miles and beach use to reallocate any unspent funds. EPA would also use
this new formula in the future to allocate any increase in

appropriated BEACH Act grant funds above the $10 million current level.
    EPA would implement this approach by reviewing State and
Territorial spending every October 1 and adjusting the allocation to
certain States and Territories on the basis of the funds that these
States and Territories have not yet expended. EPA would review EPA's
Financial Database Warehouse to confirm the amount of outstanding funds
reported. In making this determination, EPA will take into account
those funds that have been committed through an appropriate State,
Territorial or Tribal contract, inter-agency agreement, or similar type
of binding agreement, but have not been requested for reimbursement,
i.e., that are not showing as ``drawn down'' in EPA's Data Warehouse.
As noted in section III.F., EPA recognizes that States and Territories
have different financial management systems and that those systems
could result in delayed billing to EPA, even though the States and
Territories might have already expended funds to monitor beaches and
notify the public. EPA also recognizes that States and Territories
typically spend the previous year's grant award in any given beach
season due to the timing of the availability of BEACH Act grants in the
middle of the beach season. Therefore, to account for these factors,
EPA is considering an approach that would reduce the new grant award by
the amount of unexpended grant funds that are more than three years
old.
    For the 2010 beach season, EPA would review State and Territory
spending in October 2009 and determine how much grant funding from
fiscal years 2001 to 2007 is still unspent by each State and Territory.
EPA would identify the unspent amounts from 2001 through 2007 in the
Financial Database Warehouse and compare them to the amount EPA expects
to award in fiscal year 2010. EPA would then reduce the 2010 grant
award for those States and Territories with unobligated funds from 2001
through 2007 by the amount remaining. For example, in 2010, consider a
State that normally receives $250,000 annually yet has $100,000
remaining from grants awarded up to fiscal year 2007. Under the
approach that EPA is considering, EPA would reduce the State's grant
award for the following year's beach season by $100,000 (the amount the
State has left unspent from fiscal years up to 2007), thus resulting in
an award of $150,000 in 2010. The $100,000 not awarded to the State
would be combined with unused grant funds from other States and
Territories and re-allocated among the States and Territories that have
fully used their funds from fiscal years up to 2007 using a modified
allocation formula, described below.
    EPA is considering reallocating these additional funds according to
a second, modified allocation formula composed of only two factors--
beach miles and beach use--to only those States and Territories that do
not have remaining money older than three years old. EPA is working
with States and Territories to obtain sufficient information to base a
supplemental allocation formula on those two factors. As discussed in
Section III.B.2.a, with the help of State and Territorial beach program
managers, EPA is compiling and quality testing beach mile information
for all the BEACH Act States and Territories and expects to have
reliable beach mile data on the extent of beaches by mid-2009. EPA is
also working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
to expand its research on beach use to Great Lakes States, and is also
looking for information on beach use in the Territories. EPA will work
with States to ensure effective implementation of the new allocation
formula.

B. Why Isn't EPA Amending Other Parts of the Allocation Formula?

    EPA is considering the retention of the use of the surrogates EPA
has used for beach mileage and beach use--i.e., shoreline miles and
coastal population--as factors of the current allocation formula for
the first $10 million in BEACH Act grant funds. As discussed in section
III.D, States consider their current level of BEACH Act funding to be
the financial foundation for their beach monitoring and notification
programs. Because this funding has been relatively stable over the last
six years, States and Territories rely on these funds to provide them a
generally consistent level of funding for their programs. For many
States, funds for recreational water monitoring are limited to the
amount received in BEACH Act grant funding. Some States have indicated
to EPA that they might choose to opt out of EPA's BEACH Act grant
program if their grant amounts are reduced. For these reasons, EPA is
considering retaining the use of shoreline miles and coastal population
factors in the core allocation formula for the first $10 million of
appropriated grant funds and not making any other changes to this
formula.

C. How Would This Change Affect Current State Funding?

    Based on grant fund use as of 2008, EPA expects that most States
and Territories will not be affected in 2010 because they currently
have no unused BEACH Act grant funds that are more than three years
old. The expected changes to the allocation formula will affect only
those States and Territories that have unspent BEACH Act grant funds
that are more than three years old. In 2008, only 7 States and
Territories--Alaska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Puerto
Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands--fall into this category. As noted in
Table 4, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and New York all have balances of
less than 1 percent of their total BEACH Act grant funds more than
three years old. EPA recognizes that Agency accounting practices
contributed to the remaining balances in New Jersey and New York, and
has worked to ensure that the oldest money is now invoiced first. Under
the process EPA is considering, should any State or Territory in 2010
have uninvoiced funds from FY 2001 through FY 2007, EPA would reduce
their 2010 grant funding by the amount equal to this older money and
redistribute these funds to the other States and Territories.

D. How Would EPA Involve States in Developing This Change?

    EPA intends to reconstitute the workgroup of EPA and State
representatives to discuss the details for implementing this change to
the allocation formula. EPA will also invite Territorial
representatives to the workgroup.

E. When Would This Change Become Effective?

    EPA expects that this change will be effective for the awarding of
the 2010 BEACH Act grants.

     Dated: August 7, 2008.
Benjamin H. Grumbles,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. E8-18739 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 12, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17533-17537]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06962]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0651; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-043-AD;
Amendment 39-18850; AD 2017-08-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-22-19 for
all Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GV and GV-SP airplanes. AD
2013-22-19 required inspecting to determine if fuel boost pumps having
a certain part number were installed, replacing the fuel boost pumps
having a certain part number, and revising the airplane maintenance
program to include revised Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
This new AD reduces the compliance time for revising the airplane
maintenance or inspection program. This AD was prompted by reports of
two independent types of failure of the fuel boost pump with overheat
damage found on the internal components and external housing on one of
the failure types, and fuel leakage on the other. We are issuing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 17, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of May 17, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of January
7, 2014 (78 FR 72554, December 3, 2013).

ADDRESSES: For Gulfstream, Triumph Aerostructures, and General Electric
Aviation service information identified in this final rule, contact
Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Technical Publications Dept., P.O.
Box 2206, Savannah, GA 31402-2206; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 912 965-
3520; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.gulfstream.com/product_support/technical_pubs/pubs/index.htm. You may view this
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0651.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0651; 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 this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket 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: Ky Phan, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion and Services Branch, ACE-118A, FAA, Atlanta ACO, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 404-
474-5606; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to
amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2013-22-19, Amendment 39-17651 (78
FR 72554, December 3, 2013) (``AD 2013-22-19''). AD 2013-22-19 applied
to all Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GV and GV-SP airplanes.
The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on December 24, 2015 (80 FR
80295). We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on October 1, 2014 (79 FR
59162) (``the NPRM''). The NPRM proposed to supersede AD 2013-22-19.
The NPRM was prompted by reports of two independent types of failure of
the fuel boost pump with overheat damage on the internal components and
external housing on one of the failure types, and fuel leakage on the
other. The SNPRM proposed to reduce the compliance time for revising
the airplane maintenance or inspection program. We are issuing this

AD to prevent fuel leakage in combination with a capacitor clearance
issue, which could result in an uncontrolled fire in the wheel well.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the SNPRM and
the FAA's response to each comment.

Request for Access to Earlier Revisions of the Service Information

    NetJets requested that we provide a source for earlier revisions of
the required service information. NetJets stated that the NPRM
specifies that the required service information is available from
Gulfstream's Web site. NetJets stated that the Gulfstream Web site
currently provides only the latest revision of each airplane
maintenance manual (AMM) without the option to obtain earlier
revisions, which will be incorporated by reference (IBR) in the AD.
    We acknowledge NetJets' request. While previous revisions of the
service information are not available through Gulfstream's Web site,
operators may contact Gulfstream directly to obtain this information as
specified in paragraph (p)(5) of this AD. We have updated this AD to
reference the latest service information, which is available to
operators through Gulfstream's Web site. We have not changed this final
rule regarding this issue.

Request To Change the Term ``Replacing'' in Paragraph (b) of the
Proposed AD

    NetJets requested that we define the authority and meaning of the
term ``replaces'' in regards to ADs. NetJets also requested that we
revise the FAA's AD Manual, dated May 17, 2010 (FAA-IR-M-8040.1C).
NetJets stated that ``replaces'' is not defined in the FAA's AD Manual
or in other FAA guidance. NetJets commented that the FAA AD Manual
defines the means of changing existing AD requirements to be through a
``superseding AD action.'' NetJets also stated that the SUMMARY section
of the SNRPM also uses the term ``supersede.''
    We agree to clarify the use of the term ``replaces'' in regards to
ADs. The term ``replaces'' in paragraph (b) of this AD is amendatory
terminology required by the Office of the Federal Register. However, we
use the term ``supersede'' or ``superseding'' in the SUMMARY section of
AD actions because the FAA's AD Manual, dated May 17, 2010 (FAA-IR-M-
8040.1C), does not use the term ``replaces'' when referring to an AD
that supersedes or is superseded by another AD. As stated in the FAA AD
Manual, we issue a supersedure when we need to correct an error that
affects the substance of the AD or to expand the scope of the existing
AD. We expect that the next revision of the FAA's AD Manual will
incorporate the amendatory terminology required by the Office of the
Federal Register. No change to this AD is necessary in this regard.

Request To Revise the SNPRM for Airplanes Inspected Under 14 CFR
91.409(e)

    An anonymous commenter requested that we revise paragraph (i) of
the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) to include a statement that the proposed
requirements would not be required for those airplanes inspected under
a 14 CFR 91.409(e) inspection program. The commenter stated that Task
28-26-01 is already mandated by the FAA-approved Airworthiness
Limitations Section (ALS), which already mandates the task to be
performed per the requirements of the ALS. Therefore, the commenter
asserts that paragraph (i) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) is
unnecessary for airplanes inspected under a 14 CFR 91.409(e) inspection
program.
    We disagree with the commenter's request. While 14 CFR 91.409(e)
requires operators of turbojet multi-engine airplanes to comply with
the replacement times of life-limited parts, 14 CFR 91.409(e) does not
require operators to use later revisions of the AMMs that are specified
in the type certificate. This AD is necessary in order to require
revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
include the fuel leak check inspection of the fuel boost pumps
specified in the applicable task identified in paragraph (j) of this
AD. Paragraph (j) of this AD identifies specific revisions of the AMM,
which are required for compliance with this AD. We have not changed
this AD in this regard.

Requests To Refer To Correct Location of Task

    NetJets and an anonymous commenter requested that we revise
paragraph (j) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) to refer to table 12,
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), in section 05-10-10,
Airworthiness Limitations, of chapter 05, Time Limits/Maintenance
Checks, of the applicable Gulfstream AMM. NetJets stated that paragraph
(j) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) instead specifies the use of
table 18, 500 Flight Hours Scheduled Inspection Table, in section 05-
20-00, Scheduled Maintenance Checks. NetJets and the anonymous
commenter stated that this task does not exist in section 05-20-00 of
the current AMM; it is now found in table 12, Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMR), in section 05-10-10, Airworthiness Limitations, of
chapter 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, of the applicable
Gulfstream AMM.
    We agree with the commenters' requests for the reasons stated
above. We have updated paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD
to refer to the correct table and section where the specified task is
found. In addition, we have added paragraph (k) to this AD to provide
credit for actions specified in paragraph (i) of this AD that are done
before the effective date of this AD using the service information
specified in paragraph (k) of this AD. We have re-designated subsequent
paragraphs accordingly.

Request To Add ``or Later FAA-Approved Revision''

    NetJets requested that we revise paragraph (j) of the proposed AD
(in the SNPRM) to add ``or later FAA-approved revision.'' NetJets
stated that section 05-20-00, Scheduled Maintenance Checks, of chapter
05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks; and task 28-26-01, Fuel Boost
Pumps--Fuel Leak Check, of chapter 28, Fuel; of the Gulfstream V AMM
are now at Revision 44, dated June 15, 2016. NetJets commented that
referring to a previous revision of the AMM would result in an
immediate petition for approval of an alternate method of compliance
(AMOC) with the newly revised document. NetJets stated that this narrow
language would require the operator to obtain an AMOC for each future
revision of the AMM.
    NetJets further requested that, if the ``later approved revisions''
language cannot be added, the latest revisions of the AMMs be added as
a method of compliance in paragraph (j) of the proposed AD.
    We disagree with the commenter's request to add language allowing
use of later revisions. We cannot use the phrase ``or later FAA-
approved revisions'' in an AD when referring to the service document.
Doing so violates Office of the Federal Register's (OFR) regulations
for approval of materials ``incorporated by reference'' in rules. See 1
CFR 51.1(f).
    However, as we stated previously, we have updated this AD to refer
to the current service information. Operators must request approval to
use later revisions of the service information as an AMOC with this AD
under the provisions of paragraph (n) of this AD. We have made no
further change to this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
SNPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the SNPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Gulfstream G500 Customer Bulletin 122, dated April 11,
2012 (for Model GV-SP airplanes designated as G500). This service
information describes procedures for inspecting and replacing the fuel
boost pumps.
    We have also reviewed the following service information, as
applicable, which describes, among other actions, a fuel leak check of
the fuel boost pumps, and provides inspection intervals. These service
documents are unique because they apply to different airplane models.
     Table 12, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), in
section 05-10-10, Airworthiness Limitations, of chapter 05, Time
Limits/Maintenance Checks, of the Gulfstream V Maintenance Manual,
Revision 44, dated June 15, 2016.
     Task 28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps--Fuel Leak Check, of
section 28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps--Inspection/Check, of chapter 28,
Fuel, of the Gulfstream V Maintenance Manual, Revision 44, dated June
15, 2016.
     Table 12, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), in
section 05-10-10, Airworthiness Limitations, of chapter 05, Time
Limits/Maintenance Checks, of the Gulfstream G500 Maintenance Manual,
Revision 25, dated June 15, 2016.
     Task 28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps--Fuel Leak Check, of
section 28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps--Fuel Leak Checks, of chapter 28,
Fuel, of the Gulfstream G500 Maintenance Manual, Revision 25, dated
June 15, 2016.
     Table 12, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), in
section 05-10-10, Airworthiness Limitations, of chapter 05, Time
Limits/Maintenance Checks, of the Gulfstream G550 Maintenance Manual,
Revision 25, dated June 15, 2016.
     Task 28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps--Fuel Leak Check, of
section 28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps--Inspection/Check, of chapter 28,
Fuel, of the Gulfstream G550 Maintenance Manual, Revision 25, dated
June 15, 2016.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 357 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection to determine if a certain    1 work-hour x $85 per                 $0             $85         $30,345
 part number is installed (retained      hour = $85.
 actions from AD 2013-22-19).
Maintenance or inspection program       1 work-hour x $85 per                  0              85          30,345
 revision (new action).                  hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have
no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these
replacements:

                                                On-Condition Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement..................................  24 work-hours x $85 per hour =           $7,600           $9,640
                                                $2,040.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 have 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 that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2013-22-19, Amendment 39-17651 (78 FR 72554, December 3, 2013), and
adding the following new AD:

2017-08-01 Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation: Amendment 39-18850;
Docket No. FAA-2014-0651; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-043-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 17, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2013-22-19, Amendment 39-17651 (78 FR 72554,
December 3, 2013) (``AD 2013-22-19'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GV
and GV-SP airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of two independent types of
failure of the fuel boost pump with overheat damage found on the
internal components and external housing on one of the failure
types, and fuel leakage on the other. We are issuing this AD to
prevent fuel leakage in combination with a capacitor clearance
issue, which could result in an uncontrolled fire in the wheel well.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Retained Inspection To Determine the Part Number, With Revised
Service Information

    This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (g) of
AD 2013-22-19, with revised service information. Within 36 months
after January 7, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2013-22-19), inspect
the fuel boost pumps to determine whether Gulfstream part number (P/
N) 1159SCP500-5 is installed, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of the applicable service information identified in
paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD; and Triumph
Aerostructures Service Bulletin SB-TAGV/GVSP-28-JG0162, dated August
30, 2011, and GE Service Bulletin 31760-28-100, dated February 15,
2011. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu
of this inspection if the part number of the fuel boost pumps can be
conclusively determined from that review.
    (1) For Model GV airplanes: Gulfstream V Customer Bulletin 197,
dated April 11, 2012.
    (2) For Model GV-SP airplanes designated as G500: Gulfstream
G500 Customer Bulletin 122, dated April 11, 2012.
    (3) For Model GV-SP airplanes designated as G550: Gulfstream
G550 Customer Bulletin 122, dated April 11, 2012.

(h) Retained Replacement, With Revised Service Information

    This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (h) of
AD 2013-22-19, with revised service information. If the inspection
required by paragraph (g) of this AD reveals a fuel boost pump with
Gulfstream P/N 1159SCP500-5: Within 36 months after January 7, 2014
(the effective date of AD 2013-22-19), replace the fuel boost pump
with a serviceable pump having Gulfstream P/N 1159SCP500-7, in
accordance with the applicable service information identified in
paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD; and Triumph
Aerostructures Service Bulletin SB-TAGV/GVSP-28-JG0162, dated August
30, 2011, and GE Service Bulletin 31760-28-100, dated February 15,
2011.
    (1) For Model GV airplanes: Gulfstream V Customer Bulletin 197,
dated April 11, 2012.
    (2) For Model GV-SP airplanes designated as G500: Gulfstream
G500 Customer Bulletin 122, dated April 11, 2012.
    (3) For Model GV-SP airplanes designated as G550: Gulfstream
G550 Customer Bulletin 122, dated April 11, 2012.

(i) New Revision of the Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
airplane maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
include the fuel leak check inspection of the fuel boost pumps
specified in the applicable task identified in paragraph (j) of this
AD.
    (1) For airplanes on which fuel boost pump Gulfstream P/N
1159SCP500-5 has been replaced in accordance with paragraph (h) of
this AD: The initial compliance time for the leak check inspection
specified in the applicable task identified in paragraph (j) of this
AD is within 550 flight hours after doing the replacement specified
in paragraph (h) of this AD, or within 30 days after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (2) For airplanes on which the inspection required by paragraph
(g) of this AD reveals that a fuel boost pump with Gulfstream P/N
1159SCP500-7 has been installed: The initial compliance time for the
leak check inspection specified in the applicable task identified in
paragraph (j) of this AD, is at the later of the times specified in
paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Within 550 flight hours after the installation of the P/N
1159SCP500-7 pump; except if 550 flight hours have accumulated since
installation of the P/N 1159SCP500-7 pump and an initial leak check
of the pump has not been accomplished, the compliance time is within
50 flight hours after doing the inspection required by paragraph (g)
of this AD.
    (ii) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

(j) Service Information for Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Use the applicable service information specified in paragraph
(j)(1), (j)(2), or (j)(3) of this AD, as applicable, to revise the
airplane maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, as
required by paragraph (i) of this AD.
    (1) For Model GV airplanes: Use table 12, Certification
Maintenance Requirements (CMR), in section 05-10-10, Airworthiness
Limitations, of chapter 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks; and task
28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps--Fuel Leak Check, of section 28-26-01,
Fuel Boost Pumps--Inspection/Check, of chapter 28, Fuel; of the
Gulfstream V Maintenance Manual, Revision 44, dated June 15, 2016.
    (2) For Model GV-SP airplanes designated as G500: Use task 28-
26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps--Fuel Leak Check, in table 12, Certification
Maintenance Requirements (CMR), in section 05-10-10, Airworthiness
Limitations, of chapter 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks; and task
28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps--Fuel Leak Check, of section 28-26-01,
Fuel Boost Pumps--Inspection/Check, of chapter 28, Fuel; of the
Gulfstream G500 Maintenance Manual, Revision 25, dated June 15,
2016.
    (3) For Model GV-SP airplanes designated as G550: Use task 28-
26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps--Fuel Leak Check, in table 12, Certification
Maintenance Requirements (CMR), in section 05-10-10, Airworthiness
Limitations, of chapter 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks; and task
28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps--Fuel Leak Check, of section 28-26-01,
Fuel Boost Pumps--Inspection/Check, of chapter 28, Fuel; of the
Gulfstream G550 Maintenance Manual, Revision 25, dated June 15,
2016.

(k) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraph (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using the applicable service information
in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(12) of this AD.
    (1) Table 18, 500 Flight Hours Scheduled Inspection Table, in
section 05-20-00, Scheduled Maintenance Checks, of chapter 05, Time
Limits/Maintenance Checks, of the Gulfstream V Maintenance Manual,
Revision 42, dated June 20, 2013.
    (2) Task 28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps--Fuel Leak Check, of section
28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps--Inspection/Check, of chapter 28, Fuel,
of the Gulfstream V Maintenance Manual, Revision 42, dated June 20,
2013.
    (3) Task 28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps--Fuel Leak Checks, in table
20, 500 Flight Hours Scheduled Inspection Table, in section 05-20-
00, of chapter 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, of the Gulfstream
G500

Maintenance Manual, Revision 23, dated June 20, 2013.
    (4) Task 28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps--Fuel Leak Check, of section
26, Fuel Boost Pumps, of chapter 28, Fuel, of the Gulfstream G500
Maintenance Manual, Revision 23, dated June 20, 2013.
    (5) Task 28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps--Fuel Leak Check, in table
20, 500 Flight Hours Scheduled Inspection Table, in section 05-20-
00, of chapter 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, of the Gulfstream
G550 Maintenance Manual, Revision 23, dated June 20, 2013.
    (6) Task 28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps--Fuel Leak Check, of section
26, Fuel Boost Pumps, of chapter 28, Fuel, of the Gulfstream G550
Maintenance Manual, Revision 23, dated June 20, 2013.
    (7) Table 12, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), in
section 05-10-10, Airworthiness Limitations, of chapter 05, Time
Limits/Maintenance Checks, of the Gulfstream V Maintenance Manual,
Revision 43, dated February 15, 2015.
    (8) Task 28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps--Fuel Leak Check, of section
28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps--Inspection/Check, of chapter 28, Fuel,
of the Gulfstream V Maintenance Manual, Revision 43, dated February
15, 2015.
    (9) Table 12, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), in
section 05-10-10, Airworthiness Limitations, of chapter 05, Time
Limits/Maintenance Checks, of the Gulfstream G500 Maintenance
Manual, Revision 24, dated February 15, 2015.
    (10) Task 28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps--Fuel Leak Check, of
section 28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps--Inspection/Check, of chapter 28,
Fuel, of the Gulfstream G500 Maintenance Manual, Revision 24, dated
February 15, 2015.
    (11) Table 12, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), in
section 05-10-10, Airworthiness Limitations, of chapter 05, Time
Limits/Maintenance Checks, of the Gulfstream G550 Maintenance
Manual, Revision 24, dated February 15, 2015.
    (12) Task 28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps--Fuel Leak Check, of
section 28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps--Inspection/Check, of chapter 28,
Fuel, of the Gulfstream G550 Maintenance Manual, Revision 24, dated
February 15, 2015.

(l) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (i) of
this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may
be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (n) of this AD.

(m) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of January 7, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2013-22-19), no
person may install a fuel boost pump having Gulfstream P/N
1159SCP500-5 on any airplane.

(n) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (o)(1) of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) AMOCs approved for AD 2013-22-19, are approved as AMOCs for
the corresponding provisions of this AD.
    (4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled
as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs
(n)(4)(i) and (n)(4)(ii) apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps,
including substeps and identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(o) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Ky Phan,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion and Services Branch, ACE-118A, FAA,
Atlanta ACO, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone:
404-474-5536; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (p)(5) and (p)(6) of this AD.

(p) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
May 17, 2017.
    (i) Gulfstream G500 Customer Bulletin 122, dated April 11, 2012.
    (ii) Gulfstream V Maintenance Manual, Revision 44, dated June
15, 2016:
    (A) Table 12, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), in
section 05-10-10, Airworthiness Limitations, of chapter 05, Time
Limits/Maintenance Checks.
    (B) Task 28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps--Fuel Leak Check, of section
28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps--Inspection/Check, of chapter 28, Fuel.
    (iii) Gulfstream G500 Maintenance Manual, Revision 25, dated
June 15, 2016:
    (A) Table 12, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), in
section 05-10-10, Airworthiness Limitations, of chapter 05, Time
Limits/Maintenance Checks.
    (B) Task 28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps--Fuel Leak Check, of Section
28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps--Inspection/Check, of chapter 28, Fuel.
    (iv) Gulfstream G550 Maintenance Manual, Revision 25, dated June
15, 2016:
    (A) Table 12, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), in
section 05-10-10, Airworthiness Limitations, of chapter 05, Time
Limits/Maintenance Checks.
    (B) Task 28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps--Fuel Leak Check, of section
28-26-01, Fuel Boost Pumps--Inspection/Check, of chapter 28, Fuel.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
January 7, 2014 (78 FR 72554, December 3, 2013).
    (i) Gulfstream G550 Customer Bulletin 122, dated April 11, 2012.
    (ii) Gulfstream V Customer Bulletin 197, dated April 11, 2012.
    (iii) General Electric Service Bulletin 31760-28-100, dated
February 15, 2011.
    (iv) Triumph Service Bulletin SB-TAGV/GVSP-28-JG0162, dated
August 30, 2011.
    (5) For Gulfstream, Triumph Aerostructures, and General Electric
Aviation service information identified in this AD, contact
Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Technical Publications Dept., P.O.
Box 2206, Savannah, GA 31402-2206; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 912
965-3520; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.gulfstream.com/product_support/technical_pubs/pubs/index.htm.
    (6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference 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 Renton, Washington, on March 31, 2017.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-06962 Filed 4-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P