[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47015-47024]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18999]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 67

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0990]
RIN 1625-AB56

Vessel Documentation Renewal Fees

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending its regulations to separately list
an annual fee for renewals of endorsements upon the Certificate of
Documentation. We are required to establish user fees for services
related to the documentation of vessels. This final rule will
separately

list a fee of $26 to cover the current costs of the vessel
documentation services provided by the Coast Guard.

DATES: This final rule is effective November 10, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2010-0990 and are available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this
docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov,
inserting USCG-2010-0990 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking
``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document,
call or email Ms. Mary Jager, CG-DCO-832, Coast Guard, telephone 202-
372-1331, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information about viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Abbreviations
II. Regulatory History
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Background
V. Discussion of Comments and Changes
    A. General Support
    B. General Non-Support
    C. Fee Components
    D. Alternatives Suggested
    E. Mechanics
    F. Fee Use
    G. Government Benefits
    H. Final Rule
VI. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment

I. Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COD Certificate of Documentation
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive Order
FR Federal Register
NVDC National Vessel Documentation Center
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Sec.  Section symbol
SBA Small Business Administration
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Regulatory History

    On March 4, 2013, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ``Vessel Documentation Renewal Fees'' in the
Federal Register (78 FR 14053). That NPRM contained the Coast Guard's
proposed revision of 46 CFR part 67, setting forth proposed fees for
services provided.
    The Coast Guard received 2,720 comment responses on the proposed
fees. Comments were received from individuals, law firms, commercial
vessel documentation services, industry groups, and maritime
corporations. We considered all comments in promulgating this final
rule. The comments received in response to the proposed rule are
discussed below in Section V. Discussion of Comments and Changes.

III. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rule is found in 46 U.S.C. 2110. That
section provides that the Secretary of the Department in which the
Coast Guard is operating (Secretary) shall establish a fee or charge
for a service or thing of value that is provided to the recipient or
user of that service. The Secretary is empowered in 46 U.S.C. 2104 to
delegate the authorities in 46 U.S.C. Subtitle II to the Coast Guard.
The Secretary exercised that delegation authority for fees in
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(92)(a).
    In establishing these fees, we are required to use the criteria
found in 31 U.S.C. 9701. Under this provision the fees must be fair,
and must be based on the costs to the government, the value of the
service or thing to the recipient, and the public policy or interest
served (see 31 U.S.C. 9701(b)).
    The purpose of this rule is to increase the annual Certificate of
Documentation (COD) renewal fee collections so that the fees we charge
more accurately reflect the actual costs to the Coast Guard of
providing the annual documentation renewal services. By doing so, we
will comply with the law and continue to provide documentation services
by charging fair-value user fees.

IV. Background

    Section 10401 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
(Pub. L. 101-508, Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388), codified at 46 U.S.C.
2110, requires that the Coast Guard establish user fees for Coast Guard
vessel documentation services. One of the vessel documentation services
the Coast Guard provides is renewal of endorsements upon a COD. A COD
is required for the operation of a vessel in certain trades, serves as
evidence of vessel nationality, and permits owners of vessels to
benefit from preferred mortgages (46 CFR 67.1). An Endorsement means an
entry that may be made on a COD, and, except for a recreational
endorsement, is conclusive evidence that a vessel is entitled to engage
in a specified trade (46 CFR 67.3).
    The Coast Guard sets fees at an amount calculated to achieve
recovery of the costs of providing the service, in a manner consistent
with the general user-charges principles set forth in OMB Circular A-
25. Under that OMB Circular, each recipient should pay a reasonable
user charge for Federal Government services, resources, or goods from
which he or she derives a special benefit, at an amount sufficient for
the Federal Government to recover the full costs of providing the
service, resource, or good (see OMB Circular A-25, sec. 6(a)(2)(a)).
    We last promulgated our user fees for vessel documentation services
on November 15, 1993 (58 FR 60256), found at 46 CFR part 67, subpart Y-
Fees. The fees reflect the Coast Guard's program costs for 1993, with
the cost of providing annual COD renewals included as part of overhead
costs. Since then, the renewal costs have increased. The existing fees
do not cover the operating and overhead costs associated with our
vessel documentation and recording activities under 46 U.S.C. chapters
121 and 313.
    The COD renewal fee will more accurately reflect the Coast Guard's
current operating and overhead costs associated with providing this
discrete set of services. While we previously included the cost of
providing annual COD renewals as part of its overhead costs, the fees
collected in relation to these costs do not nearly cover our operating
and overhead costs associated with providing annual COD renewal
services. Therefore, we will break out and separately charge an annual-
renewal fee of $26 (shown in Table 67.550--Fees) to cover the cost of
providing the required annual COD renewal services. The Coast Guard's
fiscal year 2010 review of vessel documentation user charges, ``Vessel
Documentation Biennial User Fee Review,'' recommended establishment of
an annual fee for COD renewals. The Biennial User Fee Review is
available in the docket as indicated under ADDRESSES. In accordance
with our statutory obligations and this

recommendation, we proposed to break out and separately charge an
annual renewal fee of $26 (shown in Table 67.550--Fees) to cover the
cost of providing the required annual COD renewal services. After
reviewing the comments, as discussed below, this rule adopts the
proposed renewal fee without change.
    The Biennial User Fee Review also recommended establishment of a
fee for resubmitted requests for services such as applications,
determinations, waivers, etc. We elected not to pursue the latter
recommendation at this time, but will consider this fee in future
studies and possibly in future rulemaking actions. Presently, we charge
several other fees associated with vessel documentation and we
anticipate that further review (as required by OMB Circular A-25) of
these fees and the cost of service will result in additional proposed
adjustments to reflect changes in cost and provision of services. Any
of these additional proposed adjustments would be the subject of a
separate rulemaking.

V. Discussion of Comments and Changes

    Currently, the Coast Guard provides CODs to 265,000 vessels
registered in the United States, with average annual renewals issued to
235,000 vessels. The Coast Guard received 2,720 responses to the NPRM,
with a total of 4,943 discrete comments, ranging in issue from general
support to alternative ways to impose the fee and questions about the
fee structure. We grouped the comments into 7 categories of concern,
which encompass 45 separate issues. Below, we summarize these
categories and the Coast Guard's response to them. No public meeting
was requested and none was held.
    Eight comments submitted were unclear or duplicate comments,
however because they were accompanied by other comments that were
categorized, we were able to respond to at least part of the
commenter's concerns. We received one submission where the commenter
claimed that he already pays the Coast Guard $27.50 for an annual PIN
fee. We thank the commenter for his submission, but we are not sure
about the fee to which he refers. He also worded his comment such that
it does not appear he has documented his vessel. Only one other
submission couldn't be categorized, where the commenter stated he
``didn't care'' because his vessel was not documented, but followed up
with the statement that he still paid an annual fee of about $26 to
enter the United States from Canada each summer. The Coast Guard thanks
these commenters for their submissions, but we have no response, as
these are outside of the scope of this rulemaking.

A. General Support

    Many commenters (536) responded positively to the proposed rule,
including 459 comments in support of the proposed rule and 77 comments
that praised the Coast Guard's work. The Coast Guard thanks those
commenters for their supportive comments.

B. General Non-support

    Nearly 1,500 (1499) comments expressed disapproval of the proposed
rule. Many (228) wrote that they would no longer document their vessel
if the rule became final. A further 1,271 referred to the user fee as
the imposition of a new ``tax'' on the boating community. The Coast
Guard appreciates this feedback and would like the opportunity to
clarify the difference between imposing a tax versus a user fee.
    First, a user fee is designed to defray the costs of a regulatory
activity (or government service), while a tax is designed to raise
general revenue. Second, a true user fee must be proportionate to the
necessary costs of the service, whereas a tax may not be. Third, a user
fee is charged for requested services, whereas a tax is not. The
discussion in the Regulatory Analysis will expand on the costs of the
Coast Guard providing the COD service, and demonstrate how the new fee
will be proportionate to the cost of providing the service.

C. Fee Components

    The Coast Guard received 412 comments related to the components of
the fee and how the fee was calculated. Many commenters (202) suggested
that the fee was not reflective of the cost of providing the service.
Others (140) suggested that the initial fee paid for documentation was
sufficient for service costs for the life of the vessel. Several
commenters (55) asked what, if any, new benefits would be provided that
required an additional fee. Only 13 commenters suggested that the fee
was too low.
    The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (46 U.S.C. 2110)
requires the Coast Guard to charge a fee for services but limits
charges to no more than the overall cost of program. The fee
calculations are based on the full cost of providing the service. The
cost methodology, including process and overhead costs used in the
calculation, is available in the docket.
    Each service provided for vessel documentation carries associated
costs that are considered in that fee. The initial application fee
covers that service only; the renewal fee covers services incurred
while issuing the renewal and maintaining the information supporting
the document.
    The Coast Guard recognizes that Federal vessel documentation
confers many financial benefits on the vessel owner. However, there are
no new benefits as a result of the renewal fee. The renewal fee is only
necessary to cover the costs of providing the service as noted in the
previous paragraph.
    One commenter suggested that there would be extra costs associated
with Coast Guard boardings to enforce the fee. The Coast Guard does not
charge fees for boardings nor conduct boardings to enforce fees. The
fee discussed in this rule is based on the cost to the Coast Guard for
issuing the renewal. One commenter suggested the Coast Guard add a lien
review to the annual renewal. The Coast Guard disagrees with the idea
of implementing a lien review. A lien review is a separate process not
connected with annual renewal of endorsements on a COD.

D. Alternatives Suggested

    The Coast Guard received 886 comments recommending alternative ways
to charge for vessel documentation renewal services. Among those, the
most frequent (243) comments suggested that the Coast Guard charge for
vessel documentation renewals only under certain circumstances, such as
if changes are made to the documentation or if renewals are late (late
fees). Additional commenters within this grouping proposed making the
COD a permanent document. By regulation, CODs expire one year after
issuance, regardless of whether or not there are any changes in
information. Similar to current motor vehicle registration renewal
processes, (in that an owner must pay to obtain a valid registration,
regardless of whether any change to information is necessary), valid
documents must be obtained in order to legally operate vessels.
    Several commenters also suggested that the Coast Guard add the cost
of the renewal service to existing fees or pay for the service through
taxes. For example, we received 84 comments that suggested we increase
the initial documentation fee, instead of charging the renewal fee. We
also received seven comments that suggested the Coast Guard combine
these fees with the United States Customs and Border Protection decal
fees, but that vessel owners should not have to do both.

Another seven comments suggested the Coast Guard recoup costs from fuel
taxes.
    The Coast Guard is required to charge a cost-based fee for all
vessel documentation services provided. Renewal of endorsements on a
COD is a service that incurs ongoing costs. Charging a separate fee for
renewals allows the Coast Guard to fairly distribute those costs and
allows flexibility to ensure the costs are recouped over the entire
period of ownership. As discussed earlier taxes and user fees have
separate purposes, user fees are charged for specific services, using
taxes such as a fuel tax to cover COD expenses would create inequities
by causing some boat owners to pay (via fuel charges) for services (COD
renewals) that they did not use. Additionally, because the COD renewals
are a separate and distinct effort from the Customs and Border
Protection decal issuance, these fees cannot be combined.
    Many commenters (91) suggested that the Coast Guard provide
discounted rates for senior citizens, Auxiliary members, and non-profit
organizations. While we understand the desire to provide a reduced
rate, the current user fee covers the actual cost of processing a
renewal; reducing fees for any one group would shift the cost to
another group and this would not meet the fairness requirement of 31
U.S.C. 9701.
    Other commenters suggested that documentation of recreational
vessels be conducted by States. For example, 89 commenters suggested
the Coast Guard do away with Federal COD and instead have States
perform the service, or commented that they should not have to pay both
Federal and State fees. One hundred ten commenters suggested that the
Coast Guard charge States for use of the information the Coast Guard
collects. We understand some owners do not want to pay both Federal and
State fees; however, holding a valid Federal COD confers additional
benefits beyond State registration. Furthermore, it is optional for
recreational vessel owners. Recreational vessel owners are not required
to request this service or to hold a Federal COD.
    Forty-eight comments suggested that renewal fees apply only to
commercial vessel owners. Obtaining a COD is already optional for
recreational vessel owners. However, when the option to obtain a COD
renewal is exercised, the cost of processing renewal CODs is the same,
regardless of whether the vessel is operating with a commercial or
recreational endorsement.
    The Coast Guard also received a variety of comment submissions
(197) that decried government size and waste and asserted the need for
government spending cuts. Another 10 commenters suggested the Coast
Guard privatize or outsource CODs. We note these comments, however they
fall outside of the scope of the rulemaking. As noted, the Coast Guard
provides this service and is required to charge a fee for incurred
costs. The Coast Guard has and continues to minimize the costs and
charges to provide this service.

E. Mechanics

    The Coast Guard received 1,316 comments regarding the
implementation of the new fee. The majority of these comments suggested
the Coast Guard institute a multiyear renewal option program (757) and
establish online payment capabilities (288). Others inquired about
future adjustments to the fee. In particular, 199 commenters consider
the proposed $26 fee too high, with many worried that the fee will
continue to increase. Several commenters (30) queried if the fee could
be determined by the class, size or value of the vessel. Another 29
commenters questioned the need to document vessels, indicating they had
been forced into it.
    The Coast Guard has provided annual renewals of endorsements on
CODs to reduce the risk of maintaining outdated information and in
response to vessel owner needs to maintain preferred mortgage status.
The Coast Guard understands the efficiencies of multiyear renewals and
will consider this in a future rule making. It cannot be implemented
currently since this will require changes to processes, information
systems, budgets, regulations and perhaps laws.
    Currently, the Coast Guard offers online payment options for
certain services, and, along with other Federal agencies, is looking
for ways to expand and improve this service. The Coast Guard will
continue to work to find efficiencies to reduce costs incurred and
minimize fees charged. As processes, automation, information systems,
and costs change, future adjustments of this fee will be made through
regulation and based on the cost of providing the service.
    One commenter requested to know when the fee would start. This
regulation will become effective 90 days after the date of publication,
on the date specified in the DATES section of this document. Therefore,
the fees will start no earlier than 90 days after the date of
publication of this regulation.
    One commenter requested information on any requirements for renewal
when the vessel's COD is ``on deposit.'' Currently a COD on deposit
does not require an annual renewal. This will not change as a result of
this rulemaking. This fee will apply only to renewals.
    Two commenters requested clarification on endorsements and
exemptions. These issues are beyond the scope of this rule. The
respondents may contact the Coast Guard National Vessel Documentation
Center (NVDC) directly for clarification. Contact and other helpful
information is available through the NVDC Web site: http://www.uscg.mil/nvdc/default.asp or by calling 1-800-799-8362.
    Two commenters suggested the Coast Guard refund fees when
relinquishing CODs. This is not possible because the fee is being
charged for services already performed at the time of renewal.
    Four commenters suggested that all boaters, not just those holding
a document, pay the fee. This is not possible because the Coast Guard
may only charge a fee for requested services. The request for service
is voluntary, not all boaters request the service. Therefore the Coast
Guard has no authority to charge all boaters.
    Four commenters asked about enforcement of renewing a COD. Renewal
of a COD is a voluntary request. If a COD is not properly renewed, it
expires and with it, the benefits conferred also expire.

F. Fee Use

    The Coast Guard received 213 comments with suggestions or questions
about how the fee should or would be used. Most of these comments (114)
addressed how the fees would be used and the benefits to the owner.
Many included suggestions about how the fees should be used for
waterway maintenance (21), boating services and safety (23), and to
improve the Great Lakes (1). Thirty seven commenters indicated that
they would be supportive if the fees go towards the Coast Guard only.
There were eight comments inquiring whether the fees would go towards
improving service, and five who viewed the documentation service
renewal fee as unnecessary. Four commenters questioned whether the
location of their vessel would influence the fees charged, because
there is no Coast Guard presence where their boat is kept.
    The Coast Guard is limited by law as to how it may use the fees
collected. Vessel documentation fees collected from commercial vessel
owners are deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as offsetting
receipts of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating and
ascribed to the Coast

Guard activities. Vessel documentation fees collected from recreational
vessel owners are used by the Coast Guard's NVDC to perform vessel
documentation services for recreational vessel owners. Overall the fee
collected through implementation of this rule is intended to provide
additional funds to the NVDC for improvements to documentation service.
The Coast Guard understands that the current backlog of requests for
service particularly for recreational vessels is excessive and intends
to apply the available fees collected from renewals to correct this
problem.
    The fee for renewing a COD will be the same regardless of the
location of the vessel. There is no difference in cost associated with
location when renewing a COD because the same documentation services
are provided regardless of location of the vessel. Although some
endorsements are requested for specific commercial purposes, the
locations that a vessel may be used other than for that commercial
purpose is not limited by the COD issued.

G. Government Benefits

    The Coast Guard received 71 comments regarding the benefits the
government would gain with the proposed user fee. We received 35
comments about the expected benefits to the government. A further 26
comments cited the Federal government's ability to contract with
documented vessel owners for the use of their vessels during certain
national emergencies. The respondents suggested that this resulted in a
benefit to the government and should be considered when setting a fee
for renewing a COD. Ten commenters suggested public safety would be
negatively impacted, as some owners would choose not to hold or renew
Federal documents.
    For the Federal government to use a documented vessel in times of
emergency the vessel must be acquired under a mutually agreed upon
contract between the Federal government and the vessel owner. Because
the vessel owner would be paid for the use of the vessel this was not a
factor in setting the fee. The Coast Guard based the documentation fee
on the cost of providing the service, not on benefits received or given
by either the government or the vessel owner. The purpose of vessel
documentation is to provide the vessel owner with specific benefits and
is not intended as a public safety measure.

H. Final Rule

    After considering all comments, the Coast Guard is finalizing the
user fee as it was proposed. The Coast Guard appreciates all of the
comments received. The Coast Guard is publishing the final rule without
changing the requirements stated in the NPRM.

VI. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this final rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive Orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below, we summarize
our analyses based on these statutes or E.O.s.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and 13563
(``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies to
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and,
if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of E.O. 12866. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
not reviewed it under E.O. 12866. Nonetheless, we developed an analysis
of the costs and benefits of the rule to ascertain its probable impacts
on industry.
    We received no comments that would alter our assessment of the
impacts presented in the NPRM. Further, we have found no additional
data or information that would change our assessment of the impacts
presented in the NPRM. As such, we have adopted the analysis in the
NPRM for this rule as final. A summary of the analysis follows:
    The cost to industry \1\ outlined in this final rule would
represent a transfer payment from the public to the government to
offset the costs incurred by the U.S. Coast Guard to provide COD
renewal services to those that paid. Transfer payments do not affect
total resources available to society. The total social cost to society
as a result of this final rule is zero. The following table summarizes
the costs and benefits of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The term ``industry'' in this context, refers to
recreational, commercial and government vessel owners.

                 Table 1--Costs and Benefits of the Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Category                       Estimate  (millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Industry Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Monetized Costs (undiscounted        $6.1
 rounded values).
10-year Present Value Monetized Costs       $42.9
 (rounded values, 7% discount rate,
 discounting begins in first year).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Government Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Monetized Benefits (undiscounted     $6.1
 rounded values).
10-year Present Value Monetized Benefits    $42.9
 (rounded values, 7% discount rate,
 discounting begins in first year).
Qualitative Benefits......................  This rule would allow the
                                             Federal Government to
                                             recoup its costs for
                                             administering COD renewals,
                                             enabling the Coast Guard to
                                             continue offering these
                                             services to the public.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, this final rule requires an annual renewal fee
for endorsement(s) on the CODs. This fee, which is based on the costs
that the Federal Government currently incurs to process renewals, along
with additional costs due to increased need in labor and capital costs,
will cost each vessel owner $26 per renewal.
    The renewal fee that will be charged to the public under this final
rule is based on the full cost to the Federal Government to provide
this service. The renewal fee will allow the Federal Government to
recoup those costs. Specifically, the purpose of the renewal fee is to
ensure that this service is self-sustaining. As such, the renewal fee
was determined by dividing the full, annual cost of providing the
service by the average number of renewals over the past 5 years. The
full, annual cost of providing this service includes all current costs,
such as labor, capital, and overhead, plus additional labor and capital
costs that will be required to process the additional fees collected.
    In 2011, we conducted a comprehensive study to more accurately

calculate the costs involved with the annual COD renewal process. Our
``Full Cost Study for Renewal of Endorsements on Certificates of
Documentation'' focuses on the cost of annual COD renewals, updates the
cost figures, and includes costs for the additional activities required
to process collections. The cost study is available in the docket where
indicated under the ADDRESSES section in the preamble.
    The study indicated that the average number of annual renewals for
2006-2010 was 235,000. The renewals accounted for a subset of the
approximately 65,000 commercial and 200,000 recreational vessels
documented by the Coast Guard in 2010. Under this final rule, we
anticipate that the cost for processing annual COD renewals and their
associated fees will be approximately $6 million, as shown in Table 2.
The full cost to provide the annual renewal service shown in Table 2
includes directly traced personnel costs calculated from timed
activities, allocated personnel costs based on costs associated with
personnel directly involved and in supporting roles, and other costs
such as operating and administrative costs, facilities, and information
systems costs.
    The COD renewal and collection services are provided with enough
frequency that we were able to reliably estimate the average time
involved. We calculated personnel costs based on an hourly rate that
represents the cost per hour or part thereof per employee. The employee
cost is based on hourly rates found in COMDTINST 7310.1M, Coast Guard
Reimbursable Standard Rates, available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. The NVDC anticipates that the method for collecting
fees will be similar to the current process for late renewals, with
some additional activities for processing the payment (collections) in
accordance with U.S. law and Federal guidance.\2\ The total annual cost
to operate the NVDC annual COD renewal program and collect fees is
approximately $6 million; the final fee reflects this cost, and should
close the current gap identified in the Biennial User Fee Review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Department of Treasury publishes regulations and
guidance for federal agency management of receipts (31 CFR part 206
and the Treasury Financial Manual (www.fms.treas.gov/tfm/index.html)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To calculate the annual renewal fee, we divided the total annual
costs associated with the renewal program by the average number of
annual renewals. We included directly traced personnel costs for those
activities in a timed study. These activities represent a small, mostly
automated portion of the full process. However, we could not include
other direct and indirect costs, such as allocated personnel costs, in
the time study due to the complexity of the activities. Some of these
costs are based on additional steps necessary to process applications
with payments, which, at least initially, will be a manual rather than
automated process. Other costs are non-personnel operating and are also
allocated costs. The allocated cost is based on a percent of standard
personnel costs for positions based on relative volume of renewals
produced. Table 2 shows these costs.

                                      Table 2--Cost Inputs for Renewal Fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Average number of
                                                             Total cost      renewals per year  Cost per renewal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Directly traced Personnel Costs.........................        $2,044,500             235,000             $8.70
Allocated Personnel Costs...............................         1,695,799             235,000              7.21
Other Costs.............................................         2,157,209             235,000              9.17
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................         5,898,508             235,000             25.08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: These numbers may not total due to rounding.

    This total cost to the Coast Guard is shown by the following
equation: the total cost divided by the average number of renewals
($5,898,508/235,000 CODs = $25.08/COD), which results in an annual
renewal fee of $25.08, which is rounded up to the next dollar, $26.
This allows us to recover the full cost of providing this service.
    The following figure summarizes the annual cost estimate of the
final rule.
Figure 1. Total Annual Industry Costs (Undiscounted)
Total Annual Cost = Renewal Fee x Average Number of Annual Renewals =
$6.1 Million = $26 x 235,000 renewals.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Value may not total due to rounding.

    This final rule is estimated to cost industry $42.9 million over
10-years discounted at a 7 percent rate. Table 3 summarizes the total
10-year cost to industry.

                 Table 3--Industry Cost From Renewal Fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Year                     Undiscounted         7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................      $6,110,000      $5,710,280
2.......................................       6,110,000       5,336,711
3.......................................       6,110,000       4,987,580
4.......................................       6,110,000       4,661,290
5.......................................       6,110,000       4,356,346
6.......................................       6,110,000       4,071,351
7.......................................       6,110,000       3,805,001
8.......................................       6,110,000       3,556,076
9.......................................       6,110,000       3,323,435
10......................................       6,110,000       3,106,014
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................      61,100,000      42,914,083

Annualized..............................  ..............       6,110,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule provides benefits to both the Federal Government
and vessel owners. Because the Coast Guard has not collected a fee for
COD renewal in the past, the estimated $6.1 million in revenue that the
government will collect from the fee will enable the Coast Guard to
continue offering these services to the public, which will allow
private and commercial vessel owners to continue to benefit from the
program. These benefits include, but are not limited to: obtaining
documentation for commercial use of vessels, obtaining private
mortgages from financial lenders, and ability to travel internationally
with evidence of vessel ownership for both private and commercial
vessel owners.
    When formulating the proposal, which is now being finalized, we
also considered an alternate methodology to calculate the annual COD
renewal fee. We derived this alternative fee by taking the average of
the fees charged by each State (for vessel registration) on an annual
basis. The average fee, on an annual basis, for the 50 States and the
District of Columbia is approximately $42. This average, multiplied by
the number of annual renewals, yields a value of approximately $10
million. We rejected this alternative because the annual collections
under this methodology would exceed the Federal Government cost of
providing the service, and the full-cost results provided a more
reasonable fee.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have
considered whether this final rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    In the NPRM, we reviewed size and ownership data of affected
entities by using data provided by the NVDC and public and proprietary
data sources for company revenue and employee size data. We determined
that there are approximately 18,164 entities owning 65,534 commercial
vessels that would be impacted by this rule.\4\ These entities include
businesses and government jurisdictions. Privately-owned recreational
vessels comprise the remaining vessel population and are not included
in this regulatory flexibility analysis because these vessels are owned
by individuals whom are not considered to be small entities for the
purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Data provided by the National Vessel Documentation Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We did not receive any public comments following the issuance of
the NPRM that would alter our analysis of the economic impact that this
rule would have on small entities. Further, we found no additional data
or information that would change our findings presented in the NPRM. As
such, we have adopted our findings from the NPRM for this final rule. A
summary of the analysis presented in the NPRM follows.
    To conduct our analysis, we chose a random sample of 400 affected
entities.\5\ We were able to find revenue or employee size data for 88
of these entities using Web sites, such as MANTA and ReferenceUSA. This
included 83 businesses and 5 government jurisdictions. We did not find
any small not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and
operated and are not dominant in their fields.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A sample size of 400 provides a 95 percent confidence level
at a confidence interval of 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine the size of the 83 businesses with available revenue
or employee size data, we used the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) codes to identify the line of business
for the entities in our sample and compared the data found to the small
business size standards determined by the Small Business Administration
(SBA).\6\ Of the entities with data, 70 are considered small by SBA
size standards and 13 exceeded SBA size standards for small businesses.
We also assume that those entities without data available are small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ SBA has established a Table of Small Business Size
Standards, which is matched to the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) industries. A size standard, which is
usually stated in number of employees or average annual receipts
(``revenues''), represents the largest size that a business
(including its subsidiaries and affiliates) may be to remain
classified as a small business for SBA and Federal contracting
programs. See http://www.sba.gov/size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine the size of the 5 affected government jurisdictions,
we used the definition from the Regulatory Flexibility Act section
601(5), which classifies small government jurisdictions as
jurisdictions with a population of less than 50,000. Of the 5
government jurisdictions, one has a population of less than 50,000, and
would therefore be considered small.
    As such, we estimate that more than 95 percent of all entities that
would be affected by this final rule are small entities. We do not
anticipate a significant economic impact to these small entities as a
result of this final rule. This rule would require that all entities
renewing the endorsements on their COD pay an annual renewal fee of $26
per documented vessel. This final rule impacts a diverse set of
industry sectors with a wide range of fleet sizes and revenues. Table 4
provides example data for three affected small businesses that
represent the upper, lower, and median values for revenue, fleet size,
and cost found within the sample population. Our research shows that
those entities with the largest fleets, and thus a greater incurred
cost, also have the highest reported revenue in our sample.

               Table 4--Example Revenue, Vessel Count, and Cost for Three Affected Small Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Small entity     Small entity     Small entity
                           Category                              representing     representing     representing
                                                                 lower bound         median        upper bound
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue per Entity...........................................          $15,000         $336,000    $12,000,000 *
Vessel Count.................................................                1                2                6

Costs per Entity.............................................              $26              $52             $156
Percent Impact of Renewal Fees on Revenues...................        Less than        Less than    Approximately
                                                                          0.2%            0.02%          0.0013%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: The small entity with this revenue is classified under NAICS 336611, Ship Building and Repairing, and
  has an SBA size standard of 1,000 employees. This means entities in this industry with 1,000 or fewer
  employees would be considered small. This entity has 54 employees and was determined small even though its
  annual revenues are $12 million.

    By multiplying the renewal fee by the number of documented vessels
owned by each entity analyzed from our sample, we were able to
calculate the cost per entity of this final rule. We then used that
cost to determine a percentage of revenue impact on the entity by
dividing the total cost per entity by the revenue. This analysis showed
that the impact from this final rule would be less than 1 percent of
annual revenue for small businesses in the sample.
    The one small government jurisdiction in our sample operated three
vessels that would require COD renewals for a total of $78 in annual
COD renewal fees. Given that the cost to this small government
jurisdiction is only $78, we expect this final rule would not cause a
significant economic impact.
    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that
this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we offered to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the final
rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction, and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please consult Ms. Mary Jager, CG-DCO-832,
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The
Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this final rule or any policy or action of the Coast
Guard.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

    This final rule calls for no new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, or on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this final rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132. Our analysis is explained below.
    As explained above, 46 U.S.C. 2110 states that ``the Secretary
shall establish a fee or charge for a service or thing of value
provided by the Secretary under this subtitle.'' In doing so, it was
the intent of Congress to grant the Coast Guard, via delegation from
the Secretary, the exclusive authority to establish user fees for Coast
Guard vessel documentation services. The Coast Guard has exercised its
authority in this rulemaking by establishing annual fees for renewals
of endorsements upon the Certificate of Documentation. Therefore, the
establishment of user fees for Coast Guard vessel documentation
services is within a field foreclosed from state or local regulation.
In light of the analyses above, this final rule is consistent with the
principles of federalism and preemption requirements in Executive Order
13132.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538,
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any 1 year. Though this final rule will not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this final
rule elsewhere in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

    This final rule will not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630 (``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights'').

H. Civil Justice Reform

    This final rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, (``Civil Justice Reform''), to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13045 (``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks''). This
final rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create
an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This final rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175
(``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''),
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13211 (``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use''). We have determined that it is not a

``significant energy action'' under that E.O. because it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under E.O. 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides
Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g.,
specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test
methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices)
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
    This final rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that this
action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1,
paragraph 34(a) of the Instruction. This rule involves regulations that
are editorial or procedural. An environmental analysis checklist and a
categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 67

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
46 CFR part 67 as follows:

PART 67--DOCUMENTATION OF VESSELS

0
1. The authority citation for 46 CFR part 67 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 14 U.S.C. 664; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 9118; 46
U.S.C. 2103, 2107, 2110, 12106, 12120, 12122; 46 U.S.C. app. 841a,
876; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

Sec.  67.500  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  67.500, remove paragraph (b) and redesignate paragraphs (c)
through (e) as paragraphs (b) through (d).

0
3. Add Sec.  67.515 to read as follows:

Sec.  67.515  Application for renewal of endorsements.

    An application fee is charged for annual renewal of endorsements on
Certificates of Documentation in accordance with subpart L of this
part.

0
4. Revise Sec.  67.517 to read as follows:

Sec.  67.517  Application for late renewal.

    In addition to any other fees required by this subpart, including a
renewal fee, a fee is charged for a late renewal in accordance with
subpart L of this part.

0
5. In Sec.  67.550, revise Table 67.550 to read as follows:

Sec.  67.550  Fee table.

* * * * *

                           Table 67.550--Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Activity                  Reference                Fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applications:
    Initial Certificate of     Subpart K............             $133.00
     Documentation.
    Exchange of Certificate    ......do.............               84.00
     of Documentation.
    Return of vessel to        ......do.............               84.00
     documentation.
    Replacement of lost or     ......do.............               50.00
     mutilated Certificate of
     Documentation.
    Approval of exchange of    ......do.............               24.00
     Certificate of
     Documentation requiring
     mortgagee consent.
    Trade endorsement(s):
        Coastwise endorsement  Subpart B............               29.00
        Coastwise Boaters      46 CFR part 68.......               29.00
         endorsement.
        Fishery endorsement..  ......do.............               12.00
        Registry endorsement.  ......do.............                none
        Recreational           ......do.............                none
         endorsement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: When multiple trade endorsements are requested on the same
 application, the single highest applicable endorsement fee will be
 charged, resulting in a maximum endorsement fee of $29.00.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Evidence of deletion from  Subpart L............               15.00
     documentation.
    Renewal fee..............  ......do.............               26.00
    Late renewal fee.........  ......do.............            \1\ 5.00
Waivers:
    Original build evidence..  Subpart F............               15.00
    Bill of sale eligible for  Subpart E............               15.00
     filing and recording.
Miscellaneous applications:
    Wrecked vessel             Subpart J............              555.00
     determination.
    New vessel determination.  Subpart M............              166.00
    Rebuild determination--    ......do.............              450.00
     preliminary or final.
Filing and recording:
    Bills of sale and          Subpart P............            \2\ 8.00
     instruments in nature of
     bills of sale.
    Mortgages and related      Subpart Q............            \2\ 4.00
     instruments.
    Notice of claim of lien    Subpart R............            \2\ 8.00
     and related instruments.
Certificate of compliance:
    Certificate of compliance  46 CFR part 68.......               55.00
Miscellaneous:
    Abstract of Title........  Subpart T............               25.00
    Certificate of ownership.  ......do.............              125.00

        Attachment for each    ......do.............               10.00
         additional vessel
         with same ownership
         and encumbrance data.
    Copy of instrument or      (\3\)                               (\3\)
     document.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Late renewal fee is in addition to the $26.00 renewal fee.
\2\ Per page.
\3\ Fees will be calculated in accordance with 6 CFR Part 5, Subpart A.

    Dated: August 6, 2014.
J.C. Burton,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-18999 Filed 8-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1985-1990]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0225; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-203-AD;
Amendment 39-16525; AD 2010-24-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Short Brothers PLC Model SD3 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

    Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in
flight * * * and on ground, * * * Special Federal Aviation
Regulation 88 (SFAR88) * * * required a safety review of the
aircraft Fuel Tank System * * *.
* * * * *
    Fuel Airworthiness Limitations are items arising from a systems
safety analysis that have been shown to have failure mode(s)
associated with an `unsafe condition' * * *. These are identified in
Failure Conditions for which an unacceptable probability of ignition
risk could exist if specific tasks and/or practices are not
performed in accordance with the manufacturers' requirements.
* * * * *

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

DATES: This AD becomes effective February 16, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of February 16,
2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of July
21, 2006 (71 FR 34801, June 16, 2006).

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1175; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to
amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified
products. That supplemental NPRM was published in the Federal Register
on August 4, 2010 (75 FR 46864), and proposed to supersede AD 2006-12-
18, Amendment 39-14644 (71 FR 34801, June 16, 2006). That NPRM proposed
to require revising the airplane flight manual (AFM); revising the
Airworthiness Limitation (AWL) section; doing a resistance check,
inspection, and jumper installation; and revising the AWL section. The
MCAI states:

    Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in
flight * * * and on ground, the FAA published Special Federal
Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR88) in June 2001. SFAR 88 required a
safety review of the aircraft Fuel Tank System to determine that the
design meets the requirements of FAR [Federal Aviation Regulation]
Sec.  25.901 and Sec.  25.981(a) and (b).
    A similar regulation has been recommended by the JAA [Joint
Aviation Authorities] to the European National Aviation Authorities
in JAA letter 04/00/02/07/03-L024 of 3 February 2003. The review was
requested to be mandated by NAA's [National Airworthiness
Authorities] using JAR [Joint Aviation Requirement] Sec.  25.901(c),
Sec.  25.1309.
    In August 2005 EASA [European Aviation Safety Agency] published
a policy statement on the process for developing instructions for
maintenance and inspection of Fuel Tank System ignition source
prevention (EASA D 2005/CPRO, www.easa.eu.int/home/cert_policy_statements_en.html) that also included the EASA expectations with
regard to compliance times of the corrective actions on the unsafe
and the not unsafe part of the harmonised design review results. On
a global scale the TC [type certificate] holders committed
themselves to the EASA published compliance dates (see EASA policy
statement). The EASA policy statement has been revised in March
2006: The date of 31-12-2005 for the unsafe related actions has now
been set at 01-07-2006.
    Fuel Airworthiness Limitations are items arising from a systems
safety analysis that have been shown to have failure mode(s)
associated with an `unsafe condition' as defined in FAA's memo 2003-
112-15 `SFAR 88--Mandatory Action Decision Criteria'. These are
identified in Failure Conditions for which an unacceptable
probability of ignition risk could exist if specific tasks and/or
practices are not performed in accordance with the manufacturers'
requirements.
    This EASA Airworthiness Directive mandates the Fuel System
Airworthiness Limitations, comprising maintenance/inspection tasks
and Critical Design Control Configuration Limitations (CDCCL) for
the type of aircraft, that resulted from the design reviews and the
JAA recommendation and EASA policy statement mentioned above.
    Revision History: PAD [proposed airworthiness directive] 06-
018R1 has been issued to endorse comments received for PAD 06-018
and due to the change of the EASA policy statement on fuel tank
safety on March 2006.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Comments

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

Explanation of Changes to This AD

    We have revised Table 1 of this AD to indicate the appropriate AFM
for the identified airplane models. We have also added new paragraph
(l) to this AD (and have reidentified subsequent paragraphs
accordingly) to give credit to operators that might have included
Shorts Advance Amendment Bulletin 1/2004, dated 7/13/04, into the
incorrect AFM before the effective date of this AD. We have determined
that the content of Shorts Advance Amendment Bulletin 1/2004 to AFM
SB.5.2 and Shorts Advance Amendment Bulletin 1/2004 to AFM SB.6.2 is
identical, except for the AFM number shown on the top of the document
pages. Therefore, if an operator inserted the advance amendment
bulletin intended for AFM SB.5.2 into AFM SB.6.2 or vise versa, before
the effective date of this AD, the intent of the AFM revision required
by paragraph (g) of this AD has been met, and is, therefore, acceptable
for compliance with that requirement.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described
previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable in a U.S. court of
law. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively
from the information provided in the MCAI and related service
information. We might also have required different actions in this AD
from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such
differences are described in a separate paragraph of the AD. These
requirements, if any, take precedence over the actions copied from the
MCAI.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 54 products of U.S. registry.
    The actions that are required by AD 2006-12-18 and retained in this
AD take about 41 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of
$85 per work hour. Required parts cost about $10 per product. Based on
these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions is
$3,495 per product.
    We estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the new basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost
of the AD on U.S. operators to be $4,590, or $85 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify 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); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone

(800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available
in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-14644 (71 FR
34801, June 16, 2006) and adding the following new AD:

2010-24-06 Short Brothers PLC: Amendment 39-16525. Docket No. FAA-
2010-0225; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-203-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective February
16, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2006-12-18, Amendment 39-14644.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Short Brothers PLC Model SD3-60
SHERPA, SD3-SHERPA, SD3-30, and SD3-60 airplanes, certificated in
any category.

    Note 1:  This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with
these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes
that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the
areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance according
to paragraph (m) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure
the continued damage tolerance of the affected structure. The FAA
has provided guidance for this determination in Advisory Circular
(AC) 25-1529.

Subject

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

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in
flight * * * and on ground, the FAA published Special Federal
Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR88) in June 2001. SFAR 88 required a
safety review of the aircraft Fuel Tank System to determine that the
design meets the requirements of FAR [Federal Aviation Regulation]
Sec.  25.901 and Sec.  25.981(a) and (b).
    A similar regulation has been recommended by the JAA [Joint
Aviation Authorities] to the European National Aviation Authorities
in JAA letter 04/00/02/07/03-L024 of 3 February 2003. The review was
requested to be mandated by NAA's [National Airworthiness
Authorities] using JAR [Joint Aviation Requirement] Sec.  25.901(c),
Sec.  25.1309.
    In August 2005 EASA [European Aviation Safety Agency] published
a policy statement on the process for developing instructions for
maintenance and inspection of Fuel Tank System ignition source
prevention (EASA D 2005/CPRO, http://www.easa.eu.int/home/cert_policy_statements_en.html) that also included the EASA
expectations with regard to compliance times of the corrective
actions on the unsafe and the not unsafe part of the harmonised
design review results. On a global scale the TC [type certificate]
holders committed themselves to the EASA published compliance dates
(see EASA policy statement). The EASA policy statement has been
revised in March 2006: The date of 31-12-2005 for the unsafe related
actions has now been set at 01-07-2006.
    Fuel Airworthiness Limitations are items arising from a systems
safety analysis that have been shown to have failure mode(s)
associated with an `unsafe condition' as defined in FAA's memo 2003-
112-15 `SFAR 88--Mandatory Action Decision Criteria'. These are
identified in Failure Conditions for which an unacceptable
probability of ignition risk could exist if specific tasks and/or
practices are not performed in accordance with the manufacturers'
requirements.
    This EASA Airworthiness Directive mandates the Fuel System
Airworthiness Limitations, comprising maintenance/inspection tasks
and Critical Design Control Configuration Limitations (CDCCL) for
the type of aircraft, that resulted from the design reviews and the
JAA recommendation and EASA policy statement mentioned above.
    Revision History: PAD [proposed airworthiness directive] 06-
018R1 has been issued to endorse comments received for PAD 06-018
and due to the change of the EASA policy statement on fuel tank
safety on March 2006.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2006-12-18

Revision of Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)

    (g) Within 30 days after July 21, 2006 (the effective date of AD
2006-12-18), revise the Limitations and Normal Procedures sections
of the AFMs as specified in Table 1 of this AD to include the
information in the applicable Shorts advance amendment bulletins as
specified in Table 1 of this AD. The advance amendment bulletins
address operation during icing conditions and fuel system failures.
Thereafter, operate the airplane according to the limitations and
procedures in the applicable advance amendment bulletin.

    Note 2:  The requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD may be
done by inserting a copy of the applicable advance amendment
bulletin into the AFM. When the applicable advance amendment
bulletin has been included in general revisions of the AFM, the
general revisions may be inserted into the AFM and the advance
amendment bulletin may be removed, provided the relevant information
in the general revision is identical to that in the advance
amendment bulletin.

                         Table 1--AFM Revisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Shorts advance
        Airplane model--               amendment             AFM--
                                      bulletin--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SD3-30 airplanes................  1/2004, dated July  SBH.3.2, SBH.3.3,
                                   13, 2004.           SBH.3.6, SBH.3.7,
                                                       SBH.3.8, and
                                                       SB.3.9.
SD3-60 airplanes................  1/2004, dated July  SB.4.3, SB.4.6,
                                   13, 2004.           and SB.4.8.
SD3-60 SHERPA airplanes.........  1/2004, dated July  SB.6.2.
                                   13, 2004.
SD3-SHERPA airplanes............  1/2004, dated July  SB.5.2.
                                   13, 2004.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revision of Airworthiness Limitation (AWL) Section

    (h) Within 180 days after July 21, 2006: Revise the AWL section
of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating
airplane maintenance manual (AMM) Sections 5-20-01 and 5-20-02 as
introduced by the Shorts temporary revisions (TR) specified in Table
2 of this AD into the AWL section of the AMMs for the airplane
models specified in Table 2 of this AD, except as required by
paragraph (j) of this AD. Thereafter, except as provided by
paragraph (m)(1) of this AD, no alternative structural inspection
intervals may be approved for the longitudinal skin joints in the
fuselage shell.

    Note 3:  The requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD may be
done by inserting a copy of the applicable TR into the applicable
AMM. When the TR has been included in general revisions of the AMM,
the general revisions may be inserted in the AMM and the TR may be
removed, provided the relevant information in the general revision
is identical to that in the TR.

                                        Table 2--AMM Temporary Revisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Airplane model--              Temporary revision--            Date--                   AMM--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SD3-30 airplanes.....................  TR330-AMM-13...........  June 21, 2004..........  SD3-30 AMM.
SD3-30 airplanes.....................  TR330-AMM-14...........  June 21, 2004..........  SD3-30 AMM.
SD3-60 airplanes.....................  TR360-AMM-33...........  July 27, 2004..........  SD3-60 AMM.
SD3-60 airplanes.....................  TR360-AMM-34...........  July 27, 2004..........  SD3-60 AMM.
SD3-60 SHERPA airplanes..............  TRSD360S-AMM-14........  July 29, 2004..........  SD3-60 SHERPA AMM.
SD3-60 SHERPA airplanes..............  TRSD360S-AMM-15........  July 29, 2004..........  SD3-60 SHERPA AMM.
SD3-SHERPA airplanes.................  TRSD3S-AMM-15..........  July 28, 2004..........  SD3 SHERPA AMM.
SD3-SHERPA airplanes.................  TRSD3S-AMM-16..........  July 28, 2004..........  SD3 SHERPA AMM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resistance Check, Inspection, and Jumper Installation

    (i) Within 180 days after July 21, 2006: Perform the insulation
resistance check, general visual inspections, and bonding jumper
wire installations; in accordance with Shorts Service Bulletin
SD330-28-37, SD360-28-23, SD360 SHERPA-28-3, or SD3 SHERPA-28-2; all
dated June 2004; as applicable. If any defect or damage is
discovered during any inspection or check required by this AD,
before further flight, repair the defect or damage using a method
approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (or
its delegated agent); or EASA (or its delegated agent).

    Note 4:  For the purposes of this AD, a general visual
inspection is: ``A visual examination of an interior or exterior
area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure,
or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within
touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be
necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection
area. This level of inspection is made under normally available
lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight,
or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or
doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain
proximity to the area being checked.''

New Requirements of This AD

Revision of AWL Section: New Limitations and CDCCLs

    (j) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise
the AWL section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by
incorporating maintenance manual Sections 5-20-01 and 5-20-02 as
introduced by the Bombardier and Shorts TRs specified in Table 3 of
this AD into the AWL section of the maintenance manuals for the
airplane models specified in Table 3 of this AD. Doing this revision
terminates the requirement to incorporate the temporary revisions
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. After doing this revision the
temporary revisions required by paragraph (h) of this AD may be
removed.

                         Table 3--Newly Required Maintenance Manual Temporary Revisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Model--                   Temporary revision--            Date--                  Manual--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SD3-30 airplanes.....................  Shorts TR TR330-AMM-35.  June 6, 2006...........  Shorts SD3-30
                                                                                Maintenance Manual
                                                                                (MM).
SD3-30 airplanes.....................  Shorts TR TR330-AMM-36.  June 6, 2006...........  Shorts SD3-30 MM.
SD3-60 airplanes.....................  Bombardier TR TR360-AMM- November 11, 2005......  Bombardier SD3-60 AMM.
                                        55.
SD3-60 airplanes.....................  Bombardier TR TR360-AMM- November 11, 2005......  Bombardier SD3-60 AMM.
                                        56.
SD3-60 SHERPA airplanes..............  Shorts TR TRSD360S-AMM-  June 27, 2006..........  Shorts SD3-60 SHERPA
                                        35.                                               MM.
SD3-60 SHERPA airplanes..............  Shorts TR TRSD360S-AMM-  June 27, 2006..........  Shorts SD3-60 SHERPA
                                        36.                                               MM.
SD3-SHERPA airplanes.................  Shorts TR TRSD3S-AMM-36  June 19, 2006..........  Shorts SD3-SHERPA MM.
SD3-SHERPA airplanes.................  Shorts TR TRSD3S-AMM-37  June 19, 2006..........  Shorts SD3-SHERPA MM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note 5:  The requirements of paragraph (j) of this AD may be
done by inserting a copy of the applicable TR into the applicable
maintenance manual. When the TR has been included in general
revisions of the AMM, the general revisions may be inserted in the
AMM and the TR may be removed, provided the relevant information in
the general revision is identical to that in the TR.

    (k) After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (j)
of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or
CDCCLs may be used unless the inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are
approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this
AD.

Explanation of CDCCL Requirements

    Note 6:  Notwithstanding any other maintenance or operational
requirements, components that have been identified as airworthy or
installed on the affected airplanes before the revision of the AMM,
as required by paragraph (h) or (j) of this AD, do not need to be
reworked in accordance with the CDCCLs. However, once the AMM has
been revised, future maintenance actions on these components must be
done in accordance with the CDCCLs.

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Other Service
Information

    (l) Revising the AFM, as required by paragraph (g) of this AD,
by inserting Shorts Advance Amendment Bulletin 1/2004, dated 7/13/
04, for Model SD3-60 Sherpa airplanes, into AFM SB.5.2; or Shorts
Advance Amendment Bulletin 1/2004, dated 7/13/04, for Model SD3-
sherpa airplanes, into AFM SB.6.2; before the effective date of this
AD is acceptable for compliance with the AFM revision required by
paragraph (g) of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 7:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (m) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Todd
Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your

principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics
inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector,
your local Flight Standards District Office. The AMOC approval
letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: A Federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5
minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.,
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

Related Information

    (n) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2006-0198, dated
July 11, 2006; Shorts Service Bulletins SD330-28-37, SD360-28-23,
SD360 SHERPA-28-3, and SD3 SHERPA-28-2, all dated June 2004; and the
service information listed in Tables 1, 2, and 3 of this AD; for
related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (o) You must use the service information contained in Table 4 of
this AD, as applicable, to do the actions required by this AD,
unless the AD specifies otherwise.

             Table 4--All Material Incorporated by Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Document                     Date               Manual
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shorts Advance Amendment          July 13, 2004.....  Shorts Airplane
 Bulletin 1/2004.                                      Flight Manuals
                                                       (AFMs) SBH.3.2,
                                                       SBH.3.3, SBH.3.6,
                                                       SBH.3.7, SBH.3.8,
                                                       and SB.3.9.
Shorts Advance Amendment          July 13, 2004.....  Shorts AFMs
 Bulletin 1/2004.                                      SB.4.3, SB.4.6,
                                                       and SB.4.8.
Shorts Advance Amendment          July 13, 2004.....  Shorts AFM SB.5.2.
 Bulletin 1/2004.
Shorts Advance Amendment          July 13, 2004.....  Shorts AFM SB.6.2.
 Bulletin 1/2004.
Shorts TR330-AMM-13.............  June 21, 2004.....  Shorts SD3-30
                                                       Airplane
                                                       Maintenance
                                                       Manual (AMM).
Shorts TR330-AMM-14.............  June 21, 2004.....  Shorts SD3-30 AMM.
Shorts TR360-AMM-33.............  July 27, 2004.....  Shorts SD3-60 AMM.
Shorts TR360-AMM-34.............  July 27, 2004.....  Shorts SD3-60 AMM.
Shorts TRSD360S-AMM-14..........  July 29, 2004.....  Shorts SD3-60
                                                       SHERPA AMM.
Shorts TRSD360S-AMM-15..........  July 29, 2004.....  Shorts SD3-60
                                                       SHERPA AMM.
Shorts TRSD3S-AMM-15............  July 28, 2004.....  Shorts SD3 SHERPA
                                                       AMM.
Shorts TRSD3S-AMM-16............  July 28, 2004.....  Shorts SD3 SHERPA
                                                       AMM.
Shorts Service Bulletin SD330-28- June 2004.........  None.
 37.
Shorts Service Bulletin SD360-28- June 2004.........  None.
 23.
Shorts Service Bulletin SD360     June 2004.........  None.
 SHERPA-28-3.
Shorts Service Bulletin SD3       June 2004.........  None.
 SHERPA-28-2.
Shorts TR TR330-AMM-35..........  June 6, 2006......  Shorts SD3-30
                                                       Maintenance
                                                       Manual (MM).
Shorts TR TR330-AMM-36..........  June 6, 2006......  Shorts SD3-30 MM.
Bombardier TR TR360-AMM-55......  November 11, 2005.  Bombardier SD3-60
                                                       AMM.
Bombardier TR TR360-AMM-56......  November 11, 2005.  Bombardier SD3-60
                                                       AMM.
Shorts TR TRSD360S-AMM-35.......  June 27, 2006.....  Shorts SD3-60
                                                       SHERPA MM.
Shorts TR TRSD360S-AMM-36.......  June 27, 2006.....  Shorts SD3-60
                                                       SHERPA MM.
Shorts TR TRSD3S-AMM-36.........  June 19, 2006.....  Shorts SD3-SHERPA
                                                       MM.
Shorts TR TRSD3S-AMM-37.........  June 19, 2006.....  Shorts SD3-SHERPA
                                                       MM.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information contained in
Table 5 of this AD under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

             Table 5--New Material Incorporated by Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Document                     Date               Manual
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shorts TR TR330-AMM-35..........  June 6, 2006......  Shorts SD3-30 MM.
Shorts TR TR330-AMM-36..........  June 6, 2006......  Shorts SD3-30 MM.
Bombardier TR TR360-AMM-55......  November 11, 2005.  Bombardier SD3-60
                                                       AMM.
Bombardier TR TR360-AMM-56......  November 11, 2005.  Bombardier SD3-60
                                                       AMM.
Shorts TR TRSD360S-AMM-35.......  June 27, 2006.....  Shorts SD3-60
                                                       SHERPA MM.
Shorts TR TRSD360S-AMM-36.......  June 27, 2006.....  Shorts SD3-60
                                                       SHERPA MM.
Shorts TR TRSD3S-AMM-36.........  June 19, 2006.....  Shorts SD3-SHERPA
                                                       MM.
Shorts TR TRSD3S-AMM-37.........  June 19, 2006.....  Shorts SD3-SHERPA
                                                       MM.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) The Director of the Federal Register previously approved
the incorporation by reference of the service information contained
in Table 6 of this AD on July 21, 2006 (71 FR 34801, June 16, 2006).

         Table 6--Material Previously Incorporated by Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Document                     Date               Manual
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shorts Advance Amendment          July 13, 2004.....  Shorts Airplane
 Bulletin 1/2004.                                      Flight Manuals
                                                       (AFMs) SBH.3.2,
                                                       SBH.3.3, SBH.3.6,
                                                       SBH.3.7, SBH.3.8,
                                                       and SB.3.9.
Shorts Advance Amendment          July 13, 2004.....  Shorts AFMs
 Bulletin 1/2004.                                      SB.4.3, SB.4.6,
                                                       and SB.4.8.
Shorts Advance Amendment          July 13, 2004.....  Shorts AFM SB.5.2.
 Bulletin 1/2004.
Shorts Advance Amendment          July 13, 2004.....  Shorts AFM SB.6.2.
 Bulletin 1/2004.
Shorts Temporary Revision TR330-  June 21, 2004.....  SD3-30 AMM.
 AMM-13.
Shorts Temporary Revision TR330-  June 21, 2004.....  SD3-30 AMM.
 AMM-14.
Shorts Temporary Revision TR360-  July 27, 2004.....  SD3-60 AMM.
 AMM-33.
Shorts Temporary Revision TR360-  July 27, 2004.....  SD3-60 AMM.
 AMM-34.
Shorts Temporary Revision         July 29, 2004.....  SD3-60 SHERPA AMM.
 TRSD360S-AMM-14.
Shorts Temporary Revision         July 29, 2004.....  SD3-60 SHERPA AMM.
 TRSD360S-AMM-15.
Shorts Temporary Revision TRSD3S- July 28, 2004.....  SD3 SHERPA AMM.
 AMM-15.
Shorts Temporary Revision TRSD3S- July 28, 2004.....  SD3 SHERPA AMM.
 AMM-16.
Shorts Service Bulletin SD330-28- June 2004.........  None.
 37.
Shorts Service Bulletin SD360-28- June 2004.........  None.
 23.
Shorts Service Bulletin SD360     June 2004.........  None.
 SHERPA-28-3.
Shorts Service Bulletin SD3       June 2004.........  None.
 SHERPA-28-2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Short
Brothers PLC, Airworthiness, P.O. Box 241, Airport Road, Belfast,
BT3 9DZ Northern Ireland; telephone +44(0)2890-462469; fax
+44(0)2890-468444; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may also review copies of the 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/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 10, 2010.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-30 Filed 1-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 9585]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03579]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2000-7257; Notice No. 77]

Railroad Safety Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Announcement of Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC)
Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: FRA announces the fifty-first meeting of the RSAC, a Federal
Advisory Committee that develops railroad safety regulations through a
consensus process. The RSAC meeting topics will include opening remarks
from the FRA Administrator, and status reports will be provided by the
Train Crew Size, Securement, Hazardous Material Issues, Fatigue
Management, and Risk Reduction Working Groups. Status reports will also
be provided by the Engineering Task Force. This agenda is subject to
change, including the possible addition of further proposed tasks.

DATES: The RSAC meeting is scheduled to commence at 9:30 a.m. on
Thursday, March 6, 2014, and will adjourn by 4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The RSAC meeting will be held at the National Housing Center
located at 1201 15th Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. The meeting is
open to the public on a first-come, first-served basis, and is
accessible to individuals with disabilities. Sign and oral
interpretation can be made available if requested 10 calendar days
before the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Woolverton, RSAC Administrative
Officer/Coordinator, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mailstop 25,
Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Robert Lauby, Associate
Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer, FRA, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Mailstop 25, Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), FRA is giving notice of a
meeting of the RSAC. The RSAC was established to provide advice and
recommendations to FRA on railroad safety matters. The RSAC is composed
of 60 voting representatives from 39 member organizations, representing
various rail industry perspectives. In addition, there are non-voting
advisory representatives from the agencies with railroad safety
regulatory responsibility in Canada and Mexico, the National
Transportation Safety Board, and the Federal Transit Administration.
The diversity of the Committee ensures the requisite range of views and
expertise necessary to discharge its responsibilities. See the RSAC Web
site for details on prior RSAC activities and pending tasks at http://rsac.fra.dot.gov/. Please refer to the notice published in the Federal
Register on March 11, 1996 (61 FR 9740), for additional information
about the RSAC.

Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety and Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-03579 Filed 2-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P