1 EPA Response to Public Comments for EPA Public Docket OEI 2003 0025 On Tuesday, July 1, 2003, Federal Register ( FR) notices were published that began the Information Collection Request ( ICR) renewal process for the TRI Reporting Form R ( 68 FR 39074) and the Form A Certification Statement ( 68 FR 39071). The TRI Program is seeking OMB approval in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA) for these two collection activities that are due to expire on October 31, 2003. The EPA docket for this action, OEI 2003 0025 received over 50 comment submissions. The commenters and their corresponding docket identifiers are listed in a table at the end of this comment response document.

For the Form R ICR renewal, the TRI Program sought public comment on extensive changes to the Form R in an effort to collect information in a more logical and easier manner. However, in light of significant comments from States, the regulated community and other TRI data users concerning the implementation burden of so many changes at once, EPA is deferring most of the proposed changes. Some of the changes for which EPA sought comment remain in this submission. For example, section 8.1 is subdivided into four subsections: section 8.1a Total on site disposal to Underground Injection to Class I Wells, RCRA Subtitle C landfills, and other landfills; section 8.1b Total other on site disposal or other releases; section 8.1. c Total off site disposal to Underground Injection to Class I Wells, RCRA Subtitle C landfills, and other landfills; and section 8.1d total other off site disposal or other releases. A copy of the revised Form R ( EPA Form 9350 1, Rev. 01/ 2001) is being submitted to OMB for review and is included with the Form R ICR Supporting Statement as Attachment G.

An outline of the proposed changes to the Form R follows:

Part I & II:

° The TRIFID and chemical ID will be kept on every page.

Section 5: Quantity of the Toxic Chemical Entering Each Environmental Medium Onsite:

° The existing data element 5.5.3 Surface Impoundment will be broken out into 5.5.3. A RCRA Subtitle C Surface Impoundments and 5.5.3. B Other Surface Impoundments. This was proposed in the ICR and can easily be implemented.

Section 6: Transfers of the Toxic Chemical in Wastes to Off site Locations:

° Information for surface impoundments for RCRA Subtitle C and other surface impoundments ( as requested for Section 5) will be broken down. This was proposed as two separate data elements in the proposed Form R, however, this can be easily implemented by deleting the existing code M63 Surface Impoundment, and replacing it 2 with codes M66 RCRA Subtitle C Surface Impoundment and M67 Other Surface Impoundments.

° Because of the changes to Section 8.1 described below, the existing code M71 Underground Injection will be deleted and replaced with codes M81 Underground Injection to Class I Wells and M82 Underground Injection to Class II V Wells.

Section 7B: On site Energy Recovery Processes ° The code U09  Other Energy Recovery Methods will not be used. This element is no longer applicable since the only energy recovery methods are combustion in a boiler or industrial furnace. Combustion units other than boilers and industrial furnaces are used for treatment of the toxic chemical ( except for metal and metal compounds).

Section 8: Source Reduction and Recycling Activities:

° Section 8.1 will be broken out into the following four categories not using the proposed categories of " contained disposal" or " uncontained releases." The terms " contained" and " uncontained" were dropped from the four disposal and other release subsections because those terms were too confusing to both the public and the regulated community.

8.1. a. Total on site disposal to Underground Injection to Class I Wells, RCRA Subtitle C landfills, and other landfills 8.1. b. Total other on site disposal or other releases 8.1. c. Total off site disposal to Underground Injection to Class I Wells, RCRA Subtitle C landfills, and other landfills 8.1. d. Total other off site disposal or other releases Public Comments It was generally agreed by the respondents to the FR notice's request for public comment that the proposed Form R revisions resulted in a Form that was too lengthy and that would be costly to implement. Many commenters expressed their opinion that the proposed changes provided some clarity; others found the changes confusing and cumbersome. Most commenters recommended that, if substantial changes were to be made to the Form R, that they be implemented no sooner than Reporting Year 2004, and that additional training be provided to the regulated community and other users of the Form R. Comments were mixed regarding the utility of the proposed changes to Sections 5 & 6, however, it was generally agreed that the volume of the reporting form changes would be difficult and costly to implement. Many respondents supported changes to Part II, Section 8.1 of the Form R reporting form that would help to break out and clarify release quantities in Section 8.1. Others recommended additional changes to further clarify Section 8.1. Some were opposed to all proposed changes to Section 8. 3 Based on the comments received, the Agency has reduced and modified the proposed changes to the existing Form R, and is submitting this newly revised Form R to OMB for review and approval. The new draft Form R is being submitted to OMB for review as an attachment to the ICR renewal request ( EPA ICR No.: 1363.13, OMB Control No.: 2070 0093).

The comments submitted in response to EPA's request for renewal of the ICR for the Form R can be categorized into five broad issue areas that are outlined below.

A. Burden reduction at the TRI Program level General Comments: The commenters suggested a number of changes to the TRI program that they believed would reduce the burden associated with reporting. Some of the comments focused on increased electronic reporting while others suggested specific changes to the TRI reporting requirements. Expansion of the eligibility to use the Form A was a common suggestion as were alternative reporting schedules.

Some Specific Comments: ° Mandate the use of TRI ME to minimize errors and improve data quality ° Increase use of electronic reporting ° Expand use and eligibility for using Form A Certification Statement ( do not include chemical quantity reporting in section 8.6 toward the 500 lb. threshold) ° Expand TRI ME to include additional non TRI chemicals for use as an inventory ° Have TRI ME calculate summary fields for section 8 of current Form R ° Restore Form A, de minimis, and range reporting for lead and other PBTs ° Institute alternative reporting schedules: multi year Form R, two year reporting cycle, etc. ° Evaluate use of non statutory data elements on Form R ° Allow multi year reporting on a single Form R ° Exempt zero releasers from TRI reporting ° EPA should develop electronic data management and reporting tool for the states that would compile the states' TRI data set and manipulate the raw data to deliver a standard set of statistical results at the state specific level ° Allow forms to be submitted on CD ROM ° Expand CDX to include submissions to the states Response: At this time, EPA has determined that it would not be appropriate and/ or possible to make the changes suggested by the commenters. Some of the commenters' suggestions for reducing the reporting burden would require regulatory changes that cannot be accomplished under the ICR renewal process. In addition, many of the suggested changes are going to be included in an issue paper for an upcoming stakeholder dialogue on how to reduce TRI reporting burden. During the stakeholder process, EPA will solicit comments on the ideas included in the paper and any other suggestions that stakeholders may have for reducing the reporting burden of the TRI program.

B. Proposed changes related to the expansion of Form R sections 5 & 6 4 General Comments: In general, the majority of the commenters did not support the extensive changes to sections 5 and 6 of the Form R that EPA had proposed. Issues were raised concerning the increased burden that would result from the changes and the impact the changes would have on the electronic reporting systems that facilities and states use to report, process and store TRI data. Some states felt that the changes would have such a significant impact on their ability to process and maintain TRI data that they may even be prevented from processing the data. There was some support for certain specific changes but no support for the overall scope of the proposed changes. Most commenters felt that the changes were not needed and would neither clarify nor simplify TRI reporting. The commmenters felt that none of the changes would reduce reporting burden but would rather increase burden and require additional training.

Some Specific Comments: ° Changes proposed will have a serious impact on states ( e. g. changing databases and websites, retraining staff, providing training and assistance to industries, etc.) ° Proposed changes present significant implementation costs for facilities that report to the TRI such as training, data collection systems, etc. ( many industry commenters) ° Proposed revisions do not clarify and simplify and greatly increase stakeholder burden ° EPA's proposed form collects additional information that isn't being collected on the current Form R, ie., quantities treated, recycled, or burned for energy recovery onsite by individual method ° Approves of changes to 5.8  5.11 ° Recommends maintaining differentiation in section 5.12 to ensure consistency and avoid confusion ° Do not aggregate releases in 5.12, column B, this aggregation is misleading ° Does not support changes for reporting offsite transfers in section 5.6 and 6.1 6.3 ° Supports addition of column B in Section 5 ° Changes from M codes to individual categories make the Form R harder to read and more prone to errors in reporting. The current M code pull down menus in TRI ME work better. ° " Storage," " solidification/ stabilization", " wastewater treatment", " other offsite management", and " transfers" should not be characterized as " uncontained releases" in Section 5.10. These activities are regularly covered by federal or state regulation. Call them " controlled releases" instead. ° Section 5.6.12 ( Unknown Disposal) should not be included. Facilities should report the specific waste management method under Section 5.6.10 so the public doesn't have to guess. ° Supports using M codes to indicate final disposition of offsite transfers ( 0046) ° Approves proposed sections in Section 6 for reporting onsite treatment, energy recovery and recycling quantities ° Retain range reporting in Sections 5 & 6 ( was deleted from proposed Form R) ° Remove ability to enter range codes for release ° Supports factoring accidental releases in Col. B ° Does not support factoring accidental releases in Col. B 5 ° Supports getting rid of M codes and having a specific line for the activity covered by that code ° Not clear where to enter name/ location of receiving facility or how to report multiple offsite locations Response: At this time, EPA has determined that it would not be appropriate to implement all of the proposed changes to Sections 5, 6, and 7 of the current version of the Form R. This decision is predominantly based on the comments identifying implementation concerns. Data collection systems as well as systems that disseminate this information to the public would require significant updating. Also, there would be a need to significantly update existing compliance assistance materials such as guidance documents, training materials, etc. When the implementation concerns are considered as a whole, EPA believes it is not feasible to implement these changes immediately but rather the Agency should consider these changes in a more manageable period of time. EPA still believes that some of the proposed changes may still be feasible to implement now and in future years without increasing the reporting burden, but EPA has not identified which changes it might adopt in the future nor is the Agency going to respond to all comments in favor or against specific changes. Rather, EPA will reevaluate the changes in an appropriate future proceeding.

However, EPA will be implementing one change to Section 5 of the current reporting form. Section 5.5.3 will now be subdivided into two parts: 5.. 5.3A: RCRA subtitle C surface impoundment; and 5.5.3B: other surface impoundment. Previously this information was combined and reported in section 5.5.3 surface impoundment. There was support for this breakdown and EPA believes that this change is minor and will not cause significant implementation problems. This change is also consistent with the changes to Section 8.1 that EPA is making today, changes generally supported by commenters, as discussed below. Also, as noted in the July 1 proposal, EPA will be no longer be using the code U09  Other Energy Recovery Methods, because this element is not applicable since the only energy recovery methods are combustion in a boiler or industrial furnace. Combustion units other than boilers and industrial furnaces are used for treatment of the toxic chemical ( except for metal and metal compounds). EPA did not receive any comments opposing the discontinuation of this code.

C. Proposed changes to section 8.1 General Comments: There were considerable changes to Part II, Section 8.1 that were proposed in the July 1, 2003, FR Notice. Also, there were considerable differences of opinion on the proposed addition of the " contained disposal" and " uncontained releases" language. While a number of the commenters supported the addition of the language, some did not support the definition EPA proposed to use and others suggested changes to the language. Several commenters requested that additional activities also be considered contained disposal rather than uncontained releases. Still others did not agree with the contained disposal and uncontained releases language at all. Some commenters suggested additional changes to section 8 and/ or changes in the way EPA presents the data in its annual data release documents and electronic databases. 6 Some Specific Comments: ° Use rulemaking process for Section 8 changes, not ICR approval ° Make " Prior Year" col. A ( new section 8.1. a  8.1. d) optional the first year the new form is used ° Disagrees that all metals sent to POTWs be considered uncontained releases ° Recommends codified definitions for data required in Section 8 ° Does not support Part II revisions ° Supports revisions to Part II of the Form R ° Supports addition of contained disposal category and distinguishing between contained disposal and uncontained releases ° Category of " contained disposal" should be expanded to include surface impoundments ° The existing Form R currently already makes the distinction between disposal and uncontained releases, therefore, no changes are necessary. ° The categories of " contained disposal" should be broken out as separate data elements within Section 8. ° The category of " contained disposal" will lead EPA and industry to characterize harmful toxic transfers and releases as having minimal impact on public health and the environment ° Believes that contained and uncontained release characterizations will work against source reduction and obscure pollution prevention ° Expand Section 8 to include total quantity in waste managed, quantity generated as waste on site, and quantity received as waste from off site ° Column A, prior year would need to be recalculated to fit new classifications ° New Form R should only institute change that distinguishes between a waste transfer or disposal and a release ° Definition of contained vs uncontained is inconsistent with other regulatory programs ° Distinction between " contained" disposal and " uncontained" releases will be fundamentally unfair to the mining industry and western states ° Limiting " contained" to landfills and Class I UIC wells places EPCRA 313 at odds with EPCRA and EPA's implementing regulations ° Recommends that transfers to POTWs and waste brokers also be reclassified as contained releases ° If contained disposal is used, should be expanded to include all permitted management units ° Supports adding a footnote for section 8.1 that clarifies what is included as " contained disposal" and what is included in " uncontained release" ° Does not agree with designation of management activities as " uncontained" releases ° Supports format changes that affect Underground Injection ° Recommends clarification to the public on the difference between contained disposal and uncontained release ° Recommends use of the term " controlled disposal" ° Contained disposal should not be considered a release ° Only 8.1. a and 8.1. c should be classified as releases ° Objects to aggregating various types of contained disposal ° On site land release  other disposal, considered " uncontained" in the proposed Form R, 7 could possibly be contained or uncontained releases ° " Contained disposal" category should include surface impoundments, which are equivalent to landfills. ° Form R should be modified to provide the option to report either " contained disposal" or " uncontained release" for each type of land disposal unit without any prior eligibility determination by EPA on the Form. ° The new categories " contained disposal" and " uncontained releases" should be added at the end of Section 5 to avoid reformatting of the entire Form R. ° EPA's current regulations at 372.85( 15) don't require reporting of " contained disposal" and " uncontained releases;" thus, the proposed changes are substantive and must be done through rulemaking. ° With passage of the Data Quality Act and the data quality guidelines developed, EPA is obligated to accurately collect information on and report to the public the distinction between disposal of a toxic chemical into a secure landfill and release of a toxic chemical into ambient air, water, or soil ° No total release categories should be used ° Subtitle C landfills and transfers to disposal should not be considered " releases" or counted toward " total releases." Describing such transfers as " off site contained disposal" and thus as a subtotal of " total releases" violates current regulations and laws and must be changed ° Approves of section 8 changes proposed ° EPA could just change 8.1, not other more extensive changes proposed in sections 5 and 6 of the Form R. ° Move onsite inventory to Sec. 8 along with other chemical summary data ° PDR should follow the new terminology of " disposal" and not " release" and reflect the data in the same manner in the PDR and TRI Explorer ° Add section total of total air releases, total water releases, total onsite land, and total offsite land. Remove total contained/ uncontained on/ offsite summaries ° It appears that EPA intends to continue classifying " contained disposal" as a " release," even though such disposal does not introduce TRI chemicals to the environment. Requiring reporting of materials not actually released to the environment is inconsistent with the intent of Congress under EPCRA.

Response: Based on the comments received, EPA is proposing that Section 8.1 be further broken down as follows:

° 8.1. a.  Total on site disposal to Underground Injection to Class I Wells, RCRA Subtitle C landfills, and other landfills; ° 8.1. b.  Total other on site disposal or other releases; ° 8.1. c. Total off site disposal to Underground Injection to Class I Wells, RCRA Subtitle C landfills, and other landfills; and ° 8.1. d.  Total other off site disposal or other releases.

EPA believes that this description more accurately reflects the intent of EPA's original 8 proposed breakdown without introducing the confusion created by using the terms " contained" and " uncontained." As described in the initial proposal, EPA's original intent to the breakdown of Section 8.1 was to provide a more accurate and precise characterization of TRI chemicals in waste streams in that it provides for distinctions between releases to ambient media. EPA does not believe that the changes being proposed to Section 8.1 are regulatory changes that would require a rulemaking since the proposed Section 8.1 will include all of the same information as before and no additional information is being collected. EPA also believes that this change will not cause implementation issues as previously discussed. This proposed Section 8.1 also provides for a greater parallel structure between data elements collected throughout the Form R. EPA has made no decisions at this time as to how these changes might be reflected in the annual Public Data Release or other public dissemination tools ( e. g., TRI Explorer). Finally, EPA does not agree it is necessary to make prior year reporting for 8.1. a 8.1. d voluntary because facilities generated the information necessary to report prior year data when reporting EPA received several comments suggesting that additional disposals or other releases should be broken out in a manner similar to Class I underground injection or disposal to landfills. The concern behind many of these comments appears to have been that calling one or more of these activities " uncontained releases" might lead to confusion about the regulatory status of such activities. For this reason, EPA is dropping the labels " contained disposal" or " uncontained release", as discussed above. However, EPA believes that these two activities are distinct from the others mentioned by commenters, for the reasons discussed in the July 1, 2003 notice.

D. Other Form R formatting issues General Comments: There were a wide range of comments on other aspects of the format and content of the Form R. These comments ranged from general comments that the proposed form was too long to very specific comments such as what kind of font should be used on the Form R. Some commenters suggested that certain data elements should be removed entirely from the From R while other commenters suggested some minor additions to the form.

Some Specific Comments: ° Proposed form is too long ° Support addition of chemical name, reporting year and facility ID number to each page ° Add NAICS codes now ° Remove redundant headers; Use Arial font for everything; include 2.1 ( trade secret names) into 1.4 field since trade secrets are a very rare case; group water releases together into same section ( i. e., 5.3 & 6.1); use NA check box for source reduction activities instead of " yes/ no" for purpose of consistency ° Reordering and renumbering of data elements will cause confusion. ° The proposed format does not accommodate the entry of large numbers. ° The proposed Form as well as the existing Form should better accommodate the use of additional pages. ° Drop Section 7A ( proposed Section 10). The information is not used by EPA for the PDR or on an EPA website. 9 ° Do not collect e mail addresses. They cannot be protected from misuse by spammers, and EPA has previously stated it would release them in response to FOIA requests. ° Format text consistently throughout and clearly mark section headings ° Would like to use TRI software for including all chemicals whether they are Sec. 313 chemicals or not for the purpose of keeping a chemical use inventory ° Revise form to allow for reporting of multiple owners of a facility ( e. g. joint owners of power plants) ° Support TEQ reporting for dioxin and dioxin like compounds ° Add GPS to Form R since addresses can change ° Evaluate/ eliminate 13 non statutory data elements that add to overall reporting burden ° Continued changes to TRI since its inception affect the public's ability to use and understand TRI data ° The proposed changes will make data analysis more difficult ( e. g., trend analysis using previous year data) ° Revise Form R to clarify that those toxic chemicals that are removed from the ambient environment as part of a remediation operation need not be recounted as " releases" by remediation waste generators when managed in treatment or contained disposal facilities. Hazardous waste treatment and disposal operations receiving the waste should not have to account for such waste in their Form R reporting ° Request that EPA consider adding sections for Total Air Releases, Total Land Releases, and Total Water Releases to assist in analyzing the data by ensuring that states and Federal EPA calculate these totals in the same manner Response: In the Federal Register notice that was issued on July 1, 2003 ( 68 FR 39074), numerous changes were proposed to clarify and simplify reporting Form R. Although some of those who commented on the proposed Form R changes believed that the changes had merit, the overwhelming majority of commenters believed that implementing so many changes at once would be difficult and costly.

Based on the those comments received during the public comment period and other comments received from TRI stakeholders, EPA will not implement most of the proposed changes, but is proposing that OMB approve some minor modifications ( described in detail above) that will help to clarify the data reported without adding undue burden to TRI data users. The length of this proposed Form R will remain the same as the existing Form. The chemical name and facility identification number ( TRIFID) will appear on each page of the reporting form. Although no additional formatting changes will be proposed now, EPA will consider the proposed format revisions ( e. g., consistent headings, consistent font, combining like sections, adding GPS codes) in future Form R ICR renewal.

Two commenters requested that the Form R be revised to allow facilities to report multiple/ joint owners. Q& A 625 in the 1998 version of the EPCRA Section 313 Questions and Answers document responds directly to an example of an electricity generating facility that is comprised of multiple independent owners, each with his or her own separate operation but with a financial interest in the operation of the entire facility. The response states that an " electricity 10 generating facility should enter in Part I, Section 5.1 of the Form R the name of the holding or parent company, consortium, joint venture, or other entity that owns, operates, or controls the facility." Also, further clarification is provided in the 2001 Reporting Forms and Instructions document.

The Agency is conducting a rulemaking to add NAICS codes to the TRI reporting process. Public comments to the proposed rule are currently being reviewed. After a final rule is published, NAICS codes will be reported by facilities on the Form R. In regards to dioxin TEQ reporting, the Agency is now in the process of preparing a proposed rule.

EPA has responded in the past to requests to eliminate some or all of the " non statutory" data elements from Form R reporting. First, EPA maintains statutory authority to collect all of the information contained on the Form R. Second, the data elements discussed by commenters are requested on the Form R in order to cross reference the facility and the level of activity being certified with other reporting systems and data bases. They are also useful for more accurate tracking of a facility's reporting history.

E. Chemical Assessment Guidelines ( CAG) and TRI rules, lawsuits and petitions General Comment: Some commenters raised issues that concern TRI program projects or issues that are not part of the Form R ICR renewal process. These included rulemakings, lawsuits, guidance documents, etc.

Some Specific Comments: ° CAG: EPA must revise its listing guidance through notice and comment rulemaking and must undergo OMB review under EO12866. EPA cannot make any new listing determinations until guidance is finalized. Any new EPA proposed or draft final TRI listing determinations which have raised significant data quality or " practical utility" issues in public comments must be submitted to OMB with a new ICR and pursuant to EO 12866 after the listing guidance has been revised. ° TRI lead and lead compounds rule ° Barrick lawsuit issues ° Discusses mining lawsuits ° Incorporate risk context to data reported ° Facilities should not be allowed to report amounts of non PBT listed chemicals to the right of the decimal place. Only whole numbers should be reported Response: Since the comments on these issues are not within the scope of the ICR renewal process they are not being addressed by EPA at this time.

F. Form R and Form A Burden General Comments: Many of the comments related to Form R burden focused on the proposed revisions to the Form R and the expected impact of these proposed changes on reporting burden. 11 Many comments indicated that the increase in form length and changes in formatting would result in additional burden. Comments also noted that the proposed changes would create additional burden for states.

There were also a number of comments related to EPA's revised burden estimates for subsequent year reporting on Form R and Form A. Some comments acknowledged that EPA's revised estimates were consistent with the reporting experience at affected facilities, however other comments took issue with the revised estimates and EPA's method for deriving them. On the issue of TRI ME's impact on reporting burden, most comments indicate that TRI ME reduces reporting burden, but some comments disagreed with EPA's burden reduction estimate. Finally, there were a few comments related to the relationship between Form R and Form A burden.

Some Specific Comments: ° Proposed revisions to Form R will increase reporting burden beyond EPA estimates due to increased length of form, need for in house training, revision of multiple spreadsheets, changes to collection and aggregation of data, proofing, need to make prior year calculations, and software revisions. ° Proposed revisions may not increase Form R burden ° Proposed revisions to not comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA) ° Proposed revisions will create additional burden for states to handle more paper, revise databases, provide training and outreach. ° Burden for completing existing Form R is consistent with EPA's revised burden estimate ° Larger, more complex facilities have more burden than is estimated for the " typical" facility especially in the area of compliance determination. ° Burden estimates based on EPA sample not valid because other facilities may not be of the same size, may have more complex Form R issues, may file different numbers of Forms, and may have less experience with TRI compliance ° There is no quantifiable public benefit to requiring reporting from zero releasers ° Delaying Form R changes to RY 2004 or later would give States adequate time to implement ° Burden estimates fail to account for the hours spent making a threshold determination that does not result in the filing of a Form R ° TRI reporting is a year round effort that includes many activities ° Facilities in the glass and ceramic decorating industry take longer to report than EPA estimates. ° Staff turnover occurs at all facilities and requires new employees to become familiar with TRI reporting requirements. ° Some new rule familiarization occurs every year for TRI filers as a result of program changes, interpretation, guidance, new information, and training. ° Increased availability of information has increased the reporting burden. ° EPA has not accounted for the increased burden of PBT and lead reporting which does not allow de minimis exclusions or range reporting. ° EPA has incorrectly assumed that the current reporting pattern will be replicated in future reporting years. 12 ° Data used by EPA to re estimate burden pre date PBT and lead rules ° No discussion of statistical sampling method and representativeness of data is provided ° Surveys were not specifically designed to gauge reporting burden ° EPA should conduct a broader, more accurate survey ° EPA should include a burden question on the Form R ° TRI ME reduces burden ° TRI ME has not reduced burden as much as EPA estimates ° TRI ME is not widely used ° Some facilities use proprietary software instead of, or in addition to, TRI ME ° Commenter's facility uses a loading factor of at least 75 percent for most purposes which is higher than EPA's loading factor. ° Supports downward adjustment to the number of anticipated Form Rs submitted over the next 3 year period. ° EPA did not address OMB's terms of clearance for additional review and support of burden estimates. ° Estimate for Calculations/ Certification should be the same for both Form A and Form R filers because the same upfront work is done for both the Form A and Form R ° EPA based Form A burden estimate on an unjustified relationship to the burden of completing Form R.

Response: EPA will not implement most of the proposed changes to Form R described in the proposed ICR renewal notice from July 1, 2003 ( 68 FR 39074) at this time. However, EPA is proposing that OMB approve some minor modifications ( described in previous sections of this document) that will help to clarify the data reported without adding undue burden to TRI data users. These changes will not affect the overall length of the Form R, and are expected to have a negligible impact on total reporting burden.

The issues raised in comments on revised burden estimates for subsequent year reporting and EPA's methods for deriving these estimates are addressed at length in the Supporting Statements for the Form R and Form A ICRs, in EPA's response to OMB's Terms of Clearance, and in responses to comments from the previous ICR renewal. The revised burden hour estimates are based on the actual reporting experience of TRI facilities, while existing burden hour estimates are based on engineering estimates dating to the late 1980s. In eliciting burden data, facilities were encouraged to think comprehensively about the overall burden of TRI reporting including time for the activities mentioned in the comments. The available burden data are appropriate and adequate for the purpose of revising unit reporting burden estimates, especially in light of the validation provided by more recent burden data independently gathered by the American Petroleum Institute after implementation of the PBT and lead rules. Overall, the available data reflect the experience of a broad range of industries reporting to TRI, and the data consistently show that existing estimates of reporting burden used by EPA are not an accurate representation of current reporting burden.

As reported in the appendix to EPA's response to OMB's Terms of Clearance, average total reporting burden per Form R is 11.7 hours plus or minus 1.8 hours. This is lower than the 13 revised estimate used in the ICR renewal of 19.5 hours per Form R ( composed of 14.5 for calculation/ report completion and 5 hours for recordkeeping/ submission) plus 4 hours per facility for compliance determination. Although EPA's revised estimate is more of an aggregate estimate than an estimate that is built up from numerous discrete activities, there is little danger that the total reporting burden is underestimated. The revised estimate is based on responses that reveal actual facility burden hours, and is substantially higher than the average of these responses. It may be appropriate to think of the difference in estimates of total hours per form as addressing various comments about additional time spent on training, guidance review, and other activities that are not individually estimated as part of EPA's revised burden hour estimate for subsequent year reporting. The revised burden estimates represent an improvement over the previous estimates dating back to the 1980s, and their use provides a more accurate representation of the current burden of the TRI program on reporting facilities.

With respect to the burden reduction attributable to TRI ME, EPA has reduced its estimate of burden reduction from 25 percent to 15 percent. At the time of the last ICR renewal EPA had contacted 9 facilities that used a pilot version of TRI ME in RY2000. EPA has now incorporated additional data from 9 facilities using TRI ME for the first time in RY2001 as described in the Supporting Statements for the ICRs. Preliminary counts from RY2002 show 92 percent of Form R responses and 86 percent of Form A responses were filed using TRI ME ( TRIME output for submission can be in paper or electronic formats). For the purposes of this ICR renewal, EPA is using an estimate of 90 percent of Form Rs and 85 percent of Form As being filed using TRI ME.

With respect to the comments on the revised burden estimates for Form A, EPA notes that the calculations needed to determine eligibility are a subset of the calculations necessary to complete Form R. Thus, the time required to calculate the annual reportable amount was estimated in previous ICRs and economic analyses by aggregating EPA's estimates of the time required to calculate each of the sections of Form R that are relevant to determining annual reportable amount. According to these estimates, calculations for a Form A take approximately 64 percent of the time of calculations for the Form R. To validate the revised burden hour estimate for Form A, EPA contacted 9 facilities that filed Form As to inquire about the typical facility level burden associated with using the reporting form. Depending on whether the midpoint or maximum of the reported range was used, the average facility level burden hours per chemical certification was reported at 11.2 to 15.5 hours. EPA's revised estimate of 13.7 total hours for a facility certifying one chemical on a Form A falls within this range.

Form R ICR Commenters 14 Commenter OEI E Docket Identification Number John Parker OEI 2003 0026 0003 ( Form R comment, submitted under Form A docket)

Center for Regulatory Effectiveness ( CRE) OEI 2003 0025 0006 Anonymous OEI 2003 0025 0008 3M Company OEI 2003 0025 0010 Minnesota ERC OEI 2003 0025 0011 Indiana Dept. of Env. Mgmt. OEI 2003 0025 0012 Intl. Dairy Foods Assn. OEI 2003 0025 0013 Ameren OEI 2003 0025 0014 Louisiana DEQ OEI 2003 0025 0015 ML Johnson, Conectiv OEI 2003 0025 0016 Tri Power Consulting Svcs. OEI 2003 0025 0017 Clean Harbors Env. Svcs. OEI 2003 0025 0018 Ohio EPA OEI 2003 0025 0019 Waste Management Inc. OEI 2003 0025 0020 Information Unlimited, Baton Rouge, La OEI 2003 0025 0021 Edison Electric Institute OEI 2003 0025 0022 Anonymous OEI 2003 0025 0023 PPG Industries OEI 2003 0025 0024 Claude Earl Wells OEI 2003 0025 0025 Environmental Technology Council OEI 2003 0025 0026 Weyerhaeuser OEI 2003 0025 0027 Michigan DEQ OEI 2003 0025 0028 National Association of Manufacturers OEI 2003 0025 0029 Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America OEI 2003 0025 0030 NFIB Legal Foundation OEI 2003 0025 0031 Va. DEQ OEI 2003 0025 0033 Southern Company OEI 2003 0025 0034 Onyx Environmental Svcs. OEI 2003 0025 0035 15 Tennessee Valley Authority OEI 2003 0025 0036 Texas Chemical Council OEI 2003 0025 0037 Synthetic Organic Chemical Association ( SOCMA) OEI 2003 0025 0038 IPC OEI 2003 0025 0039 Society of Glass & Ceramic Decorators OEI 2003 0025 0040 Dupont OEI 2003 0025 0041 National Paint and Coatings Assn. OEI 2003 0025 0043 National Mining Association ( NMA) OEI 2003 0025 0044 ACC  UIC Task Force OEI 2003 0025 0045 Alcoa, Inc. OEI 2003 0025 0046 Eastman Chemical Co. OEI 2003 0025 0047 Washington State TRI Program OEI 2003 0025 0048 Texas Commission on Env. Quality OEI 2003 0025 0049 American Chemistry Council ( ACC) OEI 2003 0025 0050 Louisiana Mid Continental Oil OEI 2003 0025 0051 Northeast Utilities System OEI 2003 0025 0052 American Petroleum Institute OEI 2003 0025 0053 Phelps Dodge OEI 2003 0025 0054 State of Utah Department of Env. Quality OEI 2003 0025 0055 Working Group on Community Right to Know OEI 2003 0025 0056 Cytec Industries, Inc. OEI 2003 0025 0057 Lower Colorado River Authority ( LCRA) OEI 2003 0025 0058 Westar Energy OEI 2003 0025 0059 Monsanto OEI 2003 0025 0060 Utility Solid Waste Activities Group ( USWAG) OEI 2003 0025 0061 Ground Water Protection Council ( GWPC) OEI 2003 0025 0062


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on August 2, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2003-14679

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  HMY Airways Inc.						Date Filed: May 9, 2005

Relief requested:  Renew exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to permit the
applicant to conduct: 1) scheduled combination services between any
point or points in Canada and any point or points in the United States;
and 2) charter operations, carrying persons, property and mail, between
Canada and the United States, and other charters in accordance with 14
CFR Part 212.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  May 10, 2004, in this
docket

Applicant representatives:  Aaron A. Goerlich & Erin M. Tallardy  (202)
776-3970

DOT Analyst:  Shelita A. Smith<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None filed

DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved							Action date:  August 2, 2005

Effective dates of exemption authority granted:  August 2, 2005 –
August 2, 2006

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  United
States-Canada Air Transport Agreement

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

   X   Standard exemption conditions (attached)                Foreign
air carrier permit   (Order            )

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  The applicant
may carry Third and Fourth Freedom charter traffic without prior
Department approval.  Other charter operations to/from the United States
conducted under this authority, however, are subject to prior approval
under 14 CFR Part 212.

Action taken by:  Paul L. Gretch, Director

		   Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) the applicant is qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied

all requests in the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke
the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our
discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §
385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of
issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and the
filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

Foreign Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

05/2004


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 19, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46057-46060]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15225]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0924; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01262-T;
Amendment 39-22489; AD 2023-13-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2021-16-
18, which applied to all Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter, A330-200,
A330-300, A330-800, A330-900, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, and A340-
600 series airplanes. AD 2021-16-18 required repetitive inspections of
certain fuel pumps for cavitation erosion, replacement if necessary,
revision of the operator's existing minimum equipment list (MEL), and
accomplishment of certain maintenance actions related to defueling and
ground fuel transfer operations. This AD was prompted by reports of a
fuel pump showing cavitation erosion that exposed the fuel pump power
supply wires, and a determination that affected fuel pumps must be
replaced with new, more erosion resistant pumps. This AD continues to
require the actions in AD 2021-16-18, and also requires replacement of
affected parts, which would terminate the repetitive inspections, as
specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which
is incorporated by reference. This AD also prohibits the installation
of certain affected parts. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective August 23, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 23,
2023.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket

No. FAA-2023-0924; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For EASA material incorporated by reference in this AD,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone
+49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You
may find this material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
     For Eaton service information incorporated by reference in
this AD, contact Eaton Limited, Customer Support, Abbey Park,
Southhampton Road, Titchfield, Fareham, Hampshire, PO14 4QA, U.K.;
telephone +01 329853000; Fax +01 329853714.
     You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0924.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2021-16-18, Amendment 39-21681 (86 FR
60560, November 3, 2021) (AD 2021-16-18). AD 2021-16-18 applied to all
Airbus SAS Model A330-201, A330-202, A330-203, A330-223, A330-223F,
A330-243, A330-243F, A330-301, A330-302, A330-303, A330-321, A330-322,
A330-323, A330-341, A330-342, A330-343, A330-841, A330-941, A340-211,
A340-212, A340-213, A340-311, A340-312, A340-313, A340-541, and A340-
642 airplanes. AD 2021-16-18 required repetitive inspections of certain
fuel pumps for cavitation erosion, replacement if necessary, revision
of the operator's existing MEL, and accomplishment of certain
maintenance actions related to defueling and ground fuel transfer
operations. The FAA issued AD 2021-16-18 to address fuel pump erosion
caused by cavitation.
    The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 18, 2023 (88 FR
23589). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2022-0197, dated September 22,
2022, issued by EASA (EASA AD 2022-0197), which is the Technical Agent
for the Member States of the European Union (also referred to as the
MCAI). The MCAI states that new, more erosion resistant pumps have been
developed to address the unsafe condition. The MCAI states there have
been reports of fuel pumps showing cavitation erosion. This condition,
if not detected and corrected, could result, in a case where the pump
is running dry, in an ignition source in the fuel tank, which may
result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0924.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to retain the requirements of AD
2021-16-18 and require replacement of affected parts, which would
terminate the repetitive inspections, as specified in EASA AD 2022-
0197. The NPRM also proposed to prohibit the installation of certain
affected parts. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

Other Relevant Rulemaking

    Note 4 of EASA AD 2022-0197 refers to EASA AD 2015-0194. EASA AD
2015-0194 corresponds to FAA AD 2016-20-10, Amendment 39-18676 (81 FR
71593, October 18, 2016) (AD 2016-20-10). AD 2016-20-10 requires the
replacement of fuel pumps that have part number (P/N) 568-1-28300-001,
568-1-28300-002, 568-1-28300-100, or 568-1-28300-101 with a pump having
a part number other than those part numbers. However, operators should
be aware that this final rule prohibits installation of P/N 568-1-
28300-103 as of the effective date of this AD.
    AD 2016-20-10 also requires the replacement of P/N 568-1-28300-101
within 72 months or 96 months after November 22, 2016 (the effective
date of AD 2016-20-10), depending on the configuration of the installed
fuel pumps. Paragraph (5) of EASA AD 2022-0197 specifies to replace P/N
568-1-28300-101 at location A within 5 years after the effective date
of that AD. Paragraph (6) of EASA AD 2022-0197 specifies to replace P/N
568-1-28300-101 at location B within 7 years after the effective date
of that AD. These new compliance times do not apply to those affected
by AD 2016-20-10. Therefore, the FAA has clarified the compliance time
in paragraph (h)(10) of this AD.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received comments from Air line Pilots Association,
International (ALPA), who supported the NPRM without change.

Conclusion

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the
comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting
this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial
changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the
changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2022-0197 specifies procedures for repetitive inspections
of all affected parts; replacement of affected parts if necessary;
replacement of certain part-numbered affected parts, which allows a
terminating action for the repetitive inspections; updating of the
applicable Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL), and certain
maintenance actions related to defueling and ground fuel transfer
operations. EASA AD 2022-0197 also prohibits certain affected parts
from being installed.
    The FAA also reviewed Eaton Service Bulletin 8810-28-06, Revision
2, dated March 1, 2019, which defines erosion cases and breakthrough.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 112 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                     Labor cost          Parts cost     Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained actions from AD 2021-   Up to 69 work-hours x                $0  Up to $5,865......  Up to $656,88-
 16-18.                           $85 per hour = $5,865.
New proposed action............  Up to 7 work-hours x             $9,648  Up to $10,243.....  Up to $1,147,216
                                  $85 per hour = $595.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    The FAA is 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

    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) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2021-16-18, Amendment 39-21681
(86 FR 60560, November 3, 2021); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

2023-13-04 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-22489; Docket No. FAA-2023-0924;
Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01262-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective August 23, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2021-16-18, Amendment 39-21681 (86 FR 60560,
November 3, 2021) (AD 2021-16-18).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Airplanes, certificated in any
category, and identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) of this
AD.
    (1) Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.
    (2) Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.
    (3) Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342,
and -343 airplanes.
    (4) Model A330-841 airplanes.
    (5) Model A330-941 airplanes.
    (6) Model A340-211, -212, and -213 airplanes.
    (7) Model A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes.
    (8) Model A340-541 airplanes.
    (9) Model A340-642 airplanes.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of a fuel pump showing
cavitation erosion that exposed the fuel pump power supply wires,
and a determination that affected fuel pumps must be replaced with
new, more erosion resistant pumps. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address fuel pump erosion caused by cavitation. If this condition is
not addressed, a pump running dry could result in a fuel tank
explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply
with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2022-0197, dated September 22, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0197).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0197

    (1) Where EASA AD 2022-0197 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where EASA AD 2022-0197 refers to ``31 December 2020 [the
effective date of EASA AD 2020-0283],'' this AD requires using
``December 8, 2021 (the effective date of AD 2021-16-18).''
    (3) Where EASA AD 2022-0197 refers to ``13 December 2019 [the
effective date of EASA AD 2019-0291 at original issue],'' this AD
requires using ``November 18, 2020 (the effective date of AD 2020-
21-05, Amendment 39-21278 (85 FR 64963, October 14, 2020)).''
    (4) Where EASA AD 2022-0197 refers to ``17 November 2017 [the
effective date of EASA AD 2017-0224],'' this AD requires using
``December 29, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-25-16, Amendment
39-19130 (82 FR 58718, December 14, 2017)).''
    (5) Where EASA AD 2022-0197 refers to the master minimum
equipment list (MMEL), this AD refers to the operator's existing
minimum equipment list (MEL).
    (6) Where paragraphs (15), (16), and (17) of EASA AD 2022-0197
specify to ``inform all flight crews, and, thereafter, operate the
aeroplane accordingly,'' this AD does not require those actions as
those actions are already required by existing FAA operating
regulations (see 14 CFR 121.628(a)(2) and 121.628(a)(5)).
    (7) Where the Definitions section of EASA AD 2022-0197 specifies
``erosion cases and breakthrough'' and refers to ``Eaton Aerospace
Ltd SB 8810-28-06 Revision 2 (or later revisions),'' for this AD,
use only Eaton Service Bulletin 8810-28-06, Revision 2, dated March
1, 2019.
    (8) Where Note 4 of EASA AD 2022-0197 specifies additional
information, replace the text ``EASA AD 2015-0194'' with ``EASA AD
2015-0194 (corresponding FAA AD 2016-20-10, Amendment 39-18676 (81
FR 71593, October 18, 2016) (AD 2016-20-10)).''
    (9) This AD does not adopt the ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD
2022-0197.
    (10) Where paragraphs (5) and (6) of EASA AD 2022-0197 specify a
compliance time to

replace part number (P/N) 568-1-28300-101, for airplanes identified
in AD 2016-20-10, the required compliance time for replacing fuel
pumps having P/N 568-1-28300-101, or a combination of P/N 568-1-
28300-101 and certain other part numbers, is specified in paragraphs
(h)(1) and (2) of AD 2016-20-10, as applicable.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-0197
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified
in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, if any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(k) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Eaton Service Bulletin 8810-28-06, Revision 2, dated March
1, 2019.
    (ii) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0197,
dated September 22, 2022.
    (3) For Eaton service information identified in this AD, contact
Eaton Limited, Customer Support, Abbey Park, Southhampton Road,
Titchfield, Fareham, Hampshire, PO14 4QA, U.K.; telephone + 01
329853000; Fax + 01 329853714.
    (4) For EASA AD 2022-0197, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (5) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (6) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on July 13, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-15225 Filed 7-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P