ANALYTIC BLUEPRINT FOR THE EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN FOR 2004/ 2005 NOVEMBER 2003 November 10, 2003 DRAFT Analytic Blueprint for the Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/ 2005 Contents I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SAN Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 RIN Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Regulatory Tier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Deadline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. Statutory Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 III. Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 IV. Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Four Major Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Screening Level Analysis Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Eliminating Categories from Further Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Ranking Results of the Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Further Investigation Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Decision on Effluent Guidelines Rulemaking Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 V. Key Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Four Major Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Screening Level Review Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Ranking Results of the Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Loading Reductions ( Voluntary and Multi media) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Future of the Effluent Guidelines Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 VI. Regulatory Development Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 E. O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 E. O. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 E. O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 E. O. 13132, Federalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Regulatory Flexibility Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Paperwork Reduction Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 November 10, 2003 DRAFT VII. Analytic and Other Products required for Proposed Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Draft Factor Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Category Specific Overview Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Response to Comments on the draft Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Response to Comments from the 2002/ 2003 Plan That Apply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 VIII. Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 IX. Workgroup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 X. Contact Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 November 10, 2003 DRAFT Page 1 of 25 I. INTRODUCTION Title: Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/ 2005 Action: Plan SAN #: 4766 RIN #:

Regulatory Tier: Tier II Deadline: Final Plan published in the Federal Register by February 4, 2004 Background The preparation of the Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/ 2005 ( the " Plan") has been designated a Tier 2 action, and as such, requires an Analytic Blueprint. This Blueprint provides background on the Plan, outlines the schedule and the process under which the Plan will be developed, and provides a preliminary assessment of what information and resources are available and what information is needed to prepare the Plan. Although the Plan is not a rulemaking, Section 304( m)( 2) of the Clean Water Act requires that it be made available for public review and comment before the final Plan is published. This process will give workgroup members the opportunity to review and comment on the language for the Federal Register notice as well as the supporting documents.

To meet the statutory requirements that are specified in sections 304( b), 304( g), 304( m), 306( b), and 307( b) of the Clean Water Act, the EPA must publish a biennial plan. EPA's first attempt to comply with these requirements resulted in litigation by the Natural Resources Defense Council and Public Citizen, Inc. for failure to comply with section 304( m). EPA entered into a consent decree in 1992 that has governed the program for the past decade. EPA will soon fulfill its commitments under the provisions of that consent decree. The Agency developed the draft Strategy for National Clean Water Industrial Regulations ( the " draft Strategy") as a means to comply with the 304( m) planning requirements in the future.

The first biennial plan developed using the draft Strategy is the 2004/ 2005 Plan. The draft Strategy outlines the approach the 304( m) Team in EPA's Office of Water has begun to use in assessing the need to develop and/ or revise effluent guidelines for specific industrial categories. As required by CWA Section 304( m), the Plan must ( A) establish a schedule for the annual review and revision of promulgated effluent guidelines, in accordance with CWA section 304( b), ( B) identify categories of sources discharging toxic or nonconventional pollutants for which guidelines under CWA sections 304( b)( 2) or 306 have not previously been published, and ( C) November 10, 2003 DRAFT Page 2 of 25 establish a schedule for the promulgation of effluent guidelines identified under paragraph ( B). EPA anticipates that this Plan would also describe the results of its first annual review process, including, to the extent possible: 1) the outcomes of all stages of the screening process ( the screening level review phase, second level screening, and the further investigation phase), 2) EPA's selection of industrial categories for further study, and 3) the rationale for this selection of industrial categories for further study. In addition, the Plan would summarize additional information collected and analyzed on specific industrial categories beyond the initial screening step, and would identify data gaps.

II. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS The development of the 2004/ 2005 Plan is mandated by CWA section 304( m). Section 304( m) requires EPA to publish the Plan in the Federal Register by February 4, 2004, and every two years thereafter. Sections 301( b)( 2) and 304( b) specify the factors EPA must consider when selecting the best available technology economically achievable for an industrial category. In addition, section 304( b) authorizes EPA to consider other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate. Additional requirements for industrial categories that presently are not subject to technology based limitations are described in section 304( m)( 1)( B).

Commenters on the draft Strategy raised several issues that address interpretations of the statutory requirements of the 304( m) process. These include the the appropriate use of the factors discussed above, and how to define a new category as opposed to a new subcategory of an existing guideline. Such issues will be addressed during the planning process cycle, discussed with the workgroup, and presented in the proposed and final Plans.

III. SCHEDULE The schedule below outlines the 304( m) Team's approach for publishing the final Plan by the statutory deadline of February 4, 2004. It includes at least five review periods by the workgroup ( shown in bold text in the schedule below), with the potential for more reviews based on the significance of revisions made based on workgroup input. These five reviews include two rounds for the Analytic Blueprint, two reviews of the draft proposed Plan and supporting documents ( one preliminary, and one as part of the Final Agency Review or FAR process), and two reviews of the draft final Plan ( one preliminary and one FAR). In addition, we have built in a 30 day period for OMB review prior to publication of both the proposed Plan and the final Plan.

Because the Office of Water must develop and publish the Plan fairly quickly, we anticipate that some steps outlined in the draft Strategy won't be fully incorporated into the Plan. However, the Plan will reflect the progress made to date, will discuss any likely recommendations as to guidelines for development or revision, and will include a discussion of anticipated completion dates for outstanding steps of the process for this Plan. The 304( m) Team has also prepared a November 10, 2003 DRAFT Page 3 of 25 document that describes the steps taken for this first cycle, for use in subsequent planning cycles. A draft of this document, called the Rationale Memo, was distributed to the workgroup as part of the Final Agency Review package.

EXPECTED TIME LINE FOR 2004/ 2005 EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN

indicates completion as of this Version PROPOSED PLAN 2003

February 10 Begin drafting Analytic Blueprint

February 18 Announce Tiering results to workgroup & 3/ 6 mtg

Mar 6 Workgroup kickoff meeting

Mar 3  Mar 21 Workgroup review of Analytic Blueprint

March 31 Complete draft of Factor Analyses & Plan

Apr 3  Apr 17 Distribute draft analyses to Workgroup May 23  Jun 6 Workgroup Review of Revised Analytic Blueprint and Outline of Proposed Plan

June 9 Meet with Workgroup to Discuss Blueprint and Proposed Plan

June 16  June 20 Brief Division Director and Office Director

June 27 Send Options Selection Materials to Workgroup

July 3 Revise Analytic Blueprint to reflect workgroup comments

September 26 Complete AA/ RA Decision Process/ Option Selection

Oct 24 Complete draft of Proposed Plan

Oct 24  Nov 6 Final Agency Review process ( 3 weeks)

November 6 Final Agency Review Meeting

November 10 Update Analytic Blueprint with Current Schedule Nov 13  Dec 15 Informal OMB review ( 30 days) December 22 AA signs Proposed Plan December 29 PUBLISH PROPOSED PLAN IN FEDERAL REGISTER 2004 January 28 Hold Public Meeting February 12 End comment period ( 60 days) FINAL PLAN March 13 AA Decision/ Option Selection March 27 Complete AA/ RA Decision/ Option Selection Apr 2  Apr 16 Final Agency Review process ( 3 weeks) April 16 FAR Meeting Apr 23  May 24 OMB review ( 30 days) May 27 AA signs Final Plan JUNE 10 PUBLISH FINAL PLAN IN FEDERAL REGISTER November 10, 2003 DRAFT Page 4 of 25 IV. PLANNING PROCESS The draft Strategy includes a description of the basic process the 304( m) Team in EPA's Office of Water intends to follow in preparing the Plan. The Strategy can be viewed online at http:// epa. gov/ guide/ strategy/ 304mstrategy. pdf. As discussed in that document, EPA identified four major factors that the Agency would explore as a means to determine whether a revision of an existing effluent guideline or development of a new guideline would be necessary and appropriate. The Strategy also outlines the steps ( or phases) the Agency would take in the planning process. Below is a summary of that process, with additional information reflecting the current status of each step of the implementation of the process.

One of the issues for which we need workgroup assistance is to resolve is the test for determining whether EPA is required to develop a new effluent guideline for an industry without an existing guideline. The industry discharges must be subjected to a " test" under CWA section 304( m)( 1)( B): " discharges of toxic & nonconventional pollutants in significant/ non trivial amounts." We will be looking at " new" categories based on the " significance" of their discharge, and we need to determine how to judge what constitutes a significant discharge. EPA may be required in the proposed Plan to identify which unregulated categories have " significant" discharges. Information included in industry specific overview documents ( see attached structure and definitions) will assist in assessing this issue and making recommendations for management. These reports are discussed in more detail in the " Screening Level Review" section below.

Four Major Factors The draft Strategy identified four factors that the 304( m) Planning Team would consider while implementing the Strategy:

! consideration of the extent to which the pollutants remaining in an industry category's discharge pose a substantial risk to human health or the environment;

! identification of an applicable and demonstrated technology, process change, or pollution prevention alternative that can effectively reduce the pollutants remaining in the industry category's wastewaters and thereby substantially reduce any identified risk to human health or the environment associated with those pollutants;

! estimation of the cost, performance, and affordability of the technology, process change, or pollution prevention measures identified using the second factor; and ! consideration of implementation and efficiency concerns. Under this factor, EPA would consider whether existing effluent guidelines could be revised, for example, to eliminate inefficiencies or impediments to technological innovation, or to decide not to develop a new effluent guideline for an industry category where the pollutant source is already being addressed by another regulatory program, such as TMDLs, or non regulatory programs November 10, 2003 DRAFT Page 5 of 25 that may more effectively address the problem.

Stakeholder information is an important part of the analysis of each of these factors, and will be sought throughout the process as well as when the proposed Plan is published. The draft Factor Analyses were distributed to the workgroup for review in early April, 2003, and workgroup comments are currently being incorporated. These analyses are discussed in more detail in the following section, " Screening Level Review Phase."

As described in the draft Strategy, EPA can consider additional factors, and the workgroup will be involved in the discussion of any such factors that are identified during the process, and in the decision whether to include them in the development of the Plan. The workgroup is also invited to suggest additional factors. To date, no additional factors have been identified, however the comments on the draft Strategy have not yet been systematically reviewed. The comment period for the draft Strategy closed on February 27, 2003, and the Agency received 28 comments. Any additional factors identified by commenters will be shared with the workgroup. ( Comments are available for review on e dockets http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ under docket OW 2002 0020.)

Screening Level Analysis Phase The first phase of the planning process is an initial screen of readily available information, and has been completed. Accordingly, in this step EPA evaluates readily available, screening level data to create an initial list of potential categories that warrant further examination in subsequent steps. Readily available screening level data includes publicly available Agency databases and reports that are broad enough to provide nation wide information either on an industry basis or on a pollutant basis. ( The latter information could contribute information for use in the second level screening phase where changes in pollutant toxicity or the identification of new chemicals of concern are considered relative to recently promulgated effluent guidelines.)

The Team has documented the initial results of the data evaluation efforts in three two factorspecific analyses which discuss the data sources identified and report preliminary results accomplished to date. These are the Factor 1 Analysis: Human Health and Environmental Impacts and the Factor 4 Analysis: Implementation and Efficiency Considerations. The draft Analyses were distributed to the workgroup for review in early April, 2003, and workgroup comments are currently being incorporated.

The Factor 1 screening analysis seeks to review potential human health and ecological risk associated with industrial categories of point source discharges of pollutants by identifying and evaluating readily available data and information. The Factor 1 Analysis summarizes findings by other offices in EPA by 1) extracting and sorting data from databases including the Toxic Release Inventory ( TRI) and the Permit Compliance System ( PCS), 2) evaluating ranking results generated by models such as the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators ( RSEI) including assessing data reliability, and 3) analyzing the results from all sources for possible patterns or consistency of concerns. Industries are typically identified through Standard Industrial November 10, 2003 DRAFT Page 6 of 25 Classification ( SIC) codes, whether separately or aggregated to approximate definitions of scope for existing effluent guidelines. Data gaps, assumptions, uncertainties, biases, and caveats will also be discussed, with particular focus on the following:

! Any data gaps will be identified in the analysis, including those related to    potential ecological impacts  variability in geographic distribution of data sources  pollutants included/ not included ( conventional, hormones, pathogens, antibiotics)  temporal variation between data sets  non water media sources ! Where data gaps exist, or work is not yet complete, the analysis will describe the work that is planned and the anticipated time frame. Tools that are not available for use in the current planning cycle but potentially of use in future cycles are discussed in a separate section of the Analysis. For those areas that continue to be data gaps, the screen will clearly identify these areas and seek stakeholder input.

! Bias and uncertainty will be acknowledged in the analysis. For example, depending on data sources, we are more likely to identify pollutants and industry sectors identified previously versus those emerging problems. Also, the use of regional, discrete geographical data sets are more likely to target specific pollutants and industries. This type of potential bias and uncertainty will be discussed in the analysis.

! Data quality and our confidence in each of the data sources used in the screen will be discussed in the screen. In addition, how we considered or weighted these various sources relative to each other will be described ! The rationale for removal of any existing data sources from the analysis ( e. g., outlier facilities in RSEI analysis) will be clearly articulated in the screen.

The Factor 4 Analysis considers stakeholder suggestions about ways to eliminate inefficiencies or impediments to implementing existing effluent guidelines. For the initial review process, the 304( m) Team considered suggestions offered by stakeholders during the comment period for the 2002/ 2003 Plan and during the comment period for the draft Strategy. The team also considered suggestions collected during the current cycle through outreach efforts including 1) presentations at national conferences, 2) meetings and teleconferences with external stakeholder groups, and 3) meetings and teleconferences with internal stakeholder groups. The team also sought information on ways to promote innovative approaches to pollution control, and alternative controls to reduce pollutant discharges, including non regulatory programs. In places where information is not yet available or work is not yet complete, the analysis will describe the work that is planned and the anticipated time frame. Tools that are not available for use in the current planning cycle but potentially of use in future cycles are discussed in a separate section of the Analysis. November 10, 2003 DRAFT Page 7 of 25 The specific reports and databases considered through this point in the process are identified in the attached two Factor Analysis outlines. This list is not exhaustive, and may be weighted in favor of Factor 1, for which far more resources have been identified. In addition, once workgroup comments are addressed, these outlines will change to reflect the partitioning between tools that are used in the current planning cycle and those that may be useful in future cycles. The 304( m) Team will rely on the workgroup for assistance in presenting this information clearly and correctly in the Factor analyses, including discussions of completeness and reliability of the information provided.

The 304( m) Planning Team was unsuccessful in its attempt to obtain the information needed to perform a meaningful screening level analysis both for Factor 2: Technology Innovation and Process Changes and for Factor 3: Cost, Performance, and Affordability. As a result, the team identified the industries ( both those covered by an existing guideline and those that are not) with concerns established in either the Factor 1 analyses ( addressing discharge amounts, toxicity and effects) or Factor 4 analyses ( addressing efficiency of the guidelines and NPDES permitting programs, multi media issues, etc). Before proceeding to the next step, described below, the Team is preparing overview documents for each of these industries. These documents will include a summary of the concerns identified through the Factor 1 and Factor 4 Analyses. They will also include, to the extent possible, screening level information addressing Factor 2 and Factor 3. The draft layout of those overview documents is also attached for workgroup review and comment. Once these overview documents are completed, the Team will share the results with the workgroup, and with workgroup input, the Team will proceed to the next step in the process.

The workgroup participated in the 304( m) Team decisions on which of these sources of information should be part of the planning process and how to follow up on those information sources that are retained. The workgroup also participated in the process of identifying industry categories which appear to merit further investigation and thus should proceed to the second level screening. An initial approach to doing this is to review the summary documents and comparing them to determine whether any industries appear worthy of more detailed investigation. The workgroup also assisted in determining whether any of the factor results should be weighted more heavily and why.

Eliminating Categories from Further Consideration The outcome of the initial screening process is several discrete lists of industrial categories generated as a result of each factor specific analysis. The next phase of the planning process includes a review of the industries identified by the screening level review, to determine whether it is appropriate to continue to consider them under the 304( m) planning process. EPA used four criteria to help establish priorities among these categories for further study.

! The first criterion is whether rulemaking is already underway for an industry category identified by the screening level process. If a rulemaking is already underway, the November 10, 2003 DRAFT Page 8 of 25 concerns identified during the screening process would be shared with the rulemaking team, and the industry category would not be considered for further investigation as part of this process.

! The second criterion is whether an effluent guideline has recently been promulgated, but not yet implemented. In general, EPA would probably remove categories for which effluent guidelines have been promulgated within the past seven years from the lists, and not consider them for further study at that time. A seven year time frame takes into account the lag time that occurs as effluent guidelines are implemented. In addition, there are unlikely to be dramatic changes in the industry category during the first seven years after promulgation of a new or revised guideline.

In cases where EPA is aware of the growth of a new segment within a source category, or in cases where new concerns are identified for previously unevaluated pollutants ( such as endocrine disruptors) or pollutants whose toxicity determination has been recently revised or for which improved analytical methods now exist, EPA would continue to list the subcategory for further consideration. The 304( m) Team is planning to obtain this information through several sources, including information provided by workgroup members, periodic review of the information in the Integrated Risk Information System ( IRIS) to determine whether any risk values have been revised upward, and press releases and other news items identifying new information on pollutant toxicity.

! The third criterion is whether the source category has demonstrated continual improvement through voluntary effluent reductions. EPA agrees that voluntary efforts should be encouraged and rewarded, especially where those voluntary reductions have been widely adopted within an industry and have led to significant reductions in pollutant discharges. Ultimately, EPA may choose not to revise an existing effluent guideline or develop a new effluent guideline for an industrial category that has demonstrated that significant progress is being made through voluntary industry effort to reduce risk to human health and the environment. The methodology for evaluating this criteria has not yet been developed. The Agency solicited comments on this issue when it published the draft Strategy in November, and will share all suggestions with the workgroup for discussion and assistance in developing the methodology. Some preliminary information is included in the draft Factor 4 analysis.

! The fourth criterion, not discussed in the draft Strategy, was identified during the planning process. This criterion was the applicability of Section 304( m) of the CWA for the industrial category identified. For example, ocean going vessels and ballast and bilge water were identified as concerns during the screening level review for the 2004/ 2005 Plan. These concerns are addressed under Section 312 of the CWA, and therefore deemed not appropriate for further investigation under Section 304( m). In addition, a number of industrial categories identified under the screening process were composed of only indirect dischargers. These categories are addressed under Section 304( g) of the November 10, 2003 DRAFT Page 9 of 25 CWA, and again deemed not appropriate for further investigation under Section 304( m).

Ranking Results of the Analysis Once the 304( m) Team and the workgroup completes its consideration of the previous four criteria, they rank the remaining industry categories for further study. The attached blank summary table is used to compile the results of the screening level review for each industry identified through the evaluation of the Factors described above. That information identifies which of these industry categories assists the 304( m) Team in setting priorities and making recommendations as to which industry categories to focus further investigations. The team considered 1) the relative size of the industry and whether it's facilities were concentrated in a region or nation wide, 2) the quantity of pollutants discharged, 3) the potential hazard generated by those discharges when pollutant toxicity was included, 4) the relative risk posed when this could be estimated, 5) the presence of facilities on impaired river reaches, 6) the extent of concerns reported by stakeholders, and when available, 7) screening level economic information including trends, 8) information on the pollutants of greatest concern, 9) changes in the industry or in the wastewater treatment technologies and pollution prevention approaches, and 10) whether there were any EPA tools or programs available or underway to address the discharges. The results of this exercise are being reviewed by the workgroup.

The number of categories for which EPA will be able to conduct further study may vary from year to year depending upon known sources of information, known complexity of the industry category, and available resources. EPA plans to select industrial categories for further review based on the latest information available, duly noting level of confidence in that information and the existing gaps in information. The 304( m) Team will rely on the workgroup to assist in making sound decisions at this current stage in the process.

Further Investigation Phase During this phase, the 304( m) Team intends to focus its efforts on the subset of industries generated in the previous step. The team will continue to collect and analyze as much information as possible on all of the relevant factors. The team will also consider using proxy data where necessary and available. In the first stage of in depth study, the team intends to validate and expand on the basic information collected on each category during the initial screening step. The 304( m) Team will also begin identifying data gaps that need to be filled. For example, for each industry that enters this phase, the 304( m) Team will identify and verify the information gathered during the screening level review, determine which factors information is still missing, and gather information necessary to address each of the four factors to the highest possible level of confidence in the time available.

The general method for doing this has not been determined at this time, but is likely to parallel the process used by the Engineering and Analysis Division when preparing industry specific studies. It will entail a more in depth look at information and data available pertaining to each of the November 10, 2003 DRAFT Page 10 of 25 factors, and where possible, include a more rigorous assessment of the factors. One aspect of this phase for industries with existing effluent guidelines will be a comparison of each industry's discharged pollutants identified through TRI and/ or PCS with the pollutants for which limits were generated in the existing effluent guideline.

Finally, the requirements identified by the information quality guidelines and Science Policy Council Handbook on Peer Review will be addressed during this phase of the planning process. This will include identifying the necessity of a peer review and any science products that would require peer review.

In order to ensure that the best possible data are made available during the study phase, the team will work closely with both the workgroup and with stakeholders, including industry, States and local governments, academia, environmental groups, and members of the public to gather and analyze the relevant information. This includes participation in conferences, meetings, and teleconference industry associations, and distribution of the screener questionnaire. Sampling to support this step may be possible to support future Plans, but is not feasible for this cycle. The 304( m) Team expects the results of this phase to be a number of industry specific profiles with information pertaining to each of the four factors and a discussion of how these factors interrelated For example, the information on impacts to human health and the environment and on available wastewater technologies will be compared with anticipated costs to change or introduce such technologies.

The workgroup will be asked to review these profiles for soundness of their contents and completeness of their coverage as part of the review process for the final Plan. Preliminary results of this step should be available for workgroup review by the time of the preliminary review of the final Plan in mid October, 2003, more definitive results should be available for workgroup review by the FAR step of the final Plan in mid November, 2003.

Decision on Effluent Guidelines Rulemaking Activities After considering the results of the studies generated in the previous step, EPA would then determine whether development or revision of an effluent guideline is appropriate. Final determinations would be presented in the next biennial effluent guidelines plan. If EPA determines that developing a new or revised effluent guideline is not appropriate, EPA would attempt to identify other Agency actions that may be appropriate to address any remaining risk. Such action may include the issuance of compliance or permitting guidance, technical assistance to the States or industry, or a voluntary partnership to support broader environmental goals. For example, EPA may determine that a targeted program to implement comprehensive Environmental Management Systems is a more efficient approach to dealing with certain types of environmental issues. This effort would include input from the workgroup, though it is uncertain whether this phase will be reached during the development of the 2004/ 2005 Plan. Preliminary results of this step may be available for workgroup review by the time of FAR step of the final Plan in mid November, 2003. November 10, 2003 DRAFT Page 11 of 25 V. KEY ISSUES There are several specific issues discussed in the draft Strategy about which EPA requested comments. All suggestions received from commenters on the draft Strategy will be shared with the workgroup for evaluation as part of the preamble for the proposed Plan and in the draft response to comments. The workgroup is also invited to provide their input to these issues, which are synopsized below.

Four Factors

the appropriateness of the four factors, and whether additional or different factors would be more appropriate;

whether each of the four factors should be ranked, and if so, whether different weights should be applied to each; and

what constitutes a significant discharge of toxic & nonconventional pollutants under CWA section 304( m)( 1)( B) to determine for which " new" categories EPA is required to develop effluent guidelines.

Screening Level Review Phase

suggestions on information on sources of water quality impairments, particularly data relating to facilities that discharge to publicly owned treatment works ( POTWs); and

whether new or better tools would allow for a meaningful, screening level review of the performance, cost and economic achievability of new or additional technologies for 55 already regulated industrial categories on an annual basis, as well as a similar review for all unregulated industry categories.

Ranking Results of the Analysis

what information the Agency should use to prioritize industrial categories that survive the secondary screening level.

Loading Reductions ( Voluntary and Multi media)

how the Agency should evaluate voluntary loading reduction, including possibly setting as a target a specific goal, such as a 10 or 25 percent reduction in total or toxic equivalent load;

how the EPA can identify categories for which loadings have decreased, in addition to the information in the PCS system

how to assess voluntary pollutant reductions in industrial categories with increased production over five years.

how to evaluate claims of decreases in water loadings of toxicity relative to possible increases in release of these emissions to other environmental media, for example volatilization to air or land disposal of sludge;

the extent to which the Agency should consider multi media pollutant reduction opportunities, and the relative weight the Agency should assign to loading reductions to November 10, 2003 DRAFT Page 12 of 25 surface waters relative to reductions in loadings to other media; and

ways to identify industry categories for which development or revision of an effluent guideline may provide an opportunity for multi media pollutant reduction.

Future of the Effluent Guidelines Program

ways the Agency might structure the effluent guidelines program to encourage and reward technology innovation;

the role of market based incentives, including pollutant trading, can play in the effluent guidelines program; and

whether EPA should devote the same, less, or greater resources to the effluent guidelines program as it has in the past.

VI. REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS There are several specific regulatory development requirements, mostly analytical, that are imposed on Agency actions by the Presidential Executive Orders ( E. O. s), EPA policy or by other statutory or legal requirements. An assessment of applicable regulatory development requirements is provided in the following table. Only one of these requirements applies to the Plan. The rest are applicable only to regulatory actions. However, the Agency will be including consideration of several of the issues addressed by these E. O. s as part of the planning process for developing the Plan. All of these requirements considered as part of the development of the Plan are discussed below. ( The order of the discussion reflects the order presented in the table.)

Regulatory Development Requirements Applicability1 E. O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights NA E. O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review A E. O. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations NA/ C E. O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform ( replaces E. O. 12788) NA E. O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks NA/ C E. O. 13132, Federalism NA/ C E. O. 13175, Consultation with Tribes NA Regulatory Development Requirements Applicability1 November 10, 2003 DRAFT Page 13 of 25 E. O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply NA Regulatory Flexibility Act NA/ C Unfunded Mandates Reform Act NA/ C Paperwork Reduction Act NA/ C National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act NA/ C Congressional Review Act NA A = Applicable as a Tier 2 Action NA = Not Applicable  the requirement does not need to be addressed in the Federal Register Notice. NA/ C = Not Applicable, but will be included in the planning process.

E. O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review Although the Agency's biennial plan is not a regulation, there are no impacts to be evaluated relative to the twelve points identified in this Executive Order. For example, there are no inherent costs associated with publishing the Plan. However, the planning process follows quite closely the concerns listed in this Executive Order, including efforts to ( 1) identify the problem effluent guidelines may address and the significance of those problems; ( 2) identify whether existing regulations have created or contributed to those problems and whether modifications to those regulations would resolve those problems; ( 3) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation; ( 4) set priorities based on a consideration of the degree and nature of the risks posed; ( 5) evaluate incentives to innovation; ( 6) identify potential costs and benefits; ( 7) utilize the best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and other information; ( 8) identify and assess alternative forms of regulation; ( 9) seek views of appropriate State, local, and tribal officials as part of the planning process; and ( 10) avoid duplicative efforts where a problem is already being addressed by other regulatory programs.

E. O. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations Since the Plan is not a regulation, there are no impacts to be evaluated relative to Environmental Justice. However, the 304( m) Team plans to consider such impacts as part of the industryspecific evaluation of Factor One concerns ( impacts to human health and the environment) during the Further Investigation Phase. The team is currently attempting to develop a method for evaluating disproportionate impacts on minority and low income communities or individuals, and will rely on the workgroup to provide information and suggestions as that method progresses. November 10, 2003 DRAFT Page 14 of 25 E. O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Since the Plan is not a regulation, there are no impacts to be evaluated relative to children's health. However, the 304( m) Team plans to consider such impacts as part of the industry specific evaluation of Factor One concerns ( impacts to human health and the environment) during the Further Investigation Phase. The team is currently attempting to develop a method for identifying any disproportionate impacts on children, and will rely on the workgroup to provide information and suggestions as that method progresses.

E. O. 13132, Federalism Since the Plan is not a regulation, there are no policies to be evaluated by State and local officials for potential federalism concerns. However, we will be including State and local officials as part of our Stakeholders list to receive announcements about the planning process and the development of the 2004/ 2005 Plan. This includes the following organizations: the National Governor's Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National League of Cities, the U. S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the International City/ County Management Association, the National Association of Towns and Townships, and the County Executives of American, as well as the Agency's Local Government Advisory Committee. They will be informed about the Plan and invited to participate during the public comment period.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Since the Plan is not a regulation, there will be no impacts to small businesses. However, the 304( m) Team plans to consider such impacts as part of the industry specific evaluation of Factor Three concerns ( economic considerations including cost, performance, and affordability) during the Further Investigation Phase.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Since the Plan is not a regulation, there will be financial impacts. However, the 304( m) Team plans to consider such impacts as part of the industry specific evaluation of Factor Three concerns ( economic considerations including cost, performance, and affordability) during the Further Investigation Phase.

Paperwork Reduction Act This requirement will be triggered when the Agency distributes the screener questionnaire it is developing to support the planning process. This questionnaire is not expected to be completed in time to benefit the development of the 2004/ 2005 Plan, but is currently under development and will meet all Paperwork Reduction Act requirements.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Since the Plan is not a regulation, no technical standards will be set, and therefore no requirement to consider voluntary concensus standards. However, EPA will be considering voluntary approaches as part of its Factor Four analysis, and will be evaluating technology advances as part of its Factor Two analysis. November 10, 2003 DRAFT Page 15 of 25 VII. ANALYTIC AND OTHER PRODUCTS REQUIRED FOR PROPOSED PLAN Draft Factor Analyses Draft analyses of Factors 1 and 4, discussed above, will be used to support the proposed Plan. These analyses will be reviewed at least twice by the workgroup before proposal of the Plan in the Federal Register, during both an informal review period and during the Final Agency Review.

Category Specific Overview Documents Two page overview documents ( summary tables) are prepared for each of the industries identified in the Factor 1 and Factor 4 Analyses and surviving the four elimination criteria. These documents will include a summary of the concerns identified through the two Factor Analyses. They will also include, to the extent possible, screening level information addressing Factor 2 and Factor 3. These documents will be used to select industries for detailed investigation.

Response to Comments on the draft Strategy The comment period for the draft Strategy closed on February 27, 2003. A response to those comments will be prepared and included in the public record for the proposed Plan. This response will be shared with the workgroup. Any comments that address the issues outlined above will also be shared with the workgroup for consideration and possible inclusion in the planning process. Any comments that suggest specific industry categories to be considered for development or revision of an effluent guideline will also be shared with the workgroup and those suggestions will be included in the Factor Four Analysis.

Response to Comments from the 2002/ 2003 Plan That Apply In response to the proposed Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2002/ 2003, several commenters suggested specific industry categories to be considered for development or revision of an effluent guideline. Those comments have been synopsized and will be included in the Factor Four Analysis as well. The workgroup will be invited to review this analysis ( as well as the others) during the spring review period.

VIII. RESOURCES The 304( m) Team is comprised of a team leader, and contributions of time from an engineer, an economist, an environmental assessor, a GIS/ database analyst, analytical methods staff, and a statistician. The team is also supported by the efforts of one full time detailee from the Office of Pesticides Programs and by the participation of an engineer technical coordinator and a branch chief. Between $ 600K to $ 950K is budgeted to support this program. These funds will primarily be used to conduct screening level reviews on the toxicity, amount and effect of industrial discharges of pollution, detailed reviews as appropriate on a subset of industrial categories, and outreach efforts. Additional support is being provided by the Office of Pollution Prevention, which performed the initial runs of the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators ( RSEI) model. November 10, 2003 DRAFT Page 16 of 25 IX. WORKGROUP As a result of the Tiering exercise, the following workgroup was formed. 2004/ 2005 Program Plan Workgroup Members Office: Representative: OAR Barbara Driscoll OECA Steve Rubin OGC Carol Ann Siciliano OGWDW Robyn Delahanty ( lead), Suzanne Kelly OPEI Mindy Gampel ( lead), Roger Holtorf, Michael Hessling, Amanda Bassow OPPTS Steven Hassur ( lead), Richard Engler ORD Pam Noyes ( lead), Glenn Shaul, Danielle Tillman OROSLR Anne Randolph OSWER Steve Kroner ( lead), Nerendra Chaudhari, Lisa Lauer OW OWM Jan Pickrel Region 2 Judy Ann Mitchell ( Regional Coordinator) Region 5 Matthew Gluckman Region 6 Brian Mueller, Scott Wilson Region 8 Bruce Kent X. CONTACT INFORMATION For information, please contact: Carey Johnston, team leader Engineering and Analysis Division Office of Science and Technology EPA's Office of Water 202/ 566 1014 johnston. carey@ epa. gov Tom Wall, branch chief Engineering and Analysis Division Office of Science and Technology EPA's Office of Water 202/ 566 1060 wall. tom@ epa. gov Attachments Factor 1 Analysis: Human Health and Environmental Risk OUTLINE of Initial Draft Factor 4 Analysis: Implementation and Efficiency Considerations OUTLINE of Initial Draft Industry Specific Overview Document: Structure and Definitions November 10, 2003 DRAFT Page 17 of 25 Factor 1 Analysis: Human Health and Environmental Impacts Status of Screening Level Review Phase Table of Contents May 7, 2003 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 2.0 TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY DATA AND ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 2.1 Overview of TRI Reporting and Relation to RSEI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 2.2 The RSEI Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 2.2.1 Calculation of Risk Related Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 2.2.2 Preliminary Findings from Risk Screening Level Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 2.2.3 Preliminary Findings from Environmental Justice Analysis . . . . . . . . . 2 10 2.2.4 Potential Susceptible Populations Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 12 3.0 PERMIT COMPLIANCE SYSTEM DATA AND ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 3.1 Description of PCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 3.2 PCS Use for Human Health and Environmental Impacts Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 4.0 WATER QUALITY IMPAIRMENT DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 4.1 National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 4.1.1 Description of Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 4.1.2 Resource Use for Human Health and Environmental Impacts Analysis 4 2 4.2 Dischargers to Impaired Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 4.2.1 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 4.2.2 Results from July 2002 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 4.2.3 Results from March 2003 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 4.2.4 Additional Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 4.3 Ambient Water Quality Near Industrial Facilities ( STORET) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8 4.3.1 Description of Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9 4.3.2 Resource Use for Human Health and Environmental Impacts Analysis 4 9 5.0 U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ( USGS) DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 5.1 National Water Quality Assessment Program ( NAWQA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 5.1.1 Description of Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 5.1.2 Resource Use for Human Health and Environmental Impacts Analysis 5 2 5.2 NAWQA National Report on Nutrients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 5.2.1 Description of Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 5.2.2 Resource Use for Human Health and Environmental Impacts Analysis 5 4 November 10, 2003 DRAFT Page 18 of 25 5.3 National Water Information System ( NWIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 5.3.1 Description of Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 5.3.2 Resource Use for Human Health and Environmental Impacts Analysis 5 5 5.4 Applications of SPARROW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5 5.4.1 Description of Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6 5.4.2 Resource Use for Human Health and Environmental Impacts Analysis 5 7 6.0 OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DATA AND RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 6.1 Resources Providing Chemical Specific and Point Source Discharge Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 6.1.1 The National Sediment Contaminant Point Source Inventory ( 1997) . . 6 1 6.1.2 Better Assessment Science Integrating point and Nonpoint Sources ( BASINS) Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5 6.1.3 Conclusions/ Recommendations for Resources Providing Chemical Specific and Point Source Discharge Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6 6.2 Resources Providing Chemical Specific Data Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6 6.2.1 National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Consumption Advisories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7 6.2.2 National Fish Tissue Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9 6.2.3 National Sediment Quality Survey ( 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 10 6.2.4 Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act ( BEACH Act) 6 12 6.2.5 Conclusions/ Recommendations for Resources Providing Chemical Specific Data Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 13 7.0 DRINKING WATER DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1 7.1 Safe Drinking Water Act Candidate Contaminant List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1 7.1.1 Description of Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1 7.1.2 Resource Use for Human Health and Environmental Impacts Analysis 7 2 7.2 Source Water Assessment Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2 7.2.1 Description of Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3 7.2.2 Resource Use for Human Health and Environmental Impacts Analysis 7 4 8.0 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TOOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1 8.1 Resources Providing Regional Data on Chemical Contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1 8.1.1 Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program ( EMAP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1 8.1.2 Regional Vulnerability Assessment ( ReVA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2 8.1.3 Conclusions/ Recommendations for Resources Providing Regional Data on Chemical Contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3 8.2 Resources for Estimating Potential Exposure and Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4 8.2.1 Frameworks/ Multimedia, Multipathway and Multireceptor Risk Assessment ( 3MRA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4 8.2.2 Total Human Exposure Risk Database and Advanced November 10, 2003 DRAFT Page 19 of 25 Simulation Environment ( THERdbASE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5 8.2.3 Total Exposure Model ( TEM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6 9.0 ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1 9.1 Pathogen Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1 9.1.1 Description of Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1 9.1.2 Resource Use for Human Health and Environmental Impacts Analysis 9 2 9.2 Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2 9.2.1 Description of Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2 9.2.2 Resource Use for Human Health and Environmental Impacts Analysis 9 3 9.3 National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals . . . . . . . . . 9 5 9.3.1 Description of Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5 9.3.2 Resource Use for Human Health and Environmental Impacts Analysis 9 6 10.0 NON FEDERAL AGENCY RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1 10.1 Toxic Releases and Health: A Review of Pollution Data and Current Knowledge on the Health Effects of Toxic Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1 10.1.1 Description of Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1 10.1.2 Resource Use for Human Health and Environmental Impacts Analysis 10 3 11.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1 November 10, 2003 DRAFT Page 20 of 25 Factor 4 Analysis: Implementation and Efficiency Considerations Status of Screening Level Review Phase Table of Contents May 8, 2003 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 2.0 STAKEHOLDER INPUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 2.1 Comments on the Proposed 2002/ 2003 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 2.1.1 Industrial Categories Without Guidelines ( Alphabetically) . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 2.1.2 Industrial Categories With Guidelines ( Alphabetically) . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 2.1.3 Pollutants of Concern ( Alphabetically) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 2.2 Comments on Draft Strategy for National Clean Water Industrial Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 2.3 Previous Outreach Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 2.4 NPDES Permit Review Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 2.5 Internal EPA Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8 2.6 Other Governmental Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9 2.6.1 FACAs for State and Local Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9 2.6.2 Water Pollution Control Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 11 3.0 VOLUNTARY LOAD REDUCTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 3.1 Suggestions From Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 3.2 Permit Compliance System ( PCS) Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 3.3 Toxic Release Inventory ( TRI) Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 3.4 Design for the Environment ( DfE) Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 4.0 OTHER EPA OFFICES' RANKINGS & LISTS FOR MULTI MEDIA CONCERNS . . . . . . . . . 4 1 4.1 Office of Air's Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 4.2 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Sector Notebooks . . . . . . 4 5 4.3 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Multi media Data Systems 4 7 4.3.1 Sector Facility Indexing Project ( SFIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8 4.3.2 Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis ( IDEA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 10 4.3.3 Integrated Compliance Information System ( ICIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9 4.3.4 Enforcement Compliance History Online ( ECHO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9 4.6 Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation's Sector Ranking/ Performance Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 11 4.7 Office of Environmental Information/ Office of Research and Development Environmental Indicators Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 12 November 10, 2003 DRAFT Page 21 of 25 4.8 National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology ( NACEPT) Report: Emerging Challenges and Opportunities for EPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 13 5.0 POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 5.1 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Innovative Regulatory Strategies Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 5.2 Trading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 5.3 Voluntary Programs/ Pollution Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 5.3.1 Environmental Management Systems ( EMSs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 November 10, 2003 DRAFT Page 22 of 25 Selecting Industries for Detailed Review: Summary Table for Industry Name Here Date Category Information New or Existing:

SIC Code( s) Covered in Whole or in Part:

Date( s) Promulgated/ Revised: Date of Most Recent EAD Study:

Facility Count Information Facilities Census Data ( Year 1997) TRI/ RSEI Reporters ( Year 2000) PCS ( Year 2000) Indexed to Waterbody Segments All Reporting w/ Loading Estimates Total # Directs # Indirects Discharge Information ( All for Year 2000)

Pollutant Type & Pounds TRI/ RSEI PCS Other Sources Lbs TWPE Lbs TWPE Priority Nonconventional Conventional Category Ranking ( All for Year 2000)

Hazard Rank # facilities = 90% hazard Risk Rank # facilities = 90% risk Impairment Rank Cause( s) of Impairment # PCS facilities on imp. reaches (% tot) November 10, 2003 DRAFT Page 23 of 25 Selecting Industries for Detailed Review: Summary Table for Industry Name Here continued Factor Analyses Results ( How Identified)

Screening Level Factor 1 Concerns Screening Level Factor 4 Concerns Economic Screen ( 1997 Data)

Sales/ Revenue # Employees # Firms % Small Capital Expend Noteworthy Issues Pollutants Driving Concern?

Geographic Concentration?

Industry Changed since ELG?

Advances in P2 and WWT?

Economic Trends?

Other Tools to Address Concern?

Ongoing Agency Activities?

Recommendations November 10, 2003 DRAFT Page 24 of 25 Data Dictionary for Summary Table Data Element or Section Description New or Existing This refers to whether the industry category is currently not regulated under an existing effluent guideline point source category ( new) OR is regulated under an existing effluent or is identified as a new subcategory under an existing effluent guideline point source category ( existing).

SIC Code( s) Covered in Whole or in Part: This refers to the Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) codes that were used to ` roll up' data at the SIC level into this industry category. Whenever possible, EPA attempted to avoid the double counting of SIC level data into two or more industry categories investigated as part of the 304( m) planning process. SIC codes organizes business entities into production based and market based categories identified by a 4 digit code. There are three levels of SIC codes: primary, secondary, and tertiary. Primary SIC codes are assigned based on the principal product or group of products produced or distributed by an establishment or for services rendered by the plant. Additional SIC codes are assigned for any secondary and tertiary products produced or for services rendered by an establishment.

Date( s) Promulgated/ Revised: This refers to the first time EPA promulgated effluent guidelines for this industry category and any subsequent revisions.

Date of Most Recent EAD Study: This refers to the most recent date when EPA completed a study ( not a rulemaking) for this industry category.

Facility Count Information This section of the summary sheet uses data from four main sources:  U. S. Census 1997 Economic Census;  Toxic Release Inventory ( TRI);  Permit Compliance System ( PCS); and  303( d) Impaired Waters Information.

EPA was only able to use the TRI data to differentiate between direct and indirect dischargers. The PCS data element " All Reporting" identifies all facilities ( major and minor) that report a SIC code. Please note that many minor facilities do not have SIC codes in PCS. The PCS data element " w/ Loading Estimates" identifies the number of facilities in this industry category that EPA was able to calculate pollutant loadings estimates.

The term " Indexed to Waterbody Segments" lists the number of facilities in this industrial category that are linked to RF1 segments. Data Element or Section Description November 10, 2003 DRAFT Page 25 of 25 Discharge Information ( All for Year 2000) This section reports the estimate of pounds discharged from TRI and PCS in categories of priority, non conventional, and conventional pollutants. This section reports the straight pollutant pounds discharged ( unweighted) and the toxic pollutant pounds discharged ( weighted through use of EAD's toxic weighting factor and identified as toxic weighted pound equivalents ( TWPE)).

Category Ranking ( All for Year 2000) EPA identified those industries that cumulatively represent 90% of the risk or hazard across all industry categories. If an industry category is a component of this 90% of the risk or hazard total, then its rank is listed along with the total number of industrial categories that make up this 90% of the risk or hazard total. If an industry category is not part of this 90% of the risk or hazard total, then ` NA' is reported in the table.

The term "# facilities = 90% hazard" identifies the number of facilities in this industry category that comprise 90% of the hazard for this industrial sector.

The term "# facilities = 90% risk" identifies the number of facilities in this industry category that comprise 90% of the risk for this industrial sector. EPA was only able to calculate this value for TRI data.

Cause( s) of Impairment This term identifies the reasons for impairment on water segments linked to facilities in this industrial category ( see also "# PCS facilities on imp. reaches (% tot)").

# PCS facilities on imp. reaches (% tot) This term identifies 2002 PCS facilities that discharge to 303( d) listed impaired waters, where at least one " pollutant discharged" is the same as at least one of the pollutants identified as a cause of impairment. " Pollutant discharged" refers to either PCS parameters or Typical Pollutant Concentrations ( TPC). PCS limits are used to assign PCS majors to impaired waters. TPCs  pollutants typically discharged by facilities.

The percentage in parentheses refers to the percentage of the number of PCS facilities in this industrial category on impair reaches ( see above) to the total number of facilities in this industrial category indexed to RF1 segments ( required for water modeling).


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 216 (Thursday, November 7, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66861-66864]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26682]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0834; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-045-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede airworthiness directives AD 2003-14-
11, AD 2004-11-08, AD 2004-13-25, AD 2004-18-14, AD 2008-06-07, and AD
2012-04-07 that apply to certain Airbus Model A330 and A340 series
airplanes. AD 2003-14-11, AD 2004-11-08, AD 2004-13-25, AD 2004-18-14,
AD 2008-06-07, and AD 2012-04-07 required revising the maintenance
program to incorporate certain maintenance requirements and
airworthiness limitations; replacing certain flap rotary actuators;
repetitively inspecting elevator servo-controllers and pressure relief
valves of the spoiler servo controls (SSCs); repetitively testing the
elevator servo control loops, modifying the elevator servo controls,
and repetitively replacing certain retraction brackets of the main
landing gear; and revising the airplane flight manual. Since we issued
those ADs, we have determined that more restrictive maintenance
requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary. This proposed
AD would require revising the maintenance program to incorporate
certain maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. The
proposed AD also removes Airbus Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600
series airplanes from the applicability. We are proposing this AD to
address the aging effects of aircraft systems. Such aging effects could
change the characteristics leading to an increased potential for
failure, which, in isolation or in combination with one or more other
specific failures or events, could result in failure of certain life
limited parts, which could reduce the structural integrity of the
airplane or reduce the controllability of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 23,
2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS,
Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac
Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may review copies of the referenced 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>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be

available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0834;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-045-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On July 7, 2003, we issued AD 2003-14-11, Amendment 39-13230 (68 FR
41521, July 14, 2003), for all Airbus Model A330 and A340 series
airplanes. AD 2003-14-11 required revising the Airworthiness
Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to
incorporate life limits for the servo-controls located on the ailerons
and replacement of the servo-controls with new servo-controls when they
have reached their operational life limits. AD 2003-14-11 resulted from
a revision of Airbus airworthiness limitations which introduced more
restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. We
issued AD 2003-14-11 to prevent hydraulic leakage and failure of the
servo-controls due to cracks in the end caps and along the barrel,
which could result in loss of the ailerons and consequent reduced
controllability of the airplane.
    On May 20, 2004, we issued AD 2004-11-08, Amendment 39-13654 (69 FR
31874, June 8, 2004), for certain Airbus Model A330, A340-200, and
A340-300 series airplanes. AD 2004-11-08 required replacement of flap
rotary actuators with modified flap rotary actuators. AD 2004-11-08
resulted from reports of fatigue failure of rotary actuator levers. We
issued AD 2004-11-08 to prevent fatigue failure of the rotary actuator
lever for the flaps, which could result in loss of the flap surface and
consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.
    On June 24, 2004, we issued AD 2004-13-25, Amendment 39-13707 (69
FR 41394, July 9, 2004), for certain Airbus Model A330, A340-200, and
A340-300 series airplanes. AD 2004-13-25 required repetitive
inspections to check the play of the eye-end of the piston rod of the
elevator servo-controls and corrective actions if necessary, and
replacement of certain elevator servo-controls with new, improved
servo-controls. We issued AD 2004-13-25 to detect and correct excessive
play of the eye-end of the piston rod of the elevator servo controls,
which could result in failure of the elevator servo-control.
    On October 19, 2004, we issued AD 2004-18-14, Amendment 39-13793
(69 FR 55326, September 14, 2004), for certain Airbus Model A330 and
A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. AD 2004-18-14 required revising the
Limitations Section of the airplane flight manual (AFM) to ensure that
the flightcrew is advised of the proper procedures in the event of
uncommanded movement of a spoiler during flight; inspecting the
function of the pressure relief valves of each SSC, and performing
corrective action if necessary; and eventually modifying the SSCs,
which terminated the AFM revision. AD 2004-18-14 resulted from several
reports of incidents where an SSC was not locked in the retracted
position during flight. We issued AD 2004-18-14 to prevent uncommanded
movement of a spoiler during flight, which could result in reduced
controllability of the airplane and consequent significant increased
fuel consumption during flight, which could necessitate an in-flight
turn-back or diversion to an unscheduled airport destination.
    On March 3, 2008, we issued AD 2008-06-07, Amendment 39-15419 (73
FR 13103, March 12, 2008), for all Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300,
A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes. A correction of AD 2008-06-07
was published in the Federal Register on April 15, 2008 (73 FR 20367).
AD 2008-06-07 required revising an accelerated schedule of repetitive
testing of the elevator servo control loops, and doing corrective
actions if necessary. AD 2008-06-07 resulted from reports of failed
elevator servo controls due to broken guides. We issued AD 2008-06-07
to prevent failure of the elevator servo controls during certain phases
of takeoff, which could result in an unannounced loss of elevator
control and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.
    On February 14, 2012, we issued AD 2012-04-07, Amendment 39-16963
(77 FR 12989, March 5, 2012), for all Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300,
A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes. AD 2012-04-07 required
replacement of certain retraction brackets of the main landing gear
(MLG). AD 2012-04-07 resulted from reports of retraction brackets
failures during fatigue testing before accumulation of the life limit
of the MLG. We issued AD 2012-04-07 to prevent failure of the
retraction bracket, which could result in a MLG extension with no
damping, and consequent structural damage of the MLG.

Actions Since Existing ADs Were Issued

    Since we issued AD 2003-14-11, Amendment 39-13230 (68 FR 41521,
July 14, 2003); AD 2004-11-08, Amendment 39-13654 (69 FR 31874, June 8,
2004); AD 2004-13-25, Amendment 39-13707 (69 FR 41394, July 9, 2004);
AD 2004-18-14, Amendment 39-13793 (69 FR 55326, September 14, 2004); AD
2008-06-07, Amendment 39-15419 (73 FR 13103, March 12, 2008); and AD
2012-04-07, Amendment 39-16963 (77 FR 12989, March 5, 2012); we have
determined that more restrictive maintenance requirements and
airworthiness limitations are necessary.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2012-0020, dated January 30, 2012 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    The mandatory instructions and airworthiness limitations
applicable to the Ageing Systems Maintenance (ASM) are specified in
Airbus A330 ALS Part 4, which is approved by the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA).
    The revision 03 of Airbus A330 ALS Part 4 introduces more
restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness
limitations. Failure to comply with the instructions of ALS Part 4
could result in an unsafe condition.
    This [EASA] AD requires the implementation of the maintenance
requirements and/or airworthiness limitations as specified in Airbus
A330 ALS Part 4 revision 03, approved on 09 September 2011. In
addition, this [EASA] AD supersedes DGAC [Directorate General for
Civil Aviation] France ADs and EASA ADs listed in the
``Supersedure'' section above, whose requirements have been
transferred into Airbus A330 ALS Part 4.

    The unsafe condition is the aging effects of aircraft systems. Such
aging

effects could change the characteristics leading to an increased
potential for failure, which, in isolation or in combination with one
or more other specific failures or events, could result in failure of
certain life limited parts, which could reduce the structural integrity
of the airplane or reduce the controllability of the airplane. You may
obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS)
Part 4--Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 03, dated September 09,
2011. The airworthiness limitations introduce mandatory instructions
and more restrictive maintenance requirements.

Related Rulemaking

    We have issued AD 2013-20-06, Amendment 39-17612 (78 FR 64156,
October 28, 2013), for all Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -
312, -313, -541, and -642 airplanes, to require revising the
maintenance program to incorporate certain maintenance requirements and
airworthiness limitations. AD 2013-20-06 terminates the requirements of
the following ADs for Airbus Model A340 series airplanes only (this
proposed AD supersedes the following ADs):
     AD 2003-14-11, Amendment 39-13230 (68 FR 41521, July 14,
2003);
     AD 2004-11-08, Amendment 39-13654 (69 FR 31874, June 8,
2004);
     AD 2004-13-25, Amendment 39-13707 (69 FR 41394, July 9,
2004);
     AD 2004-18-14, Amendment 39-13793 (69 FR 55326, September
14, 2004);
     AD 2008-06-07, Amendment 39-15419 (73 FR 13103, March 12,
2008; corrected April 15, 2008 (73 FR 20367)); and
     AD 2012-04-07, Amendment 39-16963 (77 FR 12989, March 5,
2012).
    Because AD 2013-20-06 terminates the requirements of the preceding
ADs for Airbus Model A340 series airplanes, we have not included Airbus
Model A340 series airplanes in the applicability of this proposed AD.
The applicability of this proposed AD is Airbus Model A330 series
airplanes as specified in paragraph (c) of this AD.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.
    This proposed AD would retain none of the requirements of the
following ADs:
     AD 2003-14-11, Amendment 39-13230 (68 FR 41521, July 14,
2003);
     AD 2004-11-08, Amendment 39-13654 (69 FR 31874, June 8,
2004);
     AD 2004-13-25, Amendment 39-13707 (69 FR 41394, July 9,
2004);
     AD 2004-18-14, Amendment 39-13793 (69 FR 55326, September
14, 2004);
     AD 2008-06-07, Amendment 39-15419 (73 FR 13103, March 12,
2008);
     AD 2012-04-07, Amendment 39-16963 (77 FR 12989, March 5,
2012).
    This proposed AD would require implementation of certain
maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. This proposed
AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in the
service information described previously, except as discussed under
``Differences Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information.''

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    This NPRM proposes to incorporate Airbus A330 ALS Part 4--Aging
Systems Maintenance, Revision 03, dated September 9, 2011, including
the compliance times for the actions; however, the compliance times for
certain initial actions is different from those specified in Airbus
A330 ALS Part 4--Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision 03, dated
September 9, 2011, because the actions were required by AD 2003-14-11,
AD 2004-11-08, AD 2004-13-25, AD 2004-18-14, AD 2008-06-07, and AD
2012-04-07; therefore, the initial compliance time is relative to the
effective date of the applicable superseded AD, as specified in
paragraph (h) of this NPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 71 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
              Action                        Labor cost            Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revise maintenance program........  2 work-hours x $85 per                 $0             $170          $12,070
                                     hour = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 the proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 is revised 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 Directives AD 2003-14-11, Amendment 39-13230
(68 FR 41521, July 14, 2003); AD 2004-11-08, Amendment 39-13654 (69 FR
31874, June 8, 2004); AD 2004-13-25, Amendment 39-13707 (69 FR 41394,
July 9, 2004); AD 2004-18-14, Amendment 39-13793 (69 FR 55326,
September 14, 2004); AD 2008-06-07, Amendment 39-15419 (73 FR 13103,
March 12, 2008); AD 2012-04-07, Amendment 39-16963 (77 FR 12989, March
5, 2012); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD: Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2013-0834;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-045-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by December 23,
2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes the ADs specified in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (b)(6) of this AD.
    (1) AD 2003-14-11, Amendment 39-13230 (68 FR 41521, July 14,
2003).
    (2) AD 2004-11-08, Amendment 39-13654 (69 FR 31874, June 8,
2004).
    (3) AD 2004-13-25, Amendment 39-13707 (69 FR 41394, July 9,
2004).
    (4) AD 2004-18-14, Amendment 39-13793 (69 FR 55326, September
14, 2004).
    (5) AD 2008-06-07, Amendment 39-15419 (73 FR 13103, March 12,
2008).
    (6) AD 2012-04-07, Amendment 39-16963 (77 FR 12989, March 5,
2012).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -
243, -223F, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -341, -342, and -
343 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial
numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a determination that maintenance
requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are
issuing this AD to address the aging effects of aircraft systems.
Such aging effects could change the characteristics leading to an
increased potential for failure, which, in isolation or in
combination with one or more other specific failures or events,
could result in failure of certain life limited parts, which could
reduce the structural integrity of the airplane or reduce the
controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Maintenance Program Revision

    Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance program by incorporating Airbus A330 Airworthiness
Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4--Aging Systems Maintenance,
Revision 03, dated September 09, 2011. The initial compliance times
for the actions are within the applicable compliance times specified
in the Record of Revisions pages of Airbus A330 ALS Part 4, Revision
03, dated September 09, 2011, or within 6 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever is later, except as required by paragraph
(h).

(h) Exceptions to Initial Compliance Times

    (1) Where A330 ALS Part 4--Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision
03, dated September 09, 2011, defines a calendar compliance time for
elevator servo-controls having part number (P/N) SC4800-2, SC4800-3,
SC4800-4, SC4800-6, SC4800-7, or SC4800-8 as August 31, 2004, the
calendar compliance time is June 13, 2007 (34 months after the
effective date of AD 2004-13-25, Amendment 39-13707 (69 FR 41394,
July 9, 2004)).
    (2) Where A330 ALS Part 4--Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision
03, dated September 09, 2011, defines a calendar compliance time for
spoiler servo-controls (SSC) having P/N 1386A0000-01, P/N 1386B0000-
01, P/N 1387A0000-01 or P/N 1387B0000-01 as December 31, 2003, the
calendar compliance time is November 19, 2005 (13 months after the
effective date of AD 2004-18-14, Amendment 39-13793 (69 FR 55326,
September 14, 2004)).
    (3) Where A330 ALS Part 4--Aging Systems Maintenance, Revision
03, dated September 09, 2011, defines a calendar compliance time for
elevator servo-controls having P/N SC4800-73, SC4800-93, SC4800-103
and SC4800-113 as June 30, 2008, the calendar compliance time is
September 16, 2009 (17 months after the effective date of AD 2008-
06-07, Amendment 39-15419 (73 FR 13103, March 12, 2008)).
    (4) The initial compliance time for replacement of the
retraction brackets of the MLG having a part number specified in
paragraphs (h)(4)(i) through (4)(h)(xvi) of this AD is before the
accumulation of 19,800 total landings on the affected retraction
brackets of the MLG, or within 900 flight hours after April 9, 2012
(the effective date of AD 2012-04-07, Amendment 39-16963 (77 FR
12989, March 5, 2012), whichever occurs later.

(i) 201478303
(ii) 201478304
(iii) 201478305
(iv) 201478306
(v) 201478307
(vi) 201478308
(vii) 201428380
(viii) 201428381
(ix) 201428382
(x) 201428383
(xi) 201428384
(xii) 201428385
(xiii) 201428378
(xiv) 201428379
(xv) 201428351
(xvi) 201428352

(i) Alternative Intervals or Limits

    After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of
this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may
be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) 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. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it
to ATTN: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch,
ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(k) Related Information

    Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness
Directive 2012-0020, dated January 30, 2012, for related
information. The mandatory continuing airworthiness information may
be viewed on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 21, 2013.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-26682 Filed 11-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P