July 18, 2002 Mr. Anthony Britten, SRRD Document Processing Desk (7504C) Office of Pesticide Programs U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Room 266A, Crystal Mall 2 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway Arlington, Virginia 22202 Dear Mr. Britten,

Re: Carbaryl; Chemical number 56801; EPA Reg. No. 264 324 Error Correction of Carbaryl Risk Assessments Attached are our comments on the error correction review of the revised HED and EFED Risk Assessments for Carbaryl. We have also included some comments on certain supporting documents for the HED Chapter.

One issue of concern was noted during our review of the risk assessments. It appears that the Agency intends to include the Data Evaluation Records (DERs) for a number of carbaryl studies in the draft EFED Chapter which will be made available to the public for the 60 day comment period. We believe that it is inappropriate to include the DERs in the RED document. A sufficiently detailed summary of study findings is already provided in the EFED Chapter. The summary of endpoints that is included in the draft Carbaryl EFED Chapter is typical of other Draft EFED REDs that have been issued recently and provides sufficient information to allow the reader to determine the endpoints that were selected for modeling and the justification for their selection. The inclusion of the more detailed information present in the DERs is unnecessary.

We have reviewed the dockets for many of the RED documents that have recently been issued (many other insecticides and several fungicides) and none of them include DERs in any of the preliminary Environmental Fate and Effects Assessments. DERs should be made available to the public through the regular procedure under the Freedom of Information Act after they have been reviewed and cleared for confidential business information. The inclusion of the DERs in the docket that is publicly available circumvents this process and is a departure from the procedures that have been followed until now by the Agency. It is unclear why the Agency chose to change their policy for only certain DERs for a single product when adequate summary information is already provided in the text of the Carbaryl EFED Chapter.

This issue deserves careful consideration before the Agency makes the decision to amend their existing policy on providing this type of information to the public. Your help in ensuring that July 12, 2002 Mr. Anthony Britten Page 2 of 2 accepted procedures are followed for the public review of the Carbaryl RED Chapters is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Danielle A. Larochelle Registration Manager Corr. # daL018 02 CARBARYL PC Code No. 056801; Case 0080 Human Health Risk Assessment and Supporting Documents – Phase 1 Error Correction – July 12, 2002 Aventis CropScience P. O. Box 12014, 2 T. W. Alexander Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 CARBARYL Human Health Risk Assessment and Supporting Documents  Phase 1 Error Correction TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 2 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT, JUNE 7, 2002............................................................ 3 General..................................................................................................................................... 3 1.0 Executive Summary.......................................................................................................... 3 Dietary Risk Estimates.................................................................................................... 3 Aggregate Risks and DWLOCs...................................................................................... 3 Issues for Considerations ................................................................................................ 4 4.0 Non Occupational Risk Assessment and Characterization............................................... 4 4.1 Summary of Registered Uses................................................................................... 4 4.2 Dietary Risk Assessment ......................................................................................... 5 4.3 Estimated Environmental Concentrations in Water......................................... 5 4.3.1 Environmental Fate Characteristics ....................................................... 5 4.4 Residential Risk Assessment ........................................................................... 6 <IP_ADDRESS> Residential Handler Cancer Risks ...................................................... 6 4.4.3 Residential Postapplication Risk Assessment........................................ 6 5.0 Aggregate Risk Assessments and Risk Characterization.................................................. 7 5.1 Calculation of Aggregate Risks and DWLOCs....................................................... 7 5.7 Summary of Aggregate Risks .................................................................................. 7 7.1 Occupational Handler Risk Assessment .................................................................. 8 REVISED PRODUCT AND RESIDUE CHEMISTRY CHAPTERS FOR THE REREGISTRATION ELIGIBILITY DECISION; MAY 30, 2002........................................ 9 General..................................................................................................................................... 9 Product Chemistry Chapter of the RED Document................................................................. 9 Manufacturing Use Products .......................................................................................... 9 Residue Chemistry Chapter of the RED Document ................................................................ 9 Regulatory Background ................................................................................................ 10 Summary of Science Findings ...................................................................................... 10 GLN 860.1200: Directions for Use............................................................... 10 GLN 860.1380: Storage Stability Data  Plants............................................ 10 GLN 860.1500: Crop Field Trials................................................................. 10 GLN 860.1520: Processed Food/ Feed .......................................................... 11 GLN 860.1480: Meat, Milk, Poultry, Eggs .................................................. 11 Tolerance Reassessment Summary............................................................................... 12 Table C. Tolerance Reassessment Summary for Carbaryl ........................... 12 Miscellaneous Typographical Errors ............................................................................ 12 3 Human Health Risk Assessment, June 7, 2002 General Several References Throughout the Document EPA statement: The company name of the registrant is listed throughout the document as Aventis Corporation, Aventis Crop Sciences, Aventis Crop Science, and Aventis Crop Science Corporation.

Aventis' comment: Reference should be either to Aventis or Aventis CropScience.

1.0 Executive Summary Dietary Risk Estimates Page 7; Paragraph 3; Lines 4 6 EPA statement: "In livestock commodities, carbaryl, 5,6 dihydro 5,6 dihydroxy carbaryl, 5 methoxy 6 dydroxy carbaryl and all residues which can be hydrolyzed to carbaryl, 5,6 dihydro 5,6 dihydroxy carbaryl, 5 methoxy 6 hydroxy carbaryl under acidic conditions …."

Aventis' comment: Add "and" before "5 methoxy 6 hydroxy carbaryl under acidic conditions ….".

Aggregate Risks and DWLOCs Page 11; Paragraph 4; Lines 9 14 EPA statement: "Additionally, acute dietary risks were also exceeded for infants and children (1 to 6 years old) at the 99.9 th percentile when the Carbamate Market Basket Survey (CMBS) was not considered in the assessment (133% of aPAD). However, the risk picture could substantively change if residential risks are refined based on updated use information from the carbaryl use survey yet to be submitted to the Agency, and the Agency uses the CMBS data even with the caveats associated with that study."

Aventis' comment: This statement is inconsistent with information presented elsewhere in the HED Chapter. As written, the statement implies that the Agency has not yet approved the use of the CMBS data in the dietary risk assessment for carbaryl. However, EPA states in the Hazard Characterization section of the Executive Summary, page 6, paragraph 2, line 9, "Dietary exposures were calculated using FDA and PDP monitoring data, a carbamate market basket survey, and …" which indicates that the EPA approved the use of the CMBS data. In addition, it is stated on pages 8 and 31 (Footnotes) and page 37, first paragraph: "At the present time, information from the industry sponsored Carbamate Market Basket Survey has been approved for use in 4 dietary risk assessments with appropriate characterization of uncertainties associated with the conduct of the study. Hence, the use of these data in this assessment should be considered with associated caveats …"

Issues for Considerations Page 16, Paragraph 1, Lines 19 26 EPA statement: It should also be noted that Aventis Crop Sciences is in the process of conducting biological monitoring studies in residences where there have been carbaryl applications (sampling urine from children) and also for field workers during harvesting and hand thinning operations in apples and cherries. Preliminary results from these studies, based on personal communication with Aventis scientists (they have not been submitted to the Agency yet), indicate body burden levels similar to those calculated by the Agency for risk assessment purposes. For example, the turf risk assessments completed by the Agency are intended to provide upper percentile exposures. The data from the monitored children appear to indicate similar results a the upper percentiles.

Aventis' comment: This statement does not accurately reflect the true scope of the study and would be misleading. The comment would be more accurate as follows: "It should also be noted that Aventis CropScience has completed and is in the process of submitting to the Agency a biomonitoring study of individuals in residences following the application by a member of the household to the lawn and either the vegetable garden or ornamental flowers. A biomonitoring study of for field workers during harvesting and hand thinning operations in apples and cherries will also be submitted to the Agency. Based on personal communication with Aventis scientists, preliminary results from the residential biomonitoring study indicate that the highest percentiles of the distribution of the younger children in the homes were similar to those predicted in the Agency's turf risk assessment for toddlers that are intended to represent the higher percentiles of the exposure distribution."

4.0 Non Occupational Risk Assessment and Characterization 4.1 Summary of Registered Uses Page 28; Table 3: Technical and Manufacturing Carbaryl Products Aventis' comment: Carbaryl – Technical Products ¨ EPA Registration No. 45735 24 (99%), Carbaryl 99% Technical Grade Insecticide, Burlington Scientific Corporation, should be added to the list of registered carbaryl technical.

¨ EPA Registration No. 264 325 (97.5%), Aventis CropScience, should be included in the list of manufacturing use products. 5 Carbaryl – Manufacturing Use Products ¨ EPA Registration No. 5481 190 (46% FI), AMVAC Chemical corporation , is an active registration and should be added to the list of Manufacturing Use Products. (It is listed in Table 1, page 2, of the Product and Residue Chemistry Chapters)

¨ EPA Registration No. 4816 270 (97.5%) is no longer active; it was transferred to EPA Registration No. 432 982 (97.5%), Aventis Environmental Science USA LP, on February 22, 2000.

¨ EPA Registration No. 4816 407 (1%) is no longer active; it was transferred to Reg. No. 432 1006 on February 22, 2000 and subsequently transferred to Reg. No. 73049 238, Valent Bioscience Corporation, on June 27, 2001 (neither 4816 407 or 432 1006 are active).

¨ As stated above, EPA Registration No. 264 325 (97.5%), Aventis CropScience, should be added to the list of manufacturing use products.

4.2 Dietary Risk Assessment Page 31; Paragraph 1; Lines 3 5 EPA statement: Carbaryl is used late in the season at maximal seasonal rates of 6 12 lb ai/ acre. [Note: A Special Local Needs registration in California uses 16 lb ai/ acre as a maximum rate on citrus.] Aventis' comment: The Section 3 registration of carbaryl products cover the use on citrus at the rate of 5 16 lbs ai/ acre in the state of California only.

4.3 Estimated Environmental Concentrations in Water 4.3.1 Environmental Fate Characteristics Section 4.3.1, Pages 39 40 Aventis' comment: The text in section 4.3.1 does not include the revisions that were made to the EFED draft Chapter and is inconsistent. For example:

¨ on Page 39, first paragraph of Section 4.3.1, first sentence "Carbaryl and its degradate 1 naphthol are fairly mobile but are not likely to persist or accumulate in the environment."

¨ on Page 40, Paragraph 1, last sentence "Carbaryl is mobile to very mobile in the environment (Kf = 1.7 to 3.2)."

The information in the EFED chapter has been revised to ¨ "Carbaryl is considered to be moderately mobile in soils" and the Kf range is 1.7 to 3.5 (EFED Chapter, Page 20 – Table 3; Page 22 – Mobility).

¨ "… literature information suggest that it [1 naphthol] is less persistent and less mobile than parent carbaryl.""( EFED Chapter, Page 26, 1 Naphthol Fate and Transport). 6 Section 4.3.1, Paragraphs 2 and 3 (pages 39 40) EPA statement: In these 2 paragraphs, the chemical name for the major carbaryl degradation product is typed as "1 napthol". Aventis' comment: Correct spelling is "1 naphthol".

4.4 Residential Risk Assessment <IP_ADDRESS> Residential Handler Cancer Risks Page 52; Paragraph 1; Lines 11 12 EPA statement: "…[ Note: Scenarios where risks are still of concern (i. e., <1x10 6 ) are highlighted in the table.]. Aventis' comment: (i. e., "<" 1x10 6 ) should be corrected to (i. e., ">" 1x10 6 ).

4.4.3 Residential Postapplication Risk Assessment Page 59; Paragraph 1; Lines 4 6 EPA statement: These levels were The Agency instead considers them a qualitative indicator that exposures in the general population are likely to occur. Aventis' comment: Words are missing from the first part of the sentence.

Page: 59 Paragraph: 2 Lines: 1 6 EPA statement: Aventis Crop Science is in the process of conducting a biomonitoring study with children who live in households where carbaryl has been used. Based on discussions with Aventis, the preliminary results indicate that levels at the highest percentiles of the distribution are similar to those predicted in the Agency's turf risk assessment for toddlers which are intended to represent the higher percentiles of the exposure distribution. A more detailed analysis will be completed upon submission Aventis' comment: The statement does not accurately reflect the true scope of the study and would be misleading. The comment would be more accurate as follows: Aventis CropScience has completed and is in the process of submitting to the Agency a biomonitoring study of individuals in residences following the application by a member of the household to the lawn and either the vegetable garden or ornamental flowers. Based on discussions with Aventis, preliminary results indicate that the highest percentiles of the distribution of the younger children in the homes were similar to those predicted in the Agency's turf risk assessment for toddlers that are 7 intended to represent the higher percentiles of the exposure distribution. A more detailed analysis will be completed upon submission.

5.0 Aggregate Risk Assessments and Risk Characterization 5.1 Calculation of Aggregate Risks and DWLOCs Page 72; Paragraph 2; Lines 6 11 EPA statement: "Additionally, acute dietary risks were also exceeded for infants and children (1 to 6 years old) at the 99.9 th percentile when the Carbamate Market Basket Survey (CMBS) was not considered in the assessment. However, the risk picture could substantively change if residential risks are refined based on updated use information from the carbaryl use survey yet to be submitted to the Agency and the Agency chooses to regulate using the results of the CMBS."

Aventis' comment: This statement is inconsistent with information presented elsewhere in the HED Chapter. As written, the statement implies that the Agency has not yet approved the use of the CMBS data in the dietary risk assessment for carbaryl. However, EPA states in the Hazard Characterization section of the Executive Summary, page 6, paragraph 2, line 9, "Dietary exposures were calculated using FDA and PDP monitoring data, a carbamate market basket survey, and …" which indicates that the EPA approved the use of the CMBS data. In addition, it is stated on pages 8 and 31 (Footnotes) and page 37, first paragraph: "At the present time, information from the industry sponsored Carbamate Market Basket Survey has been approved for use in dietary risk assessments with appropriate characterization of uncertainties associated with the conduct of the study. Hence, the use of these data in this assessment should be considered with associated caveats …"

5.7 Summary of Aggregate Risks Page 76; Paragraph 2; Lines 3 4 continued on page 77 EPA statement: "Additionally, acute dietary risks were also exceeded for infants and children (1 to 6 years old) at the 99.9 th percentile when the Carbamate Market Basket Survey (CMBS) was not considered in the assessment. However, the risk picture could substantively change if residential risks are refined based on updated use information from the carbaryl use survey yet to be submitted to the Agency and the Agency chooses to regulate using the results of the CMBS." Aventis' comment: This statement is inconsistent with information presented elsewhere in the HED Chapter. As written, the statement implies that the Agency has not yet approved the use of the CMBS data in the dietary risk assessment for carbaryl. However, EPA states in the Hazard Characterization section of the Executive Summary, page 6, 8 paragraph 2, line 9, "Dietary exposures were calculated using FDA and PDP monitoring data, a carbamate market basket survey, and …" which indicates that the EPA approved the use of the CMBS data. In addition, it is stated on pages 8 and 31 (Footnotes) and page 37, first paragraph: "At the present time, information from the industry sponsored Carbamate Market Basket Survey has been approved for use in dietary risk assessments with appropriate characterization of uncertainties associated with the conduct of the study. Hence, the use of these data in this assessment should be considered with associated caveats …"

7.1 Occupational Handler Risk Assessment Page: 83; Paragraph 5; Lines 9 10 and Footnote EPA statement: There are no data compensation issues with any of these data. 11 .

(Footnote) 11 Non ORETF data included in MRIDs 451672 01 and 452507 01 were from studies submitted by Aventis CropScience. The propoxur trigger sprayer study has a signed PHED data waiver but has not been included into PHED.

Aventis' comment: Aventis concurs that there are no data compensation issues. However, the rationale presented for the propoxur trigger sprayer study is not accurate. The PHED data waiver is applicable only when the data are in PHED and not when cited outside of PHED. The propoxur study does not trigger data compensation because the study is the property of Bayer CropScience which has recently acquired Aventis CropScience. 9 Revised Product and Residue chemistry Chapters for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision; May 30, 2002 General Several References Throughout the Document EPA statement: The company name of the registrant is listed throughout the document as Aventis Ag Company.

Aventis' comment: Reference should be to Aventis CropScience.

Product Chemistry Chapter of the RED Document Manufacturing Use Products Page 2; Table 1 – Registered Carbaryl Manufacturing Use Products Aventis' comment:

¨ EPA Registration No. 45735 24 (99%), Carbaryl 99% Technical Grade Insecticide, Burlington Scientific Corporation, should be added to the list of registered carbaryl technical.

¨ EPA Registration No. 4816 270 (97.5%) is no longer active; it was transferred to EPA Registration No. 432 982 (97.5%), Aventis Environmental Science USA LP, on February 22, 2000.

¨ EPA Registration No. 4816 407 (1%) is no longer active; it was transferred to Reg. No. 432 1006 on February 22, 2000 and subsequently transferred to Reg. No. 73049 238, Valent Bioscience Corporation, on June 27, 2001 (neither 4816 407 or 432 1006 are active).

¨ The name of the registrant for EPA Registration No. 769 971 is Value Gardens Supply, LLC. Corresponding corrections should be made to the Product Chemistry Section of the Memorandum for this Chapter and in other sections of the Product Chemistry Chapter of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Document.

Residue Chemistry Chapter of the RED Document Several References Throughout the Document EPA statement: The company name of the registrant is listed throughout the document as Aventis Ag Company, Aventis Ag Co., and Aventis Crop Science.

Aventis' comment: Reference should be to Aventis CropScience. 10 Regulatory Background Page 2; Paragraph 2; Line 5 EPA statement: "… but should not delay on the reregistration eligibility decisions for carbaryl."

Aventis' comment: Remove "on" from the sentence . "… but should not delay on the reregistration …"

Summary of Science Findings GLN 860.1200: Directions for Use Page 3; Table A1. Carbaryl EPs with Food/ Feed Uses Registered to Aventis Ag Company EPA statement: EPA Registration No. 264 430 is listed in this table.

Aventis' comment: The registration of SEVIN® brand Granular Carbaryl Insecticide For Outdoor Home Use, EPA Registration No. 264 430, was transferred to Aventis Environmental Science, EPA Registration No. 432 885 on February 9, 2000.

GLN 860.1380: Storage Stability Data  Plants Page 6; Paragraph 1; Lines 2 3 EPA statement: Additional data are required depicting the storage stability of carbaryl per se in an oilseed, processed commodities of an oily crop, and a dried fruit stored for up to 10 months.

Aventis' comment: Inconsistencies are noted between the information presented in the section "Summary of Science Findings" and Table B. Residue Chemistry Science Assessments for Reregistration of Carbaryl (page 63)

Paragraph 1 of the "GLN 860.1380: Storage Stability Data – Plants" section indicates the need for storage stability data for dried fruit (in addition to other items). Table B data requirements (page 63 along with footnote #14 on page 73) does not request storage stability data for dried fruit; neither does the 4 th paragraph on page 6 (GLN 860.1380).

GLN 860.1500: Crop Field Trials Page 7; Paragraph 5 EPA statement: 11 "In addition, conclusions regarding the adequacy of the data for alfalfa, apples, potatoes … are contingent upon receipt and acceptance of adequate supporting storage stability data."

Aventis' comment: The statement is inconsistent with information elsewhere in the document. There is no requirement for storage stability data on apples in the "GLN 860.1380: Storage Stability Data – Plants" section (page 6) nor in Table B (page 63 along with footnote #14 on page 73).

Page 8; Paragraph 14; Line 4 EPA statement: "However, additional residue data are required if the registrant seeks tolerances for residues in/ on succulent, shelled pea and bean commodities." (Also stated in the Memorandum on page 3, paragraph 3).

Aventis' comment: This statement is in contradiction with paragraph 6 of this section: " … adequate magnitude of the residue data are available on the following crops: …….. beans (dried and succulent), … peas (dried and succulent .…" and Table B requirements for crop field trials (page 65). Also, MRID 43984701 (succulent bean) and MRID 43703102 (Fresh pea) were found to be acceptable.

GLN 860.1520: Processed Food/ Feed Page 9; Paragraph 1; Lines 4 6 EPA statement: Based on the available processing studies, tolerances are required for residues in citrus fruit oil, raisins , wet apple pomace, and rice hulls only.

Aventis' comment: EPA requests processed commodity tolerances for (among other commodities) wet apple pomace and raisins (see also Table C, page 85). Calculations according to the 860.1520 Guidelines indicates that processed commodity tolerances are not needed for these commodities. The Agency's statement appears to be the result of a mathematical or computational type error since the 860.1520 Guidelines are rather clear on determination of need for processed commodity tolerances.

GLN 860.1480: Meat, Milk, Poultry, Eggs Page 11; Paragraph 3; Line 5 EPA statement: "The calculation of the maximum dietary is tentative ...".

Aventis' comment: Add the word "burden" to the statement "The calculation of the maximum dietary (burden) is tentative ...". 12 Page 11; Paragraph 4; Lines 1 2 EPA statement: "… tolerances for residues of carbaryl per se in livestock (excluding swine) commodities should be reassessed ...".

Aventis' comment: The tolerance expression in GLN 860.1480 should be modified to agree with the one in GLN 860.1300 (page 4): "... tolerances for ruminant meat and milk should be expressed as residues of free and conjugated carbaryl, 5,6 dihydro 5,6 dihydroxy carbaryl, and 5 methoxy 6 hydroxy carbaryl."

Tolerance Reassessment Summary Table C. Tolerance Reassessment Summary for Carbaryl Tolerance Listed Under 40 CFR §180.169( a); Page 79 Aventis' comment: Under the commodity "Corn, forage", Comments on "Corn, sweet, forage" : should read "Residue data indicate that the tolerance for sweet corn forage should be increased." (i. e., replace "field" with "sweet" in sentence).

Miscellaneous Typographical Errors  Under "REGULATORY BACKGROUND", paragraph 3 of section, line 5 (page 2): remove "on" from the sentence "... should not delay on the reregistration ...".

 Under "SUMMARY OF SCIENCE FINDINGS, GLN 860.1500: Crop Field Trials", paragraph 4, line 5, page 7: remove period (.) after "ppm" in "... current tolerance of 10 ppm. and all residue data ...". Also in memorandum, page 3, paragraph 1.

 Under "SUMMARY OF SCIENCE FINDINGS, GLN 860.1520: Processed Food/ Feed", paragraph 2, line 2 (page 9): add "to" to the statement "... when this concentration factor is applied (to) the HAFT residue ...".

 Footnotes to Table B. Residue Chemistry Science Assessment for Reregistration of Carbaryl: #38: correct the spelling of "canceled".

 Table C. Tolerance Reassessment Summary of Carbaryl, under the commodity "Sorghum, stover" (under "Comments": correct spelling of sorghum). CARBARYL PC Code No. 056801; Case 0080 Revised EFED Risk Assessment of Carbaryl in Support of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED)

– Phase 1 Error Correction – July 12, 2002 Aventis CropScience P. O. Box 12014, 2 T. W. Alexander Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 CARBARYL Revised EFED Risk Assessment of Carbaryl in Support of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED)

 Phase 1 Error Correction TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR THE REREGISTRATION OF CARBARYL.................................................................................. 3 General..................................................................................................................................... 3 1.0 Summary and Environmental Risk Conclusions .............................................................. 3 Fate and Water Assessment ............................................................................................ 3 3.0 Integrated Risk Characterization....................................................................................... 3 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 3 4.0 Environmental Fate Assessment ....................................................................................... 4 Exposure Characterization.............................................................................................. 4 5.0 Drinking Water Assessment ............................................................................................. 5 Drinking Water Modeling............................................................................................... 5 Appendix D: Toxicity Assessment ......................................................................................... 5 Toxicity to Terrestrial Animals....................................................................................... 5 3 Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Reregistration of Carbaryl General Several References Throughout the Document EPA statement: The company name of the registrant is listed throughout the document as Aventis Corporation, Aventis Crop Sciences, Aventis Crop Science, and Aventis Crop Science Corporation.

Aventis' comment: Reference should be either to Aventis or Aventis CropScience.

1.0 Summary and Environmental Risk Conclusions Fate and Water Assessment Page: 4 Paragraph: 1 Line: 16 EPA statement: …to those reported n non targeted… Aventis' comment: extra "n" in sentence 3.0 Integrated Risk Characterization Introduction Page: 8 Paragraph: 1 Line: 8 EPA statement: alkaline (pH half life = 5 hours environments. Aventis' comment: alkaline (pH half life = 3.2 hours) environments.

half life is 3.2 not 5 hours as noted elsewhere in the document. Missing closing parenthesis. 4 4.0 Environmental Fate Assessment Exposure Characterization Page: 17 Paragraph: 3 Line: last sentence EPA statement: Detailed discussion and reviews (DERs) of the studies that are included in this assessment are attached in Appendix A. Aventis' comment: It is inappropriate to include the DERs in the RED. A sufficiently detailed summary of study findings is already included in the EFED Chapter. The summary of endpoints that is included in the draft Carbaryl EFED Chapter is typical of other Draft EFED REDs that have been issued recently and provides sufficient information to allow the reader to determine the endpoints that were selected for modeling and the justification for their selection. The inclusion of the more detailed information present in the DERs is unnecessary.

We have reviewed the dockets for many of the RED documents that have recently been issued (many other insecticides and several fungicides) and none of them include DERs in any of the preliminary Environmental Fate and Effects Assessments. DERs should be made available to the public through the regular procedure under the Freedom of Information Act after they have been reviewed and cleared for confidential business information. The inclusion of the DERs in the docket that is publicly available circumvents this process and is a departure from the procedures that have been followed until now by the Agency. It is unclear why the Agency chose to change their policy for only certain DERs for a single product when adequate summary information is already provided in the text of the Carbaryl EFED Chapter.

Page: 17 Paragraph: 4 Line: 4 EPA statement: lower levels (generally less than 0.01 µ/ L). Aventis' comment: value missing units  (generally less than 0.01 µg/ L).

Persistence Microbially Mediated Processes Page: 22 Paragraph: 2 Line: 1 EPA statement: A number of soil microorganisms 5 Aventis' comment: "microorga nisms"

5.0 Drinking Water Assessment Drinking Water Modeling Page: 33 Table 6 EPA statement: Crop name – Sugar Beats (MN) Aventis' comment: Correct spelling is Sugar Beets Appendix D: Toxicity Assessment Toxicity to Terrestrial Animals Mammals, Acute and Chronic Page: 237 above Table 4 EPA statement: "Although at this time two generation rat reproduction study data are not available, …" Aventis' comment: A two generation rat reproduction study has been submitted and found to be acceptable by the Agency (MRID# 45448101).


Examples of User Information & Instructions

on 3M Hearing Protector Packages

Submitted to EPA on April 12, 2007, for consideration during development
of revised hearing protector labeling regulation 40 CFR part 211

For more information, contact:

Ted Madison

Technical Service Specialist

3M Center Building 0235-02-E-91

Saint Paul MN  55144-1000

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Intended Use

When worn properly, ear plugs help reduce exposure to loud sounds
produced during recreational activities, such as concerts, motorcycle
riding, snowmobiling, or sporting events, and when using power tools and
equipment such as drills, hand sanders, lawn mowers, garden tractors,
and gas-powered leaf blowers/trimmers.  When equipment is used
improperly or not properly maintained, the actual sound level produced
may be much higher than the estimates used to make these
recommendations.

For very loud sounds, such as chain saws, circular saws, hammer drills,
jack hammers, fireworks and gunfire, 3M recommends wearing ear muffs and
ear plugs at the same time for additional noise reduction.  3M offers a
variety of ear muffs which can be worn with ear plugs for additional
noise reduction.  Visit www.3M.com/occsafety for more information.

Persons wearing hearing protectors for occupational noise exposure
should be enrolled in a hearing conservation program. If you are wearing
hearing protectors for protection from noise outside of work, you should
have a hearing evaluation by an audiologist, physician, or other
qualified professional, on a regular basis

Fitting Instructions

Fit your ear plugs before entering a hazardous noise area.

With clean hands, roll ear plug between thumb and fingers until plug
diameter is as small as possible.

Reach over your head with the opposite hand and pull top of ear to open
ear canal. Push rolled end of plug into ear, leaving enough of the ear
plug outside of the ear canal to allow removal.

Hold finger on the end of ear plug until the plug expands to seal the
ear (about 10 seconds).

Here is the ear plug correctly inserted in the ear canal. For best fit,
at least 1/2 to 3/4 of the ear plug should be inside your ear canal.

Checking the Fit

Always fit ear plugs so that they seal the ear closed.

When plugs are correctly inserted, your voice should sound hollow and
sounds around you should not sound as loud as before.

Gently pull on the ear plug; it should not move easily.  If the plug
moves easily, remove it and carefully re-insert it deeper into the ear
canal.

Re-check the fit often during the time that you wear them.  If ear plugs
become loose, you will get less protection in noise.

Note: The size and shape of each ear is unique.  If you are unable to
fit these ear plugs correctly and comfortably in both ears, consider
wearing a different size or type of hearing protector.

Removing Earplugs

For greater comfort, twist the plug gently while removing it.

CAUTION:  If you notice symptoms such as a temporary decrease in hearing
ability or a ringing / buzzing sound in your ears, you may not be
fitting the ear plugs properly for adequate noise reduction.  If this
happens, review the fitting instructions and re-fit the ear plugs deeper
into the ear canals.  If you continue to notice these symptoms, 3M
recommends wearing ear muffs and ear plugs at the same time or limiting
the time you are exposed to the loud sound to less than 1 hour per day.

Care and Replacement

Always wash and rinse your hands before fitting ear plugs.

Do not wash and re-use foam ear plugs.

Replace dirty ear plugs with a new pair.

Look closely at the ear plugs for damage each time you put them on.  If
you see a tear or other damage, throw the plugs away and get new ones.

CAUTION:  Re-inserting dirty or soiled ear plugs into your ears may
cause discomfort and/or skin irritation in the ear canal. Do not use
hand creams or lotions immediately before rolling ear plugs and
inserting them into your ears, as these substances may damage the ear
plugs.  Do not attempt to clean foam ear plugs with alcohol or other
disinfectants that may damage the ear plugs.

WARNING

These hearing protectors help reduce exposure to hazardous noise and
other loud sounds. Misuse or failure to wear hearing protectors at all
times that you are exposed to noise may result in hearing loss or
injury. For proper use, see User Instructions, or call 3M in USA at
1-800-247-3941. In Canada, call Technical Service at1-800-267-4414. If
your outer ear, ear drum or middle ear have been damaged due to illness
or injury or if you are experiencing ear drainage, consult with your
physician before wearing ear plugs.  Keep away from infants and small
children. Choking hazard

Range of Noise Reduction

The average noise reduction provided by this hearing protection device
(HPD) when worn properly has been evaluated using numerous laboratory
test methods (see Table 1).  On average, persons with little experience
in wearing HPDs and little or no training in proper fitting of HPDs
achieved less noise reduction in these tests.  Experienced HPD wearers,
who were trained in proper use of this device, achieved higher noise
reduction.  Differences between hearing protector ratings of less than 3
dB are not important.  Far more significant is the amount of time you
wear the hearing protectors relative to the amount of time you are
exposed to noise.

Estimating Noise Reduction for Individual Users

HPD performance ratings and classifications are based on the average
noise reduction obtained by participants in a laboratory test.  The
actual noise reduction you obtain depends on how well the device fits
your ears, whether you properly fit the device, and how long you wear
it.  Research suggests that the NRR may overestimate the protection
provided by hearing protectors during typical use.  3M recommends
reducing the NRR by 50% for estimating the average amount of noise
reduction provided.

Selecting Hearing Protectors

3M recommends that you select the most comfortable HPD among those with
adequate noise reduction rather than selecting the device with the
highest rating.  Research indicates that comfort is a better predictor
of effective protection because comfortable HPDs are more likely to be
worn properly and worn for the entire time of noise exposure.  You
should also consider:  the hearing protector noise reduction; your daily
noise exposure; variations in the noise level; your preference;
communication needs; your hearing ability; compatibility with other
safety equipment; your physical abilities; climate and other working
conditions; and replacement, care and use requirements.

Information required by the United States EPA regulation 40 CFR part
211:

“The level of noise entering a person’s ear, when hearing protector
is worn as directed, is closely approximated by the difference between
the A-weighted environmental noise level and the NRR.  EXAMPLE: The
environmental noise level as measured at the ear is 92 dBA. The NRR is
25 decibels (dB). The level of noise entering the ear is approximately
equal to 67 dB(A).  Although hearing protectors are useful for
protection against impulsive noise, the noise reduction measurements are
based on tests in continuous noise and may not be an accurate indicator
of the device’s performance for impulsive sounds such as gunfire.
CAUTION: For noise environments dominated by frequencies below 500 Hz
the C-weighted environmental noise level should be used.  Improper fit
of this device will reduce its effectiveness in attenuating noise.
Consult the enclosed instructions for proper fit.”

Table 1  Range of HPD Ratings and Classes

	ANSI S3.19

1974	EN24869-1	ANSI S12.6 1997 method B	AS/NZS 1270 2002

Test results with experienced, trained wearers	NRR = 25 dB

CSA Class AL	SNR =21 dB

Test results with inexperienced,

untrained wearers

	NRR(SF)=15 dB

SNR(SF84) =19 dB

CSA Grade 3	SLC80  =  20.1 dB

AS/NZS Class 3


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 195 (Friday, October 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62399-62400]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25965]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14201-000]

Bison Peak Pumped Storage, LLC.; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On May 5, 2011, the Bison Peak Pumped Storage, LLC., filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the
Bison Peak Pumped Storage Project (Bison Peak Project or project) to be
located in the Tehachapi Mountains south of Tehachapi, Kern County,
California. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to
grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during
the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit
holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter
upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    The applicant has proposed four alternatives for the placement of a
lower reservoir, termed ``South,'' ``Tejon,'' ``Horsethief,'' and
``Sawmill.'' Water for the initial fill of each of the alternatives
would be obtained from local water agency infrastructure via a route
that would be identified during studies.
    The South alternative proposal would consist of the following: (1)
An upper dam with a height of 50 feet, a crest length of 7,128 feet,
and with a reservoir having a total storage capacity of 5,500 acre-feet
at a normal maximum operating elevation of 7,860 feet mean sea level
(msl); (2) a lower dam with a height of 310 feet, a crest length of
1,160 feet, and with a reservoir having a total storage capacity of
5,805 acre-feet at a normal maximum operating elevation of 5,100 feet
msl; (3) a 9,060-foot-long underground conduit; (4) a powerhouse
containing four 250-megawatt (MW) reversible pump turbines and located
900 feet below ground level, approximately midway between the upper and
lower reservoirs; (5) a powerhouse access tunnel of approximately 2,090
feet; and (6) a 3.2- or 5.3-mile-long, 345-kilovolt (kV) transmission
line to either the existing Cottonwind or Windhub substations,
respectively.
    The Tejon alternative proposal would consist of the following: (1)
An upper dam with a height of 50 feet, a crest length of 7,128 feet,
and with a reservoir having a total storage capacity of 5,500 acre-feet
at a normal maximum operating elevation of 7,860 feet msl; (2) a lower
dam with a height of 260 feet, a crest length of 1,480 feet, and with a
reservoir having a total storage capacity of 6,355 acre-feet at a
normal maximum operating elevation of 5,250 feet msl; (3) a 10,350-
foot-long underground conduit; (4) a powerhouse containing four 250-MW
reversible pump turbines and located 900 feet below ground level,
approximately midway between the upper and lower reservoirs; and (5) a
14.2- or 14.8-mile-long transmission line (including both new
construction of a 345-kV line and upgrades to existing transmission
lines) to either the existing Cottonwind or Windhub substations,
respectively. The estimated annual generation of the Bison Peak Pumped
Storage Project would be 3,066 gigawatt-hours.
    The Horsethief alternative would consist of the following: (1) An
upper dam with a height of 50 feet, a crest length of 7,128 feet, and
with a reservoir having a total storage capacity of 5,500 acre-feet at
a normal maximum operating elevation of 7,860 feet msl; (2) a lower dam
with a height of 310 feet, a crest length of 1,000 feet, and with a
reservoir having a total storage capacity of 4,460 acre-feet at a
normal maximum operating elevation of 5,650 feet msl; (3) a 11,000-
foot-long underground conduit; (4) a powerhouse containing four 125-MW
reversible pump turbines and located 1,500 feet below ground level,
approximately midway between the upper and lower reservoirs; and (5) a
15.7- or 11.5-mile-long transmission line (including both new
construction of a 230-kV line and upgrades to existing transmission
lines) to either the existing Whirlwind or Windhub substations,
respectively. The estimated annual generation of the Bison Peak Pumped
Storage Project would be 1,533 gigawatt-hours.
    The Sawmill alternative would consist of the following: (1) An
upper dam with a height of 50 feet, a crest length of 7,128 feet, and
with a reservoir

having a total storage capacity of 5,500 acre-feet at a normal maximum
operating elevation of 7,860 feet msl; (2) a lower dam with a height of
310 feet, a crest length of 1,160 feet, and with a reservoir having a
total storage capacity of 6,205 acre-feet at a normal maximum operating
elevation of 6,000 feet msl; (3) a 9,750-foot-long underground conduit;
(4) a powerhouse containing four 125-MW reversible pump turbines and
located 450 feet below ground level, approximately midway between the
upper and lower reservoirs; and (5) a 16.8- or 10.9-mile-long
transmission line (including both new construction of a 230-kV line and
upgrades to existing transmission lines) to either the existing
Whirlwind or Windhub substations, respectively. The estimated annual
generation of the Bison Peak Pumped Storage Project would be 1,533
gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Bison Peak Pumped Storage, LLC. 9795 Cabrini
Dr., Ste. 206, Burbank, CA 91504; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Matt Buhyoff; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14201-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: September 30, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-25965 Filed 10-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37062-37063]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11933]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP23-82-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Schedule for the
Preparation of an Environmental Assessment for the Lucas and Pavonia
Wells Abandonment Project

    On March 2, 2023, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia) filed
an application in Docket No. CP23-82-000 requesting an Authorization
pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act to abandon certain
natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the
Lucas and Pavonia Wells Abandonment Project (Project), and would result
in abandonment of 37 injection/withdrawal wells and associated
pipelines and appurtenances at Columbia's existing certificated Lucas
and Pavonia Storage Fields in Ashland and Richland Counties, Ohio.
    On March 15, 2023, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project.
Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal
authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and
to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's
environmental document for the Project.
    This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an
environmental assessment (EA) for the Project and the planned schedule
for the completion of the environmental review.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 40 CFR 1501.10 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of EA September 8, 2023
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline \2\ December 7, 2023

    \2\ The Commission's deadline applies to the decisions of other
federal agencies, and state agencies acting under federally
delegated authority, that are responsible for federal
authorizations, permits, and other approvals necessary for proposed
projects under the Natural Gas Act. Per 18 CFR 157.22(a), the
Commission's deadline for other agency's decisions applies unless a
schedule is otherwise established by federal law.

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be
provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
Project's progress.

Project Description

    The Project would consist of the following facilities and
activities in Ashland and Richland Counties, Ohio:
     abandonment of 37 injection/withdrawal wells at the Lucas
and Pavonia Storage Fields by permanently plugging and abandoning the
wells in place;
     abandonment of approximately 41,423 feet of associated 3-
to 6-inch-diameter pipeline, of which 39,402 feet would be capped and
abandoned in place and 2,021 feet would be abandoned by removal; and
     abandonment by removal of all associated aboveground
appurtenances, including, but not limited to, tie-in valves, pipeline
markers, cathodic protection test stations, rectifiers, casing vents,
and above-ground pipeline blowdown vents.

Background

    On April 14, 2023, the Commission issued a Notice of Scoping Period
Requesting Comments on Environmental Issues for the Proposed Lucas and
Pavonia Wells Abandonment Project and Notice of Public Scoping Session
(Notice of Scoping). The Notice of Scoping was sent to affected
landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected
officials; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local
libraries and newspapers. In response to the Notice of Scoping, the
Commission received comments from the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation and
one landowner. The

primary issues raised by the commenters concerned impacts of the
Project on agricultural property and agricultural operations. All
substantive environmental comments will be addressed in the EA.

Additional Information

    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].
    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to
keep track of formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the
Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This service
provides automatic notification of filings made to subscribed dockets,
document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register for eSubscription.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the ``eLibrary'' link, select
``General Search'' from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date
range and ``Docket Number'' excluding the last three digits (i.e.,
CP23-82), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to
eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY (202) 502-
8659, or at [email protected]. The eLibrary link on the FERC
website also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by
the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: May 30, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-11933 Filed 6-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 248 (Thursday, December 26, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78294-78296]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30897]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-1031; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-155-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, and A330-300 series
airplanes; and Model A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by the failure of the
generator control unit-constant speed motor/generator (GCU-CSM/G)
during a final assembly operational test. This proposed AD would
require a detailed inspection of the connector wires for GCU-CSM/G
connector 1XE-A for discrepancies (evidence of arcing or overheating
damage), and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary.
We are proposing this AD to detect and correct incorrect locking of
contacts into connector 1XE-A of the GCU-CSM/G, which could result in a
loss of contact continuity and lead to the CSM/G not operating, which,
in conjunction with an emergency electrical configuration loss of the
main electrical system or total engine flame out, could adversely
affect the airplane's safe flight.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 10,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed 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 view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

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 Operations office (telephone<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, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1138; 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-2013-1031;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-155-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 based on 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

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Members of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2013-0175, dated August 2, 2013 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    During Final Assembly Line tests on an A330 aeroplane, the
Generator Control Unit--Constant Speed Motor/Generator (GCU-CSM/G)
failed the operational test.
    Investigations revealed that it is due to incorrect locking of
some contacts (pins) into the GCU-CSM/G connector 1XE-A. An
inspection of other aeroplanes confirmed this production quality
issue. Among the 26 pins used in GCU-CSM/G connector 1XE-A, 6 pins
have been identified as potentially affected by this issue.
    A badly locked contact could result in a loss of continuity and
lead to the non-operation of the CSM/G.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, and in
conjunction with either an emergency electrical configuration loss
of main electrical system or total engine flame out, could
jeopardize the aeroplane's safe flight.
    To address this condition, Airbus developed Alert Operator
Transmission (AOT) A24L001-13, to provide instructions for a one-
time inspection.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires a one-time
[detailed] inspection of the potentially affected connector wires of
GCU-CSM/G connector 1XE-A and, depending on [the] finding,
accomplishment of [a related investigative action] and applicable
corrective actions.

    The related investigative action is a detailed inspection of the
receptacle contacts of the GCU-CSM/G for proper engagement and evidence
of arcing or overheating damage. The corrective actions include
replacing damaged (evidence of arcing or overheating) contacts, and if
necessary the electrical connector; and replacement of the GCU-CSM/G if
the receptacle contacts show evidence of arcing or overheating damage.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No.
FAA-2013-1031.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Alert Operators Transmission A24L001-13, dated
July 25, 2013. The actions described in this service information are
intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

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.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 76 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per
product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $6,460, or $85 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing up to $17,314, for a
cost of up to $17,399 per product. We have no way of determining the
number of aircraft that might need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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 this 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2013-1031; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-
155-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by February 10, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -
223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, -
343 airplanes; and A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, -313, -541, and
-642 airplanes; certificated in any category; manufacturer serial
numbers (MSNs) 1 through 1391 inclusive, except MSNs 0925 and 1382.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical
Power.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the failure of the generator control
unit-constant speed motor/generator (GCU-CSM/G) during a final
assembly operational test. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct incorrect locking of contacts into connector 1XE-A of the
GCU-CSM/G, which could result in a loss of contact continuity and
lead to the CSM/G not operating, which, in conjunction with an
emergency electrical configuration loss of the main electrical
system or total engine flame out, could adversely affect the
airplane's safe flight.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspections and Corrective Actions

    (1) Within 1,000 flight hours after the effective date of this
AD: Do a detailed inspection for discrepancies (proper engagement
and evidence of arcing or overheating) of the affected connector
wires of GCU-CSM/G connector 1XE-A, in accordance with Airbus Alert
Operators Transmission A24L001-13, dated July 25, 2013.
    (2) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of
this AD, any discrepancy is detected, before further flight, do all
applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in
accordance with Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A24L001-13,
dated July 25, 2013.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 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,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer, use these actions if they
are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if
they were approved by the State of Design Authority (or its
delegated agent, or by the Design Approval Holder with a State of
Design Authority's design organization approval). For a repair
method to be approved, the repair approval must specifically refer
to this AD. You are required to ensure the product is airworthy
before it is returned to service.

(i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2013-
0175, dated August 2, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may
be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No.
FAA-2013-1031.
    (2) 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 view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 17, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-30897 Filed 12-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P