[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 7, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54623-54626]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19294]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0520; FRL-10188-01-OCSPP]

Thymol; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of thymol (5-methyl-2-isopropyl-1-phenol)
in or on all food commodities when used in accordance with good
agricultural practices. Sci Reg, Inc., on behalf of Eden Research PLC,
6 Priory Ct., Priory Court Business Park, Poulton, Cirencester, GL7
5JB, United Kingdom, submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of thymol when used
in accordance with this exemption.

DATES: This regulation is effective September 7, 2022. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 7, 2022,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0520, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room and the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For the latest
status information on EPA/DC services, docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Smith, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0520 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
November 7, 2022. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0520 by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of August 24, 2018 (83 FR 42818) (FRL-9982-
37), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance
petition (PP 8F8680) by Eden Research PLC, 6 Priory Ct., Priory Court
Business Park, Poulton, Cirencester, GL7 5JB, United Kingdom (c/o
SciReg, Inc., 12733 Director's Loop, Woodbridge, VA 22192). The
petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of thymol
(5-methyl-2-isopropyl-1-phenol) in or on raw agricultural commodities
and processed foods when used in accordance with good agricultural
practices. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared
by the petitioner Eden Research plc, c/o SciReg, Inc., which is
available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. There were no
substantive comments received in response to the notice of filing.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings but does not include
occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
. '' Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that the Agency
consider ``available information concerning the cumulative effects of a
particular pesticide's residues'' and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no harm to human health. If EPA is
able to determine that a tolerance is not necessary to ensure that
there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for thymol including exposure
resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with thymol follows.

IV. Toxicological Profile

    Thymol is a constituent of oil of thyme, a naturally occurring
mixture of compounds in the plant, Thymus vulgaris. Thymol has long
been a regular part of the human diet and is listed as an approved food
additive by FDA (21 CFR 172.515). Thymol has a long history of safe use
as a direct food additive. Additionally, the source plant (thyme), from
which thymol is extracted, is acknowledged by FDA as generally
recognized as safe (GRAS) (21 CFR 182.10 and 182.20).
    In conducting its hazard assessment for thymol, EPA relied on data
from the open scientific literature which includes a combined repeated
dose oral toxicity study with the reproduction/developmental toxicity
screening test, genotoxicity studies, and a 6-month inhalation study.
In these data, no adverse effects were seen at the highest dose tested
of 200 mg/kg/day. For guideline studies, EPA generally recommends
testing at a limit dose of 1000 mg/kg/day. However, based on the data
reviewed from the open literature along with a body of knowledge
regarding thymol such as its low toxicity; rapid degradation into the
environment; and natural occurrence and widespread use in foods that
are commonly consumed and a part of the human diet, EPA would not
expect to see adverse effects at higher doses.
    Regarding the overall acute toxicological profile of thymol, the
active ingredient is of minimal toxicity. Thymol is of low acute oral
toxicity (Toxicity Category III), inhalation toxicity (Toxicity
Category IV) and dermal toxicity (Toxicity Category III). It is
corrosive to the skin and eye (Toxicity Category I) and may or may not
be a dermal sensitizer (inconclusive).
    With regard to subchronic oral, dermal and inhalation toxicity, EPA
granted waivers for these data requirements based on a weight of the
evidence approach (WOE). Specific to the 90-day oral toxicity, as
stated in section IV. of this document, thymol has a documented and
long history of use as a direct food additive as a flavoring agent and
preservative. Moreover, thymol is commonly consumed as it is used in
ice cream, non-alcoholic beverages, candy, baked goods, chewing gum,
lime blossom honey and pesto sauce. In a thymol report from the
European Medicines Evaluation Agency, the Committee of Experts on
Flavoring Substances of the Council of Europe established an upper
limit of 50 mg/kg in food and 10 mg/kg in beverages.
    Regarding the 90-day dermal toxicity, thymol is a constituent of
oil of thyme, a naturally occurring mixture in the plant Thymus
vulgaris (thyme). It is currently used in cosmetics and human medicine.
For example, oil of thyme and thymol have been proposed for use as a
skin penetration enhancer for transdermal drug delivery. In addition,
all dermal margins of exposure (MOEs) were well above the Agency's
Level of Concern (LOC) of 100. MOE's for occupational handler exposure
range from 980 to 22,000.
    In terms of the 90 day-inhalation toxicity, thymol has low
inhalation toxicity. In human medicine, it is administered via
inhalation to treat a range of infections in the upper respiratory
tract and is added to the anesthetic halothane as a preservative and is
inhaled by patients undergoing surgery. Furthermore, the MOEs
calculated using a POD of 200 mg/kg/day were significantly above 10X
the LOC of 100 for inhalation exposure scenarios, ranging from 370,000
to 8,000,000.
    EPA granted a waiver for the developmental data requirement due to
thymol's long history of exposure to the human population without
apparent toxic effects. It has long been a part of the human diet and
is recognized as a GRAS essential oil by FDA (21 CFR 182.20).
Furthermore, in a reproductive safety assessment, no adverse effects
were seen up to a dose of 1,875 mg/kg, the highest dose tested.
    In terms of mutagenicity, the active ingredient was determined to
be non-mutagenic, and no adverse effects were identified relative to
either

developmental toxicity or reproductive toxicity.
    In conclusion, there were no adverse subchronic effects for any
oral, dermal, inhalation, or developmental routes of exposure and as
stated previously, EPA has granted a waiver of these data requirements
based on a WOE approach for the subchronic toxicity testing considering
all the available thymol hazard and exposure data. This WOE approach
includes the following rationale:
    1. Exposure from all routes and in all scenarios of thymol is
considered to be negligible due to the following reasons: (a) Thymol is
moderately volatile with a vapor pressure of 3.4 Pa @25oC;
volatilization from both moist and dry soil surfaces is expected due to
thymol's Henry's Law Constant of 4.44 x 10-3 atm/m3/mol and vapor
pressure; thymol is expected to exist solely as a vapor in the ambient
atmosphere, which would be readily degraded in the atmosphere by
reaction with photochemically-produced hydroxyl radicals; the half-life
for this reaction in the air is estimated to be 3.6 hours; (b) In a
batch system using an activated sludge inoculum, thymol was found to be
94.8% readily biodegradable with a degradation rate of 15.6 mg COD/g-
hr.
    2. Thymol is naturally occurring and has long been part of the
normal human diet. It is currently FDA-approved for use as a synthetic
flavoring (21 CFR 172.515), a preservative, a direct food additive, and
an indirect food additive in adhesives (21 CFR 175.105).
    3. Thymol demonstrates low toxicity throughout its toxicity
database. No adverse effects were observed to highest dose tested (200
mg/kg/day) in thymol's toxicity database. The database includes a
combined repeated dose oral toxicity study with the reproduction/
developmental toxicity screening test, several genotoxicity studies,
and a 6-month inhalation study. Data from the open literature indicates
that thymol is rapidly metabolized as well as rapidly excreted. Thus,
high levels of thymol would likely not be found present in the body
after 24 hours, with the majority of thymol and related metabolites
being eliminated through the urine after 6 hours.
    4. Pesticidal use of thymol is unlikely to contribute significantly
to overall human exposure for the following reasons: (a) Thymol is
naturally-occuring, and thus humans have had a long history of exposure
to it. (b) It is FDA-approved for use as direct food additive. (c)
Thymol is currently used in foods, cosmetics, and human medicine. (d)
Dietary exposure is expected to be low based on thymol's physical/
chemical properties (readily biodegradable, non-persistent). (e)
Limited thymol residue data is available on honey, however
extrapolating from this information, thymol residues on grapevine and
other food crops would not be significantly greater and therefore not
contribute significantly to the overall dietary exposure of thymol.

A. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Based on the toxicological profile, EPA did not identify any
toxicological endpoints of concern for assessing risk for this
chemical.

B. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food, feed uses, and drinking water.
Thymol naturally occurs in foods, is widely used as a food additive,
and is consumed by humans through the diet. As part of its qualitative
risk assessment for thymol, the Agency considered the potential for any
additional dietary exposure to residues of thymol from its proposed use
as a fungicide and nematicide on agricultural use sites. EPA concludes
that such dietary (food and drinking water) exposures are likely to be
negligible, due to the short half-life and biodegradable nature of
thymol. A quantitative dietary exposure assessment was not conducted
since a toxicological endpoint for risk assessment was not identified.
    2. Residential exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is used
in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure.
Currently, thymol is not registered for any pesticidal uses that would
result in residential exposure. Residential exposure may occur from
non-pesticidal uses such as essential oils, household cleaning
products, and mouthwash. However, a quantitative residential exposure
assessment was not conducted since a toxicological endpoint for risk
assessment was not identified.
    3. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish a tolerance exemption, the Agency
consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of
a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.'' EPA has not found that thymol shares a
common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and thymol does
not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances.
For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed
thymol does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    FFDCA Section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA shall retain an
additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in
the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of
safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA) safety factor. In applying this provision, EPA either retains
the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor
when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor. EPA has determined that a qualitative risk assessment rather
than a quantitative risk assessment would be most appropriate for the
proposed use based on the toxicity profile of this active ingredient
along with a long history of human exposure of thymol. For this reason,
a FQPA safety factor is not required at this time.

D. Aggregate Risks

    Based on the available data and information, EPA has concluded that
a qualitative aggregate risk assessment is appropriate to support this
action, and that risks of concern are not anticipated from aggregate
exposure to thymol. This conclusion is based on the minimal toxicity of
thymol, long history of human exposure to thymol, and expected rapid
degradation of thymol in the environment. A full explanation of the
data upon which EPA relied and its risk assessment based on those data
can be found in the December 15, 2021, document entitled ``Risk
Assessment for FIFRA Section 3 Registrations of Thymol Technical,
containing 99.34%% Thymol as its Active Ingredient, Mevalone,
containing 6.42% Thymol, as an Active Ingredient, and Cedroz,
Containing 11.9% Thymol as its Active Ingredient. Tolerance Exemption
Petition for Thymol''. This document, as well as other relevant
information, is available in the docket for this action as described
under ADDRESSES.

V. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children

    Based on the Agency's assessment, EPA concludes that there is
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population,
including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of
thymol. Therefore, the establishment of an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of thymol (5-methyl-2-
isopropyl-1-phenol) in or on all food commodities when used in
accordance with good agricultural practices is safe under FFDCA section
408.

VI. Other Considerations

Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

VII. Conclusion

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established for residues of thymol (5-methyl-2-isopropyl-1-phenol) in
or on all food commodities when used in accordance with good
agricultural practices.
    In addition, as a housekeeping measure, EPA is removing time-
limited exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of
thymol on honey and honeycomb in connection with use of the pesticide
under section 18 emergency exemptions granted by the EPA. These
exemptions expired on June 30, 2007.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition
submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review
under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special
considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance
exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed
rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply. This action directly regulates
growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States
or Tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution
of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption
provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has
determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect
on States or Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the
National Government and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government or between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus,
the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled
``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order
13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this
action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty
or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

IX. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 1, 2022.
Charles Smith,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Amend Sec.  180.1240 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1240   Thymol; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

    (a) An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established
for thymol (5-methyl-2-isopropyl-1-phenol) in or on all food
commodities when used in accordance with good agricultural practices.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-19294 Filed 9-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 97 (Friday, May 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29629-29630]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12074]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP12-96-000]

El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Norte Crossing Project and
Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Norte Crossing Project
involving construction and operation of facilities by El Paso Natural
Gas Company (EPNG) in El Paso County, Texas. The Commission will use
this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project
is in the public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Please note that
the scoping period will close on June 13, 2012.
    You may submit comments in written. Further details on how to
submit written comments are in the Public Participation section of this
notice.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    EPNG provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC
entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I
Need To Know?''. This fact sheet addresses a number of typically-asked
questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate
in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on
the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    EPNG proposes to construct a new border crossing at the
international boundary between the United States and Mexico in El Paso
County, Texas. The Norte Crossing Project would consist of the
construction of approximately 1,500 feet of 36-inch-diameter pipeline,
directionally drilled underneath the Rio Grande River in El Paso
County, Texas. The new pipeline would have a maximum daily export
capacity of 366,000 million cubic feet per day (Mcf/d), designed to
transport natural gas to a new delivery interconnect with Tarahumara
Pipeline at the United States/Mexico border to power five new power
plants proposed for construction by the Mexican Commission Federal de
Electricidad (CFE) over the next 15 years.
    The Norte Crossing Project would consist of the following
facilities:
     1,500 feet of 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline
located adjacent to the existing Samalayuca Lateral;
     new upstream meter station with related appurtenances; and
     a 36-inch-diameter pig launcher and a new tie-in that
would connect the Project pipeline to the existing Samalayuca Lateral.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov
using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the Project pipeline would affect a total of 3.72
acres of land owned by EPNG. Construction of the new upstream
facilities (meter station, pig launcher, and tie-in) would likewise
occur entirely within the 3.72-acre property. No new access roads or
expansion of existing access roads would be required. EPNG would
utilize existing access roads to the Project site.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\2\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of
the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     Land use;
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     Cultural resources;
     Vegetation and wildlife;
     Air quality and noise;
     Endangered and threatened species; and
     Public safety.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on
the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish
and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We
will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations
to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and
address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the
Public Participation section below.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of
this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA
\3\. Agencies that

would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the
instructions for filing comments provided under the Public
Participation section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to
solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested
Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on
historic properties.\4\ We will define the project-specific Area of
Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO as the project
develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum
encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include
construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor
stations, and access roads). Our EA for this project will document our
findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status
of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so
that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before June
13, 2012.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the project docket number (CP12-96-000) with your submission.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert
staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for interested persons to
submit brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes: Federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
proposed project.
    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (Appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are
available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/help/how-to/intervene.asp.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP12-
96). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: May 14, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-12074 Filed 5-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 8, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53406-53409]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16722]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1638; Project Identifier AD-2022-00466-E]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Division Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2018-02-10, which applies to certain Pratt & Whitney Division (PW)
Model PW4074, PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3
engines. AD 2018-02-10 requires performing repetitive fluorescent
penetrant inspections (FPIs) to detect cracks in the outer diffuser
case (ODC), removal of any ODC that fails inspection, and requires
updating the mandatory inspections in the Airworthiness Limitations
Section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA).
Since the FAA issued AD 2018-02-10, PW developed a modification to
reduce the susceptibility of ODC cracking. This proposed AD would
retain the ALS update requirement from AD 2018-02-10, would require
replacing certain ODC part numbers with parts eligible for
installation, would expand the applicability to all ODC part numbers,
and would adjust the compliance threshold of the FPIs of the ODC. The
FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by September
22, 2023.

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 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.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2023-1638; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For service information identified in this NPRM, contact
Pratt & Whitney Division, 400 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06118;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected]; website:
connect.prattwhitney.com.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Nguyen, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone:
(781) 238-7655; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-1638; Project Identifier
AD-2022-00466-E'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Carol
Nguyen, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des
Moines, WA 98198. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued AD 2018-02-10, Amendment 39-19163 (83 FR 2896,
January 22, 2018), (AD 2018-02-10), for PW Model PW4074, PW4074D,
PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 engines with ODC part
number (P/N) 50J775 or P/N 50J930, installed. AD 2018-02-10 was
prompted by the discovery of multiple cracked ODCs. AD 2018-02-10
requires initial and repetitive FPIs of the ODC to detect cracks, and
depending on the results of the FPI, replacement of any ODC that fails
inspection. Also, AD 2018-02-10 requires updating the

mandatory inspections in the ALS of the ICA to include piece-part
inspections. The agency issued AD 2018-02-10 to prevent failure of the
ODC.

Actions Since AD 2018-02-10 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2018-02-10, PW determined that cracks on
the ODC originated due to high stress in the area between Tt3 boss and
thermocouple bracket boss. PW developed a modification to improve the
surface area between Tt3 boss and thermocouple bracket boss to reduce
the ODC's susceptibility to cracking.
    Consequently, the FAA determined that it is necessary to expand the
applicability to all ODC P/Ns, adjust the initial FPI threshold for the
ODC to improve the inspection program, and to require certain ODCs to
be replaced with an ODC that has been modified to lower the stresses in
the area between Tt3 boss and thermocouple bracket boss. This
condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the ODC,
uncontained ODC release, damage to the engine, and damage to the
airplane.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) PW4G-112-A72-347,
Revision 4, dated September 1, 2022. This ASB provides guidance on
performing FPIs on certain bosses of the ODC. This service information
is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to
it through their normal course of business or by the means identified
in ADDRESSES.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed PW Service Bulletin (SB) PW4G-112-72-357, dated
February 25, 2019. This SB provides procedures to modify and re-
identify ODC assemblies to lower the stresses in the area between the
Tt3 boss and the thermocouple bracket boss.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2018-02-
10. This proposed AD would require revising the ALS of the existing
airplane maintenance manual or ICA and your existing approved
maintenance program, as applicable, to include piece-part inspections
of the ODC, would expand the applicability to include all engines,
would require initial and repetitive FPIs, and depending on the results
of the FPI, would require removal or re-inspection of the ODC. This
proposed AD would also require replacement of certain ODCs with a part
eligible for installation at next piece-part exposure.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 108 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA has
no way to determine the number of operators that will replace the ODC
with a modified ODC or a zero-time ODC. As a result, the total cost on
U.S. operators for these actions is not estimated.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perform high sensitivity FPI of the     10 work-hours x $85 per               $0            $850         $91,800
 ODC T3 thermocouple probe boss.         hour = $850.
Revise the ALS........................  1 work-hour x $85 per                  0              85           9,180
                                         hour = $85.
Replacement of ODC with modified ODC..  3 work-hours x $85 per            12,000          12,255  ..............
                                         hour = $255.
Replacement of ODC with zero-time ODC.  3 work-hours x $85 per         2,300,000       2,300,255  ..............
                                         hour = $255.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA 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) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would 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 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:

0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 2018-02-10, Amendment 39-19163 (83
FR 2896, January 22, 2018); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

Pratt & Whitney Division: Docket No. FAA-2023-1638; Project
Identifier AD-2022-00466-E.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) action by September 22, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2018-02-10, Amendment 39-19163 (83 FR 2896,
January 22, 2018).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) Model PW4074,
PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 engines.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7240, Turbine Engine
Combustion Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by the discovery of multiple cracked outer
diffuser cases (ODCs). We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of
the ODC. This condition, if not addressed, could result in failure
of the ODC, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

 (f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Within the compliance times specified in paragraphs
(g)(1)(i) though (iii) of this AD, perform an initial high
sensitivity fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI) of the ODC T3
thermocouple probe boss (Tt3 boss) for crack indications in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 1.F. of
Part A or paragraph 1.B. of Part B, as applicable, of PW Alert
Service Bulletin PW4G-112-A72-347, Revision 4, dated September 1,
2022 (ASB PW4G-112-A72-347, Rev 4).
    (i) For an ODC that has accumulated less than 12,000 cycles
since new (CSN) with no prior high sensitivity FPI of the ODC Tt3
boss, perform the high sensitivity FPI before accumulating 9,200 CSN
or within 1,000 flight cycles (FCs), after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (ii) For an ODC with unknown CSN or an ODC that has accumulated
12,000 CSN or more with no prior high sensitivity FPI of the ODC Tt3
boss, perform the high sensitivity FPI before accumulating 13,000
CSN or within 1,000 FCs, after February 26, 2018 (the effective date
of AD 2018-02-10), whichever occurs later.
    (iii) For an ODC that has undergone a high sensitivity FPI of
the ODC Tt3 boss prior to the effective date of this AD that
resulted in no crack indication, perform the high sensitivity FPI
before accumulating 2,000 FCs since performance of the last FPI or
during the next engine shop visit, whichever occurs first.
    (iv) For an ODC that has undergone a high sensitivity FPI of the
ODC Tt3 boss prior to the effective date of this AD that resulted in
an indication of a crack, perform the actions required by paragraphs
(g)(3)(i) through (iii) of this AD, as applicable.
    (2) Thereafter, repeat the high sensitivity FPI of the ODC Tt3
boss at each engine shop visit or before exceeding 2,000 FCs from
the last high sensitivity FPI of the ODC Tt3 boss, whichever occurs
first, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions,
paragraphs 1.F. of Part A or paragraph 1.B. of Part B, as
applicable, of ASB PW4G-112-A72-347, Rev 4.
    (3) If, during any inspection required by paragraphs (g)(1) or
(2) of this AD, there is any crack indication, perform the actions
specified in paragraphs (g)(3)(i) through (iii) of this AD.
    (i) For engines installed on an aircraft, repeat the high
sensitivity FPI or remove the ODC from service in accordance with
the actions and compliance times specified in the Accomplishment
Instructions, Part A, paragraphs 1.G. and 1.H., of ASB PW4G-112-A72-
347, Rev 4.
    (ii) For engines not installed on an aircraft, repeat the high
sensitivity FPI or remove the ODC from service in accordance with
the actions and compliance times specified in the Accomplishment
Instructions, Part B, paragraphs 1.C. and 1.D., of PW ASB PW4G-112-
A72-347, Rev 4.
    (iii) For engines at an engine shop visit, before further
flight, remove the ODC from service.
    (4) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise
the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the existing engine
maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness and
the existing approved maintenance program, as applicable, to include
the piece-part inspections of the ODC as defined in Table 1 to
paragraph (g)(4) of this AD.

                                  Table 1 to Paragraph (g)(4)--Addition to ALS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Cleaning, inspection and
          Description                Part No.        repair (CIR)  manual        CIR manual        CIR manual
                                                            section              inspection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case, Diffuser, Outer.........  All..............                 72-41-13   Inspection/Check   P/N 51A750.
                                                                              (I/C-02).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) For engines with ODC part number (P/N) 50J775 or 50J930
installed, at the next piece-part exposure after the effective date
of this AD, replace the ODC with a part eligible for installation.

(h) Definitions

    (1) For the purpose of this AD, an ``engine shop visit'' is any
time the ``M'' flange is separated.
    (2) For the purpose of this AD, a ``piece-part exposure'' is
when the ODC is removed from the engine and fully disassembled.
    (3) For the purpose of this AD, a ``part eligible for
installation'' is an ODC with P/N 50J775-001, 50J775-002, 50J930-
001, or 50J930-002.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, AIR-520 Continued Operational Safety Branch,
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the certification office,
send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)
of this AD and email to: [email protected].
    (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.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Carol Nguyen,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines,
WA 98198; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin PW4G-112-A72-347,
Revision 4, dated September 1, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt
& Whitney Division, 400 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06118; phone:
(800) 565-0140; email: [email protected]; website:
connect.prattwhitney.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, email:
[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on July 21, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-16722 Filed 8-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 66 (Friday, April 5, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13526-13528]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06718]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0163]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Ohio River, Louisville, KY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation for
all navigable waters of the Ohio River from mile marker (MM) 597.0 to
MM 607.0. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on
these navigable waters near Louisville, KY, during the ``Thunder over
Louisville'' event. Entry into, transiting through, or anchoring within
this regulated area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 11 a.m. on April 12, 2019 through
11:59 p.m. on April 13, 2019. The rule will be enforced from 11 a.m.
through 6 p.m. on April 12, 2019, and from noon through 11:59 p.m. on
April 13, 2019.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0163 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email MST2 Joshua Herriott, Waterways Department Sector Ohio
Valley, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
MM Mile Marker
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule
because it is impracticable. We must establish this special local
regulation by April 12, 2019 and lack sufficient time to provide a
reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before
issuing the rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate
action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life and property.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70041(a). The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated
with ``Thunder over Louisville'' event will present a safety concern on
all navigable waters of the Ohio River extending from mile marker (MM)
597.0 to MM 607.0. The purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety of
life and vessels on these navigable waters before, during, and after
the scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary special local regulation that
will be enforced from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. on April 12, 2019 and from noon
to 11:59 p.m. on April 13, 2019. The temporary special local regulation
will cover all navigable waters of the Ohio River from MM 597.0 to MM
607.0. The duration of the special local regulation is intended to
ensure the safety of waterway users on these navigable waters before,
during, and after the scheduled event. No vessel or person is permitted
to enter the special local regulated area without obtaining permission
from the COTP or a designated representative. All persons or vessels
desiring entry into or passage through the area must request permission
from the COTP or a designated representative. U.S. Coast Guard Sector
Ohio Valley may be contacted on VHF Channel 13 or 16, or at 1-800-253-
7465.
    Recreational vessels are permitted to transit the regulated area,
but are restricted to the Indiana side of the navigation channel. There
shall be no anchoring or loitering in the navigation channel. There is
a no-entry zone starting at Ohio River Mile Marker (MM) 602.7 through
MM 607.0. Recreational vessels transiting into and away from this area
are restricted to the slowest safe speed creating minimum wake.
    The COTP may terminate the event or the operation of any vessel at
any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the special local regulation.
This rule impacts ten miles of the Ohio River over two days. Entry into
the regulated area will be prohibited from 11 a.m. through 6 p.m. on
April 12, 2019 and from noon through 11:59 p.m. on April 13, 2019 from
Ohio River MM 597.0 to MM 607.0, unless authorized by the COTP or a
designated representative. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue written
Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM
marine channel 16 about the temporary special local regulation that is
in place.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this
temporary special local regulation, may be small entities, for the
reasons stated in section V.A. above, this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism

principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a special local regulated area lasting seven hours on
April 12, 2019 and approximately 12 hours on April 13, 2019 on all
navigable waters extending ten miles of the Ohio River. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of
Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.35T08-0163 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35T08-0163  Special Local Regulation; Ohio River, Louisville,
KY.

    (a) Location. All navigable waters of the Ohio River from mile
marker (MM) 597.0 to MM 607.0 in Louisville, KY.
    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from 11 a.m. on
April 12, 2019 through 11:59 p.m. on April 13, 2019.
    (c) Enforcement period. The section will be enforced from 11 a.m.
through 6 p.m. on April 12, 2019, and from noon through 11:59 p.m. on
April 13, 2019.
    (d) Special local regulations. (1) In accordance with the general
regulations in Sec.  100.35, entry into this area is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) or a
designated representative.
    (2) Recreational vessels are permitted to transit the regulated
area, but are restricted to the Indiana side of the navigation channel.
There shall be no anchoring or loitering in the navigation channel.
There is a no-entry zone starting at Ohio River Mile Marker (MM) 602.7
through MM 607.0. Recreational vessels transiting into and away from
this area are restricted to the slowest safe speed creating minimum
wake.
    (3) The COTP may terminate the event or the operation of any vessel
at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or
property.
    (4) All persons or vessels desiring entry into or passage through
the area must request permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. U.S. Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley may be contacted on
VHF Channel 13 or 16, or at 1-800-253-7465.

    Dated: March 29, 2019.
M.B. Zamperini,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2019-06718 Filed 4-4-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Brent J. Newell
LAW OFFICES OF BRENT J. NEWELL
245 Kentucky Street, Suite A-4
Petaluma, CA 94952
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Counsel for Plaintiff
JEAN E. WILLIAMS
Acting Assistant Attorney General

DAVID D. MITCHELL (IL Bar No. 6302250)
United States Department of Justice
Environment & Natural Resources Division
Environmental Defense Section
P.O. Box 7611
Washington, DC  20044
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Counsel for Federal Defendants

         UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
                               OAKLAND DIVISION

ASSOCIATION OF IRRITATED RESIDENTS,

                  Plaintiff,

               v.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL.,

                  Defendants.

Case No. 4:21-cv-426-JST

[Proposed] CONSENT DECREE

      WHEREAS, on January 17, 2021, the Association of Initiated Residents ("Plaintiff") filed Case No. 4:21-cv-426-JST against the United States Environmental Protection Agency and its Administrator and Region 9 Administrator ("EPA");
      WHEREAS, Plaintiff alleges that EPA has failed to undertake several non-discretionary duties under the Clean Air Act ("CAA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671q, and that the alleged failures are actionable under CAA section 304(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2);
      WHEREAS, CAA section 110(a), 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a), requires states to adopt and submit to EPA a state implementation plan ("SIP") designed to attain, maintain and enforce National Ambient Air Quality Standards ("NAAQS"), maximum permissible concentrations for air pollutants promulgated under CAA sections 108 and 109, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7408-09.  CAA section 172(b) requires states to submit a SIP or SIP revision for areas designated as nonattainment for any NAAQS.  42 U.S.C. § 7502(b).  CAA section 189 imposes specific SIP or SIP revision submittal deadlines for states containing areas designated as nonattainment for the fine particulate matter ("PM2.5") NAAQS depending on whether the areas are classified as moderate nonattainment or serious nonattainment, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7513a(a), (b), (d);
      WHEREAS, CAA section 110(k) sets forth the process by which EPA reviews SIP submissions and revisions.  42 U.S.C. § 7410(k).  Pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1)(B), EPA must determine within 60 days of submission whether a SIP or SIP revision submission is complete.  42 U.S.C. § 7410(k)(1)(B).  If EPA has not made a completeness determination within six months of submission, the submission becomes complete by operation of law.  Id.  CAA section 110(k)(2)-(4) requires EPA to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve, in whole or in part, each plan or revision with 12 months of the plan becoming complete, 42 U.S.C. § 7410(k)(2)-(4);
      WHEREAS, as relevant here, EPA has promulgated annual and 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 in the following years:
 1997, 62 Fed. Reg. 38,652 (July 18, 1997),
 2006, 71 Fed. Reg. 61,144 (Oct. 17, 2006),
 2012, 78 Fed. Reg. 3,086 (Jan. 15, 2013);
      WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Valley, California air quality planning area ("SJV Area"), see 40 C.F.R. § 81.305, is classified as a Serious nonattainment area for the following PM2.5 NAAQS:
 1997 annual and 24-hour NAAQS, 80 Fed. Reg. 18,528 (April 7, 2015),
 2006 24-hour NAAQS, 81 Fed. Reg. 2,993 (January 20, 2016);
      WHEREAS, the SJV Area is classified as a Moderate nonattainment area for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 80 Fed. Reg. 2,206, 2,217 (January 15, 2015);
      WHEREAS, EPA determined that the SJV Area failed to attain the 1997 annual and 24- hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the Serious area attainment date, 81 Fed. Reg. 84,481 (November 23, 2016), thereby triggering a requirement for submittal of a SIP revision meeting the requirements of CAA sections 179(d) and 189(d), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7509(d) and 7513a(d);
      WHEREAS, on May 10, 2019, California submitted a SIP revision in two major components titled "2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards" and "San Joaquin Valley Supplement to the 2016 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan" (together, the "SJV PM2.5 Plan") to address CAA requirements for attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV Area;
      WHEREAS, the "2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards" contains the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District's control strategy for attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS for emission sources under its jurisdiction.  The "San Joaquin Valley Supplement to the 2016 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan" contains the California Air Resources Board's control strategy for emission sources under its jurisdiction in the SJV Area;
      WHEREAS, the SJV PM2.5 Plan contains the following PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment area plans:
 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS Serious area and CAA section 189(d) plan,
 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Serious area and CAA section 189(d) plan,
 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Serious area plan,
 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS Serious area plan;
      WHEREAS, on May 10, 2019, California also submitted the "2016 Moderate Area Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard" ("2016 Moderate Plan") containing California's demonstration that attainment of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the Moderate area attainment date is impracticable;
      WHEREAS, on November 10, 2019, the SJV PM2.5 Plan became complete by operation of law;
      WHEREAS, on July 22, 2020, EPA approved the portions of the SJV PM2.5 Plan addressing the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS except the contingency measures element, 85 Fed. Reg. 44,192;
      WHEREAS, to date, EPA has not taken final action on the following portions of the  SJV PM2.5 Plan:
 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS Serious area and CAA section 189(d) plan,
 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Serious area and CAA section 189(d) plan,
 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Serious area plan contingency measures element, and
 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS Serious area plan;
      WHEREAS, Plaintiff claims that EPA has failed to take timely final action under CAA section 110(k), 42 U.S.C. § 7410(k)(2), on the SJV PM2.5 Plan, except for the elements of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5  NAAQS on which EPA published final action in 85 Fed. Reg. 44,192, and Plaintiff seeks relief from this Court, among other things, directing EPA to take final action on the SJV PM2.5 Plan;
      WHEREAS, EPA will take final action on the 2016 Moderate Plan prior to taking final action on the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS Serious area plan portion of the of the SJV PM2.5 Plan;
      WHEREAS, Plaintiff and EPA have agreed to a settlement of this action without admission of any issue of fact or law, except as expressly provided herein;
      WHEREAS, Plaintiff and EPA, by entering into this Consent Decree, do not waive or limit any claim, remedy, or defense, on any grounds, related to any final EPA action;
      WHEREAS, Plaintiff and EPA consider this Consent Decree to be an adequate and equitable resolution of all claims in Case No. 4:21-cv-426-JST and therefore wish to effectuate a settlement;
      WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the public, Plaintiff, EPA, and judicial economy to resolve Case No. 4:21-cv-426-JST without protracted litigation;
      WHEREAS, Plaintiff and EPA agree that this Court has jurisdiction over the matters resolved in this Consent Decree pursuant to CAA section 304(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2), and that venue is proper in the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) and Civil L.R. 3-2(c), (d); and
      WHEREAS, the Court, by entering this Consent Decree, finds that the Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, in the public interest, and consistent with the CAA;
      NOW, THEREFORE, before the taking of testimony, without trial or determination of any issues of fact or law, and upon the consent of Plaintiff and EPA, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that:
      1.  	No later than November 30, 2021, pursuant to CAA sections 110(k)(2)-(4), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410(k)(2)-(4), the appropriate EPA official shall sign one or more final rules that approve, disapprove, conditionally approve, or approve in part and disapprove in part  the SJV PM2.5 Plan's 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Serious area plan contingency measures element.
      2.	No later than November 30, 2021, pursuant to CAA sections 110(k)(2)-(4), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410(k)(2)-(4), the appropriate EPA official shall sign one or more final rules that approve, disapprove, conditionally approve, or approve in part and disapprove in part  the SJV PM2.5 Plan's 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS Serious area and CAA section 189(d) plan.
      3.	No later than February 28, 2022, pursuant to CAA sections 110(k)(2)-(4), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410(k)(2)-(4), the appropriate EPA official shall sign one or more final rules that approve, disapprove, conditionally approve, or approve in part and disapprove in part, the SJV PM2.5 Plan's 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Serious area and CAA section 189(d) plan.
      4.	No later than April 29, 2022, pursuant to CAA sections 110(k)(2)-(4), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410(k)(2)-(4), the appropriate EPA official shall sign one or more final rules that approve, disapprove, conditionally approve, or approve in part and disapprove in part, the SJV PM2.5 Plan's 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS Serious area plan.
      5.	No later than 15 days, after signature of any final rulemaking made pursuant to Paragraphs 1-4 of this Consent Decree, EPA shall send the rulemaking package for each such action taken to the Office of the Federal Register for review and publication in the Federal Register.
      6.	After EPA has completed all actions set forth in Paragraphs 1-4 of this Consent Decree, after notices of each final action required by Paragraph 5 have been published in the Federal Register, and the parties have resolved the issue of costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney fees), EPA may move to have this Consent Decree terminated.  Plaintiff shall have 14 days to respond to such motion, unless the parties stipulate to a longer time.
      7.	If EPA extends for the public interest the notice and comment period for any rule proposing action on the portions of the SJV PM2.5 Plan described in Paragraphs 1-4, the deadlines in Paragraphs 1-4 shall extend automatically to the shorter of 30 days or a number of days equal to the extension of the notice and comment period.
      8.	The deadlines established by this Consent Decree may be extended (a) by written stipulation of Plaintiff and EPA and filed with the Court, or (b) by the Court upon motion by any party for good cause shown pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and upon consideration of any response by the non-moving party and any reply.  Any other provision of this Consent Decree also may be modified by the Court following the motion of an undersigned party for good cause shown pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and upon consideration of any response by the non-moving party and any reply.
      9.  	If a lapse in EPA appropriations occurs within 120 days prior to any deadline in Paragraphs 1-4 of this Consent Decree, all such deadlines shall be extended automatically one day for each day of the lapse in appropriations. Nothing in this Paragraph shall preclude EPA from seeking an additional extension of time through modification of this Consent Decree pursuant to Paragraph 8.
      10.  	If California withdraws all or part of the SJV PM2.5 Plan, then EPA's obligations under Paragraphs 1-4 is automatically terminated with respect to the withdrawn portion.
      11.  	Plaintiff and EPA agree that this Consent Decree constitutes a complete settlement of all claims in Case No. 4:21-cv-426-JST.
      12.  	In the event of a dispute between Plaintiff and EPA concerning the interpretation or implementation of any aspect of this Consent Decree, the disputing party shall provide the other party with a written notice, via electronic mail or other means, outlining the nature of the dispute and requesting informal negotiations.  These parties shall meet and confer in order to attempt to resolve the dispute.  If these parties are unable to resolve the dispute within 10 business days after receipt of the notice, either party may petition the Court to resolve the dispute.
      13.  	No motion or other proceeding seeking to enforce this Consent Decree or for contempt of Court shall be properly filed unless the procedures set forth in Paragraph 12 have been followed, and the moving party has provided the other party with written notice received at least 10 business days before the filing of such motion or proceeding.
      14. 	Plaintiff reserves the right to seek additional costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney fees) incurred subsequent to entry of this Consent Decree.  EPA reserves the right to oppose any such request for additional costs of litigation (including attorney fees).
      15.  	The deadline for filing a bill of costs pursuant to Local Rule 54-1 and motion for  attorney fees pursuant to Local Rule 54-5 for activities performed prior to entry of the Consent Decree is hereby extended until 90 days after this Consent Decree is entered by the Court.  During this period, the Parties shall seek to resolve any claim for costs of litigation (including attorney fees), and if they cannot, Plaintiff will file a motion for costs of litigation (including attorney fees) or a stipulation or motion to extend the deadline to file such a motion.  EPA reserves the right to oppose any such request and shall have 60 days to respond to any motion for costs of litigation (including attorney fees).  Plaintiff shall have 30 days to file a reply in support of its motion.
      16.  	This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter to enforce the terms of this Consent Decree and to resolve any requests for costs of litigation (including attorney fees).
      17.  	Nothing in the terms of this Consent Decree shall be construed (a) to confer upon this Court jurisdiction to review any issues that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States Courts of Appeals under CAA section 307(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1), including final action taken pursuant to section 110(k) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7410(k), approving, disapproving, conditionally approving, or approving in part and disapproving in part a SIP submission, or (b) to waive any claims, remedies, or defenses that the parties may have under CAA section 307(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1).
      18.  	Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed to limit or modify any discretion accorded EPA by the CAA or otherwise provided by law in taking the actions which are the subject of this Consent Decree, including the discretion to alter, amend, or revise any final actions promulgated pursuant to this Consent Decree.  EPA's obligation to perform each action specified in this Consent Decree does not constitute a limitation or modification of EPA's discretion within the meaning of this Paragraph.
      19.  	Except as expressly provided herein, nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed as an admission of any issue of fact or law, nor to waive or limit any claim, remedy, or defense, on any grounds, related to any final action EPA takes with respect to the actions addressed in this Consent Decree.
      20.  	It is hereby expressly understood and agreed that this Consent Decree was jointly drafted by Plaintiff and EPA.  Accordingly, the parties hereby agree that any and all rules of construction providing that ambiguity is construed against the drafting party shall be inapplicable in any dispute concerning the terms, meaning, or interpretation of this Consent Decree.
      21.  	The parties agree and acknowledge that before this Consent Decree can be finalized and entered by the Court, EPA must provide notice of this Consent Decree in the Federal Register and an opportunity for public comment pursuant to CAA section 113(g), 42 U.S.C. § 7413(g).  After this Consent Decree has undergone notice and comment, pursuant to CAA section 113(g), the Administrator and/or the Attorney General, as appropriate, shall promptly consider any written comments in determining whether to withdraw or withhold their consent to the Consent Decree.  If the Administrator and/or the Attorney General do not elect to withdraw or withhold consent, the parties shall promptly file a motion that requests that the Court enter this Consent Decree.
      22.  	Any notices required or provided for by this Consent Decree shall be in writing, via electronic mail or other means, and sent to the following (or to any new address of counsel as filed and listed in the docket of the above-captioned matter, at a future date):
      For Plaintiff:		Brent Newell
                        Law Offices of Brent J. Newell
                        245 Kentucky Street, Suite A-4
                        Petaluma, CA 94952
<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
      For EPA:		David D. Mitchell
                        U.S. Department of Justice
                        Environment & Natural Resources Division
                        Environmental Defense Section
                        4 Constitution Square
                        150 M Street N.E.
                        Washington, D.C. 20002
                        Tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>
                        Email: david.mitchell@usdoj,gov

      23.  	EPA and Plaintiff recognize and acknowledge that the obligations imposed upon EPA under this Consent Decree can only be undertaken using appropriated funds legally available for such purpose.  No provision of this Consent Decree shall be interpreted as or constitute a commitment or requirement that the United States obligate or pay funds in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341, or any other applicable provision of law.
      24.  	If for any reason the Court should decline to approve this Consent Decree in the form presented, this agreement is voidable at the sole discretion of either party and the terms of the proposed Consent Decree may not be used as evidence in any litigation between the parties.
      25.  	The undersigned representatives of Plaintiff and EPA certify that they are fully authorized by the party they represent to consent to the Court's entry of the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree.

IT IS SO ORDERED on this _____ day of _____________________, 2021.

________________________________

JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF:

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

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

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

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

Brent Newell
Law Offices of Brent J. Newell
245 Kentucky Street, Suite A-4
Petaluma, CA 94952
(661) 586-3724
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT:
JEAN A. WILLIAMS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acting Assistant Attorney General
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

DAVID D. MITCHELL (IL Bar No. 6302250)
United States Department of Justice
Environment & Natural Resources Division
Environmental Defense Section
P.O. Box 7611
Washington, D.C. 20044
Tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Of counsel:
Jeanhee Hong
Office of Regional Counsel, Region 9
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Jeff Wehling
Office of Regional Counsel, Region 9
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Geoffrey Wilcox
Office of the General Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency