[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13526-13528]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04729]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0477; Directorate Identifier 2011-SW-015-AD;
Amendment 39-17780; AD 2014-05-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Eurocopter France) (Airbus Helicopters)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding airworthiness directive (AD) 2010-11-51 for
Eurocopter France (Eurocopter) Model AS350B, BA, B1, B2, C, D, and D1
helicopters and Model AS355E, F, F1, F2, and N helicopters with certain
part-numbered tail gearbox (TGB) control levers installed. AD 2010-11-
51 required repetitive visual inspections of the TGB control lever for
a crack and replacing a cracked TGB control lever with an airworthy TGB
control lever. This new AD retains the requirements of AD 2010-11-51
and also requires inspecting other areas of the TGB control lever not
previously inspected and at additional inspection intervals. This AD
was prompted by several reports of cracking in a TGB control lever. The
actions of this AD are intended to prevent failure of the TGB control
lever, loss of tail rotor control, and subsequent loss of control of
the helicopter.

DATES: This AD is effective April 15, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 15,
2014.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas
76137.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD, any incorporated-by-reference service information,
the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations Office,
M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Grant, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Rotorcraft Directorate, Safety Management Group, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2010-11-51, Amendment 39-16396 (75 FR 50874,
August 18, 2010). AD 2010-11-51 applied to Eurocopter Model AS350B, BA,
B1, B2, C, D, and D1 helicopters and Model AS355E, F, F1, F2, and N
helicopters with certain part-numbered tail gearbox (TGB) control
levers installed. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June
17, 2013 (78 FR 36129). The NPRM proposed to retain the requirements in
AD 2010-11-51 to perform repetitive visual inspections in a certain
area on each TGB control lever not marked with an ``X'' and to replace
a cracked part. Also, the NPRM proposed to require inspecting another
area of each TGB control lever at additional intervals. The NPRM also
proposed replacing each TGB control lever with a reworked TGB control
lever marked with an ``X'' near the P/N or with a TGB control lever
with a P/N not listed in the applicability of the AD. The proposed
requirements were intended to prevent failure of the

TGB control lever, loss of tail rotor control, and subsequent loss of
control of the helicopter.
    The NPRM was prompted by Emergency AD No. 2011-0038-E, dated March
4, 2011 (AD No. 2011-0038-E), issued by EASA, which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe
condition for the Eurocopter Model AS350B, BA, BB, B1, B2, and D, and
AS355E, F, F1, F2, and N helicopters. Emergency AD No. 2011-0038-E
superseded EASA Emergency AD No. 2010-0082-E, dated April 27, 2010 (AD
No. 2010-0082-E). EASA advises that since issuing its Emergency AD No.
2010-0082-E, Eurocopter found additional cracks opposite the required
inspection area on the affected control levers. EASA Emergency AD No.
2011-0038-E retains the requirements of EASA Emergency AD No. 2010-082-
E and adds repetitive inspections for the area opposite the control
levers.
    Since we issued the NPRM, Eurocopter France changed its name to
Airbus Helicopters. This AD reflects that change and updates the
contact information to obtain service documentation.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (78 FR 36129,
June 17, 2013).

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all
information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same
type designs and that air safety and the public interest require
adopting the AD requirements as proposed except for the name change
previously described and correcting the date referenced for Revision 2
of the Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB). These
changes are consistent with the intent of the proposals in the NPRM (78
FR 36129, June 17, 2013) and will not increase the economic burden on
any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    This AD differs from EASA Emergency AD No. 2011-0038-E as follows:
     We include the Model AS350C and AS350D1 helicopters that
may contain the affected TGB control lever. We do not include the Model
AS350BB helicopter because it is not type-certificated in the United
States.
     We do not require an ``after last flight''of the day
inspection.
     We do not allow a pilot to inspect for a crack.
     We do not require reworking noninstalled control levers.
     We do not include a calendar compliance time for reworking
the TGB control lever if there is not a crack.
     We do not require you to contact Eurocopter (now Airbus
Helicopters) if a crack is found during any inspection.

Related Service Information

    Eurocopter issued one EASB, Revision 2, dated March 1, 2011, with
four different numbers. EASB No. 05.00.62 is for Model AS350
helicopters; EASB No. 05.00.57 is for Model AS355 helicopters; EASB No.
05.00.38 is for military Model AS550 helicopters; and EASB No. 05.00.35
is for military Model AS555 helicopters. The military models are not
type-certificated in the United States. The EASB specifies visually
inspecting the TGB control lever for a crack at the last flight of each
day, without exceeding 10 flying hours between inspections. The EASB
also specifies a rework procedure for affected TGB control levers, to
be done within 660 flying hours and no later than June 30, 2011,
indicated by marking the control lever with a letter ``X.'' EASA
classified this EASB as mandatory and issued AD No. 2011-0038-E to
ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 791 helicopters of U.S.
registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in
order to comply with this AD. The inspections for a crack in the TGB
control lever will take a minimal amount of time. Replacing a control
lever will take about 3 work hours at an average labor rate of $85 per
work hour. Required parts will cost about $2,103 per helicopter. Based
on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD on U.S.
operators to be $2,358 per helicopter to replace the control lever.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2010-11-51, Amendment 39-16396 (75 FR 50874, August 18, 2010), and
adding the following new AD:

2014-05-07 Airbus Helicopters (Type Certificate Previously Held by
Eurocopter France): Amendment 39-17780; FAA-2013-0477; Directorate
Identifier 2011-SW-015-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model AS350B, BA, B1, B2, C, D, and D1
helicopters and Model AS355E, F, F1, F2, and N helicopters, with a
tail gearbox (TGB) control lever, part number (P/N) 350A33-1058-00,
P/N 350A33-1058-01, P/N 350A33-1058-02, or P/N 350A33-1058-03, both
with and without an ``X'' marked near the P/N, installed,
certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in the TGB
control lever. This condition could result in failure of the TGB
control lever, loss of tail rotor control, and subsequent loss of
control of the helicopter.

(c) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2010-11-51, Amendment 39-16396 (75 FR
50874, August 18, 2010).

(d) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective April 15, 2014.

(e) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(f) Required Actions

    (1) For helicopters with a lever not marked with an ``X'' near
the P/N, within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS), and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 10 hours TIS, using a mirror and appropriate
light source, visually inspect the TGB control lever for a crack as
shown in area ``A'' of Figure 2 of Eurocopter Emergency Alert
Service Bulletin No. 05.00.62, Revision 2, dated March 1, 2011 (EASB
No. 05.00.62), for Model AS350 helicopters, and Eurocopter Emergency
Alert Service Bulletin No. 05.00.57, Revision 2, dated March 1, 2011
(EASB No. 05.00.57), for Model AS355 helicopters. If there is a
crack, before further flight, replace each cracked TGB control lever
with a TGB control lever with a P/N not listed in paragraph (a) of
this AD.
    (2) For Model AS355N helicopters, within 110 hours TIS, or if
the helicopter has reached 100 or more hours TIS, within the next 10
hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 110 hours TIS,
using a mirror and appropriate light source, inspect each TGB
control lever for a crack as shown in area ``C'' of Figure 8 of EASB
No. 05.00.62 or EASB No. 05.00.57, as applicable to your model
helicopter.
    (3) Within 660 hours TIS, replace each TGB control lever with a
reworked TGB control lever marked with an ``X'' near the P/N or with
a TGB control lever with a P/N not listed in paragraph (a) of this
AD.
    (4) For all model helicopters except Model AS355N, within 660
hours TIS, or if the helicopter has reached 605 or more hours TIS
within the next 55 hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 660 hours TIS, using a mirror and appropriate light source,
inspect each TGB control lever for a crack as shown in area ``C'' of
Figure 8 of EASB No. 05.00.62 or EASB No. 05.00.57, as applicable to
your model helicopter.
    (5) If there is a crack, before further flight, replace each
cracked TGB control lever with a TGB control lever with a P/N not
listed in paragraph (a) of this AD.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Robert Grant, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Safety Management Group, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(h) Related Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) Emergency AD No. 2011-0038-E, dated March 4, 2011, and
superseded EASA Emergency AD No. 2010-0082-E, dated April 27, 2010.
You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2013-0477.

(i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6720 Tail Rotor
Control System.

(j) 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) Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB), No.
05.00.62,
    Revision 2, dated March 1, 2011.
    (ii) Eurocopter EASB No. 05.00.57, Revision 2, dated March 1,
2011.

    Note 1 to paragraph (j)(2): Eurocopter EASB No. 05.00.62,
Revision 2, dated March 1, 2011, and Eurocopter EASB No. 05.00.57,
Revision 2, dated March 1, 2011, are co-published as one document
along with Eurocopter EASB No. 05.00.38, Revision 2, dated March 1,
2011, and Eurocopter EASB No. 05.00.35, Revision 2, dated March 1,
2011, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (3) For Eurocopter service information identified in this AD,
contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand
Prairie, TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(972) 641-3775; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,
Fort Worth, Texas 76137. 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, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 26, 2014.
Bruce E. Cain,
Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-04729 Filed 3-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 213 (Thursday, November 3, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 76513]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26597]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0978]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Pass Manchac, Manchac, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Canadian National (CN) Railroad
automated bascule span drawbridge across Pass Manchac, mile 6.7 at
Manchac, between St. John and Tangipahoa Parishes, Louisiana. The
deviation is necessary to accommodate bridge repair work essential for
the continued operation of the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge
to remain closed-to-navigation for eight hours on three consecutive
days, allowing vessels to pass with a one-hour advance notice.

DATES: This deviation is effective from November 15, 2016 through
November 17, 2016 from 5 a.m. through 2 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0978] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Donna Gagliano, Bridge
Administration Branch, Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CN Railroad, requested that a one-hour
advance notice be given for the passage of vessels on the automated
bascule span drawbridge across Pass Manchac, mile 6.7 at Manchac,
between St. John and Tangipahoa Parishes, Louisiana. The deviation is
necessary to replace the rail, fasteners, and lift joints on the
bridge. This work is essential for the continued operation of the
bridge.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.484, the bridge is not tended and is
therefore automated. These operations are described in 33 CFR 117.484.
Currently, the bridge remains open until the passage of a train at
which time it closes to allow the train to pass. This deviation will
allow the bridge to remain closed to all marine traffic from 5 a.m.
through 2 p.m. on Tuesday, November 15, 2016 through Thursday, November
17, 2016, without a one-hour advance notice.
    The bridge will remain operational to vessels with a one-hour
advanced notice. A tender will be on site to operate the bridge during
the set work schedule and will be monitoring channel 16.
    Navigation on the waterway consists of small tugs with and without
tows, commercial vessels, and recreational craft, including sailboats.
The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our
Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge to minimize any impact caused by the temporary
deviation. The bridge will be unable to open during these repairs and
no alternate route is available.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: October 31, 2016.
David M. Frank,
Bridge Administrator, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-26597 Filed 11-2-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         REGION II AIR PROGRAMS BRANCH

                          Technical Support Document
                                     for
                          EPA's Proposed Rulemaking
                                    for the
            State Implementation Plan Revision, State of New York,
Interstate Transport Provisions for the 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards

                         Docket: EPA-R02-OAR-2018-0647

                                 February 2020

                               Table of Contents

 Introduction
  Background
 New York's Submittals
 Evaluation of  New York's Submittal
 Summary

Appendix A New York PM2.5 Control Measures

	I. Introduction

     The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reviewing elements of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from New York regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2012 annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.
This Technical Support Document addresses CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), or the "good neighbor" provision of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

II. Background

Fine Particulate Matter

     On December 14, 2012 (78 FR 3086), the EPA promulgated a revised primary NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) for the annual standard. The revised standard was set at the level of 12 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m[3]) calculated as an annual average, which is averaged over a three-year period. Infrastructure SIPs for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS were due by December 14, 2015.
PM2.5 can be formed either directly, from construction sites, unpaved roads, fields, or point source stacks, or indirectly as a result of complex reactions within the atmosphere of chemicals such as sulfur dioxide (SO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), both of which are the main precursors for the formation of PM2.5. Both SO2 and NOx are emitted mainly from point sources, but can also be emitted from nonpoint, onroad, and nonroad sources.

Infrastructure and Transport

Under CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), each state is required to submit a SIP that provides for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each primary or secondary NAAQS. Section 110(a)(1) requires each state to make this SIP submission within 3 years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. This type of SIP submission is commonly referred to as an " infrastructure SIP." Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that each such plan submission must meet. The conceptual purpose of an infrastructure SIP submission is to assure that the state' s SIP contains the necessary structural requirements for the implementation of the new or revised NAAQS, whether by demonstrating that the state's SIP already contains or sufficiently addresses the necessary provisions, or by making a substantive SIP revision to update the plan provisions.
One of the infrastructure requirements, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires states to address the interstate transport of air pollution that affects downwind states' ability to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Specifically, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires state SIPs to address emissions activity in one state that contributes significantly to nonattainment, or interferes with maintenance, of the NAAQS in any downwind state. The EPA sometimes refers to these requirements as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance), or jointly the "good neighbor" provision of the CAA.
The EPA has addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to PM2.5 in several past regulatory actions. In 2011 we promulgated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011) in order to address the obligations of states  -  and of the EPA when states have not met their obligations  -  under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit air pollution contributing significantly to nonattainment in, or interfering with maintenance by, any other state with regard to several NAAQS, including the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
On March 17, 2016, the EPA issued a memorandum providing information on the development and review of SIPs that address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2012 PM2.5  NAAQS (2016 guidance memorandum).

III. New York's Submittal

On November 30, 2016, New York submitted a revision to its SIP to satisfy the infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2012 PM2.5 annual standard, including the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
The portion of New York's November 30, 2016 SIP submittal addressing interstate transport indicates how New York considers CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to be adequately addressed based on the State's contribution analysis to determine whether emissions from New York State contribute significantly to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in another state.
In their analysis New York considered the areas that were designated as nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (i.e., California, Idaho, Ohio, and Pennsylvania), and violating air monitors in states (i.e., in Cuyahoga County, Ohio and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania) that New York was linked to as significantly contributing to nonattainment or interference with maintenance by the 2012 EPA modeling performed for CSAPR. New York performed Community Multiscale Air
(CMAQ) Modeling to determine projected annual PM2.5 Design Values for year 2018, which included the violating monitors in both Allegheny County and Cuyahoga County. Based on New York's modeling, which did not show violations of the NAAQS at either location in 2018, New York concluded that the "Good Neighbor" provision of the CAA was adequately addressed.
The EPA notes that New York provided the results of their CMAQ modeling only and did not include information necessary for the EPA to fully evaluate New York's modeling. New York did not provide a description of the methodology used for the 2018 projection or provide a description how the State's modeling assessed interference with maintenance. The submission also did not include model input and output data, including emissions and meteorological data used, and other relevant information to determine the adequacy of New York's modeling analysis.
Since New York's November 30, 2016 SIP submission, actual 2018 annual PM2.5 Design Values shows that that there are no longer violating monitors in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, but that monitors  in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania continue to show violations.
In their submission, New York noted that in both the State of Pennsylvania's recommendation to the EPA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the EPA's Technical Support Document (TSD) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS designations, PM2.5 exceedances in Allegheny County were identified as a local issue and were not linked to out of state emissions from New York. The EPA specifically limited the nonattainment area to Allegheny County only, even though an adjacent county (Cambria County) also contained a violating monitor at the time of the designation.
New York's submittal also described existing PM2.5 control measures, including SIP approved measures, that apply to PM2.5 sources located within New York State. These measures are listed in Appendix A (New York PM2.5 Control Measures) of this TSD.

IV.	Evaluation of New York's Submittal

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires SIPs to include adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state that will (I) contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state, or (II) interfere with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, or to protect visibility in another state.
As previously mentioned, the EPA issued the 2016 guidance memorandum that the states should follow as they prepare their "good neighbor" SIPs. The 2016 guidance memorandum outlined the four step framework the EPA has historically used to evaluate interstate transport for regional pollutants like ozone and fine particulate matter under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), including the EPA's CSAPR. In this proposed rulemaking, we are following that framework, which is as follows:

 Identification of potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors;
        Identification of upwind states contributing to downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors;
        For states identified as contributing to downwind air quality problem, identification of upwind emissions reductions necessary to prevent upwind states from significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of receptors; and
 For states that are found to have emissions that significantly contribute to non-attainment or interfere with maintenance downwind, reducing the identified upwind emissions through adoption of permanent and enforceable measures.

The 2016 guidance memorandum included modeling data for the years 2017 and 2025 and
evaluated projected air quality relative to the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. For purposes of evaluating interstate transport it is appropriate to consider a projected air quality in a future year aligned with the relevant attainment deadlines, which for 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS would be 2021 for nonattainment areas classified as Moderate. Since modeling results are only available for 2017 and 2025, the 2016 guidance memorandum explains that one way to assess potential receptors for 2021 is to assume that receptors projected to have average and/or maximum design values above the NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025 are also likely to be either "nonattainment" or "maintenance" receptors in 2021. Similarly, it may be reasonable to assume that receptors that are projected to attain the NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025 are also likely to be "attainment" receptors in 2021. Where a potential receptor is projected to be " nonattainment" or " maintenance" in 2017, but projected to be "attainment " in 2025, further analysis of the emissions and modeling may be
needed to make a further judgement regarding the receptor status in 2021.
In CSAPR, the EPA defined "nonattainment" receptors as those monitoring sites that are projected to exceed the NAAQS in the appropriate future analytic year, while "maintenance" receptors are monitoring sites that are projected to have difficulty maintaining the relevant NAAQS in a scenario that takes into account historical variability in air quality at that receptor (81 FR 74504,74531, October 26, 2016). Accordingly, the EPA used the average projected design value to identify potential " nonattainment" receptors, while the maximum projected design value was used to identify potential "maintenance" receptors. Based on this approach, the potential receptors are outlined in Table 1 in the 2016 guidance memorandum. Most of the potential receptors are in California, located in the San Joaquin Valley or South Coast nonattainment areas; however, there is also one potential receptor in Shoshone County, Idaho, and one potential receptor in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
The 2016 guidance memorandum noted that because of data quality problems nonattainment and maintenance projections were not done for all or portions of Florida, Illinois, Idaho, Tennessee and Kentucky. As of November 2019, data quality problems have since been resolved based on the latest air quality data for Florida, Illinois, Idaho, Tennessee and Kentucky, with those areas having design values below the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and expected to maintain the NAAQS due to downward emission trends for NOx and SO2.
Therefore, from "Step 1" of this evaluation, the areas identified as "potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors" are:
 Seventeen potential receptors in California, located in the San Joaquin Valley or South Coast nonattainment areas;
 One receptor in Shoshone County, Idaho;
 One receptor in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

As stated above, "Step 2" is the identification of states contributing to downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors, such that further analysis is required to identify necessary upwind reductions. For this step, we will be specifically determining if New York emissions contribute to downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors.
For the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS we have used air quality modeling and an air quality threshold of one percent of the PM2.5 NAAQS to link contributing states to projected nonattainment or maintenance receptors (76 FR 48237, August 8, 2011). That is, if an upwind state contributes less than the one percent threshold to a downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor, we determine that the state is not "linked" and therefore does not significantly contribute to nonattainment at the receptor. We have not set an air quality threshold for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and we do not have air quality modeling showing contributions to projected nonattainment or maintenance receptors for this NAAQS.
The EPA believes that a proper and well-supported weight of evidence approach can provide sufficient information for purposes of addressing transport with respect to the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. We rely on the CSAPR air quality modeling conducted for purposes of evaluating upwind state impacts on downwind air quality with respect to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 ug/m[3] (as well as the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and 1997 Ozone NAAQS). Although not conducted for purposes of evaluating the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, this modeling can inform our analysis regarding both the general magnitude of downwind PM2.5 impacts and the downwind distance in which states may contribute to receptors with respect to the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 12 ug/m[3]. In particular, if the same 1% contribution threshold used in CSPAR for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS applied to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, we could consider the fact that a particular state's impact was below that value (that is, 0.12 ug/m[3]).We also note that New York's submittal, described above, relies on several factors to support a finding that emissions from New York sources do not significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance of, the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in downwind states.
We note that no single piece of information is by itself dipositive of the issue. Instead, the total weight of all the evidence taken together is used to evaluate significant contributions to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in another state.
Each of the potential receptors is discussed below. For additional information, links to the documents relied upon for this analysis can be found throughout the document and the documents can be found in the docket for this action.

California

The EPA's analysis shows that New York's PM2.5 emissions and/or PM2.5 precursors do not contribute to the California potential receptors identified in the 2006 Memorandum. New York is more than 1,900 miles to the east (from each states' respective closest points), and downwind of California nonattainment and maintenance receptors.
Furthermore, most emissions impacting PM2.5 levels in California are directly emitted PM2.5 and/or PM2.5 precursors from within the state based on the EPA's analysis performed for the 2012 PM2.5 Designations. Although air quality designations are not relevant to our evaluation of interstate transport; the analysis developed for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS designations process provides an in-depth evaluation of factors critical in evaluating transport of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, including evaluation of local emissions, wind speed and direction, topographical and meteorological conditions and seasonal variations recorded at the monitors, which all support the conclusion that New York's emissions of PM2.5 and its precursors do not contribute to the California receptors. The TSD for the California analysis for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS designation is included in the docket.
For these reasons, it is unlikely that New York will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in California. Accordingly, the EPA proposes to find that New York will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in California.

Idaho

The EPA's analysis shows that New York's PM2.5 emissions and/or PM2.5 precursors do not contribute to the Idaho potential receptor identified in the 2016 guidance memorandum. New York is more than 1,500 miles to the east (from each states' respective closest points) and downwind of the Idaho receptor.
The EPA has found that the majority of the emissions impacting PM2.5 levels in Idaho, came during the winter months and could be attributed to residential wood combustion. The EPA notes that air quality designations are not relevant to our evaluation of interstate transport; however, the analysis developed for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS designations process provide an in depth evaluation of factors critical in evaluating transport of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, including evaluation of local emissions, wind speed and direction, topographical and meteorological conditions and seasonal variations recorded at the monitor, which all support the conclusion that New York's emissions of PM2.5 and its precursors will not contribute to nonattainment maintenance concerns at the Idaho potential receptor. The TSD for the Idaho analysis for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS designation is included in the docket.
The EPA notes that although Shoshone County, Idaho was identified as a potential maintenance receptor based on the EPA modeling, the Idaho receptor has shown little difficulty in maintaining the NAAQS based on recent design values at the Shoshone County monitor, which show a clear downward trend. Air quality design values have decreased from 11.9 ug/m[3] (2014-2016 Design Value) to 11.2 ug/m[3](2016-2018 Design Value). The EPA finalized a Clean Data Determination (CDD) for the West Silver Valley, Idaho nonattainment area in December 2018 (83 FR 65535, December 21, 2018).
For these reasons, it is unlikely that New York will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in Idaho. Accordingly, the EPA proposes to find that New York will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in Idaho.

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

The EPA's CSAPR air quality modeling shows that New York's PM2.5 emissions and/or PM2.5 precursors would contribute to a potential receptor (i.e., Liberty monitor) in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania identified in the 2016 guidance memorandum. However, the EPA believes that Allegheny County will meet the NAAQS by 2021 with no additional controls needed from New York. The EPA has found that there were strong local influences throughout Allegheny County and contributions from nearby states that contributed to its nonattainment. In recent years, local contributors to the Liberty monitor have taken steps to improve air quality which will likely bring the monitor into compliance with the 2012 PM2.5 annual NAAQS by the 2021 attainment date.
As previously mentioned, the EPA conducted CSAPR air quality modeling in order to project impacts from upwind states on downwind monitors with respect to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 ug/m3 . In that modeling, the EPA determined that emissions from several other states were linked to projected nonattainment in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The impact of New York emissions was also analyzed in that modeling, and the impact from New York emissions at the Liberty monitor was 0.172 ug/m[3]. This level of impact is greater than 1% of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (0.12 ug/m[3]), and although, as noted above, the EPA has not set a contribution threshold for that NAAQS, the EPA did set a contribution of 1% for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and considers that percentage amount to be informative as weight of evidence in determining whether an area significantly contributes to downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptors.
However, substantial evidence indicates that Allegheny County should not be considered a downwind attainment or maintenance receptor. While the 2016-2018 PM2.5 design value for Allegheny County is still slightly above the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS as shown below in Table 1, the EPA believes that Allegheny County will attain and maintain the NAAQS by 2021 with no need for further emissions controls, beyond what is already "on-the-books" in both Pennsylvania and in upwind states, including New York. The EPA reaches this conclusion based on the trend of declining PM2.5 design values, analysis of the EPA's prior PM2.5 air quality modeling results, recent and planned emissions reductions in upwind states, and measures Pennsylvania is currently developing to address PM2.5 sources in order to meet the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
The modeling information contained in the EPA's 2016 PM2.5 Memorandum shows that the Liberty monitor may have a maintenance issue in 2017 but is projected to both attain and maintain the NAAQS by 2025. A linear interpolation of the modeled design values to 2021 shows that the monitor is likely to both attain and maintain the standard by 2021. A simple linear interpolation of the modeled design values to 2021 for the Liberty monitor leads to a projected 2021 average design value of 11.42 ug/m[3]  and a maximum design value of 11.91  ug/m[3] , which are both below the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Emissions and air quality data trends help to corroborate this conclusion. Since 2008, local and regional emissions reductions of primary PM2.5, SO2, and NOx, have led to large reductions in annual PM2.5 design values in Allegheny County. In 2008, most of Allegheny County's PM2.5 monitors exceeded the level of the 2012 NAAQS (the 2008-2010 annual average design values ranged from 10.1-16.3 ug/m[3], as shown in Table 1). The 2016-2018 annual average PM2.5 design values now show that only one monitor (Liberty, at 12.6 ug/m[3]) exceeds the health-based annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 12.0 ug/m[3].

Table 1. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania monitor PM2.5 Annual Design Values (ug/m[3])

                                   Monitor ID
 2008-
2010
 2009-
 2011
 2010-
 2012
 2011-
 2013
 2012-
 2014
 2013-
 2015
                                     2014-
                                      2016
                                     2016-
                                     2018
                                    420030002
  16.3[*]
14.7*
                                     13.4
11.4
                                      10.6
10.6
                                      10.4*
                                      9.7*
   420030008
  12.2
11.6
                                     11.1
10.3
                                      10.0
9.7
                                       9.5
                                       9.1
                          420030064 (Liberty monitor)
  16.0
15.0
                                     14.8
13.4
                                      13.0
12.6
                                      12.8
                                      12.6
                                    420030067
  11.1
11.0
                                     10.5
9.6
                                       9.0
8.8
                                      8.5*
                                      8.3*
                                    420031008
  13.0
12.4
                                     11.7*
10.6
                                      10.0
9.8
                                       9.8
                                       9.6
                                    420031301
  13.3
12.7
                                     12.5
11.7
                                      11.4
11.2
                                      11.0
                                      10.7
                                    420033007
  12.4
11.5
                                     10.9*
9.8*
                                       9.5
9.9
                                      9.8*
                                      9.3*
                                    420030093
  10.1*
9.7
                                      9.4
8.8
                                       8.5
8.5
                                      8.2*
                                      7.8*
* In this table, all design values are calculated based on the rules specified in Appendix N for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The * denotes design values that are not valid in accordance with the 2012 NAAQS.

The Liberty monitor (ID 420030064) is already close to attaining the NAAQS, and further emissions reductions planned over the next several  years will lead to additional reductions in measured PM2.5 concentrations. There are both local and regional components to the measured PM2.5 levels in Allegheny County. Previous CSAPR modeling showed that regional emissions from upwind states, particularly SO2 and NOx emissions, contribute to PM2.5 nonattainment at the Liberty monitor. In recent years, large SO2 and NOx reductions from power plants have occurred in Pennsylvania and states upwind from the Greater Pittsburgh region. This is due to both installation of emissions controls and retirements of electric generating units (EGUs). Projected power plant closures and additional emissions controls in Pennsylvania and upwind states will help further reduce direct PM2.5 emissions along with PM2.5 precursor SO2 and NOx emissions. Regional emission reductions will continue to occur  from current on-the-books federal and state regulations such as the federal on-road and non-road vehicle programs and various rules for major stationary emissions sources.
In addition to regional emissions reductions and plant closures, additional local reductions to both direct PM2.5 and SO2 emissions are also expected to occur and should also contribute to further declines in Allegheny County's PM2.5 monitor concentrations. For example, significant SO2 reductions have recently occurred at US Steel's integrated steel mill facilities in southern Allegheny County as part of a 1-hr SO2 NAAQS SIP. Reductions are largely due to declining sulfur content in the Clairton Coke Work's coke oven gas (COG). Because this COG is burned at US Steel's Clairton Coke Works, Irvin Mill, and Edgar Thompson Steel Mill, these reductions in sulfur content should contribute to much lower PM2.5 precursor emissions in the immediate future. The Allegheny SO2 SIP submission, which the EPA is reviewing pursuant to CAA requirements, also discusses expected lower SO2 emissions in the Allegheny County area resulting from reduced sulfur content requirements in vehicle fuels, reductions in general emissions due to declining population in the Greater Pittsburgh region, and several shutdowns of significant emitters of SO2 in Allegheny County.
The analysis of the EPA modeling projection results, the recent downward trend in local and upwind emissions reductions, the expected continued downward trend in emissions between 2017 and 2021, and the downward trend in monitored PM2.5 concentrations all indicate that the Liberty monitor will attain and be able to maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the 2021 attainment deadline. Not only have emissions trended downward in Allegheny County, because of reductions from CSAPR implementation across the CSAPR states, ambient concentrations of PM2.5 have trended downward nearly universally among PM air quality monitors nationwide.
Accordingly, while the CSAPR modeling analysis shows that New York does contribute more than 1% of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA finds that Allegheny County is unlikely to have either nonattainment or maintenance problems in 2021 and is therefore unlikely to be a receptor for purposes of interstate transport. For these reasons, the EPA proposes to find that New York  emissions will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM25 NAAQS for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

V. Summary

The EPA is proposing that New York has addressed the interstate transport provisions for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS under 110(a)(2)(d)(i)(I). The EPA has identified potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors in California, Idaho, and Pennsylvania, and has determined that New York emissions do not contribute significantly to nonattainment of or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
 For potential receptors in California, and Idaho, the EPA believes that the large distance between New York and the potential receptors, as well as supporting information from the 2012 Designations, provides sufficient reason why New York emissions do not contribute significantly to nonattainment of or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS .
For the potential receptor in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, the EPA believes that emission and ambient air quality data trends as well as the EPA interpolation of the modeled design values provide sufficient reason that Allegheny County is unlikely to have either nonattainment or maintenance problems in 2021. Therefore, New York emissions do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in Allegany County, Pennsylvania.
Since we propose to determine that New York will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, in another state, steps 3 and 4 of this evaluation are not necessary. Nonetheless, the EPA notes that New York has numerous control measures in place that will help ensure that New York will continue to limit emissions in the state (see Appendix A).

                        Appendix A

                      New York Control Measures for PM2.5

      EPA Approved SIP Revisions Representing PM2.5 Control Measures

 Regulation
 Title
 EPA Approved Date and Federal Register (FR)
 Reference
 6 NYCRR Part
 205
 Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings
 3/8/12; 77 FR 13974
 6 NYCRR
 Subpart 212-3
 Reasonably Available Control Technology for Major Facilities
 7/12/13; 78 FR 41846
 6 NYCRR
 Subpart 212-4
 Control of Nitrogen Oxides for Hot Mix
 Asphalt Production Plants
 7/12/13; 78 FR 41846
 6 NYCRR Part
 215
 Open Fires
 9/22/72; 37 FR 19814
 6 NYCRR
 Subpart 220-1
 Portland Cement Plants
 7/12/13; 78 FR 41846
 6 NYCRR
 Subpart 220-2
 Glass Plants
 7/12/13; 78 FR 41846
 6 NYCRR Part
 226
 Solvent Metal Cleaning Processes
 1/23/04; 69 FR 3237
 6 NYCRR
 Subpart 227-2
 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Major Facilities
 of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)
 7/12/13; 78 FR 41846
 6 NYCRR Part
 228
 Surface Coating Processes, Commercial and Industrial Adhesives, Sealants and Primers
 3/4/14; 79 FR 12082
 6 NYCRR Part
 234
 Graphic Arts
 3/8/12; 77 FR 13974
 6 NYCRR Part
 235
 Consumer Products
 5/28/10; 75 FR 29897
 6 NYCRR Part
 239
 Portable Fuel Container Spillage Control
 5/28/10; 75 FR 29897
 6 NYCRR Part
 241
 Asphalt Pavement and Asphalt Based
 Surface Coating
 3/8/12; 77 FR 13974
 6 NYCRR Part
 249
 Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
 8/28/12; 77 FR 51915
 ECL §19-0325
 Ultra-Low Sulfur Heating Oil
 8/28/12; 77 FR 51915

            Other PM2.5 Control Measures

 Regulation
 Title
 Comments
 6 NYCRR Part 217
 Motor Vehicle Emissions

 6 NYCRR Part 218
 Emission Standards for Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines

 6 NYCRR Part 225
 Fuel Composition and Use

 6 NYCRR Part 243
 CSAPR NOx Ozone Season Trading Program
 Adopted 12/13/15
 6 NYCRR Part 244
 CSAPR NOx Annual Trading Program
 Adopted 12/13/15
 6 NYCRR Part 245
 CSAPR SO2 Trading Program
 Adopted 12/13/15
 6 NYCRR Part 248
 Use of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel and Best Available Retrofit Technology for Heavy Duty Vehicles
 Implements the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2006
 State Program
 New York Vehicle Inspection Program (NYVIP)
 DEC did not take credit for this program in I/M SIP
 State Program
 New York Metropolitan Area Enhanced I/M Program
 DEC did not take credit for this program
 in I/M SIP
 Federal Rule
 Federal Tier 2 Gasoline Sulfur Program

 Federal Rule
 Federal Cleaner Diesel Fuel Program

 Federal Rule
 Control of Emissions from Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engines, and Recreational Engines (Marine and Land-Based)

 Federal Rule
 Control of Emissions of Air Pollution
 from Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel

 Federal Rule
 Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less Than 30 Liters per Cylinder