[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 36 (Friday, February 24, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11502-11504]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02856]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0674; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-019-AD;
Amendment 39-18792; AD 2017-03-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH
(Previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH) Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding airworthiness directive (AD) 2014-05-06 for
Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (ECD) (now Airbus Helicopters Deutschland
GmbH) Model EC135 and MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters to correct an error in
the compliance time. AD 2014-05-06 required inspecting the flight-
control bearings and installing bushings and washers. This AD requires
the same actions. These actions are intended to prevent an unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 31, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 14,
2014 (79 FR 13196, March 10, 2014).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
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. You may review
the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort
Worth, TX 76177. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
0674.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
0674; 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:<PHONE_NUMBER>) 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: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to remove AD 2014-05-06, Amendment 39-17779 (79 FR 13196, March
10, 2014) and add a new AD. AD 2014-05-06 required inspecting the
flight control bearings repetitively, replacing any loose bearing with
an airworthy flight control bearing, and installing bushings and
washers. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 30, 2015
(80 FR 16603). The NPRM proposed to retain all of the required actions
and correct an error in the compliance time. AD 2014-05-06 should have
required installing the bushings and washers on Model EC135 helicopters
within the next 100 hours time-in-service or at the next annual
inspection, whichever occurs first. However, we omitted the word
``first'' from that sentence, which changes the meaning of the required
compliance time.
    AD 2014-05-06 was prompted by the discovery of loose flight control
bearings because of incorrect installation. This condition could result
in the affected control lever shifting, contacting the helicopter
structure. The actions in AD 2014-05-06 were intended to prevent this
unsafe condition, which could reduce control of the helicopter.
    Also since we issued AD 2014-05-06, ECD changed its name to Airbus
Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Airbus Helicopters). This AD reflects
that change and updates the contact information to obtain service
documentation.

Comments

    After our NPRM (80 FR 16603, March 30, 2015) was published, we
received comments from one commenter.

Request

    Airbus Helicopters first requested revising the compliance times
for the repetitive inspections to match that in its current service
information. For the Model EC135 P1, P2, P2+, T1, T2, and T2+
helicopters, Airbus Helicopters requested increasing the 800 hour
interval to 1000 hours with an additional 10% margin. For MBB-BK 117 C-
2 helicopters, Airbus Helicopters requested increasing the 600 hour
interval to 800 hours with an additional 10% margin.
    We disagree. Airbus Helicopters did not provide any technical
justification to support this request. The final rule has not been
changed as a result of this comment.
    Airbus Helicopters also requested that if any bearing is loose, we
require

replacing the lever or rebonding the affected bearing in accordance
with its maintenance instructions.
    We agree with the comment but disagree that a change to the AD is
necessary. If there is a loose bearing, the AD requires replacing it
with an airworthy part. If a bearing can be re-bonded in a manner
acceptable to the FAA, then it would be an airworthy part.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with Germany, 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, reviewed the relevant information,
considered the comments received, 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 with the changes described
previously. These changes are consistent with the intent of the
proposals in the NPRM (80 FR 16603, March 30, 2015), and will not
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of
this AD.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    Differences between this AD and the EASA AD are:
     The EASA AD is applicable to the EC 635 helicopter,
whereas this AD is not because the EC 635 helicopter is not type
certificated in the U.S.
     The EASA AD requires an initial inspection within 50
flight hours or one month, whichever occurs first after May 31, 2008,
and a modification within the next 12 months. This AD requires the
modification within 100 hours TIS or at the next annual inspection,
whichever occurs first, and no inspection until after the modification
has been accomplished.
     The EASA AD specifies repetitive inspection intervals not
to exceed 800 hours TIS or 12 months, plus a 10% percent margin,
whichever occurs first, for Model EC135 helicopters and 600 hours TIS
or 12 months, plus a 10% percent margin, whichever occurs first, for
the Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters. This AD requires repetitive
inspection intervals not to exceed 800 hours TIS or 36 months,
whichever occurs first, for Model EC135 helicopters and 600 hours TIS
or 24 months, whichever occurs first, for Model MBB-BK 117 C-2
helicopters.
     The EASA AD applies to all Model EC135 and Model MBB-BK
117 C-2 helicopters, while this AD applies to certain serial-numbered
Model EC135 and Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters, as recommended by the
appropriate ECD ASB.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Eurocopter (now Airbus Helicopters) has issued Alert Service
Bulletin (ASB) MBB BK117 C-2-67A-010, Revision 3, dated February 8,
2010 for Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters, and ASB EC135-67A-019,
Revision 3, dated December 16, 2009 for Model EC135 helicopters. These
ASBs specify:
     Within the next 50 flight hours (FHs), inspecting the
affected bearings and, if necessary, rebonding any affected bearings or
replacing the lever assembly.
     Within 12 months, retrofitting bushings and washers on the
levers to prevent movement of the bearings.
     After the retrofit, repeating the inspection every 800 FHs
or 36 months for the Model EC135 helicopters, whichever comes first,
and 600 FHs or 24 months, whichever comes first, for the Model MBB-BK
117 C-2 helicopters.
    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 the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 175 Model EC135 and 112 Model MBB-
BK 117 C-2 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average
$85 per work-hour. Based on these estimates, we expect the following
costs:
     For EC135 helicopters, it takes about 32 work-hours to
perform the modification. Parts cost about $312. The total cost for the
modification is about $3,032 per helicopter and $530,600 for the U.S.
operator fleet. The repetitive inspections require 6.5 work-hours for a
cost of about $553 per helicopter and about $96,775 for the fleet per
inspection cycle.
     For MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters, it takes about 32 work-
hours to perform the modification. Parts cost about $396. The total
cost for the modification is $3,116 per helicopter and $348,992 for the
U.S. operator fleet. The cost for the repetitive inspections thereafter
is about $85 per helicopter and $9,520 for the fleet per inspection
cycle.

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)
2014-05-06, Amendment 39-17779 (79 FR 13196, March 10, 2014), and
adding the following new AD:

2017-03-01 Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Previously
Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH): Amendment 39-18792; Docket No. FAA-
2015-0674; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-019-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to the following helicopters, certificated in
any category:
    (1) Model EC135 P1, P2, P2+, T1, T2, and T2+ helicopters, serial
number (S/N) 0005 through 00829, with a tail rotor control lever,
part number (P/N) L672M2802205 or L672M1012212; cyclic control
lever, P/N L671M1005250; collective control lever assembly, P/N
L671M2020108; or collective control plate, P/N L671M5040207;
installed; and
    (2) Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters, S/N 9004 through 9310,
with a tail rotor control lever assembly, P/N B672M1007101 or
B672M1807101; tail rotor control lever, P/N B672M1002202 or
L672M2802205; or lateral control lever assembly, P/N B670M1008101,
installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as incorrectly installed
flight control bearings. This condition could cause the affected
control lever to shift and contact the helicopter structure,
resulting in reduced control of the helicopter.

(c) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2014-05-06, Amendment 39-17779 (79 FR
13196, March 10, 2014).

(d) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective March 31, 2017.

(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 Model EC135 P1, P2, P2+, T1, T2, and T2+ helicopters:
    (i) Within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) or at the
next annual inspection, whichever occurs first, modify the left-hand
(LH) and right-hand (RH) guidance units and the cyclic shaft by
installing bushings and washers to prevent shifting of the bearings
in the axial direction as follows:
    (A) Remove and disassemble the LH guidance unit and install a
bushing, P/N L672M1012260, between the bearing block and the lever
of the LH guidance unit as depicted in Detail A of Figure 5 of
Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin EC135-67A-019, Revision 3, dated
December 16, 2009 (EC135 ASB).
    (B) For helicopters without a yaw brake, remove and disassemble
the RH guidance unit and install a bushing, P/N L672M1012260,
between the bearing block and the lever as depicted in Detail B of
Figure 5 of EC135 ASB.
    (C) Remove and disassemble the cyclic shaft and install a
washer, P/N L671M1005260, between the bearing block and the lever as
depicted in Detail C of Figure 6 of EC135 ASB.
    (D) Remove the collective control rod from the bellcrank and
install a washer, P/N L221M1042208, on each side of the collective
control rod and bellcrank as depicted in Detail D of Figure 6 of
EC135 ASB.
    (E) At intervals not to exceed 800 hours TIS or 36 months,
whichever occurs first, inspect the bearings in the LH guidance
unit, RH guidance unit, cyclic control, upper guidance unit, and
linear voltage differential transducer plate for play. If any
bearing is loose, replace the affected bearing with an airworthy
bearing.
    (2) For Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters:
    (i) Within the next 100 hours TIS or at the next annual
inspection, whichever occurs first, modify the LH and RH guidance
units and the lateral control lever by installing bushings and
washers to prevent shifting of the bearings in the axial direction
as follows:
    (A) Remove and disassemble the RH guidance unit and install a
bushing, P/N L672M1012260, between the lever and the bracket as
depicted in Detail B of Figure 4 of Eurocopter Alert Service
Bulletin MBB BK117 C-2-67A-010, Revision 3, dated February 8, 2010
(BK117 ASB). Remove and disassemble the LH guidance unit and install
a bushing, P/N L672M1012260, between the lever and the bracket as
depicted in Detail C of Figure 4 of BK117 ASB.
    (B) Remove the lateral control lever and install new bushings in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs
3.C(9)(a) through 3.C(9)(g), of BK 117 ASB.
    (C) Identify the modified lever assembly by writing ``MBB BK117
C-2-67A-010'' on the lever with permanent marking pen and protect
with a single layer of lacquer (CM 421or equivalent).
    (D) Apply corrosion preventive paste (CM 518 or equivalent) on
the shank of the screws and install airworthy parts as depicted in
Figure 5 of BK117 ASB.
    (E) At intervals not to exceed 600 hours TIS or 24 months,
whichever occurs first, inspect the bearings in the RH guidance
unit, LH guidance unit, and lateral control guidance unit for play.
If any bearing is loose, replace the affected bearing with an
airworthy bearing.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation
Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate,
FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-
5110; 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) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD No. 2010-0058, dated March 30, 2010. You may view
the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket
No. FAA-2015-0674.

(i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6710, Main Rotor
Control.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use the following service information to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The Director of the Federal Register previously approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph on April 14, 2014 (79 FR 13196, March 10, 2014).
    (i) Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin EC135-67A-019, Revision 3,
dated December 16, 2009.
    (ii) Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin MBB BK117 C-2-67A-010,
Revision 3, dated February 8, 2010.
    (4) For service information identified in this final rule,
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.
    (5) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-
321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (6) 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 January 25, 2017.
Lance T. Gant,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-02856 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16324-16325]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06551]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9908-76-OA]

Notification of a Public Teleconference and Meeting of the
Science Advisory Board Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee Augmented
for the Review of EPA's Draft Trimethylbenzenes Assessment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory
Board (SAB) Staff Office announces two meetings of the Chemical
Assessment Advisory Committee Augmented for the Review of the Draft
Trimethylbenzenes Assessment (CAAC-TMB Panel). A public teleconference
will be held to discuss the charge questions, to learn about the
development of the agency's draft Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS) Toxicological Review of Trimethylbenzenes (August 2013 Revised
External Review Draft), and to learn about the Health and Environment
Research Online (HERO) database prior to a face-to-face meeting that
will be held in Arlington, VA. The purpose of the face-to-face meeting
is to receive a briefing on the EPA's enhancements to the IRIS Program,
including the process for developing IRIS assessments, and to conduct a
peer review of the Agency's draft IRIS Toxicological Review of
Trimethylbenzenes (August 2013 Revised External Review Draft).

DATES: The public teleconference will be held on May 22, 2014, from
1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time). The public face-to-face meeting
will be held on June 17-June 19, 2014. A briefing on the EPA's
enhancements to the IRIS Program will be held on June 17, 2014 from
9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The peer review of the Agency's draft IRIS
Toxicological Review of Trimethylbenzenes (August 2013 Revised External
Review Draft) will commence on June 17, 2014 from 1:15 p.m. to 5:30
p.m. (Eastern Time). The peer review will continue on June 18-19, 2014,
from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time).

ADDRESSES: The public teleconference will be conducted by telephone.
The public face-to-face meetings will be held at the Crowne Plaza
Washington National Airport, 1480 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA, 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public who wants
further information concerning these public meetings may contact Mr.
Thomas Carpenter, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the CAAC TMB
Panel, by telephone or at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>General information concerning the EPA SAB
can be found at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SAB was established pursuant to the
Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization
Act (ERDDAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent
scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the technical
basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal
Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. The SAB will comply with the provisions of
FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. Pursuant
to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the SAB CAAC TMB
Panel will hold a public teleconference and public face-to-face
meeting. The purpose of the teleconference is to discuss the charge
questions, to learn about the development of the agency's draft IRIS
Toxicological Review of Trimethylbenzenes (August 2013 Revised External
Review Draft) and learn about the Health and Environment Research
Online (HERO) database. The purposes of the face-to-face meeting are to
receive a briefing on the EPA's enhancements to the IRIS Program,
including the process for developing IRIS assessments, and to conduct a
peer review of the EPA's draft IRIS assessment of trimethylbenzenes.
This SAB panel will provide advice to the Administrator through the
chartered SAB.
    Background: EPA's Office of Research and Development requested that
the SAB conduct a peer review of the draft IRIS Toxicological Review of
Trimethylbenzenes (August 2013 Revised External Review Draft). The EPA
SAB Staff Office augmented the SAB CAAC with subject matter experts to
provide advice through the chartered SAB regarding this IRIS
assessment. The SAB CAAC-TMB Review Panel was scheduled to meet on
February 18-20, 2014 to conduct a peer review of the draft IRIS
assessment of trimethylbenzenes (79 Federal Register 5400-5402). To
allow more time for the public to prepare for the meeting, the agency
asked the SAB to reschedule its February meeting. Additional
information about this advisory activity, including, the formation of
the SAB CAAC-TMB Review Panel, can be found at the following URL:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/

fedrgstr--activites/IRIS%20Trimethylbenzenes?OpenDocument
    A meeting agenda and other meeting materials will be posted at the
above noted URL prior to the meeting.
    Technical Contacts: Any technical questions concerning EPA's draft
IRIS assessment of trimethylbenzenes should be directed to Dr. Samantha
Jones by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Availability of Meeting Materials: Prior to the meeting, the review
documents, agenda and other materials will be accessible through the
calendar link on the blue navigation bar at http://www.epa.gov/sab/.
Materials may also be accessed at the following SAB Web page http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/IRIS%20Trimethylbenzenes?OpenDocument.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for
consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a
different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices.
Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory
committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an
EPA program office. Federal advisory committees and panels, including
scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to the EPA.
Interested members of the public may submit relevant information on the
topic of this advisory activity, and/or the group conducting the
activity, for the SAB to consider during the advisory process. Input
from the public to the SAB will have the most impact if it provides
specific scientific or technical information or analysis for SAB
committees and panels to consider or if it relates to the clarity or
accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to
provide comment should contact the DFO directly. Oral Statements: In
general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation on the
teleconference will be limited to three minutes and oral presentation
at the face-to-face meeting will be limited to five minutes. Interested
parties wishing to provide comments should contact Mr. Thomas Carpenter
(preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by May
13, 2014 to be placed on the list of public speakers for the
teleconference and by June 9, 2014 to be placed on the list of public
speakers for the face-to-face meeting. Written Statements: Written
statements will be accepted throughout the advisory process; however,
for timely consideration by Committee/Panel members, statements should
be supplied to the DFO via email at the contact information noted above
at least one week prior to a public meeting. Written statements should
be supplied in one of the following electronic formats: Adobe Acrobat
PDF, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows 98/
2000/XP format. It is the SAB Staff Office general policy to post
written comments on the Web page for the advisory meeting or
teleconference. Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned version
of each document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish
documents with signatures on its Web sites. Members of the public
should be aware that their personal contact information, if included in
any written comments, may be posted to the SAB Web site. Copyrighted
material will not be posted without explicit permission of the
copyright holder.
    Accessibility: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Thomas Carpenter at
(202) 564-4885 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of
a disability, please contact Mr. Carpenter preferably at least ten days
prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process
your request.

    Dated: March 18, 2014.
 Thomas H. Brennan,
Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2014-06551 Filed 3-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Technical Support Document (TSD)

For the Modeling and Weight of Evidence (WOE) Portions of the Document
Entitled “Delaware State Implementation Plan

For Attainment of the PM2.5 Annual National Ambient Air Quality
Standard,”        January 3, 2008

TSD Prepared May, 2010

Todd A. Ellsworth

Office of Air Monitoring and Analysis , 3AP40

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

/s/

____________________________________________

Reviewed by Walter Wilkie, Associate Director,

Office of Air Monitoring and Analysis (3AP40)

June 15, 2010

_________________

Date Signed

Technical Support Document for the Modeling Portion Of the State of
Delaware’s Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) Entitled “Delaware
State Implementation Plan

For Attainment of the PM2.5 Annual National Ambient Air Quality
Standard, January 3, 2008”

Purpose of the Technical Support Document

This Technical Support Document (TSD) describes the Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) evaluation of the modeling and weight of
evidence (WOE) portion of Delaware’s State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision entitled “Delaware State Implementation Plan For Attainment
of the PM2.5 Annual National Ambient Air Quality Standard, January 3,
2008.”  This SIP revision will hereafter be referred to as the
Delaware PM2.5 SIP.

In April 2005, EPA designated 126 areas of the country as
“non-attainment” under the annual fine particle (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).  Among those non-attainment areas
is the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 Non-Attainment Area
(NAA).  This NAA includes:  New Castle County Delaware, Burlington and
Camden Counties in New Jersey and Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery
and Philadelphia Counties in Pennsylvania. According to the federal
Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA Implementation Rule, this entire NAA
must attain compliance with the annual PM2.5 NAAQS by 2010.

The purpose of this TSD is to provide more detailed information than can
be contained in the official notice published in the Federal Register.
Readers who need more information than we provide in this TSD or want to
review the modeling in more detail should read the above referenced
Delaware SIP.

The Regulatory Framework

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established PM2.5 NAAQS, including
an annual standard of 15.0 µg/m3 based on a 3-year average of annual
mean PM2.5 concentrations, and a 24-hour (or daily) standard of 65
µg/m3 based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
concentrations.  EPA established the standards based on significant
evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health
effects are associated with exposures to PM2.5.

Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the
CAA to designate areas throughout the United States as attaining or not
attaining the NAAQS; this designation process is described  in section
107(d)(1) of the CAA.  In 1999, EPA and State Air-quality Agencies
initiated the monitoring process for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and, by
January 2001, established a complete set of air-quality monitors.  On
January 5, 2005, EPA published initial air-quality designations for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (70 FR 944), based on air-quality monitoring data for
calendar years 2001-2003.

On April 14, 2005, EPA published a final supplemental rule amending the
Agency’s initial designations (70 FR 19844).  EPA did not consider
modifications made in this rule to be “re-designations” because the
changes were made before April 5, 2005, the effective date of the
initial designations.  As a result of the final supplemental rule, PM2.5
nonattainment designations are in effect for 39 areas, comprising 208
counties within 20 States (and the District of Columbia) nationwide,
with a combined population of about 88 million.  The Delaware portion of
the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 NAA   which is the subject
of this proposed rulemaking, is included in the list of areas not
attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.  The only Delaware County included in
the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 NAA is New Castle County.

On October 17, 2006, EPA strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to 35
µg/m3, and retained the level of the annual PM2.5 standard at 15.0
µg/m3 (see 71 FR 61144).  On November 13, 2009, EPA designated areas as
either attainment/unclassified or nonattainment with respect to the
revised 24-hour NAAQS (see 74 FR 58688).  In the November 2009
designation action, EPA established a deadline of December 14, 2012, for
States to submit attainment plans for areas designated as nonattainment
for the revised 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  Therefore the Delaware PM2.5 SIP
does not address the current 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

Of relevance to the proposed rulemaking herein, 74 FR 58688 clarified
designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by relabeling the existing
designation tables to identify designations for the annual NAAQS, and by
providing a separate table identifying designations for the 1997 24-hour
NAAQS (i.e., 65 µg/m3).  In that table, the Philadelphia-Wilmington,
PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 NAA is designated as attaining the 1997

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

Introduction to the Delaware State Implementation Plan for the Annual
Average PM 2.5 Standard

On July 18, 1997, EPA established a health based PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0
micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3), annual average.  New Castle County,
Delaware was designated by the EPA as being in non-attainment for this
annual PM2.5 NAAQS in April 2005.  Kent and Sussex Counties were
designated as attainment; however, sources within these counties emit
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors which contribute to PM2.5 non-attainment in
New Castle County.

The PM2.5 SIP includes plans to reduce PM2.5 emissions for Delaware’s
portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 NAA.  The SIP
also includes modeling that will predict whether the area will meet the
PM2.5 standard by the attainment date.  This TSD reviews Delaware’s
documentation of modeling that shows attainment of the annual average
PM2.5 standard by the 2010 attainment date.  All of the States in the
northeastern United States cooperated via the Ozone Transport
Commission’s (OTC) Modeling Committee to prepare the modeling that was
performed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) and supporting organizations.

Delaware believes that their PM2.5 SIP demonstrates that all of the CAA
and Rule requirements associated with the annual PM2.5 NAAQS have been
met;  and that Delaware and the entire Philadelphia-Wilmington-DE-PA-NJ
NAA will attain compliance with the annual PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously
as practicable, and not later than 2010.

What Are The Components Of A Modeled Attainment Demonstration?

Modeling Process Overview

Delaware is a member of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANE-VU) Regional Planning Organization (RPO).  The MANE-VU RPO was
tasked with the assignment of preparing a PM-2.5 modeling platform that
all member states could use to demonstrate compliance with the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) was
the lead agency for coordinating and running the modeling platform used
by the MAVE-VU RPO.  Modeling centers responsible for running the
platform included the NYSDEC, the University of Maryland at College Park
(UMD), the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management
(NESCAUM), the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJ
DEP), and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VA DEQ).
Each modeling center was responsible for installing the modeling
platform, conducting diagnostic tests and completing a benchmark run to
ensure accurate results.

The MANE-VU RPO used the Community Multi-scale Air Quality model (CMAQ)
version 4.4 as its photochemical grid model.  The model uses simulations
of chemical reactions, emission of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors and a
sophisticated meteorological model to produce PM2.5 concentrations over
the eastern United States.  The meteorological data used in the
meteorological model was for the base year PM2.5 season of 2002.  The
photochemical grid model was run with the base year meteorology and base
year emissions to determine if the model performance was satisfactory.
Once the model performance was determined to be adequate, 2009 ozone
concentrations were modeled by running the model with projected
emissions for 2009 and the original 2002 meteorology.  The meteorology
was held constant so that the results of changing the emissions would
not be influenced by changing meteorology.

The EPA modeling guidance recommends that States use the modeled PM
concentrations in a relative sense and not rely solely on the
concentrations the model predicts for the attainment year (2009).  A
modeled attainment test is an exercise in which an air quality model is
used to simulate current and future air quality.  If future estimates of
PM2.5 concentrations are less than the NAAQS, then this element of the
attainment test is satisfied.  EPA’s recommended test is one in which
model estimates are used in a “relative” rather than “absolute”
sense.  Ratios of the model’s future (2009) predicted PM2.5
concentrations to base year (2002) predictions are calculated for all
PM2.5 monitor locations.  These ratios are called relative response
factors (RRF).  Future PM2.5 concentrations are estimated at existing
monitoring sites by multiplying a modeled relative response factor at
locations “near” each monitor by the observation-based,
monitor-specific, “baseline” design value.  The resulting predicted
“future concentrations” are compared to NAAQS.  The PM2.5 attainment
test is complicated and reflects the fact that PM2.5 is a mixture
species.  Therefore, the attainment test for PM2.5 is called the
Speciated Modeled Attainment Test (SMAT).  In the test, ambient PM2.5 is
divided into major components.  These are:

- mass associated with sulfates

- mass associated with nitrates

-mass associated with ammonium

- mass associated with organic carbon

- mass associated with elemental carbon

- mass associated with particle bound water

- mass associated with “other” primary inorganic particulate matter

- and passively collected mass

A separate RRF is calculated for each of the PM2.5 components (except
passive mass).

Each of these site-specific ratios are called component-specific RRFs.
Future PM2.5 design values are estimated at existing monitoring sites by
multiplying modeled relative response factors “near” each monitor
times the observed “component specific design value.”  This latter
quantity is estimated using measured site-specific design values for
PM2.5 in concert with available measured composition data.  Future
site-specific PM2.5 design values at a site are estimated by adding the
future year values of the seven PM2.5 components.  If all future
site-specific PM2.5 design values are less than or equal to 15.0
micrograms per cubic meter (µ/m3) at all locations, the test is passed
and the modeling system will have predicted attainment of the PM2.5
annual air quality standard.

Steps Required in a Modeled Attainment Demonstration

The modeling guidance lists nine steps for preparing modeling to
demonstrate attainment of the PM2.5 standard.

1.  Develop a conceptual description of the problem to be addressed.

2.  Develop a modeling/analysis protocol.

3.  Select an appropriate model to support the demonstration.

4.  Select appropriate meteorological time periods to model.

5.  Choose an appropriate area to model with appropriate
horizontal/vertical resolution

      and establish the initial and boundary conditions that are
suitable for the application.

6.  Generate meteorological inputs to the air quality model.

7.  Generate emissions inputs to the air quality model.

8.  Run the air quality model with base case emissions and evaluate the
performance.

     Perform diagnostic tests to improve the model, as necessary.

9.  Perform future year modeling (including additional control
strategies, if necessary)                         and apply the
attainment test.

How Did Delaware Address All Of The Components Of A Modeled Attainment
Demonstration?

The Delaware PM2.5 SIP addresses each of the elements of a modeled
attainment demonstration as follows:

Conceptual description of the problem

A conceptual model describes how weather patterns affect the formation
and transport of PM2.5, accounting for emissions and photochemistry.

The conceptual model for the Delaware PM2.5 SIP is described in the
Attachment 1 entitled:  The Nature of the Fine Particle and Regional
Haze Air Quality Problems in the Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility
Union(MANE-VU) Region: A Conceptual Description (NESCAUM), November
2006.  This document was prepared by Northeast States for Coordinated
Air Use Management (NESCAUM) for use by the OTC member States, and it
provides the conceptual description of the fine particle issues in the
OTC states, consistent with the EPA’s guidance.

The NESCAUM document contains a conceptual description that explains how
elevated regional PM2.5 peak concentrations in the summer differ
significantly from the largely urban peak concentrations observed during
winter.  On average, summertime concentrations of sulfate in the
northeastern United States are more than twice that of the next most
important fine particle constituent, organic carbon (OC), and more than
four times the combined concentration of nitrate and black carbon (BC)
constituents.  Episodes of high summertime sulfate concentrations are
consistent with stagnant meteorological flow conditions upwind of the
Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 NAA and the accumulation of
airborne sulfate (via atmospheric oxidation of SO2) followed by
long-range transport of sulfur emissions from industrialized areas
within and outside the area.  National assessments have indicated that
in the winter, sulfate levels in urban areas are higher than background
sulfate levels across the eastern U.S., indicating that the local urban
contribution to wintertime sulfate levels is significant relative to the
regional sulfate contribution from long-range transport.  A network
analysis for the winter of 2002 suggests that the local enhancement of
sulfate in urban areas of the MANE-VU region ranges from 25 to 40% and
that the long-range transport component of PM2.5 sulfate is still the
dominant contributor in most eastern cities.

In the winter, urban OC and sulfate each account for about a third of
the overall PM2.5 mass concentration observed in Philadelphia and New
York City areas.  Nitrate also makes a significant contribution to urban
PM2.5 levels observed in the northeastern United States during the
winter months.  Wintertime concentrations of OC and nitrate in urban
areas can be twice the average regional concentrations of these
pollutants, indicating the importance of local source contributions.
This is likely because winter conditions are more conducive to the
formation of local inversion layers which prevent vertical mixing. Under
these conditions, emissions from tailpipe, industrial and other local
sources become concentrated near the Earth’s surface, adding to
background pollution levels associated with regionally transported
emissions.

The Model Used in the Attainment Demonstration

By agreement of the OTC, NYSDEC ran the Community Multi-scale Air
Quality Model version 4.4 (CMAQ) for the States in the northeast ozone
transport region, including Delaware.  CMAQ is an acceptable model,
listed in the photochemical modeling guidance as a currently used
photochemical grid model.  EPA agrees CMAQ is appropriate for this
modeling demonstration.  The inputs to the model are described in
Section 7 of the Delaware PM2.5 SIP.

Meteorological Time Periods Used in the Modeling

The Delaware PM2.5 SIP notes that the OTC Modeling Committee agreed to
model all days in 2002.  Modeling an entire year covers many different
kinds of PM episodes and exceeds EPA’s recommendations for episode
selection.  Due to the fact that the attainment demonstration is being
conducted using a resource intensive photochemical grid model, EPA
accepts the use of a single, recent “representative” year to be used
for an annual model simulation.  Two factors were used in selecting 2002
as the “representative” year - the observed annual mean
concentrations of PM2.5 are close to the 3-year observed design value at
all, or most monitoring sites, and the pattern of quarterly mean values
is similar to the pattern of quarterly mean concentrations averaged over
3 years.

Meteorological Data Used in the Air Quality Model

The OTC Modeling Committee decided to use a prognostic meteorological
model that provides life-like meteorological inputs to the photochemical
grid model.  The Pennsylvania State University/National Center for
Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) version 3.6
was chosen for the modeling analysis.  The MM5 model provides a
reasonable representation of weather conditions at the surface and
aloft.

Domain of the Model, Horizontal/Vertical Resolution and the Initial and
Boundary Conditions

The modeling domain extends from Maine to Florida and out in the
Atlantic Ocean on the east and west to the Mississippi River.  The size
of the modeling domain was made large enough to include all emission
sources that affect PM2.5 concentration in the northeastern United
States.  Even this boundary is defined by a larger photochemical
modeling domain that covers much of North America.  Over the
northeastern United States, the model used 12 kilometer grid cells. The
Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE PM 2.5 NAA is included in the 12
kilometer grid cell area.  The OTC Modeling Committee used a
12-kilometer grid size for the areas in and near its states to provide a
fine enough grid resolution to adequately capture the PM patterns
experienced in the ozone transport region (OTR).  Outside the local
areas the grid resolution used in the modeling is 36 kilometers.  The
selection of model domains and horizontal grid resolution was deemed
acceptable to EPA.

Vertical resolution is the number of layers and the size of each layer
in the model.  The layers in the photochemical grid model were set up to
be compatible with the model that produced weather conditions for the
photochemical grid model.  The vertical resolution used in the modeling
exercise followed EPA’s modeling guidance and therefore adequately
represents the atmosphere where PM2.5 is emitted, forms and is
transported.

Emissions Used in the Air Quality Model

The emissions data for 2002 were generated by individual States within
the OTR and assembled and processed through the Mid-Atlantic Northeast
Visibility Union (MANE-VU), a Regional Planning Organization (RPO).
These emissions were then processed by NYSDEC using the SMOKE emissions
processor to provide CMAQ compatible inputs.   The 2002 emissions for
the non-OTR areas within the modeling domain were obtained from the
corresponding RPOs and were processed using SMOKE, in a manner similar
to that of the OTR emissions.

The OTR states, through MANE-VU, contracted MACTEC Federal Programs
(called Contractor) to develop 2009, 2012 and 2018 inventories based
upon 2002 inventories that the states had previously developed for use
in the base-year model work.  The Contractor, in consultation with the
States, developed the necessary growth and control factors and applied
to the 2002 inventory.  Emissions for mobile sources and the electric
energy generating units (EGUs) was not part of the Contractor’s
effort.  To generate on-road mobile emissions, the states provided the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) and NESCAUM with
appropriate MOBILE 6 input files along with the projected vehicle miles
traveled (VMT), which was coupled with hourly “gridded temperature”
information. As for the emissions from the EGU sector, the inter-RPO
work group utilized the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) to develop the
state and unit-level emissions.  These inventories are identified as
2009 on the way (2009OTW), since they reflect all emission control
measures that were promulgated or would become effective on or before
2009.

Emission inventory details are provided in Sections 3, 4 and 6.3.5 of
the Delaware PM2.5 SIP.

Base Case Run Model Performance Evaluation

NY DEC performed a model evaluation for the OTC to determine how well
CMAQ reproduced the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 NAA 2002
PM2.5 concentrations.

CMAQ was employed to simulate PM2.5 for the calendar year 2002.  A
review of PM2.5 and its individual species was conducted for the study
domain.

The CMAQ model performance for surface PM2.5 is good with acceptable
bias and error.  Several observations can be made with respect to model
performance, including the following:

Approximately 80-90% of organic mass (OM) is in the primary fraction.
Observed OM has distinct maximum during summer when secondary formation
is highest; CMAQ exhibits substantial under-prediction in secondary
organic aerosols (SOA).  The predicted primary OM is highest during the
winter.

CMAQ captures seasonal variation in SO4 well.

CMAQ appears to overestimate primary PM2.5 components (EC, soil, primary
OM), especially during colder months.

CMAQ appears to underestimate secondary OM during the summer.

These issues are not of great regulatory concern since attainment tests
are based on the application of relative response factors.  In summary,
the regional and local model performance is acceptable for PM2.5.  While
there are some differences between the spatial data between sub-regions,
there is nothing to suggest a tendency for the model to respond in a
systematically different manner between regions.  Examination of the
statistical metrics by sub-region confirms the absence of significant
performance problems arising in one area but not in another, building
confidence that the CMAQ modeling system is operating consistently
across the full OTC domain.  This confidence in the modeling results
allows for the modeling system to be used to support the State
Implementation Plan to meet the 24-hour and annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

2009 Control Case Modeling and the Modeled Attainment Test

QS include an annual standard of 15 μg/m3 based on the 3-year average
of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations.

The purpose of a modeling assessment is to determine if control
strategies currently being implemented (“on the books”) will lead to
attainment of the annual average NAAQS for PM2.5 by 2009.  The modeling
is applied in a relative sense, similar to the 8-hour ozone attainment
test.  However, the PM2.5 attainment test is more complicated and
reflects the fact that PM2.5 is a mixture.  In the test, ambient PM2.5
is divided into major components, with a separate relative response
factor (RRF) and future design value (DVF) calculated for each of the
PM2.5 components.  Since the attainment test is calculated on a per
species basis, the attainment test for PM2.5 is referred to as the
Speciated Modeled Attainment Test (SMAT).  The following sections
outline the process to determine that 2009 projections of PM2.5 will
meet the NAAQS from regional modeling, as suggested in EPA’s modeling
guidance.

Annual SMAT Results

Table 1 presents the results of the annual SMAT results for the PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment area. The SMAT results demonstrate that the projected
average annual arithmetic mean PM2.5 concentration calculated at each
FRM monitor attains the annual PM2.5 NAAQS.  Specifically, all future
design value (DVF) calculations are less than15 μg/m3.   Table 1
presents the results of the annual SMAT results for a suite of regional
modeling runs conducted by OTC each representing OTB/OTW – “On the
Books, On the Way” control measures.  All runs demonstrate compliance
with the annual NAAQS.

Table 1: Annual SMAT Results for PA-NJ-DE Nonattainment Area

2009 On-The-Books-On-The-Way Control Measures

AIRS ID	Site Name	County	State	2000-2004 DVB	2009

Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	DVF

10-003-1003	Bellefonte	New Castle	DE	14.91	15.54	15.45	13.02	12.3

10-003-1007	Lums Pond	New Castle	DE	13.30	14.49	15.69	11.10	11.4

10-003-1012	Newark	New Castle	DE	15.56	15.00	15.75	13.57	12.5

10-003-2004	MLK	New Castle	DE	16.79	15.60	16.66	14.26	13.3

34-007-0003	Copewood E Davis	Camden	NJ	13.5	14.3	16.6	12.7	12.1

34-007-1007	Pennsauken TWP	Camden	NJ	14.0	14.0	15.7	13.6	12.2

34-015-0001	Gibbstown Municipal Bldg.	Gloucester	NJ	13.9	13.4	16.0	11.4
11.7

42-017-0012	Bristol	Bucks	PA	14.14	13.68	14.70	13.82	12.4

42-029-0100	Belmont Avenue	Chester	PA	14.44	14.07	16.72	14.12	12.8

42-045-0002	Chester	Delaware	PA	15.07	15.96	16.35	12.63	13.3

42-091-0013	Norristown	Montgomery	PA	13.61	13.77	14.90	12.71	12.0

42-101-0004	Philadelphia AMS	Philadelphia	PA	14.13	13.86	16.20	12.83
12.5

42-101-0020	Philadelphia Belmont Ave	Philadelphia	PA	14.0	14.4	15.4	13.1
12.0

42-101-0024	Philadelphia North East	Philadelphia	PA	12.43	12.37	15.56
11.45	11.0

42-101-0047	Philadelphia Broad Street	Philadelphia	PA	15.54	14.88	16.89
13.25	12.8

42-101-0136	Philadelphia Elmwood	Philadelphia	PA	13.75	13.04	15.75	11.93
11.5

Summary of Photochemical Grid Modeling Results

μg/m3 in the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE NAA.  Thus, based on
EPA’s modeled attainment test, the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE
PM2.5 NAA will reach attainment of the annual average PM2.5 standard in
2009 before the attainment date of April 5, 2010.

Unmonitored Area Analysis

The modeled attainment test does not address future air quality at
locations where there is not a PM2.5 monitor nearby.  To guard against
the possibility that air quality levels could exceed the standard in
areas with limited monitoring, EPA suggests that additional review is
necessary, particularly in nonattainment areas where the PM2.5
monitoring network just meets or minimally exceeds the size of the
network required to report data to Air Quality System (AQS).  This
review is intended to ensure that a control strategy leads to reductions
in PM2.5 and its constituent pollutants at other locations that could
have baseline (and future) design values exceeding the NAAQS were a
monitor deployed there.  The test is called an “unmonitored area
analysis”.  The purpose of the analysis is to use a combination of
model output and ambient data to identify areas that might exceed the
NAAQS if monitors were located there.

It is important to note that Delaware currently operates a network of
six PM2.5 monitors. Four of these monitors are in New Castle County,
which is part of the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area.  Some of these
monitors were established as State and Local Air Monitoring Stations
(SLAMS).  These SLAMS monitors were selected based on specific
monitoring objectives (background concentration, area of highest
concentration, high population, source impact, transport, and rural
impact) as required by EPA and siting scales (micro, middle,
neighborhood, urban, and regional) established by EPA.

EPA believes that the density of the monitoring network in New Castle
County relieves the necessity of applying this additional analysis.

Local Area Analysis

EPA modeling guidance recommends that a local area analysis be performed
for those areas where local primary PM2.5 sources are thought to be
contributing to a monitor and causing non-attainment of the NAAQS.  At
this time, no monitors within the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area are
projected to exceed the NAAQS so it does not appear to be a necessary
requirement in this circumstance to conduct the local area analysis.
Furthermore, existing monitoring data suggests a uniform regional
pattern with respect to PM2.5 concentrations rather than any “hot
spot” monitors.

Supplemental Analyses and Weight of Evidence (WOE) Determination

EPA(s modeling guidance states that additional analyses are recommended
to determine if attainment will be likely, even if the modeled
attainment test is “passed.”  The guidance recommends supplementary
analyses in all cases.  EPA(s modeling guidance describes how to use a
photochemical grid model and additional analytical methods to complete a
WOE analysis to estimate if emissions control strategies will lead to
attainment.  A WOE analysis is a supporting analysis that helps to
determine if the results of the photochemical modeling system are
correctly (or not correctly) predicting future air quality.

All models, including the CMAQ, model have inherent uncertainties. Over
or under prediction may result from uncertainties associated with
emission inventories, meteorological data, and representation of PM2.5
chemistry in the model. Therefore, EPA modeling guidance provides for
other evidence to address these model uncertainties so that proper
assessment of the probability to attain the applicable standards can be
made.

μg/m3 for annual PM2.5 and 62 μg/m3 for 24-hour PM2.5) need more
limited supporting material.

Due to the fact that the modeling results presented in Table 1 fall well
below the aforementioned “weight of evidence” thresholds established
by EPA, a limited supplemental analysis was deemed necessary to support
the 2009 attainment demonstration.

Trends in PM2.5 Design Values

Figure 1 below shows the annual PM2.5 design value trends for the period
2000-2009 for all monitors in the PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 NAA including the
monitors in Kent and Sussex Counties.  It is clear from this figure that
all the monitors show a downward trend in the annual PM2.5 design value.
 It is noteworthy that from 2008 and after the design values at all
monitors are in compliance with the annual PM2.5 standard.  Please note
that the 2009   PM2.5 design values represented in Figure 1 are
preliminary values.

Figure 1

Summary of EPA’s Evaluation Delaware’s WOE Analysis

Design values at all monitors have trended downward since the year 2000.
This information coupled with current annual average PM2.5 design all
below the annual average PM2.5 standard since 2007 support the
demonstration of attainment by the 2010 attainment date.

Summary of EPA’s Technical Findings

The result of the photochemical grid modeling analysis using EPA’s
recommended methods predicts that the PA-NJ-DE PM 2.5 NAA will attain
the annual average PM2.5 standard by the attainment date of April 5,
2010.

Recommendation of Approval of Attainment Demonstration

EPA has carefully evaluated the information provided by Delaware PM2.5
SIP.

>

A

€

‚

¬

L

N

R

U

X

j

Â

&

‚

¬

W

X

Â

Å

È

Ê

 hÓ

  h

 h

摧撁U	̤̀␱愀̤摧ጞéᬀ

@

Ffß

@

 h¬

 h¬

ational Ambient Air Quality Standard by the applicable attainment date.

Attachment:

Attachment 1: The Nature of the Fine Particle and Regional Haze Air
Quality Problems in the Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union
(MANE-VU) Region: A Conceptual Description (NESCAUM), November 2006.

 	Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Air Fine Particle
Implementation Rule, 40 CFR Part 51, March 29, 2007.

 	  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2005/January/Day-05/a001.htm"  70
FR 944 , January 5, 2005

 Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating
Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, EPA
-454/B-07-002, April 2007

 The guidance also states that additional analyses are recommended to
determine if attainment will be likely, even if the modeled attainment
test is “passed”.  The guidance recommends supplementary analyses in
all cases.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2