# Sr 47



# UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

# I

o 

# REGION IX

PRO 

# 75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco CA 94105-3901 

# MAY 0 82014

Mr. Samir Sheikh, Director of Strategies and Incentives

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

1990 East Gettysburg Avenue

Fresno, California 93726-0244

Dear Mr. Sheikh:

Thank you 

# for your submission of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s

(SJVAPCD’s) Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan in June 2013. We have reviewed the

submitted document based on the requirements set forth in 40 CFR Part 58. Based on the

information provided in the plan, EPA approves all portions of the network plan except those

specifically identified below.

Please note that we cannot approve portions of the annual network plan for which the

information in the plan does not demonstrate compliance with the requirements as specified in 40

CFR 58.10 and the associated appendices. EPA Region 9 also cannot approve portions of the

plan for which the EPA Administrator has not delegated approval authority to the regional

offices. Accordingly, the first enclosure (A. Annual Monitoring Network Plan Items where EPA

is Not Taking Action) provides a listing of specific items of your agency’s annual monitoring

network plan where EPA is not taking action. The second enclosure (B. Additional Items

Requiring Attention) is a listing of additional items in the plan that EPA wishes to bring to your

agency’s attention for consideration in future plans.

The third enclosure (C. Annual Monitoring Network Plan Items that EPA is Disapproving)

describes the one requirement EPA is disapproving in the SJV monitoring network: the

requirement for a maximum ozone concentration monitor in the Bakersfield Metropolitan

Statistical Area (MSA). EPA will continue to work with the California Air Resources Board

(CARB) and the SJVAPCD to resolve this issue.

The fourth enclosure (D. Annual Monitoring Network Plan Checklist) is the checklist EPA used

to review your plan for all items that are required to be included in the annual network plan along

with our assessment of whether the plan submitted by your agency addresses those requirements.

The fiflh enclosure (E. Region 9 Near-road NO 2 Plan Review Checklist) is the checklist EPA

used to review those elements of your annual monitoring network plan that deal specifically with

near-road NO 2 monitoring. The sixth enclosure (F. EPA Supplemental Response to Comments)

provides additional information and clarification regarding the EPA requirements that are the

subject of the public comments submitted to SJVAPCD.

Pnnwd o,i Recycled PaperThe first three enclosures highlight a subset of the more extensive list of items reviewed in the fourth and fifth enclosures. All comments conveyed via this letter (and enclosures) should be addressed (through corrections within the plan, additional information being included, or discussion) in future annual monitoring network plans. If you have any questions regarding this letter or the enclosed comments, please feel free to contact me at (415) 947-4534 or Elfego Felix at (415) 947-4141. Sincerely, //4 / Meredith Kurpius, Manager’ Air Quality Analysis Office Enclosures: A. Annual Monitoring Network Plan Items where EPA is Not Taking Action

B. Additional Items Requiring Attention C. Annual Monitoring Network Plan Items that EPA is Disapproving D. Annual Monitoring Network Plan Checklist E. Region 9 Near-road N02 Plan Review Checklists: El. Region 9 Near-road N02 Plan Review Checklist

— Fresno E2. Region 9 Near-road NO2 Plan Review Checklist

— Bakersfield F. Supplemental Response to Comments cc: Errol Villegas, SJVAPCD Michael Carrerra, SJVAPCD Jon Klassen, SJVAPCD Nathan Trevino, SJVAPCD Sylvia Vanderspek, California Air Resources Board Gayle Sweigert, California Air Resources Board

# A. Annual Monitoring Network Plan Items where EPA is Not Taking Action

We are not acting on the portions of annual network plans where either EPA Region 9 lacks the

authority to approve specific items of the plan, or where it is not clear whether a requirement has

been met.

Per 40 CFR 58.11(c), NCore, PAMS, and 

# SIN network design and changes are

subject to approval of the EPA Administrator. Therefore, we are not acting on these

items, including the following:

o Unspecified changes for the Fresno-Garland NCore site noted in the detailed

site table

o Unspecified change to the NMHC measurements at Parlier that were listed in

the detailed site table

o Bakersfield-Muni as the replacement PAMS site for Bakersfield Golden

• System modifications (e.g., site closures or moves) are subject to approval per 40

CFR 5 8.14(c). Information provided in the plan was insufficient for EPA to approve

the system modifications listed in the plan per the applicable requirement. Therefore,



# we are not acting on the following items as part 

# of this year’s annual network plan:

o Discontinuing of PM 10 and PM 2

. 5 monitoring at the Bakersfield-Muni site

o Closing the Stockton-Wagner/Holt PM 10 site

o Consolidating of the Madera-Pump site into the Madera-City site

o Consolidating the Fresno-Pacific site into the Fresno-Drummond site

o EPA is also not acting on any 

# system modifications listed in the plan (see Row

16) as anticipated in the next 18 months, including:

Unspecified changes for the ozone monitor at Arvin-DiGiorgio noted

in the detailed site table

Unspecified changes for the PM 2

. 5 monitor at Bakersfield-Planz noted

in the detailed site table

• Plans for establishing near-road NO 2 monitoring are 

# required for submittal as part of

the Annual Monitoring Network Plan per 40 CFR 58. 10(a)(5). Information provided

was insufficient for EPA to approve the proposed plan for establishing a near-road

NO 2 monitor in the Fresno and Bakersfield CBSAs per the applicable requirements.

Assuming that the final site is accurately characterized by the information provided

and meets all of the applicable 40 CFR Part 58 criteria, we expect that we will be able

to approve the District’s NO 2 near-roadway Fresno site selection. The level of detail

provided for the currently proposed Bakersfield site does not adequately justify

selection for EPA approval at this time. Therefore, we are not acting on this portion

of the Annual Monitoring Network Plan. The District will need to resubmit a plan

that includes missing information highlighted in this checklist to receive EPA

approval for a proposed Fresno and Bakersfield sites. The re-submitted plan should

go through a minimum 30 day public inspection period prior to re-submittal to EPA.

See enclosure D (D. Region 9 Near-road iVO 2 Plan review 

# checklist) for more

information.• EPA identified items in your agency’s annual network plan where it was not clear whether a requirement was being met. Therefore, we are not acting on the following items: Item Checklist Row Issue Identification of maximum 57 Insufficient information to judge in some concentration ozone monitor in instances (no in one instance — see each MSA Enclosure C). One PM 25 site in an area of 66 Insufficient information to judge in some maximum concentration in each instances MSA Minimum number of PM 10 sites 71 Incorrect Sampling season for ozone 51 Incomplete Sampling schedule for PM 2 . 5 52 Incomplete / Insufficient information to (and indicate seasonal judge sampling) Sampling schedule for PM 10 53 Insufficient information to judge Minimum monitoring 60 Not meeting the requirement requirements met for RA4O NO 2 NO 2 plan for RA4O sites 9 Not meeting the requirement submitted by 7/1/20 12 NO 2 RA4O sites operational by 10 Insufficient information to judge 1/1/2013 SPMs operating FEMs > 24 25 Insufficient information to judge

months are comparable to the NAAQS Identification of sites suitable 18 Insufficient information to judge

and not suitable for comparison to the annual NAAQS Designation of a primary 38 Insufficient information to judge monitor NO 2 plan for near-road sites 1 1 Insufficient information to judge submitted by 7/1/20 13 Designation of any Pb monitors 20 Incomplete as source-oriented or nonsource-oriented Sampling schedule for Pb 54 Insufficient information to judge Minimum monitoring 72 Insufficient information to judge requirements met for PM 102 . 5 mass Sampling schedule for PM 102 . 5 55 Insufficient information to judge PM 2 . 5 Chemical Speciation 70 Insufficient information to judge requirements for official STN

# sites

Minimum monitoring 68 Insufficient information to judge

requirements for continuous

PM 2

. 5

Documentation of how the 26 Insufficient information to judge

agency provides for review of

changes to a PM 2

. 5 network that

impacts the location of a

violating monitor

Precision / Accuracy reports 28 Incomplete / Insufficient information to

submitted to AQS judge

Annual data certification 29 Incomplete / Insufficient information to

submitted judge

Sampling and analysis 15 Incomplete / Incorrect

method(s) for each measured

parameter

Scale of representativeness for 17 Incorrect / Incomplete

each monitor

Method code for each monitor 43 Incomplete / Incorrect

Agreements between agencies 44 Insufficient information to judge

that share monitoring

responsibilities for a MSA

Start date for each monitor 45 Incomplete

Monitor type for each monitor 46 Incomplete / Incorrect

Monitoring objective for each 47 Incomplete / Incorrect

monitor

Site type for each monitor 48 Incomplete / Incorrect

Instrument parameter code for 49 Incomplete / Incorrect

each monitor

Frequency of flow rate 30 and 31 Incomplete / Incorrect

verification for manual and

automated PM monitors

Frequency of flow rate 32 Insufficient information to judge

verification for manual and

automated Pb monitors

Frequency of one-point QC 33 Incomplete

check for gaseous monitors

Date of last Amual 34 Incomplete / Incorrect

Performance Evaluation

Dates of last two semi-annual 35 Incomplete / Incorrect

flow 

# rate audits for PM

monitors

Dates of last two semi-annual 36 Insufficient information to judge

flow 

# rate audits for Pb monitors

Distance between collocated 39 Incomplete / Insufficient information to

monitors judgePM 125 Collocation 42 Insufficient information to judge Distance of site from nearest 73 Incomplete! Insufficient information to road judge Traffic count of nearest road 74 Incomplete / Insufficient information to judge Groundcover 75 Incorrect Probe height 76 Incomplete! Insufficient information to judge Distance from supporting 77 Not meeting the requirement in some structure instances: insufficient information to judge in other instances. Distance from obstructions on 78 Not meeting the requirement in one the roof instances! Incomplete Distance from obstructions not 79 Insufficient information to judge! on the roof Incomplete Distance from trees 80 Incomplete ! Insufficient information to judge Distance to furnace or 8 1 Incomplete! Insufficient information to incinerator flue judge Unrestricted airflow 82 Not meeting the requirement in one instance; insufficient information to judge in other instances Probe material 83 Incomplete! Incorrect Residence time 84 Incomplete Additional information for each of these items may be found for the row listed in column 2. in the fourth enclosure (D. Annual Monitoring NeRi’ork Plan Checklist,).

# B. Additional Items Requiring Attention

System Modifications:

o Please continue to work with EPA to request and receive approvals for system

modifications in accordance with the criteria in 40 CFR 58.14.

o In your next plan, please discuss your future plans for a Type 3 PAMS site in the

Bakersfield MSA.

o In your next plan, please confirm that the GRIMM 180, previously operating at the

Corcoran site, has been closed and is no longer being operated at any site.

o 

# Page 32 of your plan states that in order to meet the requirement in 40 CFR 58.10 (c),

the District notifies and seeks public comment on planned changes to the PM 25

network through the Annual Network Plan process. In addition, for unanticipated

changes that occur outside of the ANP timeframe, the District posts a public notice in

papers and a description of the changes on the website and seeks public comment.

This process should have applied to the changes at Bakersfield-Muni in February

2013. Please clarify this section in future plans to include how the District intends to

handle all future changes to the PM 2

. 5 network.

• Porterville PM 25 inconsistencies:

o 

# Table 5 in 

# your plan (page 10) lists the PM 2

. 5 monitor at Porterville as non-regulatory.

Per information in your approved 2011 ANP, this monitor is an FEM and started on



# March 8, 2010 and was expected to produce regulatory data after it had been

operating for greater than two years. EPA considers all SPMs operating FRM or FEM

monitors for greater than 24 months to be regulatory. Please indicate that the

Porterville FEM is now considered regulatory, or work with EPA to justify keeping it

as non-regulatory.

o Table 17 lists the Porterville PM 25 monitor as a non-FEM, although it is listed as an

FEM in Appendix A, and was previously approved as an FEM in your 2011 plan.

Please clarify what type of monitor has operated at this site throughout the period

since the site started in March 2010. Please note that even though this site is an SPM,

if the FEM operated for longer than 24 months, the data is considered regulatory, and

if violating, the closure of that monitor without approval could impact future planning

actions.

• Monitoring Objectives: Table 8b lists ozone SPMs at Tranquillity, Sequoia-Ash

Mountain and Sequoia-Lower Kaweah and the monitoring objective is listed as

timely/public.

o 

# Since Tranquillity has been operating an FEM since 2009, its data are considered

comparable to the NAAQS, and the monitoring objective should also include

NAAQS comparison (standards/strategy).

o National Park Service monitors: The Sequoia-Ash Mountain ozone monitor is part of

the CASTNET network, and is considered a regulatory site. Therefore, the monitoring

objective should include NAAQS comparison (standards/strategy). If the Sequoia

Lower Kaweah monitor is an FEM it may also be comparable to the NAAQS if the

other requirements of 40 CFR Part 58 are being met.• Minimum Monitoring Requirements: o Table 11 states that pending exceptional events are excluded from the highest concentrations used to determine the minimum monitoring requirement for PM 10 . Data that is not yet concurred upon for exclusion due to an exceptional event should

not be excluded from the design value calculation. In future plans, please include two design values for minimum monitoring requirement tables: one that excludes concurred-upon exceptional event days and one that includes all exceptional events. o All MSAs are required to have continuous PM 2 . 5 monitoring. In your next ANP, please clarify which monitors are meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 58 Appendix D 4.7.2, and ensure that they have a monitor type of SLAMS. o Possible typos: • Table 7 in your plan lists six ozone SLAMS in the Bakersfield MSA, but Table 8a lists seven. Please correct table 7 in your next plan. • Please note that the Stockton MSA only has two SLAMS sites for PM 25 , but table 15 lists three. o Please consider adding the following clarifications to Tables 11 and 15 in your next plan: Table 15 counts multiple monitors at the Modesto- 14th St site towards the minimum monitoring requirements. The number of SLAMS sites in Table 15 should only refer to the number of sites in the MSA, not the number of regulatory monitors. • Since these tables show a column for both the number of SLAMS sites and SPM sites, please clarify that only the SLAMS sites can be counted towards the minimum number of monitors required. • Also, clarifying that a site could be counted in both the SLAMS and SPM columns would be helpful (e.g. if there was a SLAMS monitor and a SPM monitor at the same site). • Design Values for Sampling Frequency: o In future plans please include the most recent design values for all PM 2 . 5 and PM 10 sites. This information is needed to determine the sampling frequency for PM 10 and PM 2 . 5 monitors, as described in 40 CFR 58.12. • SPMs: o All SLAMS and any SPMs operating FRM or FEM monitors for longer than 24 months should have a monitor objective of NAAQS comparison (standards/strategy) to indicate that the data are comparable to the NAAQS. including the PM 25 FEM BAM at the Clovis site. o Previous plans included footnotes to indicate which SPM were running FEMs and would be expected to be regulatory after 24 months. Please continue to include these clarifications in future plans. o Please consider changing longstanding SPMs producing regulatory data to SLAMS (including Tranquillity 03, Hanford PM 2 . 5 ). Due to planning implications, even though these monitors are SPMs, closing these sites without EPA approval may impact future planning actions since they are collecting regulatory data and are currently or previously violating. If you wish to retain the SPM monitor type for any

# of the sites operating FRM or FEM monitors for >24 months, please include a

justification in your next plan.

• Future AQS Changes: EPA is implementing changes to AQS fields of monitor type and

network affiliation. Please ensure that all your monitors are consistent with these changes

and include the updated information for monitor type and network affiliation(s) in your

next plan.

• Detailed site table recommendations:

o Some information is inconsistent between the body of the plan and the detailed site

tables in Appendix B.

o Please note clearly whether an item in the table is not applicable (or, for example,

cases where there are no trees) by using entries of “nla” or “none”, rather than leaving

the field blank.

o PM 10 FRM and FEM monitors are required to be reported in standard conditions

(parameter code 81102). You can also report the PM 10 data in local conditions

(85101), but please indicate in the detailed site table that it is one data stream from

the same monitor. One option would be to list both parameter codes under the column

for the single monitor.

o 

# Please clarify the following for the Fresno-Garland NCore site in your next plan to

demonstrate that the site is meeting NCore requirements:

• This site is missing most of the detailed site information. Please work with CARE

before the next plan to fill in the missing information.

• Is the PM 2

. 5 monitor (POCs 1 and 5) listed on page B-13 for required PM 2

. 5

speciation as an STN monitor?

• Please clarify which monitors are the PM 102

. 5 pair (and collocated pair if

applicable).

• Please clarify whether the SO 2 and CO monitors are trace level instruments.

• NCore sites are required to measure NO concentrations. Please confirm that there

is an NO monitor operating at the site, and include the information for this

monitor in the detailed site table.

• Note that the PMcoarse collocation requirement is determined for the national

network and not by PQAO and the Fresno-Garland site is required to have

collocated PMcoarse monitors. Please clarify in your next plan if this information is

included in the SJV or CARB ANP.

• The entries for the SO 2 

# monitor in the detailed site table appear to be one row off

after the row for “distance from obstructions not on the roof’.

o The first page of the site table for Stockton Hazelton lists a FRM and an FEM, but the

remaining pages of the detailed site information only list an FEM.

o The Visalia —Church site lists NO as a parameter, but not NO 2

. Please confirm the

correct parameter in your next plan.

o The information about the PM monitors at Bakersfield-Muni is inconsistent. For

example, the site table on page B-38 lists the PM 2

. 5 monitor as an FEM, and the

detailed table on page B-39 lists it as a non-FEM. However, page B-39 also lists the

method code as 170, which is for an FEM PM 25 BAM 1020. In your next plan, please

ensure that the entries in various parts 

# of the plan for this and other sites areconsistent. o In future plans. please include units and the source of data (including the year) for your listed traffic counts. o While monitor objective, instrument type and monitor type and operation duration can provide valuable information about whether a monitor is comparable to the NAAQS, sometimes the information presented in the plan is inconsistent. Please

include a specific statement about whether a PM 25 monitor is comparable to the NAAQS, and make that consistent with monitor objective. One possibility would he a new line in the detailed site table. If a monitor is not comparable to the NAAQS, please include the justification and EPA approval information, if applicable (e.g. for exclusions based on 58.11(e) or 58.30).

# C. Annual Monitoring Network Plan Items that EPA is Disapproving

Due to the closure and lack of approved replacement for the ozone monitor at Arvin Bear

Mountain Road (AQS ID 06-029-500 1), the requirement for a maximum ozone concentration

monitor in the Bakersfield Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is not currently being met. EPA

is therefore disapproving the 40 CFR 58 Appendix D 4.1(b) network requirement in this MSA.

CARE and the SJVAPCD should continue working with EPA to resolve this issue. A

replacement, once approved by EPA under 40 CFR 58.14, can be used as the basis for approval

of the 40 CFR 58 Appendix D 4.1(b) requirement in future 

# annual network plan actions.D.ANNUALMONITORINGNETWORKPLANCHECKLIST(Updated11/26/2013)Year:2013Agency:SanJoaquinValleyAirQualityManagementDistrict(SJVAPCD)40CFR58.l0(a)(1)requiresthateachAnnualNetworkPlan(ANP)includeinformationregardingthefollowingtypesofmonitors:SLAMSmonitoringstationsincludingFRM,FEM,andARMmonitorsthatarepartofSLAMS,NCorestations,SINstations,Statespeciation stations,SPMstations.and/or,inserious,severe andextremeozonenonattainmentareas.PAMSstations,andSPMmonitoringstations.40CFR58.10(a)(1)furtherdirectsthat.“TheplanshallincludeastatementofpurposesforeachmonitorandevidencethatsitingandoperationofeachmonitormeetstherequirementsofappendicesA.C,D.andEofthispart.whereapplicable.”Onthisbasis.reviewoftheANPsisbasedontherequirementslistedin58.10alongwith thoseinAppendicesA,C.D,andE.EPARegion9willnottakeactiontoapproveordisapproveanyitemforwhichPart58grantsapprovalauthoritytotheAdministratorratherthantheRegionalAdministrators,butwewilldoachecktoseeiftherequiredinformationisincludedandcorrect.The itemsrequiringapprovalbytheAdministratorare:PAMS,NCore.andSpeciation(STN/CSN).Pleasenotethat thischecklistsummarizesmanyoftherequirementsof40CFRPart58,but doesnotsubstituteforthose requirements,nordoitscontentsprovideabindingdeterminationofcompliancewiththoserequirements.Thechecklistissubjecttorevisioninthefutureandwewelcomecommentsonitscontentsandstructure.ANPrequirementCitationWastheinfoDoestheNoteswithin40submitted?’IfinformationCFR58yes,page#s.provided3meetFlagifthereq?4incorrect2?SubmitplanbyJulyIs58.10(a)(l)YesYes2.Statementofpurposeforeachmonitor58.10(aXi)YesYesAppendixA3.30-daypubliccommentIinspectionperiod558.10(a)(I),YesYes58.10(a)(2)AppendixGandH4.ModificationstoSLAMSnetwork—casewhenwe58.10(a)(2)YesIncomplete!SiteclosureofPM10andPM25SLAMSatarenotapprovingactualsystemmodifications(i.e..58.10(e)Pages39-41,incorrectBakerstield-Muniwerenotapproved.EPAwillwe willdoitoutsidetheANPprocess6)AppendixBandCcontinuetoworkwiththeDistricttogetadditionalinformationsincetheinfonEationincludedintheplanforthisrequestdoesnotdemonstratethatthecriteriain58.14weremet.Potentialfuturemodifications(notapprovedaspart.ofthisANPprocess):ClosingStockton-Wagner!Holt(PM10)ConsolidatingMadera-PumptoMadera-CityConsolidatingFresno-PacifictoFresno-DrummondSeeitem#16inthischecklistforotherpotentialfuturesystemmodifications5.ModificationstoSLAMSnetwork—casewhenwe58.10(a)(2)NoNoareapprovingactualsystemmodificationsper58.10(b)(5)58.14(c)58.10(e)58.14(c)6.Doesplanincludedocumentation(e.g.,attachedYesYesSiterelocation:Fresno-FirstSttoFresno-Garlandapprovalletter)forsystemmodificationsthathaveAppendixFbeenapprovedsincelastANPapproval?Responseoptions:NA(NotApplicable).Yes,No.Incomplete.Incorrect.Theresponses“Incomplete”and“lncorrect”assumethatsomeinformationhasbeenprovided.2Tothebestofourknowledge.AssumingtheinformationiscorrectResponseoptions:NA(NotApplicable)—[reasoni.Yes, No,InsufficienttoJudge.Theaffectedstateorlocalagencymustdocumenttheprocessforobtainingpubliccommentandincludeanycommentsreceivedthroughthepublicnotificationprocesswithintheirsubmittedplan.See58.14(c)ANPrequirementCitationWastheinfoDoestheNoteswithin40submitted?’IfinformationCFR58yes,page#s.provided3meetFlagifthereq?4incorrect2?7.NCoresiteoperational(by1/1/201I)58.10(a)(3)YesYesFresno-Garland8.Pbsitefor0.5-1.0tpysourcesoperational(by58.10 (a)(4)NANA12/27/2011)9.NOplanforarea-wideandRA4Ositessubmitted 58.10(a)(5)NoNoInfutureplans.pleasespeciwhichmonitorsinby7/1(2012Pages 33-35eachCBSAfulfillstheRA4Orequirement.WeanticipatefortheDistricttodesignateatleasttwooftheNO2monitorsinvulnerable/susceptibleareasasVmeetingtheRA4Orequirement.Seerelateditern#60.NoneoftheCBSAsintheDistrictcurrentlymeetthepopulationthresholdforrequiredarea-wideNO2monitors.Seerelateditem#59.10.NO2area-wideandRA4Ositesoperationalby58.10 (a)(5)NoInsufficientSeenotesfor item#9.59and60..1/1/2013informationtojudge11.NO2planfornear-roadsitessubmittedby7/1/201358.10(a)(5)Yes•YesforFresnoSeeattached near-roadplanchecklists..InsufficientInformationwasincludedfortwoofthefoursitesinformationtothatfundingwasprovidedtoconstruct.PlansforalljudgeforfoursitesarenotduepertheCFRuntilJuly2016.Bakersfieldhowever.EPAexpectstocontinuetoworkonthesitingofthesemonitorswiththeDistrict.12.SO2sitesoperational(by1/1/2013)58.10(a)(6)YesYesOnlyrequiredatNCoreand58.13(d)Pages35-3613.AQSsiteidentification numberforeachsite58.10(b)(l)YesYesAppendixB14.Locationofeachsite:streetaddressandgeographic58.10 (b)(2)YesYescoordinatesAppendixB15.Samplingandanalysismethod(s)foreachmeasured58.10 (b)(3)YesIncomplete!FresnoGarland:PM25FRMs shouldbegravimetric,parameterAppendixBincorrectanalysismethodmissingforPM25FEM.Arvin-DiGiorgio:missingOinstrumentmodel.BakersfieldCaliforniaAye:PM5FRMsshouldbegravimetric.Bakersfield-Muni:conflictinginformationaboutwhethercontinuousPM25monitorisaFEM.Manteca:analysismethodmissingforPM25andPM10.Sequoia-LowerKaweah:analysismethodmissingANPrequirementCitationWastheinfoDoestheNoteswithin40submitted?’IfinformationCFR58yes,page#s.provided3meetFlag if thereq?4incorrect2?forozone.Visalia-Church: missinginstrumentandanalysismethodforNO2.16.Anyproposalstoremoveormoveamonitoring58.10 (b)(5)YesIncompletePlease clarifywhattheanticipatedchangesareforstationwithinaperiodof18monthsfollowingplanPages39-41.the 03,CO,NO2,andallPM25monitorsatthesubmittalAppendixBFresno-Garlandsite.Pleaseclarifytheexpected changeforNMHC(PAMS)listedforParlierinAppendixBPleaseclarifytheexpectedchangefor03listedforArvin-DiGiorgioinAppendixB.Please clarifywhat changes areexpectedfortheBakersfield-Planzmonitor notedinAppendixB.Pleaseclarifywhetherthereare anyexpectedchangesforPM10atBakersfield-CaliforniaAve(alsonote-therearecurrentsiteupgrades that havereducedinstrumentationtemporarilyatthis site).AppendixBincludesthe PMinstrumentsattheBakersfield-MunisitewithoutanyindicationofexpectedchangesreferringtotheremovalofallPMmonitorsfromthissite.ContinuetoworkwithEPAtorequest approvalfortheclosureoftheStockton-Wagner/HoltPM10site.17.Scaleofrepresentativenessforeachmonitoras58.l0(b)(6);YesIncorrect!Fresno-Garland:Sinceurbanscale(4km—SOkin)definedinAppendixDAppDAppendixBincompleteisnotatypicalscaleforPM10.pleaseexplaintheareaaroundthis siteandjustifythe useofurbanscale forPM10atthissite.See40CFR58,App.Dsection4.6.Bakersfield-CaliforniaAye:pleaseincludescale forthenon-FEMPM2.5monitorsinfutureplans.4ANPrequirementCitationWastheinfoDoestheNoteswithin40submitted?’IfinformationCFR58yes,page#s.provided3mcetFlagifthereq?4incorrect2?Tracy-Airport:Itisunclearwhetherasitethatisneighborhoodscalecanhavetheobjectiveofregionaltransport.Pleaseclarifyorcorrectthescaleormonitorobjectivetobeconsistentwitheachotherfornextyear’splan.Visalia-Church:scaleismissingforNO18.Identificationofsitessuitableand sitesnotsuitable58.10(b)(7)NoInsufficientPleaseincludeastatementinyournext year’splanforcomparisontotheannualPM2.5NAAQSasPages25-33informationtowhetherornotallofyoursitesarecomparabletothedescribedinPart 58.30judgeAnnualPM25NAAQSasdescribedin40CFR58.30.19.MSA,CBSA,CSAorotherarearepresentedbythe58.10(b)(8)YesYesmonitorPages6-7andAppendixB20.DesignationofanyPbmonitorsaseithersource- 58.10(b)(9)YesIncompleteTherequirednon-sourceorientedPbmonitororientedornon-source-orientedPages36-37andrequiredattheFresno-NCoresiteisdiscussedonAppendixBpages36-37,buttheinformationaboutthemonitorismissingfromthedetailedsitetablesinAppendixB.Please include thisinformationinnext year’splan.21.Anysource-orientedPbsitefor whichawaiverhas58.10(b)(10)nanabeengrantedbyEPARA22.AnyPbmonitorforwhichawaiverhasbeen58.10(b)(11)nanarequestedorgrantedbyEPARAforuseofPb-PM10inlieuofPb-TSP23.IdentificationofrequiredNO2monitorsaseither58.10(b)(12)nanaNoarea-widesitesarerequired.Infuture plans,asnear-roadorarea-wideyournear-roadsitesareapprovedandbecomeoperational,pleaseidentifythem clearlyasnearroad.24.IdentificationofanyPM25FEMsand/orARMs not 58.10(b)(l3)NonaNorequestwasmadetoexcludePM25FEMdataeligibletobecomparedtotheNAAQS(Note1:58.11(e)fromcomparisontotheNAAQSatSLAMS oratmustincluderequireddataassessment.)(Note2:SPM sitesthathavebeenoperatinglongerthan24Required SLAMSmustmonitorPM25withmonths.Therefore,EPAassumesthatallFEMsatNAAQS-cornparablemonitorattherequiredsampleSLAMSoratSPMsoperatinglongerthan24frequency.)monthsarecomparabletotheNAAQS.25.For SPMs listedasnon-regulatory,notethestart58.20(c)NoInsufficientPleaseensure thatnextyear’s planclearlystates thatDateofFRM.’FEM/ARMatSPM.If>24months,informationtoallPM25SPMsoperatingFEMsforlongerthan245ANPrequirementCitationWas theinfoDoestheNoteswithin40submitted?’IfinformationCFR58yes,page#s.provided3meetFlagifthereq?4incorrect2?andmonitoriseligibleforcomparisonto thejudgemonthsarecomparabletotheNAAQS.orsubmitNAAQSper58.II(e)and58.30,theagencymusttheinformationjustifyingthatitisnotNAAQSsupplyinformationthatAppA.CorErequirementscomparable.SeeRow47foradditionalinformation.werenotmet.26.Documenthowstatesandlocalagenciesprovidefor58.10(c)YesInsufficientinnext year’splan.pleasesubmitthedocumentationthereviewofchangestoaPM-monitoringPage32informationtoofhowtheprocessoutlinedonpage32wasnetworkthatimpactthelocationofaviolatingPM-5judgefollowedforanyrecentPM-monitorchanges,monitor.including,butnot limitedto.theclosureofPM25monitorsatBakerstield-MuniandthetemporaryclosureofPM,5monitorsatBakersfield-California.27.Doestheplanincludearequestforapprovalforand58.11(a)(2)NonaalternativetoappendixArequirementsforSPMsoperatingaFRM!FEM!ARMwhichalsomeetsappendixE?28.Precision!Accuracy reportssubmittedtoAQS58.16(a);YesIncomplete!TheANPshouldnotetherequiredscheduleforAQSAppA.1.3Page41Insufficientdatasubmission—whichis90daysaftertheendofand5.1.1informationtoeachquarter. PleaseincludethisinformationinyourjudgenextANP.29.Annualdatacertificationsubmitted58.15YesIncomplete!InyournextANP, pleasedescribethecertificationApp.A1.3Page41InsufficientofthedatafromallDistrict andCARBoperatedinformationto sitesthatareincludedinyourANP.includingthejudgerequiredcertificationdateofMay1.30.FrequencyofflowrateverificationformanualPMAppA3.3.2YesIncomplete!Fresno-Drummond:theflowverificationforthesamplers auditAppendixBincorrectPM25FEMshouldbelistedundertheautomatedanalyzersBakersfield-CaliforniaAye:the flowverificationinformationismissingforthecollocatedPM10monitorBakersfield-Muni:theflowverificationinformationismissingforthePMmonitorsCorcoran:theflowverificationinformationis,missingforthePM25monitorStockton-l-lazelton:flowverificationinformationprovidedappearstobeincorrectandseemstobe6ANPrequirementCitationWas theinfoDoestheNoteswithin40submitted?’IfinformationCFR58yes,page#s.provided3meetFlag if thereq?4incorrect2?confusedwiththesemi-annualflowauditinformation31.FrequencyofflowrateverificationforautomatedAppA3.2.3YesIncomplete!Clovis-Villa:thePM25Therrno-2025ishouldbePManalyzersauditAppendixBincorrectlistedasamanualsamplerFresno-Garland:flowverificationismissingforautomatedPM25andPM10monitorsBakersfield-Muni:theflowverificationinformationismissingforthePMmonitorsHanford:theflowverificationinformationismissingforthePM10FEMmonitorStockton-Hazelton:flowverificationinfoniationprovidedappearstobeincorrectandseemstobeconfusedwiththesemi-annual flow auditinformation32.Frequencyofone-pointflowrateverificationforPbAppANoInsufficient InformationforthePbmonitoratFresno-Garlandsamplers audit3.3.4.1informationtowasnotincludedinAppendixBjudge33.Frequencyofone-pointQCcheck (gaseous)App.A3.2.1YesIncompleteBakersfield-Muni:theone-pointQCcheckAppendixBinformationwasmissingforthegaseousmonitorsSequoia-AshMountainandSequoia-LowerKaweah:theone-pointQCcheckinformationwasmissingfortheozonemonitorsVisalia-Church:theone-pointQCcheck informationwasmissingfortheNO2monitor34.DateoflastAnnualPerformanceEvaluationApp.A3.2.2YesIncomplete!Fresno-Garland:Themostrecent annualPE(gaseous)AppendixBincorrectinformationforthe03monitorislistedas9/22/2010,beforethesitewasoperating.whilealltheothergaseouscriteriapollutantshaveannualPEslistedinApril2012.Pleaseconfirmthatallgaseouscriteria monitorshaveannualPE’sperformedin2013inyournextplan.7ANPrequirementCitationWastheinfoDoestheNoteswithin40submitted?’IfinformationCFR58yes,page#s.provided3meetFlagifthereq?4incorrect2?Visalia-Church:theAnnualPEinformationwasmissingfortheNO2monitor35.Datesoflasttwosemi-annualflowrateaudits forAppA.3.2.4YesIncomplete.’Mostsiteshaveoneflowauditlistedper yearPMmonitorsand3.3.3AppendixBincorrect(sometimes2010and2012.sometimes2011and2012).ortheinformationismissing.Forfutureplans.pleaseincludethedatesofthetwosemiannualflow rateaudits forthecalendaryearprecedingtheplansubmittal.Forexample.foryourplanduebyJuly1.2014,pleaseincludethedatesforthetwosemiannualflow rate auditsperformedin.2013.Fresno-Garland:note theinformationforthePM25FEMismistakenlylistedundertheannualPEforgaseouspollutants36.Datesoflasttwosemi-annualflowrateauditsforPbAppANoInsufficientInformationforthePbmonitoratFresno-Garlandmonitors3.3.4.1informationtowas notincludedinAppendixB______judge37.PM2.5collocationAppA3.2.5NANATherequirementforcollocationisforthePQAOandisaddressedintheCAREANP.38.DesignationofaprimarymonitorifthereismoreiVeedtoYesInsufficientForanysiteswithmorethanoneFRM!FEM!ARMthanonemonitorforapollutantatasite.determineinformationtoforapollutantatasite,pleasenotewhichiscollOCationjudgeconsideredtheprimarymonitor.Forexample.thisinformationisnotclear forthefollowingsites:Clovis.Bakersfield-CaliforniaAve.BakersfieldMuni.Corcoran,Stockton-Hazelton.Modesto-I411St.39.Distancebetweencollocatedmonitors(Note:waiver.4pp..-lYesIncomplete/Insomecases,collocationdistancesaremissing.Itrequestorthedateofpreviouswaiverapprovalmust3.2.5.6andInsufficientisalsooftenunclearwhichmonitorsatasitearebeincludedifthedistancedeviatesfrom3.2.6.3informationtoprimary,whicharecollocatedmonitorsforQArequirement.)judgepurposesasrequiredby40CFRPart58AppendixA,andwhichareextramonitorsnotintendedforQAcollocation.Inyournext ANP,pleaseclarifythepurposeofeachmonitor(primary.QACollocatedorextra)andincludecollocated distanceinformationforsitesthathavemorethanoneFRM/FEMmonitorofthesamepollutant,includingatClovis-Villa,Fresno-Drummond,Fresno-Garland,Bakersfield8ANPrequirementCitationWastheinfoDoestheNoteswithin40submitted?’IfinformationCFR58yes,page#s.provided3meetFlagif thereq?4incorrect2?CaliforniaAye,Bakersfield-Muni. Corcoran,Stockton-Hazelton.Tracy-Airport.andModesto-14111St.Whiletodistancerequirementforcollocatedmonitors appliesonlytoamonitorpairthatisintendedforQA(aprimarymonitorandQAcollocatedmonitor),thedistancesbetweenallPMinstrumentsatasiteisimportanttodeterminewhetherthereisapossibilityofobstructionorflowinterferences,especiallyforhi-volumesamplers.40.ManualPM10method collocationmet? (note:AppA3.3.1NANATherequirementforcollocationisforthePQAOcontinuousPM10doesnothavethisrequirement)PageandisaddressedintheCARB ANP.41.PbcollocationAppANANANotrequired3.3.4.342.PM1025collocation(note:onlyappliestoFresnoAppA3.3.6NoInsufficientNote thatthePM102.5collocationrequirementisandPhoenix NCoresites)informationtodeterminedforthenationalnetworkandnot byjudgePQAOandtheFresno-GarlandsiteisrequiredtohavecollocatedPM10,5monitors.Pleaseclarifyinyournext planifthisinformationisincludedintheSJVorCARB ANP.43.Instrument/monitoringmethodcodefor each AppCYesIncomplete!Themethodcodesaremissingorincorrectforthemonitor:isitreported properly?Isitreported2.4.1.2AppendixBincorrectfollowinginstruments:PM10FEMatFresnocorrectly(i.e.,appropriatemethodcodeforGarland,PM75FRMatFresno-Pacific,03FEMatregulatorymonitors)?Arvin-DiGiorgio,PM75FRMatBakersfield-Planz,PM25monitorsatBakersfield-Muni,PM,5FEMatPorterville,PM2.5monitorsatSequoia-AshMtn, andNO7monitoratVisalia-Church.44.Foragencies thatsharemonitoring responsibilitiesAppD2(e)NoInsufficientKernCounty(BakersfieldMSA)issplitbetweeninanMSA/CSA:doeseachaffectedStateorlocalinformationtoSJVAPCDandEasternKernAPCDjurisdictions.agencymeetfullmonitoring requirementsorisjudgeCurrently,allminimummonitoring requirementsforanagreementbetweentheaffectedagenciesandthetheBakersfieldMSAaremetbytheSJVAPCDandEPA RegionalAdministratorinplace?CARBmonitorsinthevalleyportionofKernCounty.InyournextANP,pleaseconsiderincludingafootnote,liketheoneforTable7,onTablesIIand15,indicating that theseareshowingtherequirementsforPM10andPM25aremetwithmonitorsintheValleyportionofKernCountyalone.9ANPrequirementCitationWastheinfoDoestheNoteswithin40submitted?’IfinformationCFR58yes,page#s.provided3meetFlagifthereq?4incorrect2?Visalia-PortervilleMSA—ThemaximumconcentrationsiteforOintheVisalia-PortervilleMSAisaNPS-operated,regulatoryCASTNETmonitor.PleaseworkwithEPAandNPStodetermineifanagreementisneededtoindicatethattherequirementsformonitoringinthis MSAaremetbymorethanoneagency,andincludetheinformationinnextyear’sANP.45.StartdateforeachmonitorRequiredtoYesIncompleteIncludestart datesforallmonitors.ThefollowingdetermineifAppendixBsiteshadmissingstartdatesforatleastsomeotherreq.monitors:Fresno-Garland.Bakersfield-Planz.(e.g.,mm#Bakersfield-CaliforniaAve.Edison.Oildale.andcolbc)Corcoran.Merced-Coffee,Stockton-Hazelton,aremetModestol4thSt,andVisalia-Church.Inyournextplan,pleaseclarify(perhapsinthesitedescriptionorafootnotetothedetailedsitetable)whenregulatoryPM25monitoringbeganattheCorcoransite.ThedetailedsitetableinAppendixBcurrentlylistsSeptember2012asthestartdateforthePM25monitorcurrentlyoperatingatthesite,however,previousplansindicatethatregulatorymonitoringforPM25startedatthesiteinOctober1996.46.Instrumentmonitortypefor eachmonitorRequiredtoYesIncomplete,’Bakersfield-CaliforniaAye:PM10collocateddetermineifAppendixBincorrectinstrumentshouldbeaSLAMS,notother:monitorotherreq.Pages23-25,30-32typeismissingforNO2(e.g.,mm#andcolboc)Bakersfield-Muni:MonitortypeforPMinstrumentsaremetshouldbeSLAMS.The2011PlanclearlyidentifiestheBakersfield-Munisiteas anintendedreplacementfortheBakersfield-GoldensitewhichwereallSLAMS.ConversionofaSLAMStoSPMcanonlyoccurwithapprovalfromEPA’sRegionalAdministrator—see40CFR58.20(a):ThemonitoringagencymaydesignateamonitorasanSPMafterJanuary1,2007only’ifitisanewmonitor.i.e.,aSLAMSmonitorthatisnotincluded10ANPrequirementCitationWastheinfoDoestheNoteswithin40submitted?’IfinformationCFR58yes,page#s.provided3nicetFlagifthereq’?4incorrect2?inthecurrentlyapplicablemonitoringplanor.foramonitorincludedinthemonitoringplanpriortoJanuary1.2007.iftheRegionalAdministratorhasapprovedthediscontinuationofthemonitorasaSLAMSsite.SinceEPAhasnotapprovedclosureoftheBakersfieldMuniSLAMS,thePMmonitorsshouldremainlistedasSLAMSuntilclosureisofficiallyapprovedbyEPA.ForallSPMsoperatingFRMorFEMmonitorsforlongerthantwoyears,pleaseconsiderswitchingthemonitortypetoSLAMS,especiallyforanymonitorsviolatingtheNAAQS,sincetheywouldrequireapprovalforshutdown(includesPM25monitorsatTranquillity,Hanford,Madera-City,Merced-Coffee.andPorterville,andPM10monitorsatHanford,MantecaandTracy-Airport.and03monitoratTranquillity).MonitortypeisnotconsistentforsomePMmonitorsbetweenthetextoftheplanandthetablesinAppendixB(e.g.Madera-CityPM25).AllrequiredparametersforPAMSandNCoresitesshouldhaveamonitortypeofSLAMS,notSPM.Please refertorecentAQSmemosforchangestothemonitortypeandnetworkaffiliationfields.47.MonitoringobjectiveforeachinstrumentAppD1.1YesIncomplete!Thethreemonitoringobjectivesasdescribedin4058.10(b)(6)Pages15-36andincorrectCFR58AppD1.1aretoprovideairpollutiondataAppendixBtothepublicinatimely manner.NAAQScomparisonandresearch support.Highestconcentrationisasitetype,notamonitoringobjective(e.g.theozonemonitoratOildale).Many monitorsthatarecollectingregulatorydatainSJV,includingallSLAMSaswellasSPMsthat11ANPrequirementCitationWastheinfoDoestheNoteswithin40submitted?’IfinformationCFR58yes,page#s.provided3meetFlagif thereq?4incorrect2?operateFRMorFEMmonitorsforlonger than24months,donotincludeNAAQScomparisonasamonitoringobjective(listedasstandards/strategyinyourplan).PleasemakeanynecessarychangestothemonitoringobjectivesforyournextplantoclearlyindicatewhichmonitorsarecomparabletotheNAAQS,including,butnotlimitedtoFRM;FEMmonitorsatClovis.Fresno-Garland.Tranquillity.Bakersfield-Planz.BakersfieldCalifornia-Ave.Edison, Oildale.Shafter.Corcoran.Hanford.Madera-City.Merced-Coffee,Stockton1-lazelton.Tracy-Airport,Modestol4thSt.Turlock.Porterville.SeeRow25formoreinfonnation.Monitoringobjectivesshouldnotbe“unknown”.“other”or“notspecified”pleaseaddtheappropriatemonitorobjectivetomonitorsattheBakersfield-California-Ave.Fresno-Garland.Edison.Oildale.andVisalia-ChurchsitesinyournextANP.RequiredPAMSandNCoreparametersshouldalsonot haveamonitoringobjectiveof“other”or“unknown”.Pleaseconfinnthatthemonitoringobjectivesareconsistentwiththenetworkaffiliation,othersitesintheareaandobservedconcentrations(e.g.shouldCOandNO2bemaxprecursor emissionsimpact,whichisusuallyamonitoring objectivefordownwindmaxozonesites).TheSequoia-LowerKaweahozonesiteisnotaCASTNETsite.PleaseworkwithEPAbeforeyournextplantodeterminewhetherthissiteobjectiveshouldbeNAAQScomparison.48.Sitetypefor eachinstrumentAppD1.1.1YesIncomplete’ Fresno-Garland:NCoreisnotasitetype.Pages15-36 andincorrectAppendixBConsiderincludingmaxozoneconcentrationsite12ANPrequirementCitationWastheinfoDoestheNoteswithin40submitted?’IfinformationCFR58yes,page#5.provided3meetFlagifthereq?4incorrect2?type fortheozonemonitorsatClovis,FresnoDrummond, Fresno-GarlandandOildale.ConsiderincludinghighestconcentrationsitetypeforthePMmonitorsatCorcoran,Madera-City,Thesitetype shouldbeconsistent between monitorsofthesamepollutantatasite (e.g.PM25atClovis).Sitetypesformonitors intendedtofulfillQAcollocation requirementsin40CFR58AppendixAshouldhaveasitetypeof“qualityassurance”.Sitetypewasnotincludedfor somemonitorsatthefollowingsites:Bakersfield-CaliforniaAye,Modesto-14thSt,andVisalia-Church.49.Instrument parametercode foreachinstrumentRequiredtoYesIncomplete!Parametercodeislistedas“TBD(85101or81102)”determineifAppendixBincorrectforPM10FEMatFresno-Garland.RequiredPM10otherreq.SLAMSmustbereportedas81102(theymay(e.g.,mm#additionallybereportedas85101).andcolloc)aremetTheparametercodeforthePM10FEMatMaderaCityandMantecamustbe81102(datamayalsobereportedas85101).TheparametercodeismissingforPM25atTranquillityandsomeofthemonitorsatVisaliaChurch.50.Instrument parameter occurrencecode foreachRequiredtoYesYesinstrumentdetermineifAppendixBotherreq.(e.g.,mm#andcolloc)aremetSI.Samplingseasonforozone(note:dateofwaiver58.10(b)(4)YesIncomplete Ozone samplingseasonismissingforBakersfieldapprovalmustbeincludedifthesamplingseasonAppD,4.1(i) AppendixBCaliforniaAvesite.deviatesfromrequirement)52.SamplingscheduleforPM25-appliestoyear-round58.10 (b)(4)YesIncomplete!InyournextANP, pleaseincludethemost recent1—,ILANPrequirementCitationWas theinfoDoestheNoteswithin40submitted?’IfinformationCFR58yes,page#s.provided3meetFlagifthereq?4incorrect2?andseasonalsamplingschedules(note:dateof58.12(d) AppendixBInsufficientdesignvalueateachsitetoprovidesufficientwaiverapprovalmustbeincludedifthesamplingAppD4.7informationtoinformationtodeterminewhetherthesamplingseasondeviatesfromrequirement)EPAjudgefrequencyateachsiteisappropriate.fiowchartSamplingseasonisnotincludedforthePM,5monitorsatMadera-CityandBakersfield-Muni.Pleasenotethatany’monitorsoperatingonaseasonalschedulerequireapprovalfrom EPA(e.g.Bakersfield-MuniFRM).Documentationoftheseapprovals shouldbeincludedwiththeANPs.53.SamplingscheduleforPM1058.10(b)(4)YesInsufficientInyournextANP, pleaseincludethe mostrecent58.12(e)AppendixBinformationtodesign valueateachsitetoprovidesufficientAppD4.6judgeinformationtodeterminewhetherthesamplingfrequencyateachsiteisappropriate.54.SamplingscheduleforPb58.10 (b)(4)NoInsufficientInformationforthePbmonitoratFresno-Garland58.12(b)informationtowasnotincludedinAppendixBAppD4.5judge55.Sampling scheduleforPM1.2558.10(b)(4)YesInsufficientNotclearwhichmonitorswereintendedforPM102,558.12(f)AppendixBinformationtoAppD4.8judge56.Minimum#ofinonitorsforOs[Note:shouldbeAppD.4.1(a)YesYessupportedby’MSAID,MSApopulation.DV,#andmonitors,and#requiredmonitors](seefootnote)7TableD-257.identificationofmax.conc.03monitor(s)AppD4.1incompleteYesfortheFresno Formaximumconcentrationsites,pleaseensurein(b)MSAyournext ANPthatthesitetypesandotherinformationinthemainbodyoftheplanNoforBakersfieldconsistentlyidentifywhichsitesinaMSAareMSA;consideredmaximumconcentrationsites.InsufficientDuetotheclosureandunresolvedapproval forainformationtoreplacementsiteforthelong-standingdesignvaluejudgefortheozonemonitoratArvin-BearMountainBlvd(06-Hanford-Corcoran,029-5001),therequirementforamaximumozoneMadera. Merced.concentration monitorintheBakersfieldMSAisnotOnlymonitorsconsideredtoberequiredSLAMsareeligibletobecountedtowards meetingminimummonitoringrequirements.Inaddition, ozonemonitorsthatdonotmeettrafficcount/distancerequireillerilstobeneighborhoodscale(40CFR58AppendixE.TableE-l)cannotbecountedtowardsminimummonitoringrequirements.14ANPrequirementCitationWastheinfoDoestheNoteswithin40submitted?’IfinformationCFR58yes,page#s.provided3meetFlagifthereq?4incorrect2?Stockton.Modestocurrentlymet.andVisaliaPortervilleMSAsEachMSAisrequiredtohaveahighconcentrationmonitor.InyournextANP,pleasenotewhichsitesinthefollowingMSAsarehighconcentrationsites:Hanford-Corcoran,Madera.Merced.Stockton.Modesto,andVisalia-PortervilleMSAs.Also,sinceFresno-DrummondandFresno-Garlandcouldbeconsideredhighconcentrationsitesgivenrecentmeasuredconcentrations,pleaseconsideraddingmaximumozoneconcentrationasasitetype.58.Minimummonitoringrequirementsmetfornear-AppD4.3.2NANANonerequiredby2014roadNO2(2014startdate)59.Minimummonitoringrequirementsmetforarea-AppD4.3.3NANANonerequired.Seerelateditems#9and10.wideNO260.MinimummonitoringrequirementsmetforRA-40AppD4.3.4NoNoEPApreviouslyrequestedSJVtoidenti’twositesNO2asRA40NO,sites. TheDistrictandEPApreliminarilyagreedthattheParlierandreplacementPAMSsiteinArvinwouldbethesesites.SincethePAMSreplacementsiteinArvinisdelayed,EPAthensuggested thattheBakersfield-MunisiteserveasoneofthetwoRA4OsitestemporarilyuntiltheArvinNO2monitorisreestablished.PleaseincludethisinformationinyournextANP.61.MinimummonitoringrequirementsmetforSO2AppD4.4NANANonerequired[Note:OnlymonitorsconsideredtoberequiredSLAMsareeligibletobecountedtowardsmeetingminimummonitoringrequirements.]62.Minimummonitoringrequirementsmet forPbAppD4.5YesYesNCoresite hasTSP-Pb[Note:Onlymonitorsconsideredtoberequired58.13(a)SLAMsare eligibletobecountedtowardsmeetingminimummonitoringrequirements.]63.Minimum#ofmonitorsforPM25[Note1:shouldAppD,YesYesPleasenotethattheStocktonMSAonlyhastwobesupportedbyMSAID.MSApopulation,DV,#4.7.1(a)andPages25-32SLAMSsites forPM25,butTable15onpage26monitors,and#requiredmonitors][Note2:OnlyTableD-5liststhree.monitorsconsideredtoberequiredSLAMsareeligibletobecountedtowardsmeetingminimum15ANPrequirementCitationWastheinfoDoestheNoteswithin40submitted?’IfinformationCFR58yes,page#s.provided3meetFlag ifthereq?4incorrect2?monitoringrequireinents.164.OptionalPM25NetworkClarifications:ProvideaNeedtonanalistofrequiredsitesifitdoesnotincludeallassess severalSLAMS.[Note:defaultwillassumeallSLAMSarerequirementsconsideredrequiredsites.]65.RequiredPM25sitesrepresentarea-wideairqualityAppDYesYes4.7.1(b)Pages25-32.andAppendixB66.ForPM25.isatleastonesiteatneighborhoodorAppDYesYesfortheFresnoForyournextANP,asitetypeofhighestlarger scaleinanareaofexpectedmaximum4.7.l(b)(1)Pages25-32,andandHanford-concentrationshouldbeadded totheBakersfieldconcentrationAppendixBCorcoranMSAsCaliforniaAveandBakersfield-PlanzPM25monitorstoindicatethattheyfulfillthisrequirementIncomplete/fortheBakersfieldMSA,sincethehighIncorrect!concentrationmonitorsatBakersfield-MunihaveInsufficientbeenremoved.informationtojudgefortheEPAsuggestsincludinganevaluationofthedataBakersfield.fromBakersfield-Muniinthe2015NetworkMadera.Merced,AssessmenttodeterniineiftheconcentrationsStockton,ModestoobservedarereflectiveofsignificantsourcesintheandVisalia-emissionsinventorythatarenotcurrentlyPortervilleMSAscharacterizedbytheexistingmonitoring network.TheMadera-CitymonitorshouldbelistedashighconcentrationinyournextANPtomeetthisrequirementfortheMaderaMSA.Basedon2012designvalues,theMerced-CoffeePM,5monitorshouldbe themaxconcentrationsitefortheMercedMSAratherthanMercedMSt.Ifthemaxconcentrationsiteshiftsyeartoyear,pleaselistbothasthe highconcentrationsites.InyournextANP,pleaseusethemostrecentDVstoselectamaxconcentrationsitefortheStocktonMSA.andincludehighestconcentrationasthesitetype fortheappropriatesite.Ifthemaxconcentrationsiteshiftsyearto‘ear,pleaselistboth16ANPrequirementCitationWastheinfoDoestheNoteswithin40submitted?’IfinformationCFR58yes,page#s.provided3meetFlagifthereq?4incorrect2?asthehighconcentrationsites.TheTurlocl.monitorisnotlistedashighconcentration,butbasedon2012DVsshouldbelistedassuchinyournextANPtomeetthisrequirementfortheModestoMSA.Ifthemaxconcentrationsiteshiftsyeartoyear,pleaselistbothasthehighconcentrationsites.InyournextANP,pleaseusethemostrecentDVstoselectamaxconcentrationsitefortheVisaliaPortervilleMSA.andincludehighestconcentrationasthesitetypefortheappropriatesite.67.IfadditionalSLAMSPM25required,isthereasiteAppDYesYesinanareaofpoorairquality4.7.1(b)(2)Pages25-3268.MinimummonitoringrequirementsforcontinuousAppD4.7.2NoInsufficientAllMSAsarerequiredtohavecontinuousPM2525informationtomonitoring.ThisrequirementcanbemetbyFEMorjudgenon-FEMmonitors,andalthoughnotdemonstratedintheplan,itislikelythattherequirementismet.Inyournext ANP.pleaseevaluatehowtherequirementsof40CFR58AppendixD4.7.2applytoeachofyourMSAs,andclarifywhichmonitorsareintendedtomeetthisrequirement.Lastly.toindicatethattheyaremeetingthisrequirement.pleaseensurethattheidentified monitorshaveamonitortypeofSLAMS.69.RequirementsforPM2.5backgroundandtransportAppD4.7.3nanaThisisastatewiderequirementandisexpectedtobesitesdiscussedintheCARBnetworkplan70.ArePM2ChemicalSpeciationrequirementsmetAppD4.7.4NoInsufficientPleaselistanyrequiredCSN!STNsitesintheSanforofficialSTNsites?informationtoJoaquinValleyinyournextANP.judge71.Minimum#ofmonitorsforPM10AppD,4.6YesIncorrectFlaggedexceptionaleventsanddatafromtemporary(a) andTablePages 20-25sitessuchasBakersfield-MunishouldnotbeD-4excludedfromthedatausedtodeterminetherequirednumberofPM10monitors.Pleaseincludeall2013dataintheevaluationofmaximumconcentrationforeachMSAforyournextANP.17ANPrequirementCitationWastheinfoDoestheNoteswithin40submitted?’IfinformationCFR58yes,page#s.provided3meetFlagifthereq?4incorrect2?Given2012dataalone,themonitorsrequiredfortheBakersfieldMSAshouldbe2-4.ratherthan1-2.SincetherearetwomonitorsintheMSAtherequirementisstillbeingmet.72.MinimummonitoringrequirementsmetforPM105AppD1.8YesInsufficientItisunclearwhichmonitorsattheFresno-GarlandmassPage37andinformationtositeareintendedtomeetthePM102.5requirementforAppendixBjudgeNCore73.DistanceofsitefromnearestroadAppE6YesIncomplete/DistancetonearestroadwayismissingfortheAppendixBinsufficientFresno-Garlandand Lebecsites.informationtojudgeForyournextANP,considerwhetherthePM10andPM75sitesatModesto14thStreet shouldbeconsideredmicro-ormiddle-scaleduetothedistancetotheroadway.orconsidermovingthemonitorsfurtherfromtheroadwayifthespaceatthesiteallows.Itisunclearwhetherthedistancefromtheroadfortheneighborhood-scale03,CO.NO7,PM10andPM25monitorsatTurlockmeettherequiredminimumdistancefromtheroadasdescribedin40CFRAppendixE:pleaseevaluateandclarifythisinyournextANP.74.TrafficcountofnearestroadAppEYesIncomplete/Trafficcountsmissingforthefollowingsites:AppendixBinsufficientFresno-Garland,Tranquillity.Maricopa.Shafter,informationtoMadera-City.Madera-PumpYard.Merced-Coffee.judgeManteca.StocktonWagner/Holt.Porterville.75.GroundcoverAppE3(a)YesIncorrectRoofisnotanappropriategroundcover:pleaseAppendixBcorrectthisforFresno-Garland, Fresno-Pacific.Bakersfield-CaliforniaAye,Hanford.StocktonHazelton.ModestoI4thStandVisalia-ChurchinyournextANP.NotethatARBissimilarlyrevising-____________________groundcoverlistingsfortheirQAsitereports.76.ProbeheightAppE2YesIncomplete!ProbeheightismissingforsomemonitorsattheAppendixBinsufficientfollowingsites:Fresno-Garland.Arvin-DiGiorgio,informationtoBakersfield-Planz,Bakersfield-CaliforniaAve.judgeBakersfield-Muni,Edison,Oildale.Corcoran.Stockton-Hazelton.Modestol4thSt.andVisalia18ANPrequirementCitationWas theinfoDoestheNoteswithin40submitted?’IfinformationCFR58yes,page#s.provided3meetFlagifthereq?4incorrect2?Church.77.DistancefromsupportingstructureAppE2YesNoTheminimumhorizontalandverticaldistancefromAppendixBasupporting structureforPM10andPM25monitorsshouldbe2meters. Pleaseevaluatewhetherthatsitingrequirementcanbemet forPMmonitorsatthefollowingsites thatarelessthan2mfromthesupportingstructure: Clovis,Huron,Madera-City.Manteca,Stockton-Wagner!HoIt,andSequoia-AshMountain.Theminimumhorizontalandvertical distancefromasupporting structureforOmonitorsshouldbe1meter. PleaseevaluatewhetherthatsitingrequirementcanbemetforPMmonitorsatthefollowingsitesthatarelessthan1mfromthesupportingstructure:Madera-City.Thisdistancewas notprovidedforthefollowingsites:Fresno-Drummond, Fresno-Garland,Tranquillity,Bakersfield-California-Aye,Bakersfield-Planz,Bakersfield-Muni,Edison,Lebec,Maricopa,Oildale,Shafter,Corcoran,Hanford,Madera-PumpYard,Merced-Coffee,Merced-MSt.Stockton-Hazelton.Tracy-Airport,Modesto14thSt,Turlock, Porterville,SequoiaLowerKaweah, andVisalia-Church.Pleaseincludeadistanceinyournextyear’splanorindicatethatitisnotapplicable(bothfor horizontalorverticaldistances).78.DistancefromobstructionsonroofAppE4(b)YesNo!IncompleteTheplanlistsanon-roofobstruction0.5metersAppendixBawayfromthePM10instrumentattheFresnoDrummondsite.Theminimum distanceallowedby40CFR58AppendixEbetweenPMmonitorsandanobstructionontheroofis2meters. PleaseworkwithEPAtoaddressthissitingissue,andnoteitinyournextANP.ThisinformationwasmissingorunclearformostANPrequirementCitationWas theinfoDoestheNoteswithin40submitted?1IfinformationCFR58yes,page#s.provided3meetFlagifthereq?4incorrect2?sitesintheplan.PleaseincludethisinformationinyournextANP.oruseanentryof“none”toclearlyindicatetheinstanceswheretherearenoobstructions.79.DistancefromobstructionsnotonroofAppE4(a)YesInsufficientThefollowingsiteslistedobstructionsnotontheAppendixBinformationtoroofClovis,Fresno-Drummond,Fresno-Garland,judge/lncompleteFresno-SkyPark,Madera-City.Manteca,TracyAirport.andPorterville.Inordertodemonstratewhethertheseobstructionscauseasitingissue,pleaseincludeinfutureANPstheheightoftheobstructionabovetheinletofeachmonitor,aswellasadiscussionofwhetheritmeetsthecriteriain40CFR58AppendixE4(a)fornotcausingasignificantobstruction.Thisinformationwasmissingorunclearformostsitesinthe plan.PleaseincludethisinformationinyournextANP,oruseanentryof“none”toclearlyindicatetheinstanceswheretherearenoobstructions.80.DistancefromtreesAppE5YesIncomplete!InformationaboutdistancetotreesismissingfortheAppendixBinsufficientfollowingsites:Clovis(PM25),Fresno-Drummondinformationto(PM25).Fresno-Garland(PM),Parlier(03,NO2)judgeArvin-DiGiorgio(O).Bakersfield-Muni(allmonitors).Lebec(PM25).Maricopa(03).Shafter(allmonitors).Hanford(allmonitors).Merced-MSt(PMmonitors).Porterville(OandPM25).Inyournextplan.includeanydistancesfortreesatthesesites,orclearlyindicatethattherearenotrees.ThedistancetotreesforallmonitorsattheStockton-Hazeltonsiteislistedaszerometers.Inyournextplan, pleaseclarit,’iftherearetreesadjacenttothemonitorsor notrees.ForyournextANP,pleasere-evaluatethedistanceandpotentialobstructionduetothetreeattheEdisonsiteandconfirmthatthissitemeetsthe20ANPrequirementCitationWastheinfoDoestheNoteswithin40submitted?’IfinformationCFR58yes,page#s.provided3meetFlagifthereq?4incorrect2?criteriain40CFR58AppendixE§4and5.81.DistancetofurnaceorincineratorflueAppE3(b)YesIncomplete!Thedistancetoanynearbyfluesismissingfor someAppendixBInsufficientmonitorsatthefollowingsites:Clovis,FresnoinformationtoDrummond,Fresno-Garland.Bakersfield-Muni.judgeLebec,Maricopa,Corcoran,Hanford,Madera-PumpYard,Merced-Coffee,Stockton-Wagner/Holt,Tracy-Airport,andPorterville.InyournextANP,pleaseeitherincludeadistanceforallmonitorsorindicatethatthereisnotaflueclosetoanyofthemonitorinlets.82.UnrestrictedairflowAppE,4(a)YesNoPMinstrumentsshouldhaveatleast270degreesofand4(b)AppendixBunobstructedflow.ThePM10monitoratFresnoDrummondhasanunobstructedairflowof260degrees.Please workwithEPAtoaddressthissitingissuebeforeyournext ANP.TheamountofunrestrictedairflowismissingforthePM,5FEMmonitorandPM10monitoratFresnoGarland,thecollocatedPM10monitoratBakersfield-CaliforniaAve.allofthemonitorsatBakersfield-Muni,thePM10FEMmonitoratHanford,andthe03monitoratSequoia-LowerKaweah.PleaseincludethisinformationinnextvearsANP.83.Probematerial(ifapplicable)AppE9YesIncomplete!ProbematerialwasnotprovidedforthereactiveAppendixBincorrectgaseousmonitorsatBakersfield-MuniandforNO,atVisalia-Church.This probematerialrequirementonlyappliestothereactivegasesandnotPMmonitorsormet.However.EPAnotesthattheprobematerialisincorrectlylistedasTeflonforPM10,PM,5ormeteorologyinstrumentsatthefollowingsites:Fresno-Garland,Bakersfield-Planz,BakersfieldCaliforniaAve.Oildale,Corcoran,Manteca,Stockton-Hazelton,Tracy-Airport.Modesto-I4hh1s,Sequoia-AshMountain,andVisalia-Church.21ANPrequirementCitationWastheinfoDoestheNoteswithin40submitted?’IfinformationCFR58yes,page#s.provided3meetFlag ifthereq?4incorrect2?84,Residencetime(ifapplicable)AppE9YesIncompleteResidencetimewasmissingforthe03monitOratAppendixBModestoI4thSt.72E.1Region9Near-roadNO2PlanreviewchecklistChecklistVersiondate:October23,2013Agency:SanJoaquinValleyAirPollutionControl DistrictCBSA:FresnoThischecklistisintendedtoclarify thoseelementsthatEPAwillbelookingforduringthereviewofproposednear-roadNO2monitoringsites.Pleasenotethatthischecklistsummarizesnear-roadNO2siterequirementsof40CFRPart58,butdoesnotsubstituteforthoserequirements,nordo itscontentsprovideabinding determinationofcompliancewiththoserequirements.Thechecklistissubjecttorevisioninthefutureand wewelcomecommentsonitscontentsandstructure.Key:White=meetstherequirement.Yellow=doesnotmeetorcannotjudgetherequirement—actionrequestedinnextyear’s planoroutsidetheANP process.meetstherequirementbut actionrequestedtoimprovenext year’splan.COMPLETENESSCHECK:Basedon40CFR58requirements.NetworkPlanrequirements(40CFR58.10)-No.Near-roadN02planrequirementCitationInfoRequirementNotessubmitted?1met?2Ifyes,page#s.Aplan(submittedbyJuly1,2013)for40CFRIncomplete—InsufficienttoPlansubmittedtoEPAonJune25,2013.establishingnear-roadN02monitoring58.10(a)(5)AppendixEjudge.site(s)Assumingthatthefinalsiteisaccuratelycharacterizedby theinformationprovidedandmeetsalloftheapplicable40CFRPart58criteria,weexpectthatwewillbeabletoapprovetheDistrict’sNO2near-roadwayFresnositeselection.TheDistrictwillneedtoresubmitaplan thatincludesmissinginformationhighlightedinthischecklisttoreceiveEPAapproval.There-submittedplanshouldgothroughaminimum30daypublicinspectionperiodpriortore-submittaltoEPA.2Evidenceofpubliccommentonproposed40CFRIncomplete—InsufficienttoSeeitem1.site(s),nochangessubsequenttoproposal,58.10(a)(2)Appendix0judge.andsubmittalofanyreceivedcomments3Anticipatedoperationstart date40CFRNoInsufficienttoPleaseincludethisinformationinthefinal58.10(a)(5)judge.submittal.4AQSsiteidentificationnumber40CFRNoInsufficienttoPleaseincludethisinformationinthefinal58.10(b)(1)judge.submittalifavailable.5Location(streetaddress&geographical40CFRIncompleteInsufficienttoPleaseincludegeographicalcoordinatesinthecoordinates)58.10(b)(2)Pg.E-19judge.finalsubmittal.addressonly1Responseoptions:N/A(NotApplicable),Yes,No,Incomplete,Incorrect.Theresponses“Incomplete”and“Incorrect”assumethatsomeinformationhasbeenprovided.2Responseoptions:N/A(NotApplicable)—[reason],Yes,No,InsufficienttoJudge.Assumesinformationsubmittediscorrect.76Samplingandanalysismethod(method40CFRNoInsufficienttoPleaseincludethisinformationinthefinalcode)58.lO(b)(3)judge.submittal.7OperationSchedule(Season&sampling40CFRNoInsufficienttoPleaseincludethisinformationinthefinalfrequency)58.10(b)(4)judge.submittal.8Anyproposaltoremoveormovethe40CFRNoInsufficienttoPleaseincludethisinformationinthefinalmonitorwithinaperiodof18months58.10(b)(5)judge.submittal.followingplansubmittal9Monitoringobjective&spatialscaleof40CFRYes,Pg.E-Yesrepresentativeness58.l0(b)(6)1710CBSA representedbythemonitor40CFRYes,Pg.E-8Yes58.10(b)(8)NetworkDesignrequirements(40CFR58,AppendixD,Section4.3.2)1 1CBSApopulation&year40CFR58,Yes,TableYesApp.D4,Pg.84.3.2(a)(maindocument)12MaximumAADTcounts&yearforthe40CFR58,Yes,Pg.E-YesCBSA(s)App.D10&E-24-4.3.2(a)2513Correct#ofrequirednear-roadN0240CFR58,Yes,Pg.E-1YesmonitorsfortheCBSA(s)App.D4.3.2(a)14WereallroadsegmentswithintheCBSA40CFR58,Yes,Pg.E-YesrankedbyAADT?App.D24-254.3.2(a)(1)15Discussionofhowfleetmixisconsidered40CFR58,Yes,Pg.E-YesApp.D2-3,E-10,E4.3.2(a)(l)24-2516Discussionofhowroadwaydesignis40CFR58,Yes,Pg.E-4YesconsideredApp.DtoE-74.3.2(a)(l)(general),E8,E-12-14(Fresno)17Discussionofhowcongestionis40CFR58,Incomplete,InsufficienttoTableIonPg.E-lOonlyprovidescongestion3consideredApp.DPgE-4judge.metric forthe8thFE-AADTrankedsegment.4.3.2(a)(1)(general);PleaseprovideaconsistentcongestionpagesE-9,comparisonmetric foralltopFEAADTRankE-10,E-24-sitesconsidered.Sections5.6&5.7ofthe25Near-roadNO2MonitoringTAD provideguidanceonobtainingcongestionsmetrics.18Discussionofhowterrainisconsidered40CFR58,Yes,PgE-7YesApp.D (general);E4.3.2(a)(1)1619Discussionofhowmeteorologyis40CFR58,Yes,PgE-7YesconsideredApp.D(general);4.3.2(a)(l)E15-16(Fresno)20Afterabovefactorsconsidered,fmultiple40CFR58,Yes,PgE-7,YescandidatesiteswheremaxconcentrationsApp.DE-8expected:Discussionofhowpopulation4.3.2(a)(l)(general);exposureisconsidered?21Wherethesiteproposedisthe7”inthe40CFR58,N/A N/ACurrentlyonlyonerequiredsiteinFresnoCBSA.DiscussionofdifferingfactorsApp.DCBSA.comparedtofirstsite(i.e.fleet mix;4.3.2(a)(1)congestion; terrain;geographicareawithinCBSA;ordifferentroute,interstate,orfreewaydesignation).Sitingcriteriarequirements(40CFR58,AppendixE)22Distance fromtargetroadsegmentasnear40CFR58,Incomplete,InsufficienttoTheDistrictacknowledgesonpageE-17theiraspracticable(TADrecommendationisApp.EPg.E-17,E-judgefocusedeffortsonlocations thatcanhandleanwithin20meters)&nomorethan506.4(a)21airmonitoringsitewithin20metersandpagemeters?E-21statesthatthesite willbeasclosetothefreewayaspracticable.Please confirmthefinalestimateddistancefrom thetargetedroadwith thefinalplansubmittal.23Verticalinletplacementbetween2740CFR58,Incomplete,InsufficienttoTheDistrictnotesit“willplacetheprobeas4meters?App.E2Pg.E-18judge.closetothe2meterheightaspossible,”seepageE-18.Please confirmthefinalestimatedprobeheightwiththefinalplansubmittal.24Probedistancefromsupportingstructures40CFR58,NoInsufficienttoPleaseincludethisinformationinthe finalisatleast1meterawayverticallyorApp.E2judge.submittal.horizontally?25Isairflowunobstructedbetweentheprobe40CFR58,NoInsufficienttoPleaseincludethisinformationinthefinalandtheoutside nearestedgeofthetargetedApp.E4(d)judge.submittal.roadsegment?SUPPORTING/ADDITIONALINFfl1MAT1ON:BasedonNear-roadNO2monitoringTADandexperience.Check(Yes, No,N/A,CommentsInsufficient)Ifyes,page#s.IftopFE-AADTsegmentnotselected,isadequatejustificationYes,Pg.E-12EPA’sGoogleEarthexplorationofprovidedforhigherranksnotselected?thetopthreeFEAADTranksegmentsthatwerenotselectedisconsistentwiththeDistrict’sreasoningfor notbeingabletoselectafinalsitewithinthesesegments.ItwouldbehelpfulfortheDistricttoclarifywhetheranypropertyowneroutreachwasdone(andifso,theoutcome)forthetopthreeFEAADTrankedsegmentsforwhichafinalsiteselectionwas notpresented.IfsimilartopFE-AADTcandidatesitesavailable,wasmostInsufficienttoSeeItem17.congested segmentselected?judgeIscandidatesiteselecteddownwindoftargetroadsegment?N/APrevailingwindsparalleltoroad5thereforeeithersideofthe roadwasconsidered.(pageE-15)Arewindrosesincludedtoshowpredominantwindpatterns?Yes,PageE-15Arephysicalattributes(roadwaydesign,roadsidestructures,orYesSeeItems16-19terrain)desirable accordingtoTable4-2oftheNear-roadNO2TAD(seebelow)?Ifphysicalattributes (roadwaydesign,roadsidestructures,orterrain)N/ANOTdesirableaccordingtoTable4-2oftheNear-roadNO2TAD,aretheyTYPICALforthearea?WaspopulationexposurecorrectlyconsideredasanadditionalfactorYesSeeItem20.AFTERconsiderationofprimaryfactors(FE-AADT,congestion,roadwaydesign,terrain,meteorology)andIFmultiplemaxconcentrationcandidatesitesidentified?Willthisbeamulti-pollutantsite?Ifso,listadditionalparametersInsufficienttoTheDistrictreferencestheirplannedinComments.judgeconsiderationforaccommodationofaPM2.5inthefuture(seepageE2).Recommendclarifyingotherplannedpollutantsthatwillbeinstalledat site.DoesagencyensurecandidateselectionisNOTina“unique”Yes,Pg.E-6location?(SeeNear-roadNO2TADsection13.2includedbelow)6Table4-2.Summaryofphysicalconsiderationsforcandidatenear-roadsites.PhysicalSiteImpactonSiteDesirableL.eastDesirablePotentialInformationComponentSelectionAttributesAttributesSourcesRoadwayFeasibilityofAt-gradeorDeep cut-Fieldreconnaissance;designormonitornearlyat-gradesections/significantsatelliteconfigurationplacements;withimmediatelybelowgrade;imageryaffects pollutantsurroundingsignificantlyabovetransportandterrain, grade(fillordispersion.bridge);abovegrade(bridge).RoadsideFeasibilityofpresentotherPresenceofsoundFieldreconnaissance;Structuresmonitorthanlow(<2mwalls,mature(highsatelliteplacement;inandthick)imageryaffectspollutantheight)vegetation,transportandvegetationorobstructivedispersion.safetyfeaturesbuildings.suchas___________________guardrails.TerrainAffectspollutantFlatorgentleAlongmountainFieldreconnaissance;dispersion,localterrain,withinaridgesorpeaks,digitalatmosphericvalley,oralongahillsides,orotherelevationmodelsandstability,roadgrade.naturallyvegetationwindswept areas.files;satelliteimagery.MeteorologyAffectspollutantRelativeStronglyLocaldata;NationaltransportanddownwindpredominantOceanicanddispersion.locations;windsupwindpositions.AtmosphericfromroadtoAdministration’smonitor.(NOAA’s)NationalWeatherService(NWS);EPA’sAirQualitySystem(AQS).713.2UniqueLocationsandBackgroundSourceInfluencesIntheevaluationprocess,stateandlocalairagenciesmayencountersituationswherecertainroadsegmentsofinteresthavecharacteristicsthatmakethelocationauniquenear-roadlocationthathaselevatedpollutantconcentrations.Insuchcases,thepollutantconcentrationsarenotrepresentativeofothernear-roadlocationsacrosstheCBSA.Theuniquecharacteristicsoftheselocationscouldbeduetothecloseproximityofasubstantialstationarysource,non-road mobilesources,orroadwaydesignfeatures(suchastunnelentrancesandexitsortollplazas).InsituationswhereastateorlocalairagencyhasachoicebetweenroadsegmentsthatotherwisehavesimilarpotentialforpeakN02concentrations,theairagenciesshouldplaceahigherweightonsitesthataremost influencedbytypicalroadwayactivityratherthanthosethatareheavilyinfluencedbyuniquesourcesorfeatures.ThisapproachincreasestheprobabilitythatthechosensitecanrepresentalargerpopulationexposurewithinandacrossCBSAs.TheEPArecognizesthatstateandlocalairagencieswilllikelyhaveagoodunderstandingofwhethercandidatenear-roadN02monitoringsiteshaveuniquecharacteristicsthatdoordonotrepresenttheCBSAthatthosesitesarewithin.TheEPAencouragesstateandlocalairagenciesto usetheirlocalknowledgeinsiteselectionandtoengagetheEPARegionalstaffforassistanceinevaluatingsuchasituationasnecessary.8E.2Region9Near-roadNO2PlanreviewchecklistChecklistVersiondate:October23,2013Agency:SanJoaquinValleyAirPollution Control DistrictCBSA:BakersfieldThischecklistisintendedtoclarifythoseelementsthatEPAwillbelookingforduringthereviewofproposednear-roadNO2monitoringsites.Pleasenotethatthischecklistsummarizes near-roadNO2siterequirementsof40CFRPart58,butdoesnotsubstituteforthoserequirements,nordoitscontentsprovideabindingdeterminationofcompliancewiththoserequirements.Thechecklistissubjecttorevisioninthefutureand wewelcomecommentson itscontentsandstructure.Key:White=meetstherequirement.Yellowdoesnotmeetorcannotjudgetherequirement—actionrequestedinnextyear’splanoroutsidetheANP process.=meetstherequirementbutactionrequestedtoimprovenextyear’splan.COMPLETENESSCHECK:Basedon40CFR58requirements.NetworkPlanrequirements(40CFR58.10)-No.Near-roadN02planrequirementCitationInfoRequirementNotessubmitted?1met?2Ifyes,page#s.Aplan(submittedbyJuly1,2013)for40CFRIncomplete—InsufficienttoPlan submittedtoEPAonJune25,2013.establishingnear-roadN02monitoring58.10(a)(5)AppendixDjudgesite(s)TheDistrictwillneedtoresubmitaplanthatincludesmissinginformation highlightedinthischecklisttoreceiveEPAapprovalforaproposedBakersfieldsite.ThelevelofdetailprovidedforthecurrentlyproposedBakersfieldsitedoesnotadequatelyjustifyselectionforEPAapprovalatthistime. There-submittedplanshouldgothroughaminimum30daypublicinspectionperiodpriortore-submittaltoEPA.2Evidenceofpubliccommentonproposed40CFRIncomplete—InsufficienttoSeeitem1.site(s),nochanges subsequenttoproposal,58.10(a)(2)Appendix0judge.andsubmittalofanyreceivedcomments3Anticipatedoperationstartdate40CFRNoInsufficienttoPleaseincludethisinformationinthefinal58.l0(a)(5)judge.submittal.4AQSsiteidentificationnumber40CFRNoInsufficienttoPleaseincludethisinformationinthefinal58.10(b)(1)judge.submittalifavailable.5Location(streetaddress&geographical40CFRIncomplete,InsufficienttoPleaseincludegeographicalcoordinatesinthecoordinates)58.10(b)(2)Pg.D-18judge.finalsubmittal.addressonly6Samplingandanalysismethod(method40CFRNoInsufficienttoPleaseincludethisinformationinthe finalcode)58.l0(b)(3)judge.submittal.1Responseoptions:N/A(Not Applicable),Yes, No,Incomplete,Incorrect.Theresponses“Incomplete”and“Incorrect”assumethatsomeinformationhasbeenprovided.2Responseoptions:N/A(Not Applicable)—[reason],Yes,No,InsufficienttoJudge.Assumesinformationsubmittediscorrect.7OperationSchedule(Season&samplingfrequency)40CFRNoInsufficienttoPleaseincludethisinformationinthefinal58.10(b)(4)judge.submittal.8Anyproposaltoremoveormovethe40CFRNoInsufficienttoPleaseincludethisinformationinthefinalmonitorwithinaperiodof18months58.l0(b)(5)judge.submittal.followingplansubmittal9Monitoringobjective&spatialscaleof40CFRYesYesrepresentativeness58.10(b)(6)10CBSArepresentedbythemonitor40CFRYes,P.gD-8Yes58.lO(b)(8)NetworkDesignrequirements(40CFR58,AppendixD,Section4.3.2)IICBSA population&year40CFR58,YesTable4,YesApp.Dpage84.3.2(a)12MaximumAADTcounts&yearforthe40CFR58,Yes—pagesYesCBSA(s)App.DD-l0andD4.3.2(a)22-2313Correct#ofrequirednear-roadN0240CFR58,Yes—pageYesmonitorsfortheCBSA(s)App.DD-l4.3.2(a)14WereallroadsegmentswithintheCBSA40CFR58,Yes—pagesYesrankedbyAADT?App.DD-l0andD4.3.2(a)(l)22-2315Discussionofhowfleetmixisconsidered40CFR58,Yes—pagesInsufficienttoThereisadifferenceofapproximatelyApp.DD-2,3,D-10judge.173,000FE-AADTcountsbetweenthetop4.3.2(a)(l)andD-22-23BakersfieldtraffickedsegmentandtheOilJunction(Pg.D-10)proposedsegmentfor.selection.TheproposedOilJunctionsegmentranksatapproximately55%amongmaximumcalculatedFE-AADT.InSection3.6(Pg.D-18),theDistrictdiscussescorrespondencewithpotentialpropertyownersforsegments7and9.Itisunclearwhetheranyoutreachwasconducted3bytheDistrictforsegmentsrankinghigherthansegment7.EPA’susedGoogleEarthtosurveythe listoftoprankingFE-AADTsegmentspresentedbytheDistrictandfoundseveralparcels withinthetopsegmentswhereacandidatesiteappearedpotentiallyfeasible.Inthetoprankingsegmentforexample,EPAfoundthattheKern County MentalHealthServices&TrafficSchoolEasy.comparkinglotswouldbeworthfurtherexploration.Alsointhetopsegment,theKBAKTVsatellitefieldappearedworthyoffurtherinvestigation.Inthethird ranking FE-AADTsegment,EPAfoundthattheTravelLodgeparkinglotandAutoPlanetback-lotarea couldalsobeworthfurtherexploring.GiventhelevelofdetailprovidedintheplanasjustificationforeliminationoftopFEAADTsegmentsandpairedwithoursurveyandfindingofpotentialcandidatelocationswithinthetopthreeFE-AADT segments,EPArecommendsthatamorethoroughsearchbeconductedanddocumentedbytheDistricttofindapotentialsitehigherinFEAADT.WhileEPAunderstandsthatagenciesarefacedwithavarietyofsafetyandlogisticalfactorstoconsiderthatmake siteselectionachallenge,wefeelthatsuchasignificantdifferenceinFE-AADTbetweentheproposedsiteandthetopsegmentswarrantsfurtherdocumentationofwhy no4higher rankingcandidatesitesweredeemedacceptable.EPAencouragestheDistricttoconductpropertyowneroutreachforpotentialsitinglocationswithinthetopsixsegmentspriortoconsideringtheseunacceptableforanear-roadsite.Tofurtherassistwithpropertyowner outreach,EPAforexamplehasobservedsomeagenciespartnerwithinterested communitygroupsthathave beenabletohelp findwillingpropertyowners.EPAisalsoavailabletohelptheDistrictfurtheridentifypotentiallyfeasiblelocationswithinthehigherrankingFE-AADTsegments.16Discussionofhowroadwaydesignis40CFR58,Incomplete,InsufficienttoInpagesD-11through15theDistrictincludesconsideredApp.DPagesD-4tojudge.“descriptionsofthetop10roadsegmentsand4.3.2(a)(l)D-7thereasonswhytheywereacceptableor(general),unacceptableforsiteconsideration.”ThepagesD-8toDistrictlistsroadgradeissues,11(Bfkld),trees/vegetation,andsoundwallobstructionsD-11-15amongreasonsforunacceptablesiteswithin(segments)thetoprankingFE-AADTsegments.TheseunacceptablesiteattributesarequalitativelydescribedbytheDistrict.Section7oftheTADdiscussesPhysicalConsiderationsforCandidateNear-roadMonitoringSites.Specifically,Table7-1oftheTAD(alsoincludedasTable4-2below)characterizesthesephysicalconsiderationsas“desirable”and“leastdesirable”attributesforcandidatenear-roadsites.Thetableorexamplespecifies“deepcutsections/significantlybelowgrade;5significantlyabovegrade(fillorbridge);abovegrade(bridge)”asleastdesirableattributesforroadwaydesignorconfiguration.After conductingasurveyofthetopsegments(seeItem15Notes)andconsideringtheinformationpresentedintheplan relatingtoroadwaydesign issues,EPAfeltthattheeliminationoftopsegmentsbasedonroadwaydesignasafactor primarilywasnotsufficientlyjustified.While theTADpresentsguidanceonthedesirabilityofphysicalconsiderationsforcandidatenear-roadsites,itdoes notrecommendthattopsegmentsbedeemed unacceptableforinvestigationprimarilybasedonthesephysicalattributes.Asanexample,EPAhaswitnessedagenciesthathavebeen abletowork withwillingpropertyownerstoremoveobstructingtrees.Furthermore,ascurrentlycharacterizedintheDistrict’splan,itisunclearwhattheextentoftheroadway design issuesaresincethesearemostly describedinaqualitativemanner.Figure7-1oftheTADsuggeststhatdependingonthedistancetothe roadthereisarelativedesirabilityofvariousroadwaydesignstoconsiderwhenselectingacandidatelocations. EPAencouragestheDistricttorevisitroadwaydesignasafactorintheircandidatesiteselectionandisavailabletoworkwiththeDistricttohelpidentifypotentiallylocationswithinthehigherrankingFE-AADTsegmentswhererelative6desirabilityofroadwaydesigncanbereconsidered.17Discussionofhowcongestionis40CFR58,Incomplete,InsufficienttoTable1onPg.D-l0onlyprovidescongestionconsideredApp.DD-4,D-9judge.metricforthe2ndand8thFE-AADTranked4.3.2(a)(1)segments.PleaseprovideaconsistentcongestioncomparisonmetricforalltopFEAADTRanksitesconsidered.Sections5.6&5.7oftheNear-roadNO2MonitoringTADprovideguidanceonobtainingcongestionsmetrics.18Discussionofhowterrainisconsidered40CFR58,Yes,D-7,D-YesApp.D164.3.2(a)(1)19Discussionofhowmeteorologyis40CFR58,Yes, D-7,YesconsideredApp.DD15-164.3.2(a)(1)20Afterabovefactorsconsidered,fmultiple40CFR58,Incomplete,InsufficienttoPageD-18ofthe plandescribestheDistrict’scandidatesiteswheremaxconcentrationsApp.DD-7, D-8,D-judgeconsiderationof“populationexposureasoneexpected:Discussionofhowpopulation4.3.2(a)(1)14,D-17,D-ofthecriteriathatshouldbeconsideredexposureisconsidered?18duringthesiteselectionifyouhavemultipleacceptablesitesinthesameroadsegment.”TheDistrictnotesthat“onlyonelandownerinsegment9waswillingtonegotiatealease”andfurtherdiscussionofconsiderationofpopulationexposurefortheproposedsegmentwasnotfound.FromaGoogleEarthsurvey,EPAnotedthattheOilJunctionsegmentproposedforselectiondidnot appeartobeinoneofthemorepopulatedareasofBakersfieldwhencomparedtootherssectionsalongthe99thatrun throughthemorepopulatedurbancenter.7EPA recommendsreexaminationofthisfactorafter revisitingitems15-17aboveandpotentiallyfindingnewcandidateslocationsrankinghigherinFE-AADT.21Wherethesiteproposedisthe2’’inthe40 CFR58,N/A N/ACurrentlyonlyonerequiredsiteinCBSA.DiscussionofdifferingfactorsApp.DBakersfieldCBSA.comparedtofirstsite(i.e.fleetmix;4.3.2(a)(l)congestion; terrain; geographicareawithinCBSA;ordifferentroute,interstate,orfreewaydesignation).Sitingcriteriarequirements(40CFR58,AppendixE)22Distancefromtargetroadsegmentasnear40CFR58,Incomplete, InsufficienttoTheDistrictacknowledgesonpageD-17theiraspracticable(TADrecommendationisApp.EpagesD-7,judgefocusedeffortsonlocationsthatcanhandleanwithin20meters)&nomorethan506.4(a)D-17-18,19airmonitoringsitewithin20metersandpagemeters?E191statesthatthesitewillbeasclosetothefreewayaspracticable.Pleaseconfirmthefinalestimateddistancefromthetargetedroadwiththefinalplansubmittal.23Verticalinletplacementbetween2-740CFR58,Incomplete, InsufficienttoTheDistrictnotesit“willplacetheprobeasmeters?App.E2pagesD-7,judge.closetothe2meterheightD-17-18aspossible,”seepageD-18.Pleaseconfirmthefinalestimatedprobeheightwiththefinalplansubmittal.24Probedistancefromsupporting structures40CFR58,NoInsufficienttoPleaseincludethisinformationinthefinalisatleast1meterawayverticallyorApp.E2judge.submittal.horizontally?25Isairflowunobstructedbetweentheprobe40CFR58,Incomplete,InsufficienttoPleaseclarifyairflowisunobstructedforandtheoutsidenearestedgeofthetargetedApp.E4(d)pagesD-judge.finalsiteselectionafterreexaminingtheroadsegment?11&12,D-checklistitemsabove.208SUPPORTING/ADDITIONALINFORMATION:BasedonNear-roadNO2monitoringTADandexperience.Check(Yes,No,N/A,Comments-Insufficient)Ifyes,page#s.IftopFE-AADTsegmentnotselected,isadequatejustificationInsufficienttoSeeItems15&16above.providedforhigherranks notselected?judgeIfsimilartopFE-AADT candidatesitesavailable,wasmostInsufficienttoSeeItem17.congested segmentselected?judgeIscandidatesiteselecteddownwindoftargetroadsegment?N/AItemshouldberevisitedafterfurthertopsegmentexploration.Arewindrosesincludedtoshowpredominant wind patterns?Yes,Pg. D-16Are physicalattributes(roadwaydesign,roadside structures,orInsufficienttoSeeitem16.terrain)desirable accordingtoTable4-2oftheNear-roadNO2TADjudge(seebelow)?Ifphysicalattributes(roadwaydesign, roadsidestructures,orterrain)InsufficienttoSeeitem16.ThiswouldbeanotherNOTdesirableaccordingtoTable4-2oftheNear-roadNO2TAD,judgefactor worthexploringbythearetheyTYPICALforthe area?District.Waspopulationexposure correctlyconsideredasanadditionalfactorInsufficienttoSeeitem20.AFTER considerationofprimaryfactors(FE-AADT,congestion,judgeroadwaydesign,terrain,meteorology)andIFmultiplemaxconcentrationcandidatesitesidentified?Willthisbeamulti-pollutantsite?Ifso,listadditional parametersInsufficienttoTheDistrictreferencestheirplannedinComments.judgeconsiderationforaccommodationofaPM2.5inthefuture(seepageD2).Recommend clarifyingotherplannedpollutantsthatwillbeinstalledatsite.DoesagencyensurecandidateselectionisNOTina“unique”Yes,Pg.D-6Theselectionofnon-uniquesiteislocation?(SeeNear-roadNO2TADsection13.2includedbelow)listedasaconsiderationonpageD6.9Table4-2.Summaryofphysicalconsiderationsforcandidatenear-roadsites.PhysicalSiteImpactonSiteDesirableLeastDesirablePotentialInformationComponentSelectionAttributesAttributesSourcesRoadwayFeasibilityofAt-gradeorDeepcut-Fieldreconnaissance;designormonitornearlyat-gradesections/significantsatelliteconfigurationplacements;withimmediatelybelowgrade;imageryaffectspollutantsurroundingsignificantlyabovetransportandterrain,grade(fillordispersion.bridge);abovegrade(bridge).RoadsideFeasibilityofpresentotherPresenceofsoundFieldreconnaissance;Structuresmonitorthanlow(<2mwalls,mature(highsatelliteplacement;inandthick)imageryaffectspollutantheight)vegetation,transportandvegetationorobstructivedispersion. safetyfeaturesbuildings.suchasguardraiIs.TerrainAffectspollutantFlatorgentleAlongmountainFieldreconnaissance;dispersion,localterrain,withinaridgesorpeaks,digitalatmosphericvalley,oralongahillsides,orotherelevationmodelsandstability,roadgrade.naturallyvegetationwindsweptareas.files;satelliteimagery.MeteorologyAffectspollutantRelativeStronglyLocaldata;NationaltransportanddownwindpredominantOceanicanddispersion.locations;windsupwindpositions.Atmosphericfrom roadtoAdministration’smonitor.(NOAA’s)NationalWeatherService(NWS);EPA’sAirQualitySystem(AQS).1013.2UniqueLocationsandBackgroundSourceInfluencesIntheevaluationprocess,stateandlocalairagenciesmayencountersituationswherecertainroadsegmentsofinteresthavecharacteristicsthatmakethelocationauniquenear-roadlocationthathaselevated pollutantconcentrations.Insuch cases,thepollutantconcentrationsarenotrepresentativeofothernear-roadlocationsacrosstheCI3SA.Theuniquecharacteristicsoftheselocations couldbeduetothecloseproximityofasubstantial stationarysource,non-road mobilesources,orroadwaydesignfeatures(suchastunnelentrancesandexitsortollplazas).Insituations whereastateorlocalairagencyhasachoicebetweenroadsegmentsthatotherwisehavesimilarpotentialforpeakN02concentrations,theairagenciesshouldplaceahigher weightonsitesthataremostinfluencedbytypical roadwayactivityratherthanthosethatareheavilyinfluencedbyuniquesourcesorfeatures. Thisapproach increasestheprobabilitythatthechosensitecanrepresentalargerpopulation exposurewithinandacross CBSAs.TheEPArecognizesthatstateandlocalairagencieswilllikely haveagoodunderstandingofwhethercandidatenear-roadN02monitoringsiteshaveuniquecharacteristicsthatdoordonotrepresenttheCBSAthatthosesitesarewithin.TheEPAencouragesstate andlocalairagenciestousetheirlocalknowledgeinsiteselectionandtoengagetheEPARegionalstaffforassistanceinevaluatingsuchasituationasnecessary.11

# F. Supplemental Response to Comments

SJVAPCD received comments on its 2013 Annual Monitoring Network Plan from Earthjustice

on behalf of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, Greenaction, and the Coalition for Clean

Air. The District included its responses to these comments in its network plan submittal to EPA.

EPA has reviewed the comments and responses and wishes to clarify a few points regarding EPA

guidance and requirements that are relevant to these comments.

Comment: SJVAPCD should ‘provide more detailed information about its decision-making

process with respect to monitoring site closures and consolidations.”

Supplemental response: EPA requires that monitoring agencies request EPA approval for

system modifications to SLAMS monitors using the criteria set forth in 40 CFR 58.14. This

process should also be used for any previously violating monitor producing regulatory data (even

those that are not SLAMS) since the lack of an EPA approval in those cases may jeopardize

future EPA actions. This process can occur through the Annual Network Plan submittal and

approval process, or outside of that process through separate correspondence between a monitoring agency and EPA. If the agency requests and receives EPA approval outside of the

network plan process, the request and EPA’s approval must be included in the following Annual

Network Plan.

EPA understands that monitoring agencies are continually evaluating their networks to manage

resources effectively, ensure that sites continue to meet existing and 

# new EPA requirements as

air quality levels or census information changes, and respond to logistical challenges outside of

their control. We appreciate the fact that the SJVAPCD includes preliminary information in their

Annual Network Plans that indicate system modifications that they are considering, but are not

yet ready to request approval for or implement. In these cases, the district may not have all the

information needed for a request, but we encourage the district to work with EPA early in their

system modification process to ensure that all necessary information is included with the request

when the district is ready to move forward with the modification.

Comment: “Although the District describes the Plan requirements in the introduction, the

criteria behind those requirements are not fully explained.”

Supplemental Response: Most of the EPA requirements and guidance on network design and

the characteristics of monitoring objective, site type and spatial scale of representativeness are

set forth in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D. Section 1.1 of Appendix D lists three basic monitoring

objectives of monitoring networks: public reporting, support for NAAQS compliance and

research support. Section 1.1.1 lists the variety of site types that are needed to meet these

objectives. Section 1.2 describes spatial scales of representativeness. These three qualities of a

monitor are interdependent, and the classification of the monitor by its type and spatial scale of

representativeness is critical in determining whether the monitoring data is appropriate for

meeting a particular monitoring objective (Section 1.2(e)). Section 4 describes details of 

# the

relationship between the monitoring objective, site type and scale of representativeness of a

monitor for each pollutant.Comment: “The District states that the l3akersfield-Muni PM 25 and PM 10 monitors met the criteria for a move under 40 CFR Part 58; however the District did not request or receive approval from the Regional Administrator as required under 40 CFR Part 58.14(b) prior to shutting down the monitors. Additionally, the District argued that the PM 25 and PM 10 monitors

should be moved due to activities in the area, such as street sweeping and disking of an open

field, that altered air quality near the monitors such that the monitors’ data would not capture ‘ambient air’ in the Valley. This rationale suggests that the District is operating under a definition of ambient air that differs from the definition found in 40 CFR 50.1(e). Supplemental Response: The general criteria for siting a PM 2 . 5 network to meet monitoring objectives for regulatory PM 2 . 5 SLAMS monitors are described in 40 CFR 58 Appendix D Section 4.7. More specifically, Section 4.7.1 (b) states: The required monitoring stations or sites must be sited to represent area—wide air quality. These sites can include sites collocated at PAIVIS. These monitoring stations will typically he cit neighborhood or urban—scale; however, micro—or middle—scale PM 2 . 5 monitoring sites that represent many such locations throughout a metropolitan area are considered to represent area-wide air quality. Therefore a regulatory monitor at any area-wide site, regardless of the specific scale of the site, is appropriate for comparison to both the annual and 24-hour PM 2 . 5 NAAQS and could therefore be appropriate to meet the monitoring objective of demonstrating compliance with the NAAQS. Since PM 10 concentrations are often more localized and source-specific, the monitoring network design criteria are different than for PM 2 . 5 and can include any scale of representativeness. depending on the circumstances (see 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix D Section 4.6 (b). In addition to the pollutant-specific network design criteria described above, the general requirements in 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix D Section 1 also states that monitoring agencies should evaluate whether the network appropriately characterizes the air quality in an area to ensure adequate demonstration of compliance with the NAAQS. This may include characterizing

peak air pollution levels or pollution levels near specific sources, in addition to characterizing levels in populated areas or transport (40 CFR Part 58 Appendix D Section 1.1.1). This evaluation of network design is expected in an agency’s five-year network assessment and should consider many types of available information, including short term air quality studies, and whether significant sources in the emissions inventory of an area are adequately represented. Comment: “The District cites the California Regional Particulate Air Quality Study (CRPAQS’) as the basis for the PM monitoring system. It also notes that the CRPAQS final report compiling key data and analysis of particulates in the region was ‘expected to be completed in June 2012.’ Has that report been completed? How did it influence system design? If the report is complete, please make it available so that the public can use it to evaluate the District’s monitoring approach more fully.” Supplemental Response: A comprehensive evaluation of the design of each required monitoring network is included in the Five-year Network Assessment (40 CFR 58.10(d)), the

# next of 

# which is due in July 2015. EPA expects that any research or information cited as the

basis for a network meeting the monitoring objectives defined by 40 CFR 58 Appendix D would

be included in these assessments.