Science and Technology Advancement

South Coast Air Quality Management District

21865 Copley DriveDiamond Bar, California 9 1765-4178

Dear Dr. Miyasato:

Thank you for your submission ofthe South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Annual

Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan in July 2013. We have reviewed the submitted document

based on the requirements set forth under 40 CFR 58. Based on the information provided in the

plan, EPA approves all portions ofthe network plan except those specifically identified below.

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

information in the plan is insufficient to judge whether the requirement has been met, or for

which the information, as described, does not meet the requirements as specified in 40 CFR

58.10 and the associated appendices. EPA Region 9 also cannot approve portions ofthe plan for

which the EPA Administrator has not delegated approval authority to the regional offices.Accordingly, the first enclosure (A. Annual Monitoring NetworkPlan Items where EPA is Not

Taking Action) provides a listing ofspecific items of your agency’s annual monitoring network

plan where EPA is not taking action.

The second enclosure (B. Annual Monitoring Network Plan Checklist) is the checklist EPA used

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

along with our assessment ofwhether the plan submitted by your agency addresses those

requirements. The third enclosure (C. Region 9 Near-roadNO2Plan Review Checklist) is the

checklist EPA used to review those elements of your annual monitoring network plan that deal

specifically with near-road NO2monitoring. Cl relates specifically to the Anaheim site, while

C2 addresses the Etiwanda site.

The first enclosure highlights a subset ofthe more extensive list ofitems reviewed in the second

and third enclosures. All comments conveyed via this letter (and enclosures) should be addressed

(through corrections within the plan, additional information being included, or discussion) in

next year’s annual monitoring network plan.

Printed on Recycled Paper
Meredith Kurpius, Manager

Air Quality Analysis Office

Enclosures:

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

B. Annual Monitoring Network Plan Checklist

C. Region 9 Near-road NO2Plan Review Checklists:

Cl. Region 9 Near-road NO2Plan Review Checklist — Anaheim Site

C2. Region 9 Near-road NO2Plan Review Checklist — Etiwanda Site

cc: Jason Low, South Coast Air Quality Management District

Rene Burmudez, South Coast Air Quality Management District

Gayle Sweigert, California Air Resources Board
• Per 40 CFR 58.11(c), NCore, PAMS, and STN network design and changes are subject to

approval ofthe EPA Administrator. Therefore, we are not acting on these items.

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

58.14(c). Information provided in the plan was insufficient for EPA to approve thesystem modifications listed in the plan per the applicable requirement. Therefore, we are

not acting on the following items as part ofthis year’s annual network plan: — Shutdown ofVan Nuys Airport — Relocation of South Long Beach — Relocation ofRiverside Magnolia — Proposed NO2near-road sites

• For annual network plans submitted in 2013, EPA intends to act on PM2.5FEM waiver

requests outside ofthe annual network plan process.

• EPA identified items in your agency’s annual network plan where a requirement was not

being met or information in the plan was insufficient to judge whether the requirementwas being met based on 40 CFR 58.10 and the associated appendices. Therefore, we are

not acting on the following items:

Item Checklist Row Issue

Distance from trees 80 Not meeting requirement in some

instances

Distance to roadways 73 Not meeting requirement in one instance.

Insufficient information to judge in someinstances

PM2.5collocation 37 Insufficient information to judge

PM2.5sampling frequency 51 Insufficient information to judge

PM10 collocation 40 - Insufficient information to judgePM10sampling frequency 53 Insufficient information to judge

Pb collocation 41 Insufficient information to judge

Dates oflast PE audit 34 Not meeting requirement in some

instances

Dates of last PM semi- 35 Not meeting requirement in some

annual PM audits instances

Dates oflast Pb semi-annual 36 Not meeting requirement in one instance

PM audits
instances

Distance to obstructions not 79 Insufficient information to judge in some

on roof instances

Distance to obstructions on 78 Insufficient information to judge in some

roof instances

Distance from supporting 77 Insufficient information to judge in some

structure instances

Basic monitoring objective 47 Incorrect information to judge in some

instances

Site type 48 Incorrect information to judge in some

instances

Parameter occurrence code 50 Insufficient information to judge in some

instances

Parameter code 49 Insufficient information to judge in some

.

instances

Minimum monitoring 72 Insufficient information to judge

requirements for PM10.25

Sampling and analysis 15 Insufficient information to judge in some

methods instances

Unrestricted airflow 82 Insufficient information to judge in some

instances

Identification ofNO2sites as 23 Insufficient information to judge

near-road or area wide

Additional information for each ofthese items may be found for the row listed in colunm 2, in

the second enclosure (B. Annual Monitoring Network Plan Checklist).
B. ANNUAL MONITORING NETWORK PLAN CHECKLIST

(Updated 11/26/2013)

Year:

Agency:

40 CFR 58.10(a)(1) requires that each Annual Network Plan (ANP) include information regarding the following types o

monitoring stations including FRM, FEM, and ARM monitors that are part of SLAMS, NCore stations, STN stations, St

stations, and/or, in serious, severe and extreme ozone nonattainment areas, PAMS stations, and SPM monitoring stations

40 CFR 58.1 0(a)( 1) further directs that, “The plan shall include a statement of purposes for each monitor and evidence th

each monitor meets the requirements of appendices A, C, D, and E ofthis part, where applicable.” On this basis, review 

requirements listed in 58.10 along with those in Appendices A, C, D, and E.

EPA Region 9 will not take action to approve or disapprove any item for which Part 58 grants approval authority to the A

Regional Administrators, but we will do a check to see ifthe required information is included and correct. The items req

Administrator are: PAMS, NCore, and Speciation (STN/CSN).

Please note that this checklist summarizes many ofthe requirements of 40 CFR Part 58, but does not substitute for those 

contents provide a binding determination of compliance with those requirements. The checklist is subject to revision in t

comments on its contents and structure.

Key:

White = meets the requirement.

Yellow = requirement is not met, or information is insufficient to make a determination. Action requested in next year’s 

process. (items listed in Enclosure A)
ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes

within 40 submitted? 1If information

CFR 58 yes, page #s. provided 3meet

Flag if the req? 4

incorrect 2?

1. Submit plan by July 1 58.10 (a)(1) Y Y

2. Statement of purpose for each monitor 58.10 (a)(l) Y, p.5 Y

3. 30-day public comment / inspection period 5 58.10 (a)(1), Y, p.1 Y

58.10 (a)(2)

4. Modifications to SLAMS network— case when we are 58.10 (a)(2) V. p. 31-32 Insufficient info The plan discu

not approving actual system modifications (i.e., we 58.10(e) monitoring at 

will do it outside the ANP process 6) relocation of th

Magnolia sites

sites. EPA will 

modifications 

5. Modifications to SLAMS network— case when we are 58.10 (a)(2) N/A N/A EPA will not be 

approving actual system modifications per 58.14(c) 58.10 (b)(5) modifications 

58. 10(e)

58.14 (c)

6. Does plan include documentation (e.g., attached N/A N/A No system mo

approval letter) for system modifications that have

been approved since last ANP approval?

7. NCore site operational (by 1/1/2011) 58.10 (a)(3) Y, p.17 Y

8. Pb site for 0.5-1.0 tpy sources operational (by 58.10 (a)(4) Y, App. B V

12/27/2011)

9. NO2plan for area-wide and RA4O sites submitted by 58.10 (a)(5) Y, p.8 N/A HQapproval r

7/1/20 12 sites

10. NO2area-wide and RA4O sites operational by 58.10 (a)(5) Y, p. 8 V

1/1/2013

11. NO2plan for near-road sites submitted by 7/1/20 13 58.10 (a)(5) Y, p.20-31 N/A See near-road 

Response options: NA (Not Applicable), Yes, No, Incomplete, Incorrect. The responses “Incomplete” and “Incorrect” assume that some inform

2 To the best of our knowledge.

Assuming the information is correct

4Response options: NA (Not Applicable) — [reason], Yes, No, Insufficient to Judge.

The affected state or local agency must document the process for obtaining public comment and include any comments received through the pu

their submitted plan.

6See58.14(c)
ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes

within 40 submitted?’ If information

CFR 58 yes, page #s. provided 3meet

Flag if the req? 4

incorrect 2?

12. SO2sites operational (by 1/1/2013) 58.10 (a)(6) Y, App. B V

and 58.13(d)

13. AQS site identification numbçr for each site 58.10 (b)(1) V. p.4, App. B Y

14. Location of each site: street address and geographic 58.10 (b)(2) Y, App. B V

coordinates

15. Sampling and analysis method(s) for each measured 58.10 (b)(3) Y, App. B Insufficient info There are a n

parameter Table 26 in Ap

code which m

method code 

a site.

16. Any proposals to remove or move a monitoring station 58.10 (b)(5) Y, p.20, App. B V

within a period of 18 months following plan submittal

17. Scale ofrepresentativeness for each monitor as 58. 10(b)(6); Y, p. 5, App. B Y

defined in Appendix D App D

18. Identification ofsites suitable and sites not suitable for 58.10 (b)(7) Y, App. B Y

comparison to the annual PM2.5NAAQS as described

in Part 58.30 -

19. MSA, CBSA, CSA or other area represented by the 58.10 (b)(8) Y, App. B V

monitor

20. Designation of any Pb monitors as either source- 58.10 (bX9) V. p. 6, App. B V

oriented or non-source-oriented

21. Any source-oriented Pb site for which a waiver has 58.10 (b)(10) N/A N/A

been granted by EPA RA

22. Any Pb monitor for which a waiver has been 58.10 (b)(1 1) N/A N/A

requested or granted by EPA RA for use ofPb-PM 10

in lieu ofPb-TSP

23. Identification ofrequired NO2monitors as either near- 58.10 (b)(l2) V, p.20-31 Insufficient info See “near-roa

road or area-wide

24. Identification of any PM25 FEMs and/or ARMs not 58.10 (b)(13) Y, App. C Deferred review EPA will not b

eligible to be compared to the NAAQS (Note 1: must 58.11 (e) of the 2013 A

include required data assessment.) (Note 2: Required waivers outsi

SLAMS must monitor PM25 with NAAOS

comparable monitor at the required sample

frequency.)
ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes

within 40 submitted? 1If information

CFR 58 yes, page #s. provided 3meet

Flag if the req? 4

incorrect 2?

25. For SPMS listed as non-regulatory, note the start Date 58.20(c) N/A N/A No monitor typ

ofFRM/FEM/ARM at SPM. If> 24 months, and

monitor is eligible for comparison to the NAAQS per

58.11 (e) and 58.30, the agency must supply

information that App A, C or E requirements were not

met.

26. Document how states and local agencies provide for 58.10 (c) N Insufficient info Information no

the review of changes to a PM2.5monitoring network

that impact the location of a violating PM2.5monitor.

27. Does the plan include a request for approval for and 58.11 (a) (2) N/A N/A No request for 

alternative to appendix A requirements for SPMs

operating a FRM/FEMJARM which also meets

appendix E?

28. Precision/Accuracy reports submitted to AQS 58.16(a); Y, p.40 Y

App A, 1.3

and 5.1.1

29. Annual data certification submitted 58.15 V. p.40 V

App. A 1.3

30. Frequency offlow rate verification for manual PM App A 3.3.2 V1 App. B Y

samplers audit V

31. Frequency offlow rate verification for automated PM App A 3.2.3 V. App. B Y

analyzers audit

32. Frequency of one-point flow rate verification for Pb App A 3.3.4.1 Y, App. B V

samplers audit

33. Frequency of one-point QC check (gaseous) App. A 3.2.1 Y, App. B Y

34. Date of last Annual Performance Evaluation (gaseous) App. A 3.2.2 Y, App. B N In some instan

and therefore 

. lndio3

. Glend

35. Dates of last two semi-annual flow rate audits for PM App A, 3.2.4 Y, App. B N In some instan

monitors and 3.3.3 and therefore 

V

• lndio

. Glend

• Fonta
ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes

within 40 submitted?’ If information

CFR 58 yes, page #s. provided 3meet

Flag if the req? 4

. incorrect 2?

36. Dates of last two semi-annual flow rate audits for Pb App A 3.3.4.1 Y, App. B N Note that flow 

monitors mos. time per

valid and cou

documentatio

. Udde

37. PM2.5collocation App A 3.2.5 Y, p.29, App. B Insufficient info The collocate

Table 26 in Ap

code which m

method code 

monitor at th

The ANP shou

data to determ

meet the requ

monitors are 

concentration

The App. B tab

monitors are 

reflected in th

38. Designation of a primary monitor ifthere is more than Need to Y, App. B Insufficient info Fontana, Glen

one monitor for a pollutant at a site. determine only sites that 

collocation other detailed 

information.

39. Distance between collocated monitors (Note: waiver App. A V. App. B Y

request or the date ofprevious waiver approval must 3.2.5.6 and

be included ifthe distance deviates from requirement.) 3.2.6.3
ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes

within 40 submitted? 1If information

CFR 58 yes, page #s. provided 3meet

Flag if the req? 4

incorrect 2?

40. Manual PM10 method collocation met? (note: App A 3.3.1 Y, p. 29, App. B Insufficient info The collocated 

continuous PM10 does not have this requirement) Ontario, and R

B (i.e. “see Tab

makes it diffic

is applicable to 

The ANP shoul

data to determ

PM10 sites are 

particulate ma

highest 25 per

concentration

41. Pb collocation App A 3.3.4.3 Y, p. 29, App. B Insufficient info The ANP shou

data to determ

are located at 

concentration

Also, many sit

LA N. Main St. 

monitors as “Q

site tables for 

42. PM1..25collocation (note: only applies to Fresno and App A 3.3.6 N/A N/A

Phoenix NCore sites)

43. Instrument/monitoring method code for each monitor: App C 2.4.1.2 Y, App. B Insufficient info Some monitor

is it reported properly? Is it reported correctly (i.e., method code 

appropriate method code for regulatory monitors)? which method 

the site, as the

applicable to 

44. For agencies that share monitoring responsibilities in App D 2(e) N/A N/A

an MSAJCSA: does each affected State or local

agency meet full monitoring requirements or is

an agreement between the affected agencies and the

EPA Regional Administrator in place?

45. Start date for each monitor Required to Y, App. B Y
ANP requfrement Citation Was the info Does the Notes

within 40 submitted? 1If information

CFR 58 yes, page #s. provided 3meet

Flag if the req? 4

incorrect 2?

determine if

other req.

(e.g., mm #

and colloc)

are met

46. Instrument monitor type for each monitor Required to Y, App. B Incorrect Info Fontana, Gle

determine if continue to l

other req. the “site type

(e.g., mm #

and colloc)

are met

47. Monitoring objective for each instrument App D 1.1 Y, App. B Incorrect Info Fontana, Gle

58.10 (b)(6) conflate the t

monitoring ob

48. Site type for each instrument App D 1.1.1 V. App. B Incorrect info Fontana, Gle

conflate the t

monitoring ob

49. Instrument parameter code for each instrument Required to Y, App. B Insufficient info Some monito

determine if parameter co

other req. determine wh

(e.g., miii # the monitor a

and colloc) parameter co

are met instrument.

While this app

PAMS, and Sp

for GMW 120

monitors are 

50. Instrument parameter occurrence code for each Required to V1 App. B Insufficient Info Some monito

instrument determine if some monitor

other req. have the sam

(e.g., mm # • Burb

and colloc) • Font

are met • lndio

• Los A
ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes

within 40 submitted? 1If information

CFR 58 yes, page #s. provided 3meet

Flag if the req? 4

incorrect 2?

STN

. Pico R

. Rubid

• Santa 

51. Sampling season for ozone (note: date ofwaiver 58.10 (b)(4) Y, App. B Y

approval must be included ifthe sampling season App D, 4.1(i)

deviates from requirement)

52. Sampling schedule for PM2.5- applies to year-round 58.10 (b)(4) Y, p.16, App. B Insufficient Info Design values 

and seasonal sampling schedules (note: date of waiver 58.12(d) provided; ther

approval must be included ifthe sampling season App D 4.7 information to 

deviates from requirement) EPA schedules iden

flowchart

53. Sampling schedule for PM10 58.10 (b)(4) Y, App. B Insufficient Info Ambient PM10 

58.12(e) there is insuff

App D 4.6 whether the s

plan are appro

54. Sampling schedule for Pb 58.10 (b)(4) Y, App. B Y

58.12(b)

App D 4.5

55. Sampling schedule for PM125 58.10 (b)(4) Y, App. B V

58.12(f)

AppD4.8

56. Minimum # ofmonitors for 03 [Note: should be App D, 4.1(a) Y, p. 34 Y

supported by MSA ID, MSA population, DV, # and

monitors, and # required monitors] (see footnote) 7 Table D-2

57. Identification ofmax. conc. 03 monitor(s) App D 4.1 (b) V. p.5-6, App. B V

58. Minimum monitoring requirements met for near-road App D 4.3.2 Y, p.20-31, p.36 N/A Two near-roa

NO2(2014 start date) implemented 

59. Minimum monitoring requirements met for area-wide App D 4.3.3 V. p.36 V

NO2

60. Minimum monitoring requirements met for RA-40 App D 4.3.4 Y, p.8 V

Only monitors considered to be required SLAMs are eligible to be counted towards meeting minimum monitoring requirements. In addition, o

traffic count/distance requirements to be neighborhood scale (40 CFR 58 Appendix E, Table E-1) cannot be counted towards minimum monitor
ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes

within 40 submitted? 1If information

CFR 58 yes, page #s. provided 3meet

Flag if the req? 4

.

incorrect 2?

NO2

61. Minimum monitoring requirements met for SO2 App D 4.4 Y, p.37 V

[Note: Only monitors considered to be required

SLAMs are eligible to be counted towards meeting

minimum monitoring requirements.]

62. Minimum monitoring requirements met for Pb [Note: App D 4.5 Y, p.37-38 Y

Only monitors considered to be required SLAMs are 58.13(a)

eligible to be counted towards meeting minimum

monitoring requirements.]

63. Minimum # ofmonitors for PM2.5[Note 1: should be App D, 1, p.34 V

supported by MSA ID, MSA population, DV, # 4.7.1(a) and

monitors, and # required monitors] [Note 2: Only Table D-5

monitors considered to be required SLAMs are

eligible to be counted towards meeting minimum

. monitoring requirements.]

64. Optional PM2.5Network Clarifications: Provide a list Need to N/A N/A

ofrequired sites ifit does not include all SLAMS. assess several

[Note: default will assume all SLAMS are considered requirements

required sites.]

65. Required PM2.5sites represent area-wide air quality App D Y, p.5 V

4.7.1(b)

66. For PM2.5,is at least one site at neighborhood or larger App D Y, p.5 V

scale in an area of expected maximum concentration 4.7.1(b)(l)

67. If additional SLAMS PM2.5required, is there a site in App D Y, p. 5 Y

an area of poor air quality 4.7.1(b)(2)

68. Minimum monitoring requirements for continuous App D 4.7.2 V1 p.35, App. B V

PM2.5

69. Requirements for PM2.5background and transport App D 4.7.3 N/A N/A

sites

70. Are PM2.5Chemical Speciation requirements met for App D 4.7.4 V. p.35 V

official STN sites?

71. Minimum # ofmonitors for PM10 App D, 4.6 (a) Y, p.36 V

and Table D-4

72. Minimum monitoring requirements met for pM10.25 App D 4.8 -N Insufficient Info Information o

mass

PM1025 are no
ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes

within 40 submitted? 1If information

• CFR 58 yes, page #s. provided 3meet

. Flag if the req? 4

incorrect 2?

73. Distance ofsite from nearest road App E 6 Y, App. B N, Insufficient Info The Pomona si

for Ozone. The

counted towar

requirements, 

NAAQS compa

may be reques

Also, for sites w

compounds”, d

should be expl

The following 

information:

. Long 

74. Traffic count of nearest road App E V. App. B V See notes for i

75. Groundcover App E 3(a) V. App. B V

76. Probe height App E 2 V. App. B Y

77. Distance from supporting structure App E 2 Y, App. B Insufficient Info Distances wer

sires:

. lndio

. Resed

. Rubid

POC_

78. Distance from obstructions on roof App E 4(b) Y, App. B Insufficient Info Height of obst

following sites

. LAX - 

79. Distance from obstructions not on roof App E 4(a) V, App. B Insufficient Info Height of obst

following sites

. Crest

. Long 

. Rese
ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes

within 40 submitted? 1If information

CFR 58 yes, page #s. provided 3meet

Flag if the req? 4

incorrect 2?

80. Distance from trees App E 5 Y, App. B N The following 

requirement:

.

• Cres

• La H

. Long 

. Pasa

81. Distance to furnace or incinerator flue App E 3(b) Y, App. B V

82. Unrestricted airflow App E, 4(a) Y, App. B Insufficient Info Information n

and 4(b) • lndio

Also, the follo

arc of unrestr

. Font

• Glen

• lndio .

• L.A. 

83. Probe material (if applicable) App E 9 V. App. B V

84. Residence time (if applicable) App E 9 V. App. B V

Public Comments on Annual Network Plan

Were comments submitted to the S/LIT agency during the public comment period? Yes

If no, skip the remaining questions.

If yes:

• Were any ofthe comments substantive? No

o If yes, which ones?

o Explain basis for determination if any comments were considered not substantive:

The comments submitted with the 2013 plan from NRDC were primarily focused on expedited implementation o

NO2site in the Los Angeles — Long Beach — Anaheim CBSA, and implementation of CO and PM2.5monitors at th

all of which are not required to be implemented unifi January 1, 2015.

NRDC also expressed concerns with the PM2.5FEM waiver request from South Coast. As mentioned in the check

acting on the approval of the FEM waivers as part of the 2013 AM’ review process.
• Did the agency respond to the substantive comments? Yes

o If yes, was the response adequate? Yes

• Do the substantive comments require separate EPA response (i.e., agency response wasn’t adequate)? No

• Are the sections ofthe annual network plan that received substantive comments approvable after consideration of 

o If yes, provide rationale:
Cl. Region 9 Near-road NO2Plan review checklist- Anaheim Site

Checklist Version date: November 26, 2013

Agency: South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD)

CBSA: Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ma, CA (ist site required by January 1, 2014)

This checklist is intended to clarify those elements that EPA will be looking for during the review of proposed near

sites. Please note that this checklist summarizes near-road NO2site requirements of 40 CFR Part 58, but does not su

requirements, nor do its contents provide a binding determination of compliance with those requirements. The chec

in the future and we welcome comments on its contents and structure.

Key:

White = meets the requirement.

Yellow = Requirement is not met, or information is insufficient to make a determination. Action requested in next y

ANP process.

Green item requires attention m order to improve next year’s plan
COMPLETENESS CHECK: Based on 40 CFR 58 requirements.

Network Plan reauirements (40 CFR 58.10)-

No. Near-road N02 plan requirement Citation Info Requirement Notes

submitted?’ met? 2

If yes, page

#s.

A plan (submitted by July 1, 2013) for 40 CFR Incomplete, Insufficient to Plan with final co

establishing near-road N02 monitoring 58.l0(a)(5) p.20-31 judge 2013.

site(s)

Provided the fina

characterized by 

meets all ofthe a

criteria, we expec

approve AQMD’

selection presente

Route 5/Lincoln 

to resubmit a plan 

candidate site sel

information high

re-submitted plan 

. ofthe next annua

and go through a 

inspection period 

EPA.

2 Evidence of public comment on proposed 40 CFR Incomplete Insufficient to AQMD received 

site(s), no changes subsequent to proposal, 58.l0(a)(2) judge. from NRDC pert

and submittal of any received coniments their near-road N

2

comments suppo

site along Intersta

5 7/60 in Diamon

1 Response options: N/A (Not Applicable), Yes, No, Incomplete, Incorrect. The responses “Incomplete” and “Incorrect” assume that some 

provided.

2 Response options: N/A (Not Applicable) — [reason], Yes, No, Insufficient to Judge. Assumes information submitted is correct.
EPA is also awa

workshops held 

engaging the pu

selection proces

The plan for a fi

selection, includ

highlighted in th

made available f

re-submittal to E

3 Anticipated operation start date 40 CFR Yes, p.31 Yes Once site begins 

58.1 0(a)(5) actual operation 

. submittals

4 AQS site identification number 40 CFR No Insufficient to Please include th

58.10(b)(1) judge. submittal if avai

5 Location (street address & geographical 40 CFR No Insufficient to Please include th

coordinates) 58.1 0(b)(2) judge. submittal.

6 Sampling and analysis method (method 40 CFR Incomplete, Insufficient to AQMD notes th

code) 58.10(b)(3) p.20 judge. can be used for 

Please include s

site with the fina

7 Operation Schedule (Season & sampling 40 CFR No Insufficient to Please include th

frequency) 58.1 0(b)(4) judge. submittal.

8 Any proposal to remove or move the 40 CFR No Insufficient to Please include th

monitor within a period of 18 months 58.10(b)(5) judge. submittal.

following plan submittal

9 Monitoring objective & spatial scale of 40 CFR No Insufficient to Please include th

representativeness 58.10(b)(6) judge. submittal.

10 CBSA represented by the monitor 40 CFR Yes, p.22 Yes

58.10(b)(8)

Network Design requirements (40 CFR 58, Appendix D, Section 4.3.2)

11 CBSA population & year 40 CFR 58, Yes, p. 22 J Yes

App.D
__________________________________

4.3.2(a)

12 Maximum AADT counts & year for the 40 CFR 58, Yes, p.22 Yes

CBSA(s) App.D

4.3.2(a)

13 Correct # ofrequired near-road NO2 40 CFR 58, Yes, p.22 Yes

monitors for the CBSA(s) App.D

4.3.2(a)

14 Were all road segments within the CBSA 40 CFR 58, Yes, p.23-24 Yes

ranked by AADT? App.D

4.3.2(a)(1)

15 Discussion of how fleet mix is considered 40 CFR 58, Yes, p.23-24 Yes

App.D

4.3 .2(a)( 1)

16 Discussion of how roadway design is 40 CFR 58, Yes, p.25-27 Yes Recommend exp

considered App.D discussion for co

4.3.2(a)(l) specific to the fin

17 Discussion of how congestion is 40 CFR 58, Yes, p.29-30 Yes Recommend exp

considered App.D discussion for co

4.3.2(a)(l) specific to the fin

18 Discussion of how terrain is considered 40 CFR 58, Yes, p.25-27 Yes Recommend exp

App.D discussion for co

4.3.2(a)(l) specific to the fin

19 Discussion of how meteorology is 40 CFR 58, Yes, p.25-27 Yes Recommend exp

considered App D discussion for co

4 3 2(aXl) specific to the fin

20 After above factors considered, ifmultiple 40 CFR 58, Incomplete, Insufficient to Please include di

candidate sites where max concentrations App.D p.20 judge this factor in nex

expected: Discussion of how population 4.3.2(a)(1)

exposure is considered?

21 Where the site proposed is the 2nd in the 40 CFR 58, N/A N/A- 1 St site

CBSA: Discussion of differing factors App.D proposed for

compared to first site (i.e. fleet mix; 4.3.2(a)(1) CBSA

congestion; terrain; geographic area within

CBSA; or different route, interstate, or
SUPPORTING/ADDITIONAL INFORMATTON Based on Near-road NO2monitoring TAD and experience.

freeway designation).

Siting criteria requirements (40 CFR 58, Appendix E)

22 Distance from target road segment as near 40 CFR 58, Yes, p.25-27 Yes Please clarify ac

as practicable (TAD recommendation is App.E to the probe in n

within 20 meters) & no more than 50 6 4(a)

meters 9

23 Vertical inlet placement between 2-7 40 CFR 58, No Insufficient to Please include th

meters? App.E 2 judge. submittal.

24 Probe distance from supporting structures 40 CFR 58, No Insufficient to Please include th

is at least 1 meter away vertically or App.E 2 judge. submittal.

horizontally?

25 Is air flow unobstructed between the probe 40 CFR 58, No Insufficient to Please include th

and the outside nearest edge ofthe targeted App.E 4(d) judge. submittal.

road segment?

Check (Yes, No, N/A, Comments -

Insufficient)

Ifyes, page #s.

Iftop FE-AADT segment not selected, is adequate justification Yes, p.26-27 AQMD’s selected site ran

provided for higher ranks not selected? FE-AADT.

In Table 10 (p. 26),AQM

the scoring system used t

various candidate road se

This helps describe how F

.

is weighed against other f

The greatest weight is pla

FE-AADT as a factor.

Ifsimilar top FE-AADT candidate sites available, was most Yes, p.29 AQMD lists the I-S as mo

congested segment selected? congested freeway in Ora

County.

Is candidate site selected downwind oftarget road segment? Yes, p.26-27 Downwind.

Are wind roses included to show predominant wind patterns? No Recommend including if 
Are physical attributes (roadway design, roadside structures, or Yes, p.26-27 See items 16, 18-19.

terrain) desirable according to Table 4-2 ofthe Near-road NO2TAD

(see below)?

If physical attributes (roadway design, roadside structures, or terrain) N/A

NOT desirable according to Table 4-2 ofthe Near-road NO2TAD,

are they TYPICAL for the area?

Was population exposure correctly considered as an additional factor Insufficient to See item 20.

AFTER consideration of primary factors (FE-AADT, congestion, judge

roadway design, terrain, meteorology) and IF multiple max

concentration candidate sites identified?

Will this be a multi-pollutant site? Ifso, list additional parameters Insufficient to Please include information 

planned in Comments, judge parameters that may be m

at the site.

Does agency ensure candidate selection is NOT in a “unique” Insufficient to Please clarify in next year

location? (See Near-road NO2TAD section 13.2 included below) judge network plan.
Table 4-2. Summary of physical considerations for candidate near-road sites.

Roadway

design or

configuration

Feasibility of

monitor

placements;

affects pollutant

transport and

dispersion.

At-grade or

nearly at-grade

with immediate

surrounding

terrain.

Deep cutsections/significant

ly below grade;

significantly above

grade (fill or

bridge); above

grade (bridge).

Field reconnaissance;

satellite

imagery

Physical Site Impact on Site Desirable Least Desirable Potential Information

Component Selection Attributes Attributes Sources

Roadside Feasibility of present other Presence of sound Field reconnaissance;

Structures monitor than low (<2 m walls, mature (high satellite

placement; in and thick) imagery

affects pollutant height) vegetation,

transport and vegetation or obstructive

dispersion. safety features buildings.

such as

guardrails.

Terrain Affects pollutant Flat or gentle Along mountain Field reconnaissance;

dispersion, local terrain, within a ridges or peaks, digital

atmospheric valley, or along a hillsides, or other elevation models and

stability, road grade. naturally vegetation

windswept areas. files; satellite imagery.

Meteorology Affects pollutant Relative Strongly Local data; National

transport and downwind predominant Oceanic and

dispersion. locations; winds upwind positions. Atmospheric

from road to Administration’s

monitor. (NOAA’s) National

Weather

Service (NWS); EPA’s Air

Quality

System (AQS).
13.2 Unique Locations and Background Source Influences

In the evaluation process, state and local air agencies may encounter situations where certain

road segments of interest have characteristics that make the location a unique near-road location

that has elevated pollutant concentrations. In such cases, the pollutant concentrations are not

representative of other near-road locations across the CBSA. The unique characteristics ofthese

locations could be due to the close proximity of a substantial stationary source, non-road mobile

sources, or roadway design features (such as tunnel entrances and exits or toll plazas). In

situations where a state or local air agency has a choice between road segments that otherwise

have similar potential for peak N02 concentrations, the air agencies should place a higher weight

on sites that are most influenced by typical roadway activity rather than those that are heavily

influenced by unique sources or features. This approach increases the probability that the chosen

site can represent a larger population exposure within and across CBSAs.

The EPA recognizes that state and local air agencies will likely have a good understanding of

whether candidate near-road N02 monitoring sites have unique characteristics that do or do not

represent the CBSA that those sites are within. The EPA encourages state and local air agencies

to use their local knowledge in site selection and to engage the EPA Regional stafffor assistance

in evaluating such a situation as necessary.
C2. Region 9 Near-road NO2Plan review checklist- Etiwanda Site

Checklist Version date: November 26, 2013

Agency: South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD)

CBSA: Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA (1 site required by January 1, 2014)

This checklist is intended to clarify those elements that EPA will be looking for during the review of proposed near

sites. Please note that this checklist summarizes near-road NO2site requirements of 40 CFR Part 58, but does not su

requirements, nor do its contents provide a binding determination of compliance with those requirements. The check

in the future and we welcome comments on its contents and structure.

Key:

White = meets the requirement.

Yellow = Requirement is not met, or information is insufficient to make a determination. Action requested in next y

ANP process.

Green = item requires attention in order to improve next year’s plan.
COMPLETENESS CHECK: Based on 40 CFR 58 requirements.

Network Plan requirements (40 CFR 58.10)-

No. Near-road N02 plan requirement Citation Info Requirement Notes

submitted?’ met? 2

If yes, page

#s.

A plan (submitted by July 1, 2013) for 40 CFR Incomplete, Insufficient to Plan with final co

establishing near-road N02 monitoring 58.10(a)(5) p.20-31 judge 2013.

site(s)

Provided the fina

characterized by 

meets all ofthe a

criteria, we expe

approve AQMD’

. selection present

Route I 0/Etiwan

need to resubmit 

candidate site sel

information high

re-submitted plan 

ofthe next annua

and go through a 

inspection period 

EPA.

2 Evidence of public comment on proposed 40 CFR Incomplete Insufficient to AQMD received 

site(s), no changes subsequent to proposal, 58.1 0(a)(2) judge. from NRDC pert

and submittal of any received comments their near-road N

2

. comments do no

selection of sites 

Bernardino-Onta

Response options: N/A (Not Applicable), Yes, No, Incomplete, Incorrect. The responses “Incomplete” and “Incorrect” assume that some 

provided.

2 Response options: N/A (Not Applicable) — [reason], Yes, No, Insufficient to Judge. Assumes information submitted is correct.
EPA is also awa

workshops held 

engaging the pu

selection proces

The plan for a fi

selection, includ

highlighted in th

made available f

re-submittal to E

3 Anticipated operation start date 40 CFR Yes, p.31 Yes Once site begins 

58.l0(a)(5) actual operation 

submittals

4 AQS site identification number 40 CFR No Insufficient to Please include th

58.1 0(b)( 1) judge. submittal if avai

5 Location (street address & geographical 40 CFR No Insufficient to Please include th

coordinates) 58.10(b)(2) judge. submittal.

6 Sampling and analysis method (method 40 CFR Incomplete, Insufficient to AQMD notes th

code) 58.10(b)(3) p.20 judge. can be used for c

Please include s

site with the fina

7 Operation Schedule (Season & sampling 40 CFR No Insufficient to Please include th

frequency) 58.1 0(b)(4) judge. submittal.

8 Any proposal to remove or move the 40 CFR No Insufficient to Please include th

monitor within a period of 18 months 58.l0(b)(5) judge. submittal.

following plan submittal

9 Monitoring objective & spatial scale of 40 CFR No Insufficient to Please include th

representativeness 58.1 0(b)(6) judge. submittal.

10 CBSA represented by the monitor 40 CFR Yes, p.22 Yes

58.10(b)(8)

Network Design requirements (40 CFR 58, Appendix D, Section 4.3.2)

11 CBSA population & year 40 CFR 58, Yes, p.22 Yes

App.D
___________________________________

4.3.2(a)

12 Maximum AADT counts & year for the 40 CFR 58, Yes, p.22 Yes

CBSA(s) App.D

4.3.2(a)

13 Correct # ofrequired near-road NO2 40 CFR 58, Yes, p.22 Yes

monitors for the CBSA(s) App.D

• 4.3.2(a)

14 Were all road segments within the CBSA 40 CFR 58, Yes, p.23-24 Yes

ranked by AADT? App.D

4.3.2(a)(1)

15 Discussion of how fleet mix is considered 40 CFR 58, Yes, p.23-24 Yes

App.D

2 1’ ‘1)

Discussion .

considered

After above factors considered, if multiple 40 CFR Incomplete, Insuliicient to Please include di

candidate sites where max concentrations App.D p.20 judge this factor in nex

expected: Discussion of how population 4.3.2(a)(1)

exposure is considered?

21 Where the site proposed is the 211( in the 40 CFR 58, N/A N/A- 1 St site

CBSA: Discussion of differing factors App.D proposed for

compared to first site (i.e. fleet mix; 4.3.2(a)(1) CBSA

congestion; terrain; geographic area within

CBSA; or different route, interstate, or
freeway designation). I I Siting criteria requirements (40 CFR 58, Appendix E)

22 Distance from target road segment as near 40 CFR 58, Yes, p.25-28 Yes Please clarify ac

as practicable (TAD recommendation is App.E to the probe in n

within 20 meters) & no more than 50 6 4(a)

meters 9

23 Vertical inlet placement between 2-7 40 CFR 58, No Insufficient to Please include th

meters? App.E 2 judge. submittal.

24 Probe distance from supporting structures 40 CFR 58, No Insufficient to Please include th

is at least 1 meter away vertically or App.E 2 judge. submittal.

horizontally?

25 Is air flow unobstructed between the probe 40 CFR 58, No Insufficient to Please include th

and the outside nearest edge ofthe targeted App.E 4(d) judge. submittal.

road segment?

SUPPnDTTNIA1ThTTIONAL TNFfl1MATION: Based on Near-road NO2monitoring TAD and experience.

Check (Yes, No, N/A, Comments -

Insufficient)

If yes, page #s.

Iftop FE-AADT segment not selected, is adequate justification Yes, p.26-28 AQMD’s selected site ran

provided for higher ranks not selected? FE-AADT for the CBSA

V

In Table 10 (p. 26),AQM

the scoring system used t

various candidate road se

This helps describe how F

is weighed against other f

The greatest weight is pla

FE-AADT as a factor.

Ifsimilar top FE-AADT candidate sites available, was most Yes, p.30 AQMD lists the 1-10 as 

congested segment selected? congested freeway in San

Bernardino County. The m

congested segment along 

Riverside County is not li
among highest ranked FE-

segments for the CBSA.

Is candidate site selected downwind oftarget road segment? Yes, p.26-28 Downwind.

Are wind roses included to show predominant wind patterns? No Recommend including if a

Are physical attributes (roadway design, roadside structures, or Yes, p.26-28 See items 16, 18-19.

terrain) desirable according to Table 4-2 ofthe Near-road NO2TAD

(see below)?

If physical attributes (roadway design, roadside structures, or terrain) N/A

NOT desirable according to Table 4-2 ofthe Near-road NO2TAD,

are they TYPICAL for the area?

Was population exposure correctly considered as an additional factor Insufficient to See item 20.

AFTER consideration of primary factors (FE-AADT, congestion, judge

roadway design, terrain, meteorology) and IF multiple max

concentration candidate sites identified?

Will this be a multi-pollutant site? If so, list additional parameters Insufficient to Please include information 

planned in Comments, judge parameters that may be m

at the site.

Does agency ensure candidate selection is NOT in a “unique” Insufficient to Please clarify in next year

location? (See Near-road NO2TAD section 13.2 included below) judge network plan.
Table 4-2. Summary of physical considerations for candidate near-road sites.

Feasibility of

monitor

placements;

affects pollutant

transport and

dispersion.

At-grade or

nearly at-grade

with immediate

surrounding

terrain.

Deep cutsections/significant

ly below grade;

significantly above

grade (fill or

bridge); above

grade (bridge).

Field reconnaissance;

satellite

imagery

Roadway

design or

configuration

Physical Site Impact on Site Desirable Least Desirable Potential Information

Component Selection Attributes Attributes Sources

Roadside Feasibility of present other Presence of sound Field reconnaissance;

Structures monitor than low (<2 m walls, mature (high satellite

placement; in and thick) imagery

affects pollutant height) vegetation,

transport and vegetation or obstructive

dispersion. safety features buildings.

such as

guardrails.

Terrain Affects pollutant Flat or gentle Along mountain Field reconnaissance;

dispersion, local terrain, within a ridges or peaks, digital

atmospheric valley, or along a hillsides, or other elevation models and

stability, road grade. naturally vegetation

windswept areas. files; satellite imagery.

Meteorology Affects pollutant Relative Strongly Local data; National

transport and downwind predominant Oceanic and

dispersion. locations; winds upwind positions. Atmospheric

from road to Administration’s

monitor. (NOAA’s) National

Weather

Service (NWS); EPA’s Air

Quality

System (AQS).
13.2 Unique Locations and Background Source Influences

In the evaluation process, state and local air agencies may encounter situations where certain

road segments ofinterest have characteristics that make the location a unique near-road location

that has elevated pollutant concentrations. In such cases, the pollutant concentrations are not

representative of other near-road locations across the CBSA. The unique characteristics ofthese

locations could be due to the close proximity of a substantial stationary source, non-road mobile

sources, or roadway design features (such as tunnel entrances and exits or toll plazas). In

situations where a state or local air agency has a choice between road segments that otherwise

have similar potential for peak N02 concentrations, the air agencies should place a higher weight

on sites that are most influenced by typical roadway activity rather than those that are heavily

influenced by unique sources or features. This approach increases the probability that the chosen

site can represent a larger population exposure within and across CBSAs.

The EPA recognizes that state and local air agencies will likely have a good understanding of

whether candidate near-road N02 monitoring sites have unique characteristics that do or do not

represent the CBSA that those sites are within. The EPA encourages state and local air agencies

to use their local knowledge in site selection and to engage the EPA Regional stafffor assistance

in evaluating such a situation as necessary.