S1q,,•tUNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCYREGIONIX75HawthorneStreetSanFrancisco,CA94105.3901MAY202014TedSchadeAirPollutionControlOfficerGreatBasinUnifiedAirPollutionControlDistrict157ShortStreetBishop,California93514DearMr.Schade:ThankyouforyoursubmissionoftheGreatBasinUnifiedAirPollutionControlDistrict’s(GBUAPCD’s)2013AnnualAirQualityMonitoringNetworkPlaninJuly2013.Wehavereviewedthesubmitteddocumentbasedontherequirementssetforthunder40CFR58.Basedontheinformationprovidedintheplan,EPAapprovesallportionsofthenetworkplanexceptthosespecificallyidentifiedbelow.Pleasenotethatwecannotapproveportionsoftheannualnetworkplanforwhichtheinformationintheplanisinsufficienttojudgewhethertherequirementhasbeenmet,orforwhichtheinformation,asdescribed,doesnotmeettherequirementsasspecifiedin40CFR58.10andtheassociatedappendices.EPARegion9alsocannotapproveportionsoftheplanforwhichtheEPAAdministratorhasnotdelegatedapprovalauthoritytotheregionaloffices.Accordingly,thefirstenclosure(A.AnnualMonitoringNetworkPlanItemswhereEPAisNotTakingAction)providesalistingofspecificitemsofyouragency’sannualmonitoringnetworkplanwhereEPAisnottakingaction.Thesecondenclosure(B.AnnualMonitoringNetworkPlanChecklist)isthechecklistEPAusedtoreviewyourplanforoverallitemsthatarerequiredtobeincludedintheannualnetworkplanalongwithourassessmentofwhethertheplansubmittedbyyouragencyaddressesthoserequirements.Thefirstenclosurehighlightsasubsetofthemoreextensivelistofitemsreviewedinthesecondenclosure.Allcommentsconveyedviathisletter(andenclosures)shouldbeaddressed(throughcorrectionswithintheplan,additionalinformationbeingincluded,ordiscussion)innextyear’sannualmonitoringnetworkplan.Also,GBUAPCDreceivedcommentsfromtheLosAngelesDepartmentofWaterandPower(LADWP)onspecificportionstheannualnetworkplanduringthepubliccommentperiod.GBUAPCD’sresponsestothesecommentswereincludedwiththenetworkplansubmittal.EPAalsoreceivedadditionalcommentsoutsideofthepubliccommentperiod.EPAhasdeterminedthatGBUAPCD’sresponsestothecommentsareadequateandhasprovidedsupplementalresponsestoLADWP’scommentsinAttachmentC.PrintedonRecycledPaper

# If you have

any questions

regarding

this letter

or the enclosed comments,

please

feel

free

to contact

me at (415) 947-4534

or Michael

Flagg

at (415) 972-3372. Sincerely, 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. Response

to Comments cc: Christopher

Lanane, GBUAPCD Gayle Sweigert,

California

Air Resources

Board

# B. ANNUAL MONITORING NETWORK PLAN CHECKLIST

(Updated 11/26/2013)

Year: 2013

Agency: Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District

40 CFR 58.10(a)(1) requires that each Annual Network Plan (ANP) include information regarding the following types of monitors: SLAMS.

monitoring stations including FRM, FEM, and ARM monitors that are 

# part of SLAMS, NCore stations, STN stations, State speciation stations, SPM

stations, and/or, in serious, severe and extreme ozone nonattainment 

# areas, PAMS stations, and SPM monitoring stations.

40 CFR 58.10(a)(1) further directs that, “The plan shall include a statement of purposes for each monitor and evidence that siting and operation of

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

# this basis, review of the ANPs is based on the

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 Administrator rather than the

Regional Administrators, but we will do a check to see if the required information is included and correct. The items requiring approval by the

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

Please note that this checklist summarizes many of the requirements of 40 CFR Part 58, but does not substitute for those requirements, nor do its

contents provide a binding determination of compliance with those requirements. The checklist is subject to revision 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 year’s plan or outside the ANP

process (items listed in Enclosure A)

1

# ANP

requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes



# within

40 submitted? 1 If information

. 

# CFR 58 

# yes,

page #s. provided 3 meet

. 

# Flag if the req? 4 

# incorrect 2

?

1. Submit plan by July 

# 1st 58.10 (a)(l) Y N Plan was submitted on 8/22/13

2. Statement of purpose for each monitor 58.10 (a)(1) N Insufficient info

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) Y, p.15-17 Insufficient info There is insufficient information to determine

not approving actual system modifications (i.e., we 58.10(e) if the Flat Rock, Dirty Socks, Mill, and North

will do it outside the ANP process 6 ) Beach PM 10 monitors were appropriately shut

down and relocated under 40 CFR 58.14.

5. Modifications to SLAMS network

— 

# case when we 

# are 58.10 (a)(2) N/A N/A

approving actual system modifications per 58.14(c) 58.10 

# (b)(5)

58. 10(e)

58.14 (c)

6. Does plan include documentation (e.g., attached N/A N/A

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) V. App. A, App. B Y

8. Pb site for 

# 0.5-1.0 tpy sources operational 

# (by 58.10 (a)(4) N/A N/A Pb monitoring is not required

12/27/2011)

9. NO 2 plan for area-wide 

# and RA4O sites submitted by 58.10 (a)(5) N/A N/A Area-wide NO 2 monitoring is not required

7/1/2012

10 NO 2 area-wide and RA4O sites operational by 58.10 (a)(5) N/A N/A Area-wide NO 2 monitoring is not required

1/1/2013

11 NO 2 plan for near-road sites submitted by 7/1/2013 58.10 (a)(5) N/A N/A Near-road NO 2 monitoring is not required

12 SO 2 sites operational 

# (by 1/1/2013) 58.10 (a)(6) N/A N/A 502 monitoring is not required



# and 58.13(d)

13 AQS site identification number for each site 58.10 (b)(1) Y, p.20, App. A V

1 

# Response options: NA (Not Applicable), Yes, No, Incomplete, Incorrect. The responses “Incomplete” and “Incorrect” assume that some information has been provided.

2 

# To the best of 

# our knowledge.

Assuming the information is correct

4 Response 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 public notification process within

their submitted plan.

6 

# See 58. 14(c)



# 2

# ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes

within 40 submitted?’ If 

# information

CFR 58 yes, page #s. provided 3 meet

Flag if the req? 4

incorrect 2

?



# 14 Location of each site: street address 

# and geographic 58.10 (b)(2) V, App. A V

coordinates

15 Sampling 

# and analysis method(s) for each measured 58.10 

# (b)(3) Y, p.21, App. A V

parameter

16 

# Any proposals to remove or move a monitoring 58.10 

# (b)(5) Y, p.15-17 Insufficient info There is insufficient information to determine

station within a period of 18 months following plan if the Flat Rock, Dirty Socks, MIII, and North

submittal Beach PM 10 monitors were appropriately shut

down and relocated under the 40 CFR 58.14.

17 Scale of representativeness for each monitor as 58. 10(b)(6); Y, p. 7, App. A V

• defined in Appendix D App D

18 Identification of sites suitable 

# and sites not suitable 58.10 

# (b)(7) Y, App. A V

for comparison to the 

# annual PM 2

. 5 NAAQS as



# described in Part 58.30

19 MSA, CBSA, CSA or other area represented by the 58.10 (b)(8) N/A N/A There are currently no MSAs within

monitor GBUAPCD’s jurisdiction.

20 Designation of 

# any Pb monitors as either source- 58.10 

# (bX9) N/A N/A Currently there are no Pb monitors

oriented or non-source-oriented

21 

# Any source-oriented Pb site for which a waiver has 58.10 (bXlO) N/A N/A Source oriented Pb monitoring is not required

been granted by EPA RA

22 

# Any Pb monitor for which a 

# waiver has been 58.10 (b)(11) N/A N/A Currently there are no Pb monitors requested or granted by EPA RA for use of Pb-PM 10

in lieu of Pb-TSP

23 Identification ofrequiredNO 2 monitors as either near- 58.10 (b)(12) N/A N/A Near-road/Area-wide NO 2 monitoring is not

road or area-wide required

24 Identification of 

# any PM 2 FEMs 

# and/or ARMs not 58.10 (b)(13) N/A N/A The PM 2

. 5 FEM at Keeler is stated to be eligible to be compared to the NAAQS (Note 1: must 58.11 (e) comparable 

# to the Annual PM 25 NAAQS.

include required data assessment.) (Note 2: Required

SLAMS must monitor PM 2 

# with NAAOS

comparable monitor at the required sample

frequency.)



# 3

# ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes



# within 40 submitted? 1 If information

CFR 58 

# yes, page #s. provided 3 meet

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 Data from T-4, T-23, T-7, and 

# T-27 SPMs 

# part 

# of

of FRMJFEMJARM at SPM. If> 24 months, 

# and the Dust ID Program and are not intended for

monitor is eligible for comparison to the NAAQS per 

# NAAQS comparison and therefore are not

58.11 (e) 

# and 58.30, the agency must supply submitted to AQS.

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 not included

the review of changes to a PM 2

. 5 monitoring network

that impact the location of a violating PM 2

. 5 monitor.

27 Does the plan include a request for approval for and 58.11 (a) (2) N/A N/A The plan does not include request for approval

alternative to appendix A requirements for SPMs of an alternative to app. A.

operating a 

# FRM/FEMJARM which also meets

appendix E?

28 Precision/Accuracy reports submitted to AQS 

# 58.16(a); Y, p.18 Y

AppA, 1.3



# and 5.1.1

29 Annual data certification submitted 

# 58.15 Y, p.18 V

App. A 1.3

30 Frequency of flow rate verification for manual PM App A 3.3.2 

# Y, App. A Y

samplers audit

31 Frequency of flow rate verification for automated PM App A 3.2.3 Y, App. A Y

analyzers audit

32 Frequency of one-point flow rate verification for Pb App A N/A N/A Pb monitoring not required

samplers audit 3.3.4.1



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

34. Date of last Annual Performance Evaluation (gaseous) App. A 3.2.2 N Insufficient info Information not included



# 35 Dates of last 

# two semi-annual flow rate audits for PM App A, 3.2.4 V. p.22 V

monitors 

# and 3.3.3

36 Dates of last 

# two semi-annual flow rate audits for Pb App A N/A N/A Pb monitoring not required

monitors 3.3.4.1



# 4

# ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes

within 40 submitted? 1 if information

. 

# CFR 58 yes, page #s. provided 3 meet

Flag if the req? 4

incorrect 2

?

37 PM 2

. 5 collocation App A 3.2.5 Y, p21, App. A Y The plan does not discuss this requirement in

. 

# detail, but there is one PM 25 site currently

operating in the network, which is

appropriately collocated.

38 Designation of a primary monitor if there is more than Need to N Insufficient info Information not included

one monitor for a pollutant at a site, determine

collocation

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

request or the date of previous waiver approval must 3.2.5.6 and

be included if the distance deviates from 3.2.6.3

requirement.)

40 

# Manual PM 10 method collocation met? (note: App A 3.3.1 Y, App. A Y The plan does not discuss this requirement in

continuous PM 10 does not have this requirement) detail, but there are only 4 PM 10 sites currently

operating in the network, one of which is

appropriately collocated.

41 Pb collocation App A N/A N/A Pb monitoring not required

3.3.4.3

42 PM 1025 collocation (note: only applies to Fresno 

# and App A 3.3.6 N/A N/A PM 12

. 5 collocation not required

Phoenix NCore sites)

43 Jnstrumentlmonitoring method code for each monitor: App C 2.4.1.2 Y, p. 21, App. A Y

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

. - 

# appropriate method code for regulatory monitors)?

44 For agencies that share monitoring responsibilities in App D 2(e) N/A N/A GBUAPCD currently meets the network

an MSAJCSA: does each affected State or local requirements independently.

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. A Y

determine if

-



# 5

# ANP

requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes

within 40 submitted? 1 If information

CFR 58 yes, page #s. provided 3 meet

Flag if the req? 4

incorrect 2

?



# other req.

(e.g.,min#

and colloc)

are met

46 Instrument monitor type for each monitor Required to N Insufficient info Information not included

determine if

other req.

(e.g.,min#

and colloc)

are met

47 Monitoring objective for each instrument App D 1.1 N Insufficient info Information not included

58.10 (b)(6)

48 Site type for each instrument App D 1.1.1 V, p.7, App. A Y

49 Instrument parameter code for each instrument Required to Y, p. 21 Y

determine if

other req.

(e.g., mm #

and colloc)

are met

50 Instrument parameter occurrence code for each Required to Y, P. 21 Y

instrument determine if

other req.

(e.g., mm #

and colloc)

are met

51 Sampling season for ozone (note: date of waiver 58.10 

# (b)(4) Y, App. A Y

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

deviates from requirement)

52 Sampling schedule for PM 25

- 

# applies to year-round 58.10 

# (b)(4) Y, p. 21 Y

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

approval must be included if the sampling season App D 4.7

deviates from requirement) EPA

flowchart

53 Sampling schedule for PM 10 58.10 

# (b)(4) V. P.21 V

58. 12(e)

App D 4.6



# 6

# ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes

within 40 submitted? 1 If information

CFR 58 yes, page #s. provided 3 meet

. 

# Flag if the req? 4

incorrect 2

?

54 Sampling schedule for Pb 58.10 

# (b)(4) N/A N/A Pb 

# monitoring not required

58.12(b)

AppD4.5

55 Sampling schedule for PM 125 58.10 

# (b)(4) Y, p.21 Y

58.12(f)

AppD4.8

56 Minimum#ofmonitorsforO 3 [Note: should be App D,4.1(a) N/A N/A Minimum number of 03 monitors not required supported by MSA ID, MSA population, DV, # 

# and

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

57 Identification of max. conc. 03 monitor(s) App D 4.1 (b) N/A N/A

58 Minimum monitoring requirements met for near-road App D 4.3.2 N/A N/A Minimum number of near-road NO 2 monitors

NO 2 (2014 start date) not required

59 Minimum monitoring requirements met for area-wide App D 4.3.3 N/A N/A Minimum number of area-wide NO 2 monitors

NO 2 not required

60 Minimum monitoring requirements met for RA-40 App D 4.3.4 N/A N/A Minimum number of NO 2 monitors not

NO 2 required

61 Minimum monitoring requirements met for SO 2 App D 4.4 N/A N/A Minimum number of SO 2 monitors not [Note: 

# Only monitors considered to be required required

SLAMs 

# are eligible to be counted towards meeting

minimum monitoring requirements.]

62 Minimum monitoring requirements met for Pb [Note: App D 4.5 N/A N/A Minimum number of Pb monitors not required 

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

eligible to be counted towards meeting minimum

monitoring requirements.]

63 Minimum # of monitors for PM 2

. 5 [Note 1: should be App D, Y, p. 18, App. A N/A Minimum number of PM 2

. 5 monitors not supported by MSA ID, MSA population, DV, # 4.7.1(a) 

# and required. 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 PM 2

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

of required sites if it does not include all SLAMS. assess several

Only monitors considered to be required SLAMS are eligible to be counted towards meeting minimum monitoring requirements. In addition, ozone monitors that do not meet 

# traffic count/distance requirements to be neighborhood scale (40 CFR 58 Appendix E, Table E-1) caimot be counted towards minimum monitoring requirements.



# 7

# ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes

within 40 submitted?’ If information

CFR 58 yes, page #s. provided 3 meet

Flag if the req? 4

incorrect 2

?



# [Note: default will assume all SLAMS are considered requirements

required sites.]



# 65 Required PM 2

, sites represent area-wide 

# air quality App D V. App. A V

4.7.1(b)

66 For PM 2

. 5

, is at least one site at neighborhood or App D Y, App. A V

larger scale in an area of expected 

# maximum 4.7. 1(b)(1)

concentration

67 If additional SLAMS PM 2

. 5 required, is there a site in App D N/A N/A Additional PM 2

., monitoring not required

an area of poor 

# air quality 4.7.1(b)(2)

68 

# Minimum monitoring requirements for continuous App D 4.7.2 Y, p.21, App. A Y

PM 2

. 5

69 Requirements for PM 2

. 5 background 

# and transport App D 4.7.3 N/A N/A PM 2

. 5 background and transport sites are State

sites requirements

70 

# Are PM 2

. 5 Chemical Speciation requirements met for App D 4.7.4 N/A N/A PM 2

. 5 STN sites are State requirements

official STN sites?

71 

# Minimum # of monitors for PM 10 App D, 4.6 Y, p.18, App. A N/A Minimum number of PM 10 monitors not

(a) 

# and Table required.



# D-4

72 

# Minimum monitoring requirements met for PM 12

. 5 App D 4.8 Y, p.21, App. A V

mass

73 Distance of site from nearest road App E 6 Y, App. A 

# Y



# 74 Traffic count of nearest road App 

# B V, App. A V



# 75 Groundcover App E 3(a) V. App. A Y

76 Probe height App E 2 Y, App. A V



# 77 Distance from supporting structure App E 2 N Insufficient info Information not included

78 Distance from obstructions on roof App E 

# 4(b) V. App. A V



# 79 Distance from obstructions not on roof App E 4(a) Y, App. A V

80 Distance from trees App E 

# 5 Y, App. A Y

81 Distance to furnace or incinerator flue App E 

# 3(b) V, App. A V

82 Unrestricted airflow App E, 4(a) Y, App. A V

and4(b)

83 Probe material 

# (if applicable) App E 

# 9 Y, App. A V

84 Residence time 

# (if applicable) App E 

# 9 V, App. A V



# 8

# 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 of the comments substantive? No

o If yes, which ones?

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

• Did the agency respond to the substantive comments?

o If yes, was the response adequate?

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

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

o If yes, provide rationale:

9EnclosureC:ResponsetoComments.EPAResponsestoLosAngelesDepartmentofWaterandPower’s(LADWP’s)commentswithrespecttoGreatBasinAirPollutionControlDistrict’s(GBUAPCD’s)2013annualnetworkplan.TheLosAngelesDepartmentofWaterandPower(LADWP)submittedcommentstotheGreatBasinUnifiedAirPollutionControlDistrict(GBUAPCD)onJuly9,2013,duringthecommentperiodheldbyGBUAPCDonitsproposed2013annualnetworkplan(2013ANP).GBUACPDrespondedtothesecommentsinaletterdatedAugust16,2013,whichwasincludedwiththefmal2013ANPsubmittedtoEPAonAugust22,2013.LADWPsubsequentlysentletterstoEPAonJuly31,2013,September3,2013,andDecember3,2013thatexpandeduponthecommentsmadeintheJuly9,2013letterandprovidedadditionalcommentsonEPA’sannualnetworkpianapprovalprocess.InthisdocumentwehavesummarizedandrespondedtoLADWP’scomments,ascontainedintheseletters.’Comment1:LADWPsuggeststhatwithoutacompliantnetworkmonitoringplanthatisapprovedbyEPA,thedatacannotbeusedfordeterminingtheattainmentstatusofanyareascoveredbytheplansorimposeairqualitymitigationrequirementsuponLADWPnoranyotherparty.Specifically,EPAshoulddesignateallofthedataintheAirQualitySystem(AQS)databasesince2006withan“N”value,andstatethatthedatacannotbeusedforattainmentdeterminationsoranyotherpurposes.Response:TheprimarypurposeoftheANPisto“providefortheestablishmentandmaintenanceofanairqualitysurveillancesystemthatconsistsofanetworkof[Stateorlocalair]monitoringstations[(SLAMS)].”2TheANPalsoprovidesamechanismforEPAreviewandapprovalofSLAMSnetworkmodifications.3Thequality,andhencevalidity,ofthedataproducedbyamonitoringnetworkdescribedinanagency’sANPisnotnecessarilydependentonEPAapprovaloftheANP.Forexample,anetworkwithtoofewmonitorswouldnotmeettherequirementsofAppendixDtopart58,butthedatafromeachmonitormightwellstillbevalidforregulatorypurposes.Moreover,evenwhenconsideringthequalityofdatafromasinglemonitor,40CFR58AppendixA,§1(a)providesthat“EPAandmonitoringagenciesshallusea‘weightofevidence’approachwhendeterminingthesuitabilityofdataforregulatorydecisions”and“EPAreservestheauthoritytouseornotusemonitoringdatasubmittedbyamonitoringorganizationwhenmakingregulatorydecisionsbasedontheEPA’sassessmentofthequalityofthedata.”Inusinga“weightofevidence”approach,EPAtypicallyevaluatesthequalityofthedataanditsappropriatenessforregulatorypurposesusinganumberofdifferentsourcesofinformation,whichincludeTechnicalSystemAudits(TSA),dataaudits,reviewofambientandqualityassurance/qualitycontrol(QAJQC)datareportedtoAQS,andtheANPreviewprocess.1Pursuantto40CFR58.10(a)(2),EPAisnotrequiredtoprovideaseparateopportunityforpubliccommentwhentheStateorlocalagencyhasalreadyprovidedsuchanopportunity,hasmadenochangessubsequenttothatcommentopportunity,andhassubmittedthereceivedcommentstogetherwiththeplan.Nonetheless,inthisinstance,wehaveexerciseddiscretiontotakeintoconsiderationLADWP’sJuly31,2013,September3,2013,andDecember3,2013commentletterstoEPA,aswellasitsJuly9,2013lettertoGBUAPCD.240CFR58.10(a)(1).40CFR58.10(a)(2).Atthistime,basedontheweightofevidenceavailablefromallsourcesofinformation(i.e.,TSA,dataqualityreviews,QAIQCdata,andtheANP),EPAdoesnotbelieveitisappropriatetostatethatthedatacannotbeusedforregulatorypurposesnorthatthedatainAQSshouldbeannotatedwithan“N”valueasLADWPsuggests.Comment2:The2012and2013ANPsbothcannotbeapprovedbecausetheyincludethreemonitorsthatarenolongerpartofthemonitoringnetwork(DirtySocks,NorthBeach,andMillSiteSLAMS).LADWPspecificallydisagreeswithEPAthatthereplacementmonitorsfortheseformersitesarenecessarytoachievetheNAAQSorensurecompliancewithanyotherexistinglegalorregulatoryrequirements.Response:TheANPisanappropriatevenuetodiscussthediscontinuationofmonitoringsitesandinformationpertainingtotheseshouldbeincludedintheANPuntilappropriatereplacementsitescanbeapprovedbyEPA.4WhetherornotthesesitesarenecessarytoachievetheNAAQSorensurecompliancewithanyotherexistinglegalorregulatoryrequirements,allsystemmodificationstotheSLAMSnetworkaresubjecttoapprovalbyEPA,basedoncriteriasetforthin40CFR58.14(c).Currently,theshutdownandrelocationofthesesiteshasnotbeenapprovedbyEPAundertheapplicablerequirementsof40CFR58.14andthereforeitisappropriateforthemtobeincludedintheplanatthistime.Comment3:GBUAPCDcontinuestooperateitsPM10andPM25networkintheOwensValleywithoutanEPA-approvedQualityAssuranceProjectPlans(QAPP).WhileLADWPacknowledgesthatGBUAPCD’sSLAMSnetworkiscoveredunderanapprovedCaliforniaAirResourcesBoard(ARB)QualityAssurancePlan(QAP),theycontendthattheARBQAPdoesnotcovertheuseofthedatausedtoidentif’supplementaldustcontrolareasonOwensLakebecausetheARBQAPdoesnotproperlyassurequalityforalloftheinstrumentsystemsthatareusedinthedustsourceidentificationprocess5.LADWPalsoassertsthattheQAPPsshouldbeapprovedinapublicproceeding,the2013ANPcannotbeapproveduntilthereareapprovedQAPPsfortheSLAMSnetwork,andthedatacannotbecertifiedorbeusedfordeterminingattainmentstatusoftheOwensValleyPlanningArea(OVPA)orimposingairqualitymitigationobligationsuponLADWP.Response:AspreviouslymentionedinAttachmentDofEPA’s2012ANPapprovalletter,LADWP’sinitialcommentsonthe2012ANP,thesubsequentSeptember28,2012letter,andLADWP’sinitialJuly9,2013commentletteronthe2013ANPallacknowledgethattheGBUACPD’sSLAMSnetworkiscoveredbyARB’sQAPandspecificallystatethat“tobeclear...theARBQAPP[sicjdoescovertheStateandLocalMonitoringStations(SLAMS)networkthatisthesubjectofthe2013ANP.”Tofurtherexplain,theGBUAPCDSLAMSnetworkiscurrentlyapartoftheARBPrimaryQualityAssuranceOrganization(PQAO).6Therefore,asstatedbyLADWP,thenetworkis“See,e.g.40CFR58.10(e)(“AllproposedadditionsanddiscontinuationsofSLAMSmonitorsinannualmonitoringnetworkplans...aresubjecttoapprovalaccordingto§58.14.”)SeeJuly9,2013LADWPcommentletterthatspecificallystatesthat“tobeclear...theARBQAPPdoescovertheStateandLocalAirMonitoringStations(SLAMS)networkthatisthesubjectofthe2013NetworkPlan”.6See40CFRpart58,appendixA,§3.1.coveredunderARB’squalityassurancedocuments.WithinthestructureofaPQAO,itisacceptableforanagencywithinaPQAOtodevelopandmaintainitsownQAPPorotherqualityassurancedocuments.Therefore,LADWP’sassertionthattheexistenceofaGBUAPCD“2013DraftQAPP”is“tacitadmissionthattheDistrictisnotcoveredunderCARB’s2005QualityAssurancePlan”isincorrect.Underthissamestructure,CARBistheapprovingauthorityforGBUAPCD’s2013DraftQAPPandthereforeGBUAPCDdoesnotneedtoobtainEPAapprovalofthe2013DraftQAPP,assuggestedbyLADWP.Finally,thereisnorequirementthatQAPPsbeapprovedinapublicprocessormadeavailableforpubliccomment.Aspreviouslymentioned,basedontheinformationavailable,EPAdoesnotagreewithLADWP’sassertionthatPM10datacollectedbyGBUAPCDcannotbeusedforregulatorypurposes.Comment4:ThecurrentGBUAPCDmonitoringnetworkdesignisproblematicbecauseitfocusesonOwensLakeanddoesnotadequatelyassesscontributionsfromothersourceareas.LAWDPalsorequeststhatGBUAPCDidentifythemajoroff-lakesourceareasandassertsthatallofthesourceimpactmonitorsaroundOwensLakeshouldbedesignatedasspecialpurposemonitors(SPM5)becausetheyarenotsuitableforcomparisonwithanddeterminationofthearea’scompliancewiththeNAAQS.Response:AspreviouslymentionedinAttachmentDofEPA’s2012ANPapprovalletter,commentsconcerningwhichsourcesareinfluencingspecificmonitorsarebeyondthescopeofwhatEPAisrequiredtoreviewandapproveaspartoftheannualnetworkplanprocess.Generally,ambientairmonitoringnetworkdesignisperformedbytheStateorlocalairdistrictsandtherearenospecificrequirementsin40CFRPart58AppendixD,4.6thatmandateaPM10networkcaptureinfluencesfromspecificsources.Currently,thePM10networkintheOwensLakenonattainmentareameetstheapplicablerequirementsin40CFR58AppendixD.Also,thefactthattheGBUAPCDSLAMSmonitorshavesitetypesof“sourceoriented”7isnotasufficientreasontosuggestalltheSLAMSmonitorsaroundOwensLakeshouldbedesignatedasSPMs8orthatthedataarenotsuitableforcomparisonwithanddeterminationofthearea’scompliancewiththeNAAQS.Thereisnocurrentlanguageinanyportionof40CFR50or40CFR58thatsuggests“sourceoriented”PM10monitorsshoul4notbeusedinregulatorydecisions.Comment5:TheKeelerPM2.5andPM10monitors,andtheNorthBeachPM10monitorappeartoviolatetheEPAsitingcriteriacontainedin40CFRPart58AppendixE,§3(a)duetotheircloseproximitytoanumberofunpavedroadsandthatEPAhasincorrectlyapplieditsownmonitorsitingregulations.GBUAPCDrefersto“sourceoriented”sitetypesinthe2013ANP.EPAinterpretsthistobethesameas“sourceimpact”sitetypesasdescribedinAQS.8See40CFR58.20(“AnSPMisdefinedasanymonitorincludedinanagency’smonitoringnetworkthattheagencyhasdesignatedasaspecialpurposemonitorinitsannualmonitoringnetworkplanandinAQS...“).NotethatdatafromanSPMthathasoperatedlongerthan24monthsisgenerallycomparabletotheNAAQS.Id.Response:AspreviouslymentionedinAttachmentDofEPA’s2012ANPapprovalletter,whenapplying40CFR58AppendixE,§3(a),itisimportanttounderstandthemonitoringobjectiveforaparticularlocationinordertointerprettherequirementforspacingfromminorsources.TheKeelerandNorthBeachmonitoringsitesarecharacterizedashavingpopulationoriented9(populationexposure)andsourceimpact(sourceoriented)sitetypes,respectively.’040CFR58AppendixE,§3(a)explainsthatiftheobjectiveforamonitoringsiteistoinvestigatelocalPM10sources,thenthesiteislikelytobeproperlylocatednearby.Furthermore,intheseinstances,capturingtheinfluenceofemissionsfromnearbyunpavedroadsmaybeimportant,andmovingthesemonitorsawayfromsuchsourcesmayunderestimatethepopulation’sexposuretoharmfullevelsofPM10andPM2.5Duetothemonitoringobjectivesofthesesitesandtheirdistancefromroadways,thepresenceofnearbyunpavedroadsdoesnotviolateEPA’ssitingcriteriain40CFR58AppendixE.Comment6:The2012ANPdoesnotadequatelyexplaintheApril2011discontinuationoftheFlatRockPM,0monitor.Response:AspreviouslymentionedinAttachmentDofEPA’s2012ANPapprovalletter,EPAagreesthattherewasinsufficientinformationincludedinthe2012ANPconcerningtheshutdownandrelocationoftheFlatRockPM10monitor.SystemmodificationstotheSLAMSnetworkmustmeetspecificcriteriaoutlinedin40CFR58.14andbesubsequentlyapprovedbyEPA.AstherewasnotenoughinformationtojudgewhethertheshutdownandrelocationoftheFlatRockmonitorwasappropriate,EPAisnottakingactionatthistimeonthemodificationandwillcontinuetoworkcloselywithGBUAPCDtoappropriatelydocumenttheshutdownandrelocation.Comment7:TheCosoJunctionPM10monitorisinviolationofEPA’ssitingcriteriaandtherearenumeroussourcesimproperlyinfluencingthemonitoringdata.Also,thedatafromtheCosoJunctionisunreliableandcannotbeusedtoassesstheemissioncontributionsfromOwensLake.Response:Currently,thereisnoevidenceintheANPtosuggestthattheCosoJunctionPM,0monitorisinviolationofthesitingcriteriaof40CFR58AppendixE.AspreviouslymentionedinAttachmentDofEPA’s2012ANPapprovalletter,anassessmentofwhetherthedatafromaspecificmonitorisinfluencedbyaparticularsourceisbeyondthescopeofwhatEPAisrequiredtoreviewandapproveaspartoftheannualnetworkplanprocess.Generally,ambientairmonitoringnetworkdesignisperformedbytheStateorlocalairdistrictsandtherearenospecificrequirementsin40CFRPart58AppendixD,§4.6thatmandateaPM,0networkcaptureinfluencesfromspecificsources.Inthe2012ANP,theCósoJunctionisappropriatelycharacterizedasapopulationoriented(populationexposure)andpollutanttransport(regionaltransport)regionalscalemonitoringsite.Comment8:EPAfailedtoapplyitsregulationsinapprovingboththe2011and2012ANPsandproperlynotifrthepublicoftheseapprovalsintheFederalRegister.Specifically,EPAapprovedPopulation-orientedmonitoring(orsites)meansresidentialareas,commercialareas,recreationalareas,industrialareaswhereworkersfrommorethanonecompanyarelocated,andotherareaswhereasubstantialnumberofpeoplemayspendasignificantfractionoftheirday.102012ANP,Table2.the2012ANPknowingthatitviolatedthelawwhen‘therewere28requirementsforwhichEPAadmittedtherewasinsufficientinformationtojudgewhethertherequirementhasbeenmet.EPAcannotapprovethe2012or2013ANPsiftheyareoutofcompliancewithevenonerequirementof40CFRPart58,includingappendicesA,C,D,andE.Response:WedonotagreethatEPAhasfailedtoapplyitsregulationsortoproperlynotifythepublicofitsapprovals.WhenreviewingANPs,EPARegion9utilizesanextensivechecklisttodocumenttheinformationsubmittedintheplans(the2013ANPchecklistcontained84independentitems).Eachiteminthechecklistcorrespondstoaspecificrequirementwithin40CFRpart58andisjudgedbasedontheinformationsubmittedintheANP.InboththeApril18,20132012ANPapprovalletterandintoday’s2013ANPapprovalletter,EPAclearlynotesthatitcannotapproveportionsoftheannualnetworkplanforwhichtheinformationintheplanisinsufficienttojudgewhethertherequirementhasbeenmetorforwhichtheinformation,asdescribedintheANP,doesnotmeettherequirements.Inthisrigorousreviewprocess,EPAhasapplieditsregulationsinaclearandtransparentfashionandhasnotapprovedportionsoftheplanforwhichEPAdoesnothavetheappropriateinformationtoapprove.1’Furthermore,themerefactthatEPAhasnotapprovedcertainitemsinthe2012and2013ANPsdoesnotsuggestthatPM10datacollectedbyGBUAPCDshouldnotbeusedinregulatorydecisions.Aspreviouslymentioned,EPAtypicallyevaluatesthequalityofthedataanditsappropriatenessforregulatorypurposesusinganumberofdifferentsourcesofinformation,whichincludeTechnicalSystemAudits(TSA),dataaudits,reviewofambientandQAIQCdatareportedtoAQS,andtheANPreviewprocess.ThisisconsistentwithEPAmonitoringregulationsthatstate,“EPAandmonitoringagenciesshallusea“weightofevidence”approachwhendeterminingthesuitabilityofdataforregulatorydecisions.”(40CFR58,AppendixA,§(1)(a)).Therefore,theassumptionthatifevenonerequirementhasnotbeenmetwithintheANP,thedatacannotbeusedinregulatorydecisionsisincorrect,asEPAdoesnotbasedecisionsonthequalityofthedatasolelyontheinformationcontainedwithinanANP,norisdataqualityjudgedononerequirement.ThisisalsoinpartduethefactthatmostinformationthatisrequiredtobesubmittedwiththeANPcanbeindependentlydeterminedtobeappropriatethroughEPA’sAQSdatabaseandotherprocesses.Finally,wenotethatEPAisnotrequiredtopublishitsactionsonannualnetworkplansintheFederalRegisterbecausetheseactionsareinformaladjudicationsratherthanrulemakingsundertheAdministrativeProcedureAct,5U.S.C.551etseq.“ItshouldbenotedthattheinternalEPAemailscitedinLADWP’sDecember3,2013letterreflectstaffdeliberationsanddonotconstituteEPApolicyoradefinitiveinterpretationoftheregulatoryrequirements.