1

Attachment A: Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan Checklist

Year: 2012

Agency: Clark County DAQ

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, Speciation (STN/CSN), and NO2 requirements including near road, area-wide, and RA40.

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

Grey = Requirement not applicable for this year’s plan

Yellow = does not meet or cannot judge the requirement – action requested in next year’s plan or outside the ANP process

Green = meets the requirement but action requested to improve next year’s plan
2

ANP requirement Citation 

within 40 

CFR 58

Was the info 

submitted?1If 

yes, page #s. 

Flag if 

incorrect2?

Does the 

information 

provided3 meet 

the req?

4

Notes 

1. Submit plan by July 1st 58.10 (a)(1) Yes Yes

2. Statement of purpose for each monitor 58.10 (a)(1) Yes, p.12, 15-16 Yes

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

58.10 (a)(2)

Yes, p.1 of cover 

letter.

Yes

4. Modifications to SLAMS network – case when we are 

not approving actual system modifications (i.e., we 

will do it outside the ANP process5)

58.10 (a)(2)

58.10(e)

Yes, p.13 & 54-56. Yes Options 3 & 4 listed on page 13 to correct siting 

deficiencies cannot be approved by EPA at this time 

without further information. Not enough 

information provided to approve site terminations 

proposed on page 54. Please work with EPA to 

ensure submittal of evidence showing 40 CFR 

58.14 criteria are met prior to 

terminations/relocations. Region 9 cannot at this 

time approve the near-road NO2 monitoring at City 

Center proposed on page 55 since approval 

authority currently lies with the Administrator.

5. Modifications to SLAMS network – case when we are 

approving actual system modifications per 58.14(c)

58.10 (a)(2)

58.10 (b)(5)

58.10(e)

58.14 (c)

Yes, p.13 & p.54-

56

Yes Options 1 & 2 on page 13 are acceptable to correct 

siting deficiencies.

6. Does plan include documentation (e.g., attached 

approval letter) for system modifications that have 

been approved since last ANP approval?

Yes, p.12 Yes Page 12 references EPA approval of ozone season 

shortening (April-September) at Apex and 

Mesquite. EPA recommends including a copy of 

relevant approval letters in next year’s plan.

7. NCore plan submitted to Admin. by 7/1/2009 58.10 (a)(3) N/A N/A – HQ app. Clark NCore plan may still need OAQPS official 

approval. DAQ should work with EPA to ensure 

approval if not yet in place.

8. NCore site operational (by January 2011) 58.10 (a)(3) Yes, p.28-29, 53, 

& 55

N/A – HQ app. Please include PM2.5 continuous, PM10-2.5

continuous, and Pb detailed site information in next 

 

1 Response options: N/A (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.

3 Assuming the information is correct

4 Response options: N/A (Not Applicable) – [reason], Yes, No, Insufficient to Judge.

5

See 58.14(c)
3

ANP requirement Citation 

within 40 

CFR 58

Was the info 

submitted?1If 

yes, page #s. 

Flag if 

incorrect2?

Does the 

information 

provided3 meet 

the req?

4

Notes 

year’s plan. Detailed meteorology instrument 

information should also be provided. Please 

implement all required monitoring at NCore if not 

yet in place and report site details in next year’s 

plan.

The proposed transition of Pb monitoring at Jerome 

Mack to a high-volume sampler noted on page 55 is

acceptable.

9. Pb plan for ≥1.0 tpy sources submitted by 7/1/2009 58.10 (a)(4) N/A

10. Pb site for ≥1.0 tpy sources operational by 1/1/2010 58.10 (a)(4) N/A

11. Pb plan for 0.5-1.0 tpy submitted by 7/1/2011 58.10 (a)(4) N/A

12. Pb site for 0.5-1.0 tpy sources operational (by 

12/27/2011)

58.10 (a)(4) N/A

13. NO2 plan for area-wide and RA40 sites submitted by

7/1/2012

58.10 (a)(5) No. N/A- HQ approval Please identify area-wide and RA40 NO2 monitors 

in next year’s network plan.

14. NO2 area-wide and RA40 sites operational by 

1/1/2013

58.10 (a)(5) N/A

15. NO2 plan for near-road sites submitted by 7/1/2012 58.10 (a)(5) Incomplete, p.46-

47. 

N/A- HQ approval

16. NO2 near-road sites operational by ?

(N/A until 2013 or 2014 plans)

58.10 (a)(5) N/A

17. SO2 plan for PWEI sites submitted by 2011 58.10 (a)(6) N/A

18. SO2 sites operational by 1/1/2013 58.10 (a)(6) 

and 58.13(d)

N/A

19. CO plan for 2015 near-road sites submitted by

7/1/2014

58.10 (a)(7) 

and 

58.13(e)(1)

N/A

20. CO sites for first phase of CO monitors operational by 

1/1/2015

58.10 (a)(7) 

and 

58.13(e)(1)

N/A

21. CO plan for 2017 near-road sites by 7/1/2016 58.10 (a)(7) 

and 

58.13(e)(2)

N/A

22. CO sites for first phase of CO monitors operational by 

1/1/2017

58.10 (a)(7) 

and 

N/A
4

ANP requirement Citation 

within 40 

CFR 58

Was the info 

submitted?1If 

yes, page #s. 

Flag if 

incorrect2?

Does the 

information 

provided3 meet 

the req?

4

Notes 

58.13(e)(2)

23. AQS site identification number for each site 58.10 (b)(1) Yes, p.15-16 & 22-

37. 

Yes Please correct AQS code for Paul Meyer on p.33 &

Walter Johnson on p.36. The AQS code format 

should be fixed for Winterwood on p.37. Include 

AQS codes for all monitors reporting to AQS 

including SPMs.

24. Location of each site: street address and geographic 

coordinates

58.10 (b)(2) Yes, p.22-37. Yes Recommend reporting SLAMS coordinates in

WGS84 format.

25. Sampling and analysis method(s) for each measured 

parameter

58.10 (b)(3) Yes, p.9-12, 18 Yes Please specify a method code (if available) for each 

individual instrument at each existing and proposed 

site. Although pages 9-12 &18 discuss sampling 

and analysis method in a general fashion, it does not 

list individually for each instrument at each site. 

Recommend including as part of detailed site tables 

on p.22-37. Please include this information for 

individual SPMs.

Details of sampling and analysis methods for Pb 

and NOy were not found, please include in next 

year’s plan.

EPA R9 recommends adapting the Attachment C 

format suggested in the 2012 ANP memo.

26. Operating schedule for each monitor (see items 62-66) 58.10 (b)(4) Incomplete, p.9-10, 

12, 29, & 47.

Insufficient to 

judge.

Operation schedules should specify sampling 

frequency (e.g. continous, 1:3, etc.) and season (e.g. 

year-round, April 1-Sept 30, etc.). Pb does not 

specify the frequency nor season, and PM2.5 does

not specify a season. See items 62, 63, and 65 for 

more notes on individual parameters.

For guidance on reporting sampling frequency and 

season, see the suggested format provided in 

Attachment C of the 2012 Annual Monitoring 

Network Plan memo sent by Region 9.

27. Any proposals to remove or move a monitoring 

station within a period of 18 months following plan 

submittal

58.10 (b)(5) Yes, p.13 & p.54-

56

Yes See item #4 above.
5

ANP requirement Citation 

within 40 

CFR 58

Was the info 

submitted?1If 

yes, page #s. 

Flag if 

incorrect2?

Does the 

information 

provided3 meet 

the req?

4

Notes 

28. Scale of representativeness for each monitor as 

defined in Appendix D

58.10(b)(6); 

App D

Yes, p.9-12 & 

p.22-37.

Yes. Please also include information for SPM sites in 

next year’s plan.

29. Identification of sites suitable and sites not suitable 

for comparison to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS as 

described in Part 58.30

58.10 (b)(7) Yes, p.11 Yes.

30. MSA, CBSA, CSA or other area represented by the 

monitor

58.10 (b)(8) Yes, p.5 Yes

31. Designation of any Pb monitors as either sourceoriented or non-source-oriented58.10 (b)(9) Yes, p.46 Yes

32. Any source-oriented Pb site for which a waiver has 

been granted by EPA RA

58.10 (b)(10) N/A N/A- not currently 

required for DAQ.

33. Any Pb monitor for which a waiver has been 

requested or granted by EPA RA for use of Pb-PM10 

in lieu of Pb-TSP

58.10 (b)(11) N/A N/A- not currently 

required for DAQ.

34. Identification of required NO2 monitors as either 

near-road or area-wide

58.10 (b)(12) Incomplete, p.46 N/A- HQ approval Area-wide monitors not identified. Please identify 

all NO2 required monitors in next year’s plan.

35. Document how states and local agencies provide for 

the review of changes to a PM2.5 monitoring network 

that impact the location of a violating PM2.5 

monitor.6

58.10 (c) Yes, p.10-11 Yes EPA recommends public review in all cases, 

including for a lost lease and/or notice to vacate.

36. Plan to modify the network that complies with 

findings of the 5-year network assessment. [Note: 

recommended to be submitted on year of network 

assessment or year after.]

58.10 (e)

58.14 (a)

N/A- Only applies 

to year of or after 

5-year network 

assessment

37. Precision/Accuracy reports submitted to AQS 58.16(a);

App A, 1.3 

and 5.1.1

Yes, p.50 Yes.

38. Annual data certification submitted 58.15

App. A 1.3

Yes, p.50. Yes. Recommend including date data certification 

package was sent to EPA, this would be the 

certification date.

39. Frequency of flow rate verification for manual PM 

samplers audit

App A 3.3.2 Yes, p.10 Yes.

40. Frequency of flow rate verification for automated PM App A 3.2.3 Yes, p.9 Yes Please also include frequency of flow rate 

 

6 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

ANP requirement Citation 

within 40 

CFR 58

Was the info 

submitted?1If 

yes, page #s. 

Flag if 

incorrect2?

Does the 

information 

provided3 meet 

the req?

4

Notes 

analyzers audit verification for PM10-2.5 in next year’s plan.

41. Frequency of one-point flow rate verification for Pb 

samplers audit

App A 

3.3.4.1

No. Insufficient to 

judge.

Include in next year’s plan.

42. Frequency of one-point QC check (gaseous) App. A 3.2.1 Yes, p.11-12. Yes.

43. Date of last Annual Performance Evaluation (gaseous) App. A 3.2.2 Yes, p.51 Yes All evaluations found except for ozone evaluation at 

Jerome Mack and NO2 at Joel Neal. Please ensure 

all Annual Performance Evaluations for gases are 

reported and/or provide a statement clarifying if 

some evaluations did not occur.

44. Dates of last two semi-annual flow rate audits for PM 

monitors

App A, 3.2.4 

and 3.3.3

Yes, p.50-51. Yes Palo Verde, Boulder City, and Jerome Mack each 

reported only one audit for PM10. Only one audit 

was found reported for continuous PM2.5 at Jerome 

Mack. Please include previous two flow rate dates 

for all PM monitors and/or provide a statement 

clarifying if some audits did not occur.

45. Dates of last two semi-annual flow rate audits for Pb 

monitors

App A 

3.3.4.1

No. Insufficient to 

judge.

Include in next year’s plan.

46. PM2.5 co-location App A 3.2.5 Yes, p.18, 34, & 

49.

Yes.

47. Distance between co-located monitors App. A 

3.2.5.6

Yes, p.34 Yes.

48. Manual PM10 method co-location met? (note: 

continuous PM10 does not have this requirement)

App A 3.3.1 N/A N/A- not currently 

required for DAQ.

DAQ uses continuous instruments to meet PM10 

monitoring requirements.

49. Pb co-location App A 

3.3.4.3

N/A N/A- not currently 

required for DAQ.

50. PM10-2.5 co-location (note: only applies to Fresno 

and Phoenix NCore sites)

App A 3.3.6 N/A N/A- not currently 

required for DAQ.

51. Required # of PM2.5 PEP audits App A 3.2.7 N/A Yes - EPA 

requirement7

52. Required # of Pb PEP audits App A 

3.3.4.4

N/A Yes - EPA 

requirement8

53. Required # of NPAP audits (or approved equivalent) App A 2.4 N/A Yes - EPA 

requirement9

 

7 EPA has reviewed EPA documentation to confirm that these requirements have been met for the area in question.

8 EPA has reviewed EPA documentation to confirm that these requirements have been met for the area in question.
7

ANP requirement Citation 

within 40 

CFR 58

Was the info 

submitted?1If 

yes, page #s. 

Flag if 

incorrect2?

Does the 

information 

provided3 meet 

the req?

4

Notes 

54. Instrument/monitoring method code for each monitor: 

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

appropriate method code for regulatory monitors)?

App C 2.4.1.2 Yes, p.18. Yes See related item #25. 

55. Placeholder for: Optional request to have PM2.5 

continuous instruments treated as non-FEMs and 

therefore not comparable to NAAQS? 

Proposed rule 

and memo

56. Start date for each monitor Required to 

determine if 

other req. 

(e.g., min # 

and co-lo) are 

met

Yes, p.19 Yes Start dates not found for Apex and Mesquite ozone 

monitors. Please list start dates for all required 

monitors.

57. Instrument monitor type for each monitor Required to 

determine if 

other req. 

(e.g., min # 

and co-lo) are 

met

Yes, p.18, 22-37. Yes -Please list the monitor type individually for each 

parameter, rather than for each site.

-A discrepancy occurs between PM2.5 beta 

attenuation monitors that are listed as SPM on p.18 

and SLAMS or NCORE on p.24-35. Please correct 

this discrepancy since a SLAMS/NCORE cannot 

also be an SPM. 

See Attachment D of the 2012 Network Plan memo 

from R9 for guidance on monitor types. Monitor 

types examples include: SLAMS, Special Purpose, 

NCore. More than one monitor type may apply to a 

monitor.

58. Monitoring objective for each instrument App D 1.1

58.10 (b)(6)

Incomplete, p.9-12 Insufficient to 

judge.

The monitoring objective for each instrument refers 

to one of three basic objectives: NAAQS 

compliance, Research, and Public information. 

Each instrument in the DAQ network should 

specify one (or a combination) of these three 

objectives. We recommend including this in the 

detailed site information tables on p.22-37. 

Although DAQ currently specifies a monitoring 

 

9 EPA has reviewed EPA documentation to confirm that these requirements have been met for the area in question.
8

ANP requirement Citation 

within 40 

CFR 58

Was the info 

submitted?1If 

yes, page #s. 

Flag if 

incorrect2?

Does the 

information 

provided3 meet 

the req?

4

Notes 

objective for instruments (p.9-12), these should be

re-labeled to “Site Type.”

See Attachment D of the 2012 Network Plan memo 

from R9 for guidance on basic monitoring 

objectives.

59. Site type for each instrument App D 1.1.1 Yes p.9-12 & 58-

59.

Yes Site Types currently appear on p.9-12 & 58-59 as 

“Objective” and “Monitor Objective Type”

respectively. Please change labels to Site Type in 

next year’s plan. 

See Attachment D of the 2012 Network Plan memo 

from R9 for guidance on Site Types.

60. Instrument parameter code for each instrument Required to 

determine if 

other req. 

(e.g., min # 

and co-lo) are 

met

Yes, p.19 Yes Parameter codes not found for Pb (Jerome Mack), 

seasonal ozone sites (Apex & Mesquite), and 

PM10-2.5 (Jerome Mack). Please include 

information for all monitors in next year’s plan.

-Incorrect parameter code appears to be listed for 

PM2.5 speciation at Jerome Mack on page 19, 

please correct.

-Recommend including Parameter Codes in detailed 

site tables on p.22-37 for each parameter. See May 

2012 R9 memo, Attachment D for a suggested 

reporting format.

61. Instrument parameter occurrence code for each 

instrument

Required to 

determine if 

other req. 

(e.g., min # 

and co-lo) are 

met

Yes, p.19 Yes Parameter occurrence codes not found for Pb 

(Jerome Mack), seasonal ozone sites (Apex & 

Mesquite), and PM10-2.5 (Jerome Mack). Please 

include information for all monitors in next year’s 

plan.

-Recommend including in detailed site tables on 

p.22-37 for each parameter. See May 2012 R9 

memo, Attachment D for a suggested reporting 

format.

62. Sampling season for ozone (note: date of waiver App D, 4.1(i) Yes, p.11-12, 47 Yes Recommend specifying the sampling schedule and 
9

ANP requirement Citation 

within 40 

CFR 58

Was the info 

submitted?1If 

yes, page #s. 

Flag if 

incorrect2?

Does the 

information 

provided3 meet 

the req?

4

Notes 

approval must be included if the sampling season 

deviates from requirement)

season in the detailed site information tables for 

each monitor on p.22-37. Recommend including 

copies of any EPA season waivers granted (i.e. 

Apex & Mesquite).

63. Sampling schedule for PM2.5 - applies to year-round 

and seasonal sampling schedules (note: date of waiver 

approval must be included if the sampling season 

deviates from requirement)

58.12(d)

App D 4.7

Yes, p.9-10, 47 Yes Thank you for providing the sampling frequency. 

Please also clarify the PM2.5monitoring season 

(e.g. year-round, April 1 – October 31, etc.) in next 

year’s plan. Recommend including for each monitor 

in detailed site info on p.22-37.

64. Sampling schedule for PM10 58.12(e)

App D 4.6

Yes, p.9, 47 Yes.

65. Sampling schedule for Pb 58.12(b)

App D 4.5

No. Insufficient to 

judge.

Add Pb sampling schedule and monitoring season 

to next year’s plan. Schedule must be 1:6 unless 

waiver is granted from EPA. Recommend DAQ 

include sampling schedule in detailed Jerome Mack 

site table on p.29.

66. Sampling schedule for PM10-2.5 58.12(f)

App D 4.8

Yes, p.29, 47 Yes.

67. Minimum # of monitors for O3[Note: should be 

supported by MSA ID, MSA population, DV, # 

monitors, and # required monitors]

App D, 4.1(a) 

and 

Table D-2

Yes, p.49 Yes Please specify MSA population count. Include in 

next year’s plan. Recommend adapting format 

suggested by Attachment A of 2012 Annual 

Monitoring Network Plan memo sent by R9.

68. Identification of max. conc. O3 monitor(s) App D 4.1 (b) Yes, p.30 Insufficient to 

judge.

DAQ special study monitoring at the SMYC site 

has shown higher concentration estimates for ozone 

than the currently listed high SLAMS site at Joel 

Neal. Appropriate action should be taken by DAQ if 

the case is that higher ambient concentrations are 

found in other areas of Clark county. DAQ should 

work closely with EPA to explore potential 

solutions. Progress on this situation should be 

included in next year’s plan.

69. Minimum monitoring requirements met for near-road 

NO2

App D 4.3.2 N/A

70. Minimum monitoring requirements met for area-wide 

NO2

App D 4.3.3 N/A

71. Minimum monitoring requirements met for RA-40 App D 4.3.4 N/A
10

ANP requirement Citation 

within 40 

CFR 58

Was the info 

submitted?1If 

yes, page #s. 

Flag if 

incorrect2?

Does the 

information 

provided3 meet 

the req?

4

Notes 

NO2

72. Minimum monitoring requirements met for SO2 App D 4.4 Yes, p.46 & p.49 Yes Please clarify that PWEI requirements are met by 

the NCore monitor. Recommend including in 

minimum monitoring requirements table similar to 

p.49. Recommend adapting format suggested by 

Attachment A of 2012 Annual Monitoring Network 

Plan memo sent by R9.

73. Minimum monitoring requirements met for CO App D N/A

74. Minimum monitoring requirements met for Pb App D 4.5 

58.13(a)

Yes, p.46. Yes Please specify CBSA population in order clarify 

that Clark is meeting requirement. Recommend 

adapting format suggested by Attachment A of 

2012 Annual Monitoring Network Plan memo sent 

by R9.

75. Minimum # of monitors for PM2.5 [Note: should be 

supported by MSA ID, MSA population, DV, # 

monitors, and # required monitors]

App D,

4.7.1(a) and 

Table D-5

Yes, p.5, 14, 49 Yes Please specify MSA population count in order to 

clarify DAQ is meeting this requirement. 

Recommend adapting format suggested by 

Attachment A of 2012 Annual Monitoring Network 

Plan memo sent by R9.

76. Required PM2.5 sites represent community-wide air 

quality at neighborhood or urban scale

App D

4.7.1(b)

Yes, p.10 Yes

77. For PM2.5, is at least one site in a population-oriented 

area of expected maximum concentration

App D

4.7.1(b)(1)

Yes, p.10 Yes

78. If >1 SLAMS PM2.5 required, is there a site in an 

area of poor air quality

App D

4.7.1(b)(2)

Yes, p.14 Yes Please clarify in next year’s plan that this 

requirement is being met.

79. Minimum monitoring requirements for continuous 

PM2.5

App D 4.7.2 Yes, p.9 & 49. Yes Please include MSA population in order to clarify 

DAQ is meeting this requirement. Please correct 

this in next year’s plan. Recommend adapting 

format suggested by Attachment A of 2012 Annual 

Monitoring Network Plan memo sent by R9.

80. Requirements for PM2.5 background and transport 

sites

App D 4.7.3 Yes, p.15 & 49 N/A since this is a 

state requirement.

Although this is a state requirement and not specific 

to Clark, the plan presents contradicting 

information. Page 15 says Jean is not able to serve 

as a background site, however other areas of the 

plan (p.49) label the site as a background. Please 

correct the objective consistently across the plan. 

Recommend that state requirements such as this are 
11

ANP requirement Citation 

within 40 

CFR 58

Was the info 

submitted?1If 

yes, page #s. 

Flag if 

incorrect2?

Does the 

information 

provided3 meet 

the req?

4

Notes 

coordinated through lead state monitoring agency.

81. Are PM2.5 Chemical Speciation requirements met for 

official STN sites?

App D 4.7.4 Yes, p.11 Yes

82. Spatial Averaging for comparison to Annual NAAQS: 

are intended CMZs defined and met criteria in 40 

CFR 50 App N?

App D 4.7.5 N/A

83. Minimum # of monitors for PM10 App D, 4.6 

(a) and Table 

D-4 

Yes, p.49 Yes Specify MSA population and PM10 high NAAQS 

concentration in order to clarify that DAQ is 

meeting this requirement. Recommend adapting 

format suggested by Attachment A of 2012 Annual 

Monitoring Network Plan memo sent by R9.

84. Minimum monitoring requirements met for PM10-2.5 

mass

App D 4.8 Yes, p.55. Yes

85. Distance of site from nearest road App E 6 Yes, p.20 & 22-37 Yes Please also report distance from Apex and Mesquite

in next year’s plan.

86. Traffic count of nearest road App E Yes, p.20 Yes Mesquite & Apex: please provide traffic counts in 

next year’s plan for seasonal sites as well.

Recommend including available traffic counts from 

credible source for nearest road at: Winterwood, 

Sunrise Acres, Paul Meyer, Palo Verde, Joel Neal, 

Mesquite, Apex.

87. Groundcover App E 3(a) Yes, p.22-37 Yes

88. Probe height App E 2 Yes, p.22-73 Yes

89. Distance from supporting structure App E 2 Incomplete, p.22-

37

Insufficient to 

judge for nongaseous.

No for CO at 

Winterwood.

Please include distances from supporting structures 

for all parameters including non-gaseous. 

CO at Winterwood should be > 1m away from 

supporting structure.

90. Obstructions on roof App E 4(b) Incomplete, p.22-

37

Insufficient to 

judge.

In all cases specify whether there is an obstruction 

on roof. Distance & height should be included to 

determine if clearly if something is an obstruction. 

Please clarify what a cell with a “—“ signifies.

91. Obstructions not on roof. App E 4(a) No Insufficient to Specify in next year’s plan, distance and height of 
12

ANP requirement Citation 

within 40 

CFR 58

Was the info 

submitted?1If 

yes, page #s. 

Flag if 

incorrect2?

Does the 

information 

provided3 meet 

the req?

4

Notes 

judge. obstructions not on roof or list if none exist.

Specifically, please ensure height and distance of 

building next to J.D. Smith site is reported. It is 

currently difficult to judge whether this is an 

obstruction.

92. Distance from trees App E 5 Incomplete, p.22-

37

Insufficient to 

judge, No in some 

instances

Information not included for all monitors. Please 

specify what a cell with a “—“ signifies.

Trees at Joel Neal & Green Valley are <10m, please 

correct siting deficiency.

93. Distance to furnace or incinerator flue App E 3(b) Yes, p.16 Yes

94. Unrestricted airflow App E, 4(a) 

and 4(b)

Yes, p.22-37 Yes

95. Probe material (if applicable) App E 9 Yes, p.22-37 Yes

96. Residence time (if applicable) App E 9 Yes, p.22-37 Yes

Public Comments on Annual Network Plan

Were comments submitted to the S/L/T agency during the public comment period? No comments received. See cover letter submitted with plan.