UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105·3901 

# OCT 

# 3'0 2014 Eric Massey Director, Air Quality Division

. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

1110 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Dear Mr. Massey: Thank you for your submission of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality's (ADEQ's) "State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan For the Year 2014" in July 2014 . We have reviewed the submitted document based on the requirements set forth under 40 CFR 58. Based on the information provided in the plan, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approves all portions of the network plan except those specifically identified below . EPA also continues to approve the ozone season waiver based on 2007-2013 concentrations. Please note that we cannot approve portions of the 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 5 8 .10 and the associated appendices. EPA Region 9 also cannot approve portions of the plan for which the EPA Administrator has not delegated approval authority to the regional offices. Accordingly, the first enclosure (A. 

### Annual Monitoring Network Plan Items where EPA is Not Taking Action) provides a listing of specific items of your agency's annual monitoring network plan where EPA is not taking action. The second enclosure (B. 

### Additional Items Requiring Attention) is a listing of additional items in the plan that EPA wishes to bring to your agency's attention . The third enclosure (C. 

### 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 of whether the plan submitted by your agency addresses those requirements. The first two enclosures highlight a subset of the more extensive list of items reviewed in the third enclosure . 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

### If 

### you have any questions regarding this letter or the enclosed comments, please feel free to contact me at (415) 947-4534 or Jennifer Williams at (415) 972-3938.

Enclosures: Sincerely,

# lJ/q:__?~ 

# rMeredith Kurpius,

# ~ana" Air Quality Analysis Office

A. Annual Monitoring Network Plan Items where EPA is Not Taking Action B. Additional Items Requiring Attention C. Annual Monitoring Network Plan Checklist

cc (via email): Theresa Rigney, ADEQ

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

### We, are not acting on the portions of annual network plans where either EPA Region 9 lacks the authority to approve specific items of the plan, or EPA has determined that. a requirement is either not met or information in the plan is insufficient to judge whether the requirement has been met. • Per 

## 40 CFR 

## 58.1 l(c), NCore, PAMS, and STN network design and changes are subject to approval of the EPA Administrator. Therefore, we,are not acting on these items. • EPA identified items in your agency's annual monitoring network plan where a requirement was not being met or information in the plan was insufficient to judge whether the requirement was 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 Minimum monitoring requirements for 

## 20 Not meeting requirement continuous PM2.s Manual PM10 method collocation 

## 33 Not meeting requirement Precision/ Accuracy reports submitted to 

## 10 Insufficient information to judge AQS Annual data certification submitted 11 

### Insufficient information to judge Site type for each monitor 

## 63 Incorrect in some instances Scale of representativeness for each 

## 65 Insufficient to judge in some monitor as defined in Appendix D instances Dates oflast two semi-annual flow rate 

## 31 Insufficient information to judge audits for PM2.s monitors Dates of last two semi-annual flow rate 

## 37 Insufficient information to judge audits for PM10 monitors Dates of last two semi-annual flow rate 

## 45 Insufficient infonnation to judge audits for Pb monitors Date of last Annual Performance 

## 47 Insufficient information to judge Evaluation (gaseous) Traffic count of nearest road 

## 70 Insufficient information to judge in some instances Distance from obstructions on roof 

## 74 Insufficient information to judge AQS site identification number for each 

## 57 Insufficient information to judge site in one instances Distance from obstructions not on roof 

## 75 Not meeting requirement in some instances; insufficient to judge in other instances Distance from trees 

## 76 Not meeting requirement in some instances

### Additional information for each of these items may be found for the row listed in column 2, in the third enclosure (

### C. Annual Monitoring Network Plan Checklist).

### B. Additional Items Requiring Attention • [Item 1] Please work to submit future plans by the July 1 deadline. • [Item 5] In future plans, ifrequests and approvals were sent outside of the annual network plan process, please attach the requests and approval letters that were submitted during the relevant calendar year. • [Item 14] Per 40 CFR 58 Appendix D, section (2)(e), the EPA Regional Administrator and state or local agencies ... "may divide the overall MSA/CSA monitoring responsibilities and requirements among the various agencies to achieve an effective network design. Full monitoring requirements apply separately to each affected State or local agency in the absence of an agreement between the affected agencies and the EPA Regional Administrator." A draft agreement was submitted with this Plan. Please work with EPA to formalize the agreement to share network design responsibilities. • [Item 19] The requirement for minimum number of monitors for PM2.s is being met, but Table 2a (page 137) incorrectly lists the table headers as"# of Required Continuous Monitors", "# of Active Continuous Monitors", and "# of Additional Continuous Monitors Needed." Please correct in future plans. • [Item 32] The requirement for minimum number of monitors for PM10 is being met, but Table 3 (page 138) incorrectly states that 0-1 monitors are required for Lake-HavasuKingman and Sierra Vista-Douglas, when according to the 2011-2013 Max Concentration given, 1-2 are required. • [Item 50] Please reference the date of the original ozone wavier approval.

### C. ANNUAL MONITORING NETWORK PLAN CHECKLIST (Updated March 11, 2014) Year : 2013 Agency: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 40 CFR 58.lO(a)(l) 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.lO(a)(l) 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. Yell ow = 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)

- p -

re

_

e

_ n _I =item requires attention in order to improve next year ' s plan (items listed in Enclosure B)

1

### ANP requirement 

# I Citation Was the Does the I Notes within 40 information information CFR58 submitted? 1 

### If 

### provided3 

### meet yes, page #s. the Flag if requirement? 4 

### incorrect2 

### ? GENERAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS 

### 1. 

## ..**,_·~** 

## ·,.,,..·: . · .,_.**::: fs~1oxa**  

## · 1 ·-:;;:: ± Yes '.i·."'; 

# '"<·: ; ..**:~: No** **·~< ~>**  · · • 

### .·:**.~** 

### . Plan sub

_ Jl1.itted _ 

### m.>.J.u.I . 3rc1, 20 14 2. 30

- day public comment I inspection period5 58.10 (a)(l) , Yes Public comment period ended July 3rct , 2014 . No public comments were received . 3. 

### I Modifications to 

### SLAMS network

- case when we 158 . 10 (a)(2) 

## I Yes 

## I Yes 

## I The new location of the Prescott College 

### 0 3 monitor are not approving system modifications 58 . 10 (b)(5) Pg. 11-13 does not require approval. Whi le approval is not required , EPA appreciates up -front coordination with 4. 

### I Modifications to 

### SLAMS network

- case when we are approving system modifications per 58.14

6 . 

### I Any proposals to remove or move a monitoring station within a period of 18 months following plan submittal 1 58 . 10 (a)(2) 58 . 10 (b)(5) 58.lO(e) 58 . 14

58.10 (b)(5) 

## I NA

Yes Pg. 11 

## I NA

Yes agencies on such additions to the network. 

## I

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 . 3 Assuming the information is correct 4 Response options: NA (Not Applicable)

- [reason] , Yes , No, Insufficient to Judge . 5 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**pl~.** 

### 2

### ANP requirement 

## I Citation Was the Does the within 40 information information CFR58 submitted? 1 

### If 

### provided3 

### meet yes, page #s. 

### the Flag if requirement? 4 

### incorrect2 

### ? 7. I A plan for establishing a near-road PM2. s monitor (in 58.10(a)(8)(i) NA NA CBSAs**~** 2.5 million) by 1/1 /2015 8. I A plan for establishing a near-road CO monitor (in 58. I O(a)(7) NA NA CBSAs**~** 2 .5 million) by 1/ 1/2015 58. I3(e)(l) 9 . I N0 2plan for establishment of 2"d near-road monitor 58.IO NA NA by 1/I /20I5 (a)(5)(iv) I 0 . 1 Precision/Accuracy reports submitted to AQS 58. I 6(a); No Insufficient to App A, 1.3 Judge and 5 . 1.1 I I. I Annual data certification submitted I 58.I5 No Insufficient to App . A I .3 Judge 12. I SPMs operating an FRM/FEM/ARM that meet . 

## I 58.I 1 (a) (2) NA NA Appendix E also meet either Appendix A or an approved alternative . I3.I SPMs operating FRM/FEM/ARM monitors for over 

## I 58 .2o(c) INA I NA 24 months are listed as comparable to the NAAQS or the agency provided documentation that requirements from Appendices A, C , or E were not met. 6

GENERAL PARTICULATE MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (PM10, PM2.s, Pb-TSP, Pb-PM10) 15. I Designation of a primary monitor if there is more 

## I Need to I Yes I Yes than one monitor for a pollutant at a site . determine Pg. 17 , 57-83 collocation I 6. I Distance between collocated monitors (Note : waiver 

## I App . A 

# I Yes 

# I Yes request or the date of previous waiver approval niust 3.2 .5.6 and Pg. 57-83 3 . 2.6.3

6 This requirement only applies to monitors that are eligible for comparison to the NAAQS per 40 CFR §§58 . I I(e) and 58 . 30. 

## I Notes

This requirement is being fulfilled by Maricopa County. This requirement is being fulfilled by Maricopa County. This requirement is being fulfilled by Maricopa County. No information provided. 

## I No information provided.

The description of primary monitors is included in the text , but adding this information to the site tables would be helpful.



### 3 

# I

### ANP requirement 

## I Citation Was the Does the 

## I Notes within 40 information information CFR58 submitted? 1 

### If 

### provided3 

### meet yes, page 

### #s. the Flag if requirement? 4 

### incorrect2 

### ? be included if the distance deviates from requirement.) -SPECIFIC MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 17 . 

### I Document how states and local agencies orovide for 

## I 58 . 10 (c) 

## I Yes 

### I Yes Pg. 18 18 . 

### I Identification of anv PM?, FEMs and/or ARMs not 

### I 58 . 10 (b)(13) 

## I NA 

### I NA 58.ll(e)

20 . 

### I Minimum monitoring requirements for continuous I AppD 4 . 7 . 2 I Yes I No I States that no continuous monitors are required. One PM 2.s Pg . 137 continuous monitor is required both for Yuma and Sierra Vista-Douglas. The requirement is being fulfilled at Yuma , but not at Sierra Vista-Douglas. 21. 

### I PM 2.s collocation 

## I App A 3 . 2 .5 

## I Yes 

### I Yes Pg.17-18 , 57-85 22 . 

### I PM2.s Chemical Speciation requirements for official App D 4 .7.4 Yes 

## I Yes STN site s Pg . 8-9, 57-85 23 . 

### I Identification of sites suitable and sites not suitable 58.10 (b)(7) Yes Yes 

## I All FEM/FRM sites are listed as comparable for comparison to the annual PM2. s NAAQS as Pg. 57-85 described in Part 58.30 24 . 

### I Required PM2.s sites represent area-wide air quality AppD Yes 

## I Yes 4 .7 . l(b) Pg. 57-85 25. 

### I For PM 2.s, at least one site at neighborhood or larger AppD Yes 

## I Yes scale in an area of expected maximum concentration 4 .7. l(b)(l) Pg. 57-85 

### 4

### AN P r equirement

26 . I If additional SLAMS PM2.s i s require d , there i s a site in an are a of p oor air quality 27 . I Stat es mu st have at le as t one PM2.s reg ion al backgrou nd and one PM2.s reg ional transp ort s ite. 2 8 . I Sampling schedul e for PM 2 .s - appli es to year-round and seasonal sampling schedule s (note : d ate of waiver approval mu st b e included if the sampling season dev iates fro m requirement) 29 . I Frequenc y of fl ow rate verification fo r manu al PM 2 .s monitors a udit 30 . I Frequ ency of flow rate verific ation for automated PM 2.s monitors audit 31. I Date s of la st two semi-annual flow rate audits for PM 2.s monitors

Mm -SPECIFIC M ONITORING REQUIREMENTS 

### Citation w ithin 40 C F R58 AppD 4.7.l(b)( 2) App D 4.7.3 5 8 . 10 (b) (4) 5 8 . 12(d) AppD 4 .7 EPA fl owchart App A 3 .3 .2 

## I App A 3 .2 . 3

App A , 3 . 2.4 and 3.3 . 3 

### Was the information submitted? 1 

### If y es, page 

### #s. Flag if incorrect2 

### ? NA Yes Pg . 57

- 85 Yes Pg . 57

- 85

Ye s Pg . 57- 85 Yes P g . 5 7

- 8 5 Yes Pg. 57-85 

### Does the \ Notes information prov ided 3 

### meet th e requirement? 4 NA I No additional monitor i s required for each MSA. Yes Yes

Yes Yes Insufficient to Judge The purpose of the 2014 ANP is to provide for an overview of data collected in calendar year 2013. The following site s/monitors included dates of the last semi-annual audit from 2014 , therefore there is insufficient information to judge whether the requirement was met in 2013 : • Douglas Red Cross • Nogales Post Office In future ANPs , provide dates of semi-annual flow audits occurring in the applicable data years for all PM 2s monitors in the network. Information from other years may be included for informational purpose s should you desire , but will not on their own fulfill thi s reauirement.



### 5

### ANP requirement

Manual PM10 method collocation (note : continuous PM10 does not have this requirement) 3 4 . I Sam pling sc hedul e for PM1 0 3 5 . I Frequ ency of fl ow rate verifi cati on for manu al PM 1 0 monitors audi t 3 6. 

### I Frequency of flow rate verifi cation fo r automated PM1 0 monitors a udit 37. I Dates oflast two semi-annual flow rate audits for PM10 monitors



### Pb -SPECIFIC MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 38 . 

### I Minimum # of monitors fo r non- NCore Pb [Note: Onl y monitors co ns idered to be required SLAMs a re elig ibl e to b e counte d toward s mee ting mi nimum mo nitoring re quirements. ] 

### Citation within 40 CFR58

58. 10 (b)(4 ) 5 8. 12(e) App D 4 . 6 App A 3 .3 .2 App A3 . 2 . 3 App A , 3 . 2.4 and 3 . 3.3

App D 4 .5 5 8. 1 3 (a) 

### W as the information submitted? 1 

### If 

### yes, page #s. 

### Flag if incorrect2 

### ?

Yes Pg. 20, 57-85 Yes Pg. 57-8 5 Yes Pg . 57

- 85 Yes P g . 57-85 Yes Pg . 57-85

Yes Pg. 22-23 

### Does the I 

### Notes information provided3 

### meet the requi rement? 4

No

Ye s Yes Yes Insufficient to Judge

Yes Each method of manual PM 10 monitors must be collocated with the same method. The Partisol 2000 FRM at the Nogales Post Office is not meeting this requirement. Please contact EPA to discuss.

The purpose of the 2014 ANP is to provide for an overview of data collected in calendar year 2013. The following sites/monitors included dates of the last semi-annual audit from 2014, therefore there is insufficient information to judge whether the requirement was met in 2013: • Douglas Red Cross • Hayden Old Jail • Miami Golf Course • Nogales Post Office • Paul Spur Chemical Lime Plant In future ANPs, provide dates of semi-annual flow audits occurring in the applicable data year for all PM10 monitors in the network.



### 6

### ANP requirement Citation Was the Does the Notes within 40 information information CFR58 submitted? 1 

### If provided3 

### meet yes, page 

### #s. the Flag if requirement? 4 

### incorrect2 

### ? 39 . Pb collocation : for non-NCore sites App A 3.3.4 . 3 Yes Yes Pg . 23 40. Any source-oriented Pb site for which a waiver has 58.10 (b)(lO) NA NA been granted by EPA Regional Administrator 41. Any Pb monitor for which a waiver has been 5 8 .10 (b )( 11) NA NA requested or granted by EPA Regional Administrator for use ofPb

-PM10 in lieu ofPb-TSP 42. Designation of any Pb monitors as either source- 58.10 (b)(9) Yes Yes oriented or non-source-oriented Pg . 57-85 43. Sampling schedule for Pb 58.10 (b)(4) Yes Yes 58 . 12(b) Pg. 57-85 App D4.5 44 . Frequency of one-point flow rate verification for Pb App A 3 . 3.4. l Yes Yes monitors audit Pg. 57-85 4 5 . Dates of last two semi

- annual flow rate audits for Pb App A 3 . 3.4 . 1 Yes Insufficient tO The purpose of the 2014 ANP is to provide for an monitors Pg . 57

- 85 Judge overview of data collected in calendar year 2013. The following sites/monitors included dates of the last semi-annual audit from 2014, therefore there is insufficient information to judge whether the requirement was met in 2013: 

## • Globe Highway 

## • Miami Golf Course In future ANPs, provide dates of semi-annual flow audits occurring in the appropriate data year for all Pb monitors in the network. 1 1GENERAL GASEOUS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 

# I 46. Frequency of one -point QC check (gaseous) App. A3.2 . l Yes Yes Pg . 57-85 47. Date of last Annual Performance Evaluation App. A 3 . 2.2 Yes Insufficient to The purpose of the 20 14 ANP is to provide for an (gaseous) Pg . 57

- 85 Judge overview of data collected in calendar year 2013. The fo llowing sites/monitors only had dates of the last PE audit from 2014, therefore there is insufficient information to j udge whether the requirement was met in 2013: 

## • JLG Supersite 

### 7

### ANP requirement Citation within 40 CFR58 Was the information submitted? 1 

### If 

### yes, page #s. Flag if 

### incorrect2 

### ? Does the 

## I Notes information provided3 

### meet the requirement? 4

• Alamo Lake • Hayden Old Jail In future ANPs, provide dates of PE audits occurring in the appropriate data year for all gaseous monitors in the network. 

# I 03 -SPECIFIC MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 

# I 48. Minimum# of monitors for 01 fNote: should be App D, 4.l(a) Yes Yes Requirements for Phoenix and Tucson are fulfilled by and Pg. 21, 137 Maricopa County and Pima County, respectively. Table D-2 49.I Identification of maximum concentration 01 I App D 4.1 (b) 

### I Yes 

### I Yes



### N02 -SPECIFIC MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 51. I Minimum monitoring requirement for single near- App D4.3.2 Yes NA road N02 monitor (in CBSA**~** 1 million) by 1/ 1 /2014 Pg. 24-25, 138 52. I Minimum monitoring requirements for area-wide App D 4.3.3 Yes NA N02 monitor in location of expected highest N02 Pg. 24-25 concentrations representing neighborhood or larger scale (operation required by January 

### I , 2013) 53. 

## I Minimum monitoring requirements for susceptible 

## I App D 4.3.4 I NA NA and vulnerable populations monitoring (aka RA40) N02 (oQeration reguired by Januar}:'. 

### I, 2013) 54. I Identification of required N0 2 monitors as either 

## I 58.10 (b)(12) I NA NA near-road, area-wide, or vulnerable and susceptible population (aka RA40) 

### S02 -SPECIFIC MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 55. I Minimum monitoring requirements for S02 [Note : 

## I App D 4.4 Yes NA Only monitors considered to be required SLAMs are Pg. 23-24 , 138 Requirements for Phoenix and Tucson are fulfilled by Maricopa County and Pima County, respectively . Requirement fulfilled by Maricopa County .

Requirements for Phoenix and Tucson are fulfilled by Maricopa County and Pima County, respectively. Requirements for Phoenix and Tucson are fulfilled by Maricopa County and Pima County, respectively . 7 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) cannot be counted towards minimum monitoring requirements. 

### 8

### ANP requirement Citation Was the Does the Notes within 40 information information CFR58 submitted? 1 

### If 

### provided3 

### meet yes, page 

### #s. the Flag if requirement? 4 

### incorrect2 

### ? eligible to be counted towards meeting minimum monitoring requirements . ] 

# I NCORE -SPECIFIC MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 

# I 56 . NCore site and all required parameters operational 58.10 (a)(3); Yes Yes Pb-PM10 and PM10-2 .s collocation at NCore is met by Pb Pg. 28-29 , 71-72 the national network of monitors . collocation App .A 3.3.4.3 ; PM1 0

- 2 .s minimum monitoring App. D4.8 ; PM1 0

- 2.s sampling schedule 58.10 (b)(4) 58.12(f) AppD4 . 8 ; PM1 0

- 2.s collocation App. A3.3 . 6 

# I SITE OR MONITOR- SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS (OFTEN INCLUDED IN DETAILED SITE INFORMATION TABLES) 

# I 57 . AQS site identification number for each site 58 . 10 (b)(l) Yes Insufficient to No AQS ID given for Globe Highway (page 99) . Pg . 84, 87-135 Judge in one instance 58. Location of each site: street address and geographic 58.10 (b)(2) Yes Yes coordinates Pg . 87-135 59 . MSA , CBSA , CSA or other area represented by the 58.10 (b)(8) Ye s Ye s monitor Pg. 87-135 60 . Parameter occurrence code for each monitor Needed to Ye s Yes determine if Pg. 57-83 other requirements (e . g ., min # and 

### 9

### ANP requirement Citation Was the Does the Notes within 40 information information CFR58 submitted? 1 

### If 

### provided3 

### meet 

### yes, page 

### #s. the Flag if requirement? 4 

### incorrect2 

### ? collocation) are met 61. Statement of purpose for each monitor 58.10 (a)(l) Yes Yes Pg. 87-135 62. Basic monitoring objective for each monitor App D 1.1 Yes Yes 58.10 (b)(6) Pg. 57-83 63 . Site type for eac h monitor App D 1.1.1 Yes Incorrect in so me "Downwind " is not a site type . Pg . 57-83 instances Incompatible Site Type and Scales :



## - 

## • Alamo Lake S02, PM10, and PM2 .sBackground, Neighborhood 64. Monitor type for each monitor Needed to Yes Yes "QA Collocated" and "UATMP" are not monitor determine if Pg . 57-83 types. other Per recent changes , the following are not "monitor requirements types", but are "network affiliations": (e .g. , min # 

## • NCore and 

## • PAMS collocation) 

## • Supplemental Speciation are met 

## • NATTS 

## • IMPROVE EPA will send additional information on how these changes should be reflected in ANPs . 65 . Scale of representativeness for each monitor as 58.1 O(b )(6) ; Incorrect Insufficient to Incompatible Site Type and Scales: defined in Appendix D AppD Pg. 57-83 judge in some 

## • Alamo Lake S02, PM10, and PM2 .s instances Background , Neighborhood 66 . Parameter code for each monitor Needed to Yes Yes determine if Pg . 57-83 other requirements (e .g . , min # and collocation) are met 67 . .Method code and description (e.g. , manufacturer & 58.10 (b)(3); Yes Yes model) for each monitor App C 2.4.1.2 Pg . 57-83 

### 10

### ANP requirement Citation Was the Does the Notes within 40 information information CFR58 submitted? 1 

### If 

### provided3 

### meet y es , 

### page #s. 

### the Flag if requirement? 4 

### incorrect2 

### ? 68 . Sampling start date fo r each m onitor N ee ded to Yes Y es determine if P g . 5 7

- 83 other re quirements (e.g . , min # and c olloc ati on) are me t 6 9 . Di stance of mo nitor from ne ar es t road App E6 Yes Yes P g . 8 7-135 70 . Traffic count of nearest road AppE Yes Insufficient to Traffic count not given for: Pg. 87-135 Judge in some 

## • JLG Supersite, 17th Ave instances 

## • Miami Ridgeline, Linden St 

## • Paul Spur Ch emical Lime P lant, Paul Spur Rd 7 1. Groundcover App E 3(a) Yes Yes Dirt and/or Gra ss : P g. 87 -135 

## • Douglas Red Cro ss 

## • Mi ami Ridgeline 

## • Paul Spur Chemical Lime Pl ant 

## • Rillito 

## • T onto National Monument 72 . Prob e height App E2 Yes Yes Pg. 5 7

- 8 3 73 . Di stan ce fro m supp orting stru cture App E2 Yes Yes Pg . 57-83 74. Distance from obstructions on roof App E 4(b) Yes Insufficient to Distance from obstruction given, but no height above Pg . 57-83 Judge the probe . Please state explicitly (i .e ., if it is the same height as the probe , please state "O above probe"): 

## • Flagstaff (03) 75. Distance from obstructions not on roof App E 4(a) Yes No and Insufficient Requirement not being met at: Pg. 57-83 to Judge 

## • Miami Townsite (S02) 

## • JLG (SVOC) 

## • South Phoenix (VOC) Distance from obstruction given, but no height above the probe, which may be 0, but please state explicitly : 

## • Prescott College AQD (03) 

### 11

### ANP requirement Citation Was the within 40 information CFR58 submitted? 1 

### If 

### yes, page #s. Flag if 

### incorrect2 

### ?

76 . Distance from trees AppE5 Yes Pg. 57-83

77. Distance to furnac e or incinerator flue App E 3(b) Ye s Pg . 57-83 78 . Unre stricted airflow App E , 4 (a) Ye s and 4(b ) Pg. 5 7

- 83 7 9 . Prob e material (NO x , S02, 0 3 ) App E9 Y es Pg . 57-83 80 . Res idence time (NO x, S02 , 0 3 ) App E 9 Ye s Pg. 57- 8 3 

### Public Comments on Annual Network Plan Were comments submitted to the S/L/T agency during the public comment period? If

### no , skip the remaining questions . If 

### yes: • Were any of the comments substantive ? o If 

### yes , which ones? Does the Notes information provided3 

### meet the requirement? 4 

## • Douglas Red Cross (PM2 .s) 

## • Rillito (PM10) Distance from tress (as an obstruction) given, but no height above the probe, which may be 0, but please state explicitly: 

## • Alamo Lake (03) 

## • Flagstaff (03) 

## • Hayden Old Jail (S02, PM10) 

## • Ajo (PM10) 

## • Bullhead City (PM10) 

## • Douglas Red Cross (PM10, PM2.s) 

## • Paul Spur Chemical Lime Plant (PM10) 

## • Payson Well Site (PM10) No in some Requirement not being met at: instances 

## • JLG Supersite (Pb

-PM10, PM10, PM2.s, PM10-2.s, Carbonyl, 

## voe, PMIO metals speciation) 

## • South Phoenix (VOC) 

## • Miami Golf Course (Pb) Yes



## . Ye s Y es Y e s 

### No.

12

### o Explain basis for detennination 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)? · • Are the sections of the annual network plan that received substantive cofilments approvable after consideration of comments? o If 

### yes, provide rationale:

13