Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District 

24580 Silver Cloud Court 

Monterey, California 93940 

Dear~- Stedman: 

Thank you for your submission of the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District's 

(MBUAPCD's) 2013 Air Monitoring Network Report in June 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 of the network plan except those 

specifically identified below. 

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

information in the plan 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 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. 

Print~d on Rtcyd~d Paptr 
Enclosures: 

Meredith Kurpius, Manager 

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: Mike Gilroy, MBUAPCD 

Bill Chevalier, MBUAPCD 

Gayle Sweigert, California Air Resources Board 
(

), 

, 

S, and S1N network design and changes are subject to approval of the EPA Administrator. Therefore, we are not acting on these items. 

• EPA identified items ~ 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 

Dates of last two semi-annual 35 Not meeting requirement. flow rate audits for PM 

monitors 

Agencies that share 44 Insufficient information to judge for one monitoring responsibilities in MSA 

anMSA/CSA 

PM2.s site at neighborhood 66 Insufficient information to judge for one scale and maximum MSA 

concentration 

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). 
is less or less consistent, please include that information in next yea

p

the monitors are FRM, FEM or ARM, and operate greater than 24 months, the data are 

considered regulatory unless justification is provided about not meeting regulatory 

requirements, per 40CFR58.20. 

• [Item 7] MBUAPCD is not required to have an NCore site. In future ANPs, it should be 

mentioned that BAAQMD operates an NCore station at San Jose which is part of the San 

Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA (for which MBUAPCD and BAAQMD share 

jurisdiction). 

• [Item 28] In future ANPs, reference to EPA's "Aerometric system" should·refer to AQS 

instead. 

• [Item 43] Felton's SPM PM2.s monitor is listed as N/A with respect to 

FRMFEM/ARM/other but lists the method code as 170. The instrument manufacturer is 

listed as MET ONE FEMBAM-1020. Method code 170 is for an FEM. Please resolve the 

method code with the FRMIFEM/ARM/other listing in future ANPs. 

• [Item 49] The instrument parameter code for the column labeled wind speed shows code 

61102 (instead of 61101) and the column labeled wind direction shows code 61101 · 

(instead of61102) in the detailed site information for the Carmel Valley, King City, 

Santa Cruz, Hollister, Scotts Valley, and Felton sites. This should be corrected in next 

year'sANP. 

• [Item 56} For the Santa Cruz-Watsonville MSA, Table I lists 2 monitors present. For the 

purposes of meeting minimum monitoring requirements under Appendix D, Sect. 4. 7, 

Table D-5, only one monitor (SLAMS monitor at Santa Cruz) qualifies. Scotts Valley has 

an SPM 03 monitor which cannot be counted per CFR 58.20 for meeting minimum 

monitoring requirements. (SPMs do not count toward meeting minimum monitoring 

requirements.) This should be corrected in next year's ANP. Since zero monitors are 

required for this MSA, MBUAPCD still meets the requirement. 

• [Item 63] 

San Jose-Sunnvvale-Santa Clara MSA 

The design value (DV) for the MSA is listed for Hollister. The caption for the table states 

"DV site is highest listed regardless of agency". The PM2.s DV site for this MSA shoilld 

list San Jose (BAAQMD) with annual DV 9.1 and daily DV 28, or perhaps list San Jose 

and Hollister. Table 2 lists three monitors are required. Since neither Hollister's nor San 
g 

g 

q

(

count toward meeting minimum monitoring requirements.) This should be corrected in 

next year's ANP. Since zero monitors are required for this MSA, MBUAPCD still meets 

the requirement. 

SalinasMSA 

Table 21ists 3 monitors present. For the purposes of meeting minimum monitoring 

requirements under Appendix D, Sect. 4. 7, Table D-5, only one monitor (SLAMS 

monitor at Salinas) qualifies. Carmel Valley and King City have SPM PM2.s monitors, 

which cannot be counted per CFR 58.20 for meeting minimum monitoring requirements. 

(SPMs do not count toward meeting minimum monitoring requirements.) This should be 

corrected in next year's ANP. Since zero monitors are required for.this MSA, 

MBUAPCD still meets the requirement. 

C. ANNUAL MONITORING NETWORK PLAN CHECKLIST 

(Updated 11126/2013) 

Year: 2013 

Agency: Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) 

40 CFR 58.1 O(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, S1N 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. Th~ items requiring approval by the 

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

Please note ~at 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) · 

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

1 
ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes 

within 40 submitted?1 H information 

CFR58 yes, page #s. provided3 meet 

Flag if the req?4 

incorrecf? 

1. Submit plan by July 1

11 58.10 (a)(l) Yes Yes Received 6/28/2013 

2. Statement of purpose for each monitor 58.10 (aX1) Yes Yes 

p. 10-24 

3. 30-day public comment I inspection period~ 58.10 (a)(1), Yes Yes No comments received 

58.10 (a)(2) Appendix A 

4. Modifications to SLAMS network- case when we 58.10 (aX2) Yes Yes EPA notes that the plan mentions two SPM studies 

are not approving actual system modifications (i.e., 58.10(e) p.6 that are not included in the Detailed Site 

we wiJJ do it outside the ANP process6

) Information tables: a) PM2.s Survey of wood smoke 

during winter in Santa Cruz/San Lorenzo, b) 

Roadside monitoring study in Salinas - NOx, CO, 

black carbon, PM2•

5 and MET in 2013. If these 

monitors are operated on a regular schedule for a 

year or more, they should be described in the 

Detailed Site Information tables. If their operation 

is less or less consistent, please include that 

information in next year's plan. Note that if the 

monitors are FRM, FEM or ARM, and operate 

greater than 24 months, the data are considered 

regulatory unless justification is provided about not 

meeting regulatory_requirements, per 40CFRS8.20. 

5. Modifications to SLAMS network- case when we 58.10 (a)(2) NA NA EPA is not approving any system modifications 

are approving actual system modifications per 58.10 (bXS) with this plan approval. 

58.14(c) 58.10(e) 

58.14 (c) 

6. Does plan include documentation (e.g., attached Yes Yes Appendix C includes EPA letter dated 2012/11/0 1 

approval letter) for system modifications that have p.34 that approves a CFR 58 App E siting waiver for 

been approved since last ANP. approval? -- C:::armel Valley 

1 Response options: NA (Not Applicable), Yes, No, Incomplete, Incorrect. The responses "Incomplete" and "Incorrect'' assume that some information has be~ provided. 

2 To the best of our knowledge. 

3 Assuming the information is correct 4 R~sponse 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 plan. 

6 See 58.14(c) 

2 

I 

I 
ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes 

within 40 submitted?1 If information 

CFR58 yes, page #s. provided3 meet 

Flag if the req?4 

incorrecr? 

7. NCore site operational (by 1/112011) 58.10 (a)(3) NA NA MBUAPCD is not required to have an NCore site. 

In future ANPs, it should be mentioned that 

BAAQMD operates an NCore station at San Jose 

which is part of the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara 

MSA (for which MBUAPCD and BAAQMD share 

jurisdiction). 

8. Ph site for 0.5-1.0 tpy sources operational (by 58.10 (a)(4) No Insufficient to See Row 44 comment 

1212712011) judge for San JoseSunnyvale-Santa 

ClaraMSA 

9. N02 plan·for area-wide and RA40 sites submitted by 58.10 (a)(5) No Insufficient to Future ANPs should mention that there are no 

7/1/2012 judge for San Jose- RA40 sites in the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara 

Sunnyvale-Santa MSA. 

ClaraMSA 

Regarding N02 area-wide, see Row 44 comment. 

10. N02 area-wide and RA40 sites opera~onal by 58.10 (a)(5) No Insufficient to See Row 44 comment. 

111/2013 judge for San JoseSunnyvale-Santa 

ClaraMSA 

11. N02 plan for near-road sites submitted by 7/112013 58.10 (a)(5) No Insufficient to See Row 44 comment. 

judge for San JoseSunnyvale-Santa 

ClaraMSA 

12. so2 sites operational (by 1/1/2013) 58.10 (a)(6) No Insufficient to See Row 44 comment 

and 58.13(d) judge for San JoseSunnyvale-Santa 

ClaraMSA 

13. AQS site identification number for each site 58.10 (bX1) Yes Yes 

p. 7, 12, 14, 16, 18, 

20, 21,23 

14. Location of each site: street address and geographic 58.10 (bX2) Yes Yes 

coordinates p. 7, 12, 14, 16, 18, 

20, 21,23 

15. Sampling and analysis method(s) for each measured 58.10 (b)(3) Yes Yes 

parameter . p. 10, 11, 13, 15, 

17, 19, 22,24 

16. Any proposals to remove or move a monitoring 58.10 (bX5) NA NA No proposals to remove or move a monitoring 

station within a _period of 18 months following plan station within a period of 18 months following plan 

3 
I 

ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes 

' within 40 submitted?1 H information 

CFR58 yes, page #s. provided3 meet 

Flag if the req?4 

incorrecr? 

submittal submittal. 

17. Scale of representativeness for each monitor as 58.10(bX6); Yes Yes Spatial scale provided 

defined in Appendix D AppD p. 10, 11, 13, 15, 

17,19,22,24 

18. Identification of sites suitable and sites not suitable 58.10 (b)(7) Yes Yes No PM2.s sites are listed as being unsuitable for 

for comparison to the annual PM2.s NAAQS as p. 10, 11, 13, 15, comparison to the annual PM2.

5 NAAQS per 58.30 

described in Part 58.30 17,19,22,24 

19. MSA, CBSA, CSA or other area represented by the 58.10 (b)(8) Yes Yes 

monitor p. 7, 12, 14, 16, 18, 

20, 21,23 

20. Designation of any Pb monitors as either source- 58.10 (b)(9) No Insufficient to See Row 44 comment 

oriented or non-source-oriented judge for San JoseSunnyvale-Santa 

ClaraMSA 

21. Any source-oriented Pb site for which a waiver has 58.10 (b)(lO) No Insufficient to See Row 44 comment 

been granted by EPA RA judge for San Jose- I Sunnyvale-Santa 

ClaraMSA 

22. Any Pb monitor for which a waiver has been 58.10 (b)(11) No Insufficient to See Row 44 comment 

requested or granted by EPA RA for use ofPb-PM10 judge for San Josein lieu of Pb-TSP Sunnyvale-Santa 

ClaraMSA 

23. Identification of required N02 monitors as either 58.10 (bX12) No Insufficient t9 See Row 44 comment. 

near-road or area-wide judge for San JoseSunnyvale-Santa 

ClaraMSA 

24. Identification of any PM2.

5 FEMs and/or ARMs not 58.10 (bX13) Yes Yes No PM2.s sites are listed as being unsuitable for 

eligible to be compared to the NAAQS (Note 1: must 58.11 (e) p. 10, 11, 13, 15, comparison to the NAAQS 

include required data assessment.) (Note 2: Required 17,19,22,24 

SLAMS must monitor PM2.s with NAAOScomparable monitor at the required sample 

frequency.) 

25. For SPMs listed as non-regulatory, note the start 58.20(c) Yes Yes See Row4. 

Date ofFRMIFEM/ARM at SPM. If> 24 months, p. 13, 15, 20, 22, 

and monitor is eligible for comparison to the 24 

NAAQS per 58.11 (e) and 58.30, the agency must 

supply information that App A, C orE requirements 

4 
ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes 

. within 40 submitted?1 If information 

CFR58 yes, page #s. provided3 meet 

Flag if the req?4 

incorrecf? 

were not met. 

26. Document how states and local agencies provide for 58.10 (c) Yes Yes 

the review of changes to a PM2.s monitoring network p.6 

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

27. Does 

alternative 

the plan include a request for approval for and 58.11 (a) (2) NA NA No requests for alternatives to Ap}lendix A 

to appendix A requirements for SPMs requirements for SPMs 

operating a FRM/FEM/ ARM which also meets 

appendixE? 

28. Precision/Accuracy reports submitted to AQS 58.16(a); Yes Yes In future ANPs, reference to EPA's "Aerometric 

AppA, 1.3 p.6 system" should refer to AQS instead 

and 5.1.1 

29. Annual data certification submitted 58.15 Yes Yes 

App.A 1.3 p.6 

30. Frequency of flow rate verification for manual PM AppA3.3.2 Yes Yes PM10 monitors are continuous I samplers audit p. 11 PM2.s FRM QA monitor- monthly 

31. Frequency of flow rate verification for automated AppA3.2.3 Yes Yes Weekly 

PM analyzers audit p. 11, 13, 15, 17, 

19,22 

32. Frequency of one-point flow'rate verification for Pb AppA No Insufficient to See Row 44 comment 

samplers audit 3.3.4.1 judge for San JoseSunnyvale-Santa 

ClaraMSA 

33. Frequency of one-point QC check (gaseous) App.A3.2.1 Yes Yes Daily for 0 3, weekly for CO/N02 

p. 10, 13, 15, 17, 

19,22 

34. Date oflast Annual Performance Evaluation App.A3.2.2 Yes Yes 

(gaseous) p. 10, 13, 15, 17, 

19,22 

35. Dates 

PM monitors 

of last two semi-annual flow rate audits for App A, 3.2.4 Yes No Flow rate audits not being conducted semi-annually. 

and 3.3.3 p. 11, 13 (New PM2.

36. Dates oflast 

5 SPM station at Felton not audited yet.) 

monitors 

two semi-annual flow rate audits for Pb AppA NA NA No Pb monitors 

3.3.4.1 

37. PM2.s collocation AppA3.2.5 Yes,p. 11 NA MBUAPCD is part of the CARB PQAO. As this is 

a PQAO requirement, it should be addressed in 

CARB's plan. MBUAPCD meets PM2.5 collocation 

38. Designation 

requirements within its own network. 

of a primary monitor if there is more Need to Yes Yes At Salinas, FRM PM2.s monitor designated as QA 

5 
I ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes 

within 40 submitted?1 H information 

CFR58 yes, page #s. · provided3 meet 

Flag if the req?4 

incorrecf? 

than one monitor for a pollutant at a site. determine p.ll collocated, FEM PM2.s monitor designated as 

collocation SLAMS 

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

request or the date of previous waiver approval must 3.2.5.6 and p. 11 

be included if the distance deviates from 3.2.6.3 

requirement.) 

40. Manual PM10 method collocation met? (note: AppA3:3.1 NA NA PM10monitors are continuous 

continuous PM10 does not have this requirement)_ 

41. Pb collocation AppA No Insufficient to See Row 44 comment 

3.3.4.3 judge for San JoseSunnyvale-Santa 

ClaraMSA 

42. PM1o..2.s collocation (note: only applies to Fresno and AppA3.3.6 NA NA 

Phoenix NCore sites) 

43. Instrument/monitoring method code for each App C 2.4.1.2 Yes Yes Felton's SPM PM2.s monitor is listed as N/A with 

monitor: is it reported properly? Is it reported Pgs 10, 11, 13, 15, respect to FRMIFEM/ ARM/other but lists the 

correctly (i.e., appropriate method code for 17, 19,20,22,24 method code as 170. The Instrument manufacturer 

regulatory monitors)? is listed as MET ONE FEMBAM-1020. Method 

code 170 is for an FEM. Please resolve the method 

code with the FRMIFEM/ARM/other listing in 

future ANPs. 

44. For agencies that share monitoring responsibilities in App D 2(e) Yes, pgs 3, 4 Insufficient to MBUAPCD and BAAQMD share monitoring 

an MSA/CSA: does each affected State or local judge for San Jose- responsibility for the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa 

agency meet full monitoring requirements or is Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA. Agreements provided in the ANP only 

an agreement between the affected agencies and the Clara MSA cover PM2.s and PMro. 

EPA Regional Administrator in place? 

45. Start date for each monitor Required to Yes - Yes 

determine if Pgs 10, 11, 13, 15, 

otherreq. 17, 19,20,22,24 

(e.g., min# 

and colloc) 

are met 

46. Instrument monitor type for each monitor Required to Yes Yes 

determine if Pgs 10, 11, 13, 15, 

otherreq. 17, 19,20,22,24 

(e.g., min# 

and colloc) 

are met --- -- -- -

6 
ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes 

within 40 submitted?1 H information 

CFRS8 yes, page #s. provided3 meet 

Flag if the req?4 

incorrecr? 

47. Monitoring objective for each instrument AppD 1.1 Yes Yes 

58.10 (b)(6) Pgs 10, 11, 13, 15, 

17, 19,20,22,24 

48. Site type for each instrument App D 1.1.1 Yes Yes 

Pgs 10, 11, 13, 15, 

17, 19,20,22,24 

49. Instrument parameter code for each instrument Required to Yes Yes The instrument parameter codes for the column 

determine if Pgs 10, 11, 13, IS, labeled wind speed shows code 61102 (instead of 

otherreq. 17, 19, 20, 22,24 61101) and the column labeled wind direction 

(e.g., min# shows code 6110 l (instead of 611 02) in the detailed 

and colloc) site infonnation for the Cannel Valley, King City, 

are met Santa Cruz, Hollister, Scotts Valley, and Felton 

sites. This should be corrected in next year's ANP. 

so. Instrument parameter occurrence code for each Required to Yes Yes 

instrument determine if Pgs 10, 11, 13, 15, 

otherreq. 17, 19,20,22,24 

(e.g., min# 

andcolloc) 

are met 

51. Sampling season for ozone (note: date of waiver 58.10 (bX4) Yes Yes 

approval must be included if the sampling season App D, 4.1(i) Pgs 10, 11, 13, 15, 

deviates from requirement) 17,19,20,22 

52. Sampling schedule for PM2.5 - applies to year-round 58.10 (b)(4) Yes Yes 

and seasonal sampling schedules (note: date of 58.12(d) Pgs 10, 11, 13, 15, 

waiver approval must be included if the sampling AppD4.7 17, 19,24 

season deviates from requirement) EPA 

flowchart 

53. Sampling schedule for PM10 58.10 (bX4) Yes, pgs 15, 19 Yes 

58.12(e) 

AppD4.6 

54. Sampling schedule for Pb 58.10 (bX4) No Insufficient to See Row 44 comment 

58.12(b) judge for San JoseAppD4.5 Sunnyvale-Santa 

ClaraMSA 

55. Sampling schedule for PM10.2.s 58.10 (b)(4) NA NA No PMta-2.5 monitors 

58.12(f) 

AppD4.8 

56. Minimum # of monitors for 01 [Note: should be App D, 4.l(a) Yes, PI 3, Table I Insufficient to San Jose-Sunnvvale-Santa Clara MSA 

7 
ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes 

within 40 submitted?1 If information 

CFR58 yes, page #s. provided3 meet 

Flag if the req?4 

incorrecf? 

supported by MSA ID, MSA population, DV, # and judge for San Jose- See Row 44 comment 

monitors, and# required monitors] (see footnote}' TableD-2 Sunnyvale-Santa 

ClaraMSA Sm:~ta Cruz-Watsonvill~ MSA 

For the Santa Cruz-Watsonville MSA, Table 1 lists 

2 monitors present. For the purposes of meeting 

minimum monitoring requirements under 

Appendix D, Sect. 4.7, Table D-5, only one 

monitor (SLAMS monitor at Santa Cruz) qualifies. 

Scotts Valley has an SPM 0 3 monitor which 

cannot be counted per CFR 58.20 for meeting 

minimum monitoring requirements. (SPMs do not 

count toward meeting minimum monitoring 

requirements.) This should be corrected in next 

year's ANP. Since zero monitors are required for 

this MSA, MBUAPCD still meets the requirement. 

57. Identification of max. cone. 0 3 monitor(s) App D 4.1 (b) Yes,pg3 Yes 

58. Minimum monitoring requirements met for near- AppD4.3.2 No Insufficient to See Row 44 comment 

road N02 (2014 start date) judge for San JoseSunnyvale-Santa 

ClaraMSA 

59. Minimum monitoring requirements met for area- AppD4.3.3 No Insufficient to See Row 44 comment 

wideN02 judge for San JoseSunnyvale-Santa 

ClaraMSA 

60. Minimum monitoring requirements met for RA-40 AppD4.3.4 No Insufficient to Future ANPs should mention that there are no 

N02 judge for San Jose- RA40 sites in the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara 

Sunnyvale-Santa MSA. 

ClaraMSA 

61. Minimum monitoring requirements met for S02 AppD4.4 No Insufficient to See Row 44 comment 

[Note: Only monitors considered to be required judge for San JoseSLAMs are eligible to be counted towards meeting Sunnyvale-Santa 

minimum monitoring requirements.] ClaraMSA 

62. Minimum monitoring requirements met for Pb AppD4.5 No Insufficient to See Row 44 comment 

[Note: Only monitors considered to be required 58.13(a) judge for San Jose7 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 

I 
ANP requirement ·Citation Was the info Does the Notes 

within40 submitted?1 If information 

CFRS8 yes, page #s. provided3 meet 

Flag if the req?4 

incorrecf? 

SLAMs are eligible to be counted towards meeting Sunnyvale-Santa 

minimum monitoring requirements.] ClaraMSA 

63. Minimum # of monitors for PM2.5 [Note 1: should be AppD, Yes, pg. 3 Table 2 Yes San J~~-Sunnn:ile-S~m~ Clara MSA 

supported by MSA ID, MSA population, DV, # 4.7.1(a) and The design value (DV) for the MSA is listed for 

monitors, and# required monitors] [Note 2: Only TableD-5 Hollister. The caption for the table states "DV site is 

monitors considered to be required SLAMs are highest listed regardless of agency". The PM2.

5 DV 

eligible to be counted towards meeting minimum site for this MSA should list San Jose (BAAQMD) 

monitoring requirements.] with annual DV 9 .I and daily DV 28, or perhaps list 

San Jose and Hollister. Table 2 lists three monitors 

are required. Since neither Hollister's nor San Jose's 

DV numbers exceed the 85% PM2.s NAAQS 

threshold, it would seem that only 2 monitors are 

required. This should be corrected in next year's 

ANP. 

Sm~ ~ruz-Watsonville MSA 

Table 2 lists 2 monitors present. For the purposes of 

meeting minimum monitorin& requirements under 

Appendix D, Sect. 4. 7, Table D-5, only one monitor 

(SLAMS monitor at Santa Cruz) qualifies. Felton 

has an SPM PM2.s monitor, which cannot be 

counted per CFR 58.20 for meeting minimum 

monitoring requirements. (SPMs do not count 

toward meeting minimum monitoring 

requirements.) This should be corrected in next 

year's ANP. Since zero monitors are required for 

this MSA, MBUAPCD still meets the requirement. 

Salinas MSA 

Table 2 lists 3 monitors present. For the purposes of 

meeting minimum monitoring requirements under 

Appendix D, Sect. 4.7, Table D-5, only one monitor 

(SLAMS monitor at Salinas) qualifies. Carmel 

Valley and King City have SPM PM2.5 monitors, 

which cannot be counted per CFR 58.20 for 

meeting minimum monitoring requirements. (SPMs 

do not count toward meeting minimum monitoring 

- - - - - requirements.) This shguld be corr_c:_cted in next __ 

9 
ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes 

within 40 submitted?1 If information 

CFR58 yes, page #s. provided3 meet 

Flag if the req?4 

incorrecf? ' 

j 

year's ANP. Since zero monitors are required for I 

this MSA MBUAPCD still meets the requirement. 

64. Optional PM25 Network Clarifications: Provide a list Need to NA NA 

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

[Note: default will assume all SLAMS are requirements 

considered required sites.] 

65. Required PM2.5 sites represent area-wide air quality AppD Yes Yes 

4.7.1(b) Pgs 11, 17, 19 

66. For PM25, is at least one site at neighborhood or AppD Yes, pgs 3,19 Insufficient to In the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA, 

larger scale in an area of expected maximum 4.7.1(b)(l) judge for San Jose- SLAMS PM2.5 monitors are located at Hollister, 

concentration Sunnyvale-Santa San Jose and Gilroy. Information is not provided 

ClaraMSA whether the Hollister monitor is located in an area 

of expected maximum concentration. 

67. If additional SLAMS PM2.

5 required, is there a site in AppD Yes, pgs 3,19 Yes 

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

68. Minimum monitoring requirements for continuous AppD4.7.2 Yes Yes 

PM2.s Pgs 11, 17, 19 

69. Requirements for PM2.s background and transport AppD4.7.3 No No This is a state requirement needing to be addressed 

sites byCARB. 

70. Are PM25 Chemical Speciation requirements met for AppD4.7.4 NA NA 

official STN sites? 

71. Minimum # of monitors for PM10 AppD,4.6 Yes, pgs 3, 15, 19 Yes San Jose-Sunnyyale-Santa Clara MSA 

(a) and Table ANP App. B includes letters exchanged between 

D-4 "MBUAPCD and BAAQMD indicating an 

agreement between the agencies for shared 

monitoring responsibility for PM10• Two-four 

monitors are required. Two monitors (Hollister and 

San Jose) are present. 

72. Minimum monitoring requirements met for PMu).2.

5 AppD4.8 NA NA 

mass 

73. Distance of site from nearest road AppE6 Yes, Yes 

Pgs 7, 12, 14, 16, 

' 18, 20, 21, 23 

74. Traffic count of nearest road AppE Yes, Yes 

Pgs 7, 12, 14, 16, 

ta, 20, 21, 23 --

10 
ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes 

within 40 submitted?1 If information 

CFRS8 yes, page #s. provided3 meet 

Flag if the req?4 

incorrecr? 

75. Groundcover AppE3(a) Yes, Yes 

Pgs 7, 12, 14, 16, 

18, 20, 21, 23 

76. Probe height AppE2 Yes Yes 

Pgs 10, 11, 13, 15, 

17, 19, 20, 22, 24 

77. Distance from supporting structure AppE2 Yes Yes 

Pgs 10, 11, 13, 15, 

17, 19, 20, 22,24 

78. Distance from obstructions on roof AppE4(b) Yes Yes 

Pgs 10, 11, 13, 15, 

17, 19,20,22,24 

79. Distance from obstructions not on roof AppE4(a) Yes Yes 

Pgs 10, 11, 13, 15, 

17, - 19,20,22,24 

80. Distance from trees AppE5 Yes Yes 

Pgs 10, 11, 13, 15, 

17, 19, 20, 22,24 

81. Distance to furnace or incinerator flue AppE 3(b) Yes Yes 

Pgs 10, 11, 13, 15, 

17, 19, 20, 22,24 

82. Unrestricted airflow AppE, 4(a) Yes Yes 

and4(b) Pgs 10, 11, 13, 15, 

17, 19, 20, 22,24 

83. Probe material (if applicable) AppE9 Yes Yes 

Pgs 10, 11, 13, 15, 

17, 19,20,22,24 

84. Residence time (if applicable) AppE9 Yes Yes 

Pgs 10, 11, 13, 15, 

---- L__ ___ L_ 11_!_ 19 ~o. _12, ~4 -~ - ---- L_--

11 
Public Comments on Annual Network Plan 

Were ·comments submitted to the S/Lff agency during the public comment period? No 

If no, skip the remaining questions. 

If yes: 

• Were any of the comments substantive? 

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)? 

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

o If yes, provide rationale: 

12