June 6,2013 Dear Recipient

of Rule Effectiveness Study Report, Please replace the mailed copy of the Report sent by post on April 30, 2013 with this copy for your files. We regret the copying and formatting errors that occurred and hope that you found the emailed version accurate, especially the formula portions. Sincerel
A Corky artinkovic Planning

& Analysis Division Manager Maricopa County Air Quality DepartmentMaricopa County Air Quality Department Evaluation

of Innovative Control Measures and Existing Maricopa County Control Measures Contained

in the MAG 2012 Five Percent Plan for PM 10 for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area lii Fulfillment

of Maricopa County Board of Supervisor Resolution C-85-12-006-M-00, dated Nov. 16, 2011 Prepared by Planning and Analysis Division Maricopa County Air Quality Department April 2013Table of Contents 1. Overview and Background

1 2. Study Purpose and Methodology

1 3. Rule 310: Fugitive Dust from Dust-Generating Operations- 3.1 Inspections

of Sources Subject
to Rule 310

2 3.2 Rule 310 Violations

2 3.3 Rule 310 Rule Effectiveness

2 4. Rule 316: Nonmetallic Mineral Processing

3 4.1 Inspections

of Sources Subject
to Rule 316

3 4.2 Rule 316 Violations

3 4.3 Rule 316 Rule Effectivenesss

3 5. Rule 310.01: Fugitive Dust from Non-Traditional Sources
of Fugitive Dust 5.1 Inspections

of Sources Subject
to Rule 310.01

3 5.2 Rule 310.01 Violations

3 5.3 Rule3lO.OlRuleEffectiveness

4 6. Conclusions

4 Appendices A. Determination

of Emission-based

vs. Procedural Violations

A-i B. Resolution

to Evaluate Measures

in the MAG 2012 Five Percent Plan for PM 10 for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area

B-i1. Overview and Background A significant portion of Maricopa County has not attained the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for PM 10 . Maricopa County

is designated

as a Serious Nonattainment Area under the Clean Air Act and is required

to comply with Section 189(d) of the Clean Air Act to reduce PM 10 emissions
by at least five percent per year until the PM 10 NAAQS standard

is attained within the Maricopa County nonattainment area. To specifically meet the requirements

of Section 189(d) of the Clean Air Act, Arizona Department

of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted the Maricopa Association

of Governments (MAG) 2012 Five Percent Plan for PM-JO for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area (Five Percent Plan) on May 25, 2012. To meet the annual five percent reduction requirement

in Section 189(d) of the Clean Air Act, the Five Percent Plan quantified PM 10 emission reductions
by taking credit for increases

in rule effectiveness
for Maricopa County Rules 310 (Fugitive Dust from Dust Generating Operations), 310.01 (Fugitive Dust from Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive Dust) and 316 (Nonmetallic Mineral Processing). The increases

in rule effectiveness
are attributable

to increases

in compliance rates, enforcement activities, and enhanced public outreach and education activities. The five percent reductions also include the benefits for one new measure, the ADEQ Dust Action General Permit, which was expected

to raise rule effectiveness

of Maricopa County Rule 310.01 by one percent
in 2012. Credit for this new measure

is allowed under the EPA guidance, Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures

in a State Implementation Plan. In November 2011, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors committed

to develop and assess the effectiveness

of the innovative control program implemented through ADEQ’s dust generation forecast and new Dust Action General Permit. This assessment comprises

a rule effectiveness study on Rule 310.01 for calendar year 2012. In addition

to the Rule 310.01 rule effectiveness study, the Maricopa County Air Quality Department assessed rule effectiveness

in calendar year 2012 for other existing dust control rules: Rule 310 and Rule 316. As required by A.R.S

§ 49-406 G., the County documented

its commitment

to conduct

a rule effectiveness study for the three dust control rules in a Board of Supervisors’ resolution. This document satisfies the requirements detailed
in Maricopa County Board of Supervisors’ Resolution

to Evaluate Measures

in the Ji’L4G 2012 Five Percent Plan for PM 10 for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area. The resolution

is contained

in Appendix

B. 2. Study Purpose and Methodology Three individual rule effectiveness studies were conducted

to document that the anticipated PM 10 emissions reductions were achieved during calendar year 2012 for Rules 310, 310.01, and 316. Additionally,
the rule effectiveness study will demonstrate whether the new innovative control program (ADEQ Dust Action General Permit) increased rule effectiveness

of Rule 310.01 by one percent
in 2012. The department,

in consultation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), created the methodology
for the rule effectiveness studies analyzing the impacts of Rules 310, 310.01, and 316. The rule effectiveness studies were designed

to assess the percentage

of inspected sources, during the subject time period, which did not received any PM 10 emission-related violations. The 2012 rule effectiveness studies used the same methods and procedures

as those studies previously conducted and included

in the Five Percent Plan.The department first quantified the number of sources subject
to Rule 310, Rule 310.01, and Rule 316 that were inspected

in 2012. The department then identified the subset of inspected sources that received an emission-based PM 10 violation

in 2012 (a list distinguishing emission-based
and procedural violations by rule and section number

is included

in Appendix A). Once the number of sources inspected and sources that received
an emission-based violation were known, the rule effectiveness was calculated using the following equation: fSources with an Emission-based Violation Rule effectiveness

=
1 —

I Total Sources Inspected 3. Rule 310: Fugitive Dust from Dust-Generating Operations 3.1 Inspections

of Sources Subject
to Rule 310 The department’s Environmental Management System (EMS) was queried for information

on the 6,034 inspections

of earthmoving sources conducted during 2012. Any inspection that was categorized

as “close-out”

or “ineffective visit” was removed from further analysis

as these types of inspections
are not designed

to determine compliance with Rule 310. The remaining inspection records were then reduced

to a “per-permit” basis to document the number of unique earthmoving sources with an inspection that was designed

to determine compliance with Rule 310. This resulted
in a total of 2,971 distinct sources inspected during 2012. 3.2 Rule 310 Violations Department records show that 442 violations were issued
to earthmoving sources
in 2012. Any violations that were later rescinded,

or determined

to be unrelated

to earthmoving activities, were removed from further analysis. The remaining violation data was then analyzed

to determine

if the violation was emission-based

or procedural. Rule violations documenting

a source’s compliance with emissions

or control measure application were considered emission-based.

For example,

a recordkeeping violation for failing to record the amount and location of water used to stabilize
an earthmoving
site was considered

an emission-based violation. The emission-based violation data was then reduced

to a “per permit” basis to document the number of unique earthmoving sources with an emission-based violation. The total number of earthmoving sources that received
an emission-based violation for the Rule 310 rule effectiveness study was 216. 3.3 Rule 310 Rule Effectiveness The Rule 310 rule effectiveness
for 2012 was calculated
as: iSources with an Emission-based Violation‘ 216 Rule effectiveness

=
1—

I

I =
1—

= 0.9273 Total Sources Inspected

1 2,971 Rounding

to the nearest percent, the rule effectiveness
for Rule 310 in 2012 was 93%. 24. Rule 316: Nonmetallic Mineral Processing 4.1 Inspections

of Sources Subject
to Rule 316 EMS was queried for information

on the 444 inspections

of nonmetallic mineral processing sources conducted

in 2012. Any inspection that was categorized

as “close-out”

or “ineffective visit” was removed from further analysis,

as these types of inspections
are not designed

to determine compliance with Rule 316. The remaining inspection records were then reduced
to a “per-permit” basis to document the number of unique nonmetallic mineral processing sources with an inspection that was designed

to determine compliance with Rule 316. This resulting

in a total of 155 distinct sources inspected during 2012. 4.2 Rule 316 Violations Department records show that 104 violations were issued
to nonmetallic mineral processing source in 2012. Any violations that were later rescinded,

or determined

to be unrelated

to nonmetallic mineral processing, were removed from further analysis. The remaining violation data was then analyzed

to determine

if the violation was emission-based

or procedural. Rule violations documenting

a source’s compliance with emissions

or control measure application was considered

an emission violation. For example,

a recordkeeping violation for failing
to record the amount and location of water used to stabilize
an earthmoving
site was considered

an emission violation. The emission-based violation data was reduced

to a “per permit” basis to document the number of unique nonmetallic mineral processing sources with an emission-based violation. The total number of nonmetallic mineral processing sources that received
an emission-based violation for the Rule 316 rule effectiveness study was 27. 4.3 Rule 316 Rule Effectiveness The rule effectiveness

for 2012 was calculated
as: iSources with Emission-based Violation

\
27 Rule effectiveness

=
1 —

I

I =
1—— 0.82 58 Sources Inspected

/ 155 Rounding

to the nearest percent, the rule effectiveness
for Rule 316 in 2012 was 83%. 5. Rule 310.01: Fugitive Dust from Non-Traditional Sources
of Fugitive Dust 5.1 Inspections

of Sources Subject
to Rule 310.01 EMS was queried for information

on the 5,910 inspections

of Rule 310.01 sources conducted during 2012. The inspection records were then reduced

to a “per site” basis to document the number of unique Rule 310.01 sources with an inspection. This resulted

in a total of 5,431 distinct sites inspected during 2012. 5.2 Rule 310.01 Violations Department records show that 149 violations were issued to Rule 310.01 source
in 2012. Any violations that were later rescinded,

or determined

to be unrelated

to Rule 310.01 activities, were removed from further analysis. All Rule 310.01 violations were considered emission-based because of the nature of Rule 310.01.

3The emission-based violation data was then reduced

to a “per site” basis to document the number of unique Rule 310.01 sources with an emission-based violation. The total number of Rule 310.01 sources that received
an emission-based violation for the Rule 310.01 rule effectiveness study was 129. 5.3 Rule 310.01 Rule Effectiveness The Rule 310.01 rule effectiveness
for 2012 was calculated
as: fSources with Emission-based Violation

‘ 129 Rule effectiveness

=

1 —

=
1 —

= 0.9762 Sources Inspected

/ 5431 Rounding

to the nearest percent, the rule effectiveness
for Rule 310.01
in 2012 was 98%. 6. Conclusion The 2012 rule effectiveness study results show significant increases

in compliance compared

to 2007: 93% (from 76%) for Rule 310 sources, 98% (from 85%) for Rule 310.01 sources, and 83% (from 40%) for Rule 316 sources. There was
a significant increase
in rule effectiveness
for Rule 310.01 since the previous study for calendar year 2010 (96% to 98%). The Five Percent Plan estimated

a one percent increase from 2010 rule effectiveness

as a result of full implementation

of the newly created innovative control program, the ADEQ Dust Action General Permit.
In actuality, rule effectiveness increased
by two percent
in 2012 after the implementation

of the ADEQ Dust Action General Permit, resulting

in larger reductions

in 2012 PM 10 emissions than quantified

in the Five Percent Plan. Even greater increases were observed

in the Rule 316 rule effectiveness.
The rule effectiveness
for 2012 was 83%, an increase of ten percent since 2010. The ten percent increase
in rule effectiveness provides larger reductions

in 2012 PM 10 emissions than quantified

in the Five Percent Plan. Implementation

of the Maricopa County’s Rapid Response Program

is one of the primary reasons for the rule effectiveness increase. The Rapid Response Program monitors the PM 10 readings

at various air quality monitors.

If the air quality monitor

is reading elevated concentrations

of PM 10 , Maricopa County can send notifications

to stakeholders located around the elevated monitor

to implement additional control measures.

In particular, ADEQ’s extended dust generating forecast, increased inspections and outreach by Maricopa County, and stakeholder participation
are additional factors that helped increase rule effectiveness
for Rule 316. The rule effectiveness
for Rule 310 was 93% for calendar year 2012. This was
a decrease by one percent since the previous rule effectiveness study conducted

in 2010. Because of the high compliance rate and the large amount of violation and inspection data,
it would not be uncommon

to see slight variations

in rule effectiveness
for Rule 310 such as the one percent decrease for 2012. Even though the rule effectiveness
for Rule 310 decreased
by one percent, the two percent gain in rule effectiveness
for Rule 310.01 and the ten percent gain in rule effectiveness
for Rule 316 produced larger overall reductions

in 2012 PM 10 emissions than those quantified

in the Five Percent Plan, ensuring that the annual five percent reductions

in PM 10 emissions required by Section 189(d) of the Clean Air Act is achieved. 4Table

1: Inspection-Related
Data Used in Determining Rule Effectiveness

for Calendar Year 2012 for Various Rules Number of Inspections Number
of Number
of Sources conducted resulting

in a unique facilities receiving
an emission- Rule Rule compliance determination inspected based violation(s) Effectiveness 310

5,963 2,971

216 93% 310.01

5,910 5,431

129 98% 316

444

155

27 83% Figure

1: Rule Effectiveness Rates for Rule 310, Rule 310.01, and Rule 316U,U, w C 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

95%
95%
950/ .Jj% 1—— 65% 40%---------____ 2007 2008 Rule 316 40%

2009 2010
2012__-_________ ——Rule 310 76%
90%
92%
94% —* Rule 310.01 85%
95%
96%-____________ 65%

69%
96%
98% 73%

83% 5Appendix
A: Determination

of Emission-based

vs. Procedural Violations The following table details the violations that were applicable for the 2012 rule effectiveness studies on Rule 310 and Rule 316. The citations were determined

to be either emission-based (Eoppcedural

(. Rule Section Abridged Violation Text

E or P 100 505 Fail To Submit An Emissions Inventory

P No Person Shall Construct, Operate Or Modify Any Regulated 200 301 Source Without Obtaining

A Permit Or Revision

E 200 303.1 Fail To Obtain
A Non-Title

V Permit Revision

P 200 305 Fail To Obtain
A Dust Control Permit

E Conducting Dust Generating Operations
On A Permitted Site 200 306.1 Without Registering
As A Subcontractor

E Fail To Notify the Control Office At Least 10 Days Prior To 200 410.4 Transportation

Of A Portable Source

P 220 405.3 Implementing

A Non-Minor Permit Revision Prior To Approval

P 220 302.2 Enforceable Emissions Limitation And Standards

E Fail To Conduct An Annual Performance Test With The 270 400 Asphalt Drum Dryer Baghouse

E 280 303.2 Fail To Pay Required Fees

P 310 301.1 Fail To Comply with the Standard

E 310 302.1 Fail To Obtain Dust Control Permit

E 310 302.2 Fail To Obtain Dust Control Permit

E 310 303.la Fail To Prevent Dust Emissions From 20% Opacity

E 310 304.2a Fail To Stabilize Unpaved HaullAccess Roads

E 310 304.3 Fail To Stabilize Disturbed Surface Area

E 310 305 Fail To Implement Control Measures

E 310 305.1a2 Fail To Load Haul Trucks Highest Point

E 310 305.1a4 Fail To Cover Cargo With Tarp

E 310 305.lc Fail To Install, Maintain

& Use Suitable Trackout Device

E 310 305.3b Fail To Load Haul Trucks Properly

E 310 305.3c Fail To Prevent Spillage

E 310 305.4b Fail To Implement Control Measures; Bulk Material Stacking

E 310 305.5 Fail To Implement Control Measures; Storage Piles

E 310 305.6 Fail To Implement Control Measures; Unpaved Areas

E 310 305.7 Fail To Implement Control Measures; Haul Access Roads

E 310 305.7a Fail to Apply Water So That The Surface

Is Visibly Moist

E 310 305.lOb Fail To Apply Water To All Disturbed Soil Surfaces

E 310 305.1 lb Fail To Implement Control Measures During Ops

E 310 306.1 al Trackout, Carry-Out, Spillage And/Or Erosion

E A-iRule Section Abridged Violation Text

E or P 310 306.1a2 Fail To Install
& Maintain

A Suitable Trackout Device

E 310 306.lb Fail To Prevent Track Out

E 310 306. 1b2 Fail To Control Measures Installing

A Gravel Pad

E 310 306.2 Fail To Immediately Clean Trackout From Paved Areas

E 310 306.2a Fail To Clean Trackout From Paved Areas

E 310 306.2a1 Fail To Immediately Clean Trackout From Paved Area

E 310 306.2a2 Fail To Clean Trackout At End Of Workday

E 310 306.2b Fail To Implement Control Measures Street Sweeper

E 310 307 Fail To Operate
A Water Application System

E 310 308 Fail To Erect & Maintain Project Info Sign

P 310 308.2 Fail To Erect & Maintain Project Info Sign; Permit Number

P 310 308.4 Fail To Erect & Maintain Project Info Sign; Complaints Number

P 310 309.la Fail To Complete Basic Training

E 310 309.lb Fail To Complete Basic Training

E 310 309.lbl Fail To Complete Basic Training; Water Truck Driver

E 310 309.1b3 Fail To Complete Basic Training; Superintendent

E 310 309.2a Fail To Complete Comprehensive Training

E 310 310.1 Fail To Have Dust Control Coordinator
On Site

E 310 402.la Owner/Operator Shall Submit Dust Control Plan W/Permit

P 310 403.2a Dust Control Plan Shall Be Revised
If Project Changed

P 310 409 Fail To Have Permit And/Or Control Plan Onsite

P 310 410.1 Fail To Complete Basic Training

E 310 502 Fail To Document And/Or Provide Written Records

E 310 502.1 Fail To Document And/Or Provide Written Records

E 310 502.1

a Fail To Document And/Or Provide Written Records

E Fail To Document And/Or Provide Written Records: Water 310 502.lb Application

E Fail To Document And/Or Provide Written Records: Street 310 502.lc Sweeping Frequency

E Fail To Document And/Or Provide Written Records: Surface 310 502.ld Treatments

& Trackout Control Maintenance

E Fail To Document And/Or Provide Written Records: Types And 310 502.1

e Results Of Test Methods Conducted

E 310 502.lg Fail To Keep Control Records, Subs, Names, Reg. Number

E Fail to keep Records Of Employees Who Completed Dust 310 502. lh Control Training Class

E 310 502.3 Fail To Provide Records To Control Officer

E Fail To Conduct Visible Emission Testing With Crushing 316
20 Equipment

E 316 301.2b Fail To Permanently Mount Watering Systems

E A-2

## Rule Section Abridged Violation Text

E or P 316 301.2b1 Fail To Permanently Mount Water Systems

E 316 301 .2b2 Fail To Permanently Mount Water Systems

E 316 302.lc Fail To Limit Fugitive Dust Emissions

< 

## 10% Opacity

E 316 303.2a Fail To Install Overflow Warning System/Device

E 316 303.2d Fail To Install Pressure Control System

E Fail To Comply With All Identified Actions And Schedules

In 316 305.lc Each O&M Plan

P 316 306.4a Fail To Limit Silt Loading On Unpaved Roads

E 316 307.1A Fail To Implement Control Measures

E 316 307. lb Fail To Implement Fugitive Dust Control Measures

E 316 307.3a Fail To Implement Fugitive Dust Control Measures

E 316 307.6b1 Fail To Properly Install
& Maintain

A Rumble Gate

E 316 307.6d Fail To Meet Trackout Requirements

E 316 308 Fail To Erect & Maintain

A Project Sign

P 316 309 Fail To Have A Dust Control Technician On-Site

E 316 309.5 Fail To Have A Dust Control Technician On-Site

E 316 310 Fail To Have Dust Tech Who Meets Qualifications

E 316 310.2 Fail To Obtain Visible Emissions (Opacity) Certification

E 316 501 Fail To Keep & Maintain Adequate Records

E Fail To Conduct Visible Emission Testing With Crushing 4OCFR 60.672B Equipment

E Fail To Conduct Visible Emission Testing With Crushing Null Null Equipment

E A-3AppendixB:ResolutiontoEvaluateMeasuresintheMAG2012FivePercentPlanforPM10fortheMaricopaCountyNonattainmentAreaB-iRESOLUTIONTOEVALUATEMEASURESINThEMAG2012FIVEPERCENTPLANFORPML,FORTHEMARICOPACOUNTYNONATTAINMENTAREAC.S5-laOL3io.M’tZDWHEREAS,MaricopaAssociationofGovernments(MAG)hasbeendesignatedbytheGovernorofArizona,astheregionalairqualityplanningagencyinMaricopaCounty;andWHEREAS,theMaricopaCountynonattainmentareaisclassifiedasaSeriousNonattainmentAreaforPM10particulatematteraccordingtotheCleanAirAct;andWHEREAS,theCleanAirActrequiredtheMaricopaCountynonattainmentareatoattainthePM10particulatematterstandardbyDecember31,2006;andWHEREAS,theMaricopaCountynonattainmentareafailedtoattainthePM10particulatematterstandardbyDecember31,2006;andWHEREAS,duetotheMaricopaCountynonattainmentareasfailuretomeetthePM10particulatematterstandardMAGastheregionalairqualityplanningagencyisrequiredtodevelopaplantoreducePM10emissionsbyfivepercentperyearuntilthestandardismet(“theFivePercentPlan”);andWHEREAS,theFivePercentPlancontainsInnovativecontrolmeasuresimplementedin2011andexistingdustcontrolrulestoreducePM10particulatematteremissionswhichmustberetrospectivelyassessedtoevaluatetheeffectivenessofsuchmeasures;andWHEREAS,ArizonaRevisedStatutes49-406G.requiresthateachagencythatcommitstoimplementacontrolmeasuredescribethatcommitmentInaresolutionadoptedbythegoverningbodywhichspecifiesitsauthorityforimplementingthemeasuresasprovidedInstatute,ordinance,orrule;aprogramforenforcementofthemeasure;andthelevelofpersonnelandfundingallocatedtotheimplementationofthemeasure;andWHEREAS,MaricopaCountyIsresponsiblefortrackingemissionsfrompoint,areaandnonroadmobilesourcesandfortrackingImplementationofcontrolmeasuresinthe1992MemorandumofAgreementdevelopedunderArizonaRevisedStatutes§49406(F).NOW,THEREFOREBEITRESOLVEDBYTHEBOARDOFSUPERVISORS,MARICOPACOUNTY(BOARD)asfollows:SECTION1.ThattheBOARDagreestoproceedwithagoodfaithefforttoimplementthecommitmentIdentifiedInExhibitA,whichIspartofthisresolution.SECTION2.ThattheBOARDcommitstoimplementthemeasuresasscheduledandwiththefundingsourcesidentified.Recognizing,however,thattheavailabilityofnecessaryfundingmaydependonthefundingprogramsorprocessesofvariousstateandfederalagencies,MaricopaCountyagreestoconsidermodificationsofthefundingorschedulesforimplementationactions,Ifnecessary.MaricopaCountyagreestosubmitanymodificationtothecommitmentsinExhibitAtoEPAforapprovalasaSIPrevision.PASSEDANDADOPTEDbytheBoardofSupervisorsofMaricopaCounty,Arizona,thisJLdayofJov€rn1r2011.4nase,S.__CieroftheBoardEXHIBIT

A MARICOPA COUNTY COMMITMENT

1 Commitment Title: Evaluation

of New Innovative Control Measures and Existing Maricopa County Control Measures County Measure Description: Develop and assess the effectiveness

of the innovative control program implemented through the dust generation forecast and dust action general permit on permitted and unpermitted sources of PM 10 in Maricopa County on forecast high risk days. Perform

a rule effectiveness study on the implementation

of existing dust control rules. Responsible Agency and Authority for implementation:

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors

is authorized

by A.R.S.

§ 49-479
to adopt rules for air pollution control and by A.R.S. § 49-480 to establish, administer and enforce

a program for air quality permits. The Board adopted rules establishing

an air quality permit program and pursuant
to A.R.5.

§ 49-473, designated the Air Quality Department

to issue permits and administer and enforce the permit program.

In the Memorandum

of Agreement developed

in 1992 under A.R.5.

§ 49-406 (F), Maricopa County

is responsible
for tracking emissions from point, area and non-road mobile sources and for tracking the Implementation control measures.

By operation
of A.R.S.

§ 49-471, the executive head of the department designated under A.R.S.

§ 49-473 serves as the Air Pollution Control Officer. The Air Pollution Control Officer

is specifically authorized

to take the enforcement actions set forth in A.R.S.
§ 49-502,49-511,49-512

and 49-513. A.R.S.

§ 474.01 (A)(11) requires adoption
of rule provisions
by March 31, 2008, and enforcement

of the provisions

by October

1, 2008, regardIng stabilization

of disturbed surfaces of vacant lots. Implementation Schedule: The Air Quality Department

in consultation with the U. 5. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) completed

a rule effectiveness study analyzing the impact of Rules 310, 310.01 and 316 for the 2008 PM. 0 Periodic Emissions Inventory contained in the appendix
of the MAG 2012 Five Percent Plan for PM 1 for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area. The department

in consultation with EPA will use
a similar approach and process with an appropriate temporal period to evaluate the new Innovative control measures such as the dust generation forecast and dust action general permit. The Air Quality Department will conduct the program evaluations

as follows: Initial Evaluation: January 2013
Initiate evaluation process for new innovative control measures and existing rule effectiveness studies. March 2013 Complete draft program evaluation reports. April 2013 Complete final program evaluation reports. Periodic Evaluation: The department will reevaluate the effectiveness

of the new ir.rovative control measures

as part of the periodic emissions Inventory required
by EPA every three years. Level of Personnel and Funding Allocated for Implementation: Level of Personnel and Funding Allocated for Implementation: Program evaluations wiI be accommodated

as part of the air quality compliance, enforcement and planning processes and will be coordinated

by the Maricopa County Air Quality Department’s existing Planning and Analysis Dvision.

## [Type text] The Maricopa County Air Qualfty Department administers the air quality program

in Maricopa County. Currently the department has 140.6 employees. The Maricopa County Air Quality Department’s

FY 2010-11 revenue was approximately $15.3 million. No change

in funding

is anticipated
for these program evaluations. Enforcement Program: The Air Quality Department’s

enforcement options for regulatory programs include orders of abatement, civil actions for injunctive relief or civil penalties, and filing

a class

1 misdemeanor citation. Senate Bill 1552 authorizes the county
to enter the lot to stabilize the disturbed surface, issue notices of violation, and collect monetary penalties that include the cost of stabilization. Monitoring Program: As noted above, the Air Quality Department
will assess and evaluate the effectiveness

of the new innovative measures

as well as the complete rule effectiveness studies for the existing Rules 310, 310.01 and 316.