______________________________________________________________________________ 

C ompleteness Checklist for Rule 310 (Adopted 2010)

1. Agency: Maricopa County Air Quality Department

2. Submitted Rule:

Number Title Adoption Date

310 Fugitive Dust from Dust-Generating Operations 01/27/10

3. EPA Analogous Approved Rule (Applicable SIP):

Rule 310 is analogous to the EPA applicable SIP approved Rule 310: Fugitive Dust, which was 

adopted in April 7, 2004 (72 FR 46564)

4. State/District Authority for Adoption/Implementation:

Authorizing statutes: A.R.S. §§ 49-474, 49-479, and 49-480

Implementing statute: A.R.S. § 49-112

5. Pollutants Regulated by Rule:

PM  , SOX___, VOC___, NOx___, CO___, Pb___ 

6. Identification of Sources by Name or Number/Location (City, County, or District)

Area's Attainment and Plan Status (Group by Size/Subcategory, if Necessary):

Rule 310 limits the emissions of particulate matter from any property, operation or activity that 

may serve as a fugitive dust source. These activities may include any of the following: land 

clearing maintenance, earthmoving, weed abatement by discing or blading, excavating, 

construction, demolition, bulk material handling, storage and/or transporting operations,

operation of any outdoor equipment, operation of motorized machinery, establishing and/or 

using staging areas, establishing or using unpaved haul/access roads to, from, and within a site, 

disturbing surface areas associated with a site and installing initial landscapes using mechanized 

equipment.

PM10 Classification: Serious (As of June 10, 1996)

7. Summary of Rule/Rule Changes:

On June 6, 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that the Phoenix 

metropolitan area failed to attain the 24-hour PM10 standard by the December 31, 2006, 

attainment deadline. This failure triggered a special requirement under Section 189(d) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) to submit a state implementation plan (SIP) revision to the EPA by 

December 31, 2007. Such SIP revision was required to provide for annual reductions of 

PM10 or PM10 precursors of not less than five percent of the most recent emissions 

inventory, until the PM10 standard is attained. In addition, such SIP revision was required to 

continue to demonstrate that the revisions would meet the best available control measures 

(BACM) test and the most stringent measures (MSM) test for significant sources and source 

categories in accordance with CAA § 189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e). This SIP revision (referred to 

as the “Five Percent Plan”) was prepared by the Maricopa Association of Governments and 

submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to the EPA by 

Page 3 of 720
the December 31, 2007, deadline. In March 2008, to meet commitments made in the Five 

Percent Plan, the department revised Rules 200, 310, 310.01 and Appendix C.

In September 2008, the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (department) began a 

rulemaking process to reduce confusion, improve understanding and readability of Rules 310 

and 310.01, and re-insert text inadvertently omitted from Rule 310.01. The rule amendments, 

which became effective January 27, 2010, do not interfere with the BACM and MSM tests

(referred to in the previous paragraph) and do not reduce the emissions reductions claimed 

in the Five Percent Plan.

During the rulemaking process, the department conducted three public workshops, one 

Director’s courtesy briefing, one informational workshop, seven meetings with stakeholders, 

and eight conference calls with the EPA. The department received comments from 20 

stakeholders regarding this rulemaking process. The issues that were raised and discussed 

during this rulemaking process can be categorized as follows: rooftop tile cutting exemption, 

affirmative defense during a wind event, “immediate” clean-up of trackout, definitions of 

“area accessible to the public” and “public roadways”, definition of “gravel pad”, definition 

of “unpaved parking lot”, stabilization standards for unpaved parking lots and unpaved 

roads, the phrase “as necessary”, and alternative control measures.

The amendments to Rules 310, which became effective January 27, 2010, achieve the 

following: 

Clarify Exemptions

• Added an exemption for rooftop tile cutting on a pitched roof (an analysis of the 

rooftop tile cutting exemption is provided in Appendix 7 of this document) 

• Deleted text regarding the wind event exemption from the visible emissions 

requirement and added text similar to Clark County Section 94.9.3 

Clarify Dust Control Permit and Dust Control Plan Requirements

• Deleted “and expiration date” from being required on a project information sign 

• Added text regarding the Control officer having authority to suspend or revoke a 

certification issued to a person having successfully completed a dust control training 

class

• Added “unpaved parking lot(s)” to the list of items that must be included in the 

drawing for the dust control plan 

Clarify Trackout Control Device Requirements

• Clarified that using a less than 30-foot wide gravel pad is contingent on the physical 

impossibility of widening the existing exit – not mere inconvenience 

Clarify Control Measures for Certain Activities

• Re-formatted the control measures for bulk material stacking, loading, and unloading 

operations, so that control measures are identified for “prior to” stacking, loading, 

and unloading and “while” stacking, loading, and unloading 

Page 4 of 720
• Deleted “as necessary” and for “prior to” stacking, loading, and unloading, added 

“mix material with water or mix material with a dust suppressant other than water”

• Deleted “as necessary” and added “to keep the soil visibly moist throughout the 

process”, for the control measure regarding “while disturbed surfaces are being 

created”

• Deleted “as necessary” for the control measure regarding “while disturbed surfaces 

are being created, because “as necessary” is redundant; the control measure specifies 

that water must be applied to maintain a soil moisture content at a minimum of 12% 

Clarify How Rule 310 Applies to Certain Sources/Certain Dust-Generating 

Operations

• Added the phrase “that is designated for parking in the dust control plan or” in the 

definition of “unpaved parking lot” to clarify what is considered an unpaved parking 

lot 

• Deleted the definition of “public roadways”, because the concept is already captured 

in the definition of “area accessible to the public” 

• Amended text regarding what constitutes a Rule 310 violation; used the same text 

that was approved in Rule 310 in 2004

8. Rule's Effect on Emissions:

The effect on emissions was published in the Maricopa Association of Governments ́ 

(MAG’s) 2007 Five Percent Plan for PM10 and the technical support document is available 

at: www.mag.maricopa.gov/pdf/cms.resource/PM10_2007_Appendices_vol-3.pdf) 

The Five Percent Plan for PM10 was submitted to the EPA in December 2007. The effect on 

emissions, as published in the MAG’s 2007 Five Percent Plan for PM10, remains valid, since 

the rule amendments correct and clarify existing rule provisions and definitions to reduce 

confusion and to improve understanding and readability. 

Construction activities represent a significant contribution to the attainment demonstration 

for both high wind and low wind days at two separate sites. For a low wind design day, 

Table 8-8 on page 8-50 (West 43rd Avenue site) shows that construction activities contribute 

11.39 μg/m3 out of a total of 233.09 μg/m3

. A source category that contributes 5 μg/m3 or 

more is considered to be a significant contributor to a nonattainment area’s 

exceedances. Table 8-8 also indicates that a 48% reduction in construction activities is 

needed in order for the monitor to achieve attainment. In terms of a high wind day, the roll 

back modeling performed at the Higley monitor in Maricopa County demonstrates the 

dominant role construction activities play in contributing to the monitor’s exceedances. 

Table VI-29 on page VI-43 indicates that construction activities contribute a staggering 

80.43% of the PM10 emissions around the monitor, far outweighing any other source of 

emissions.

Lastly, the emissions reductions from construction activities attributed to the control 

measures (see measures 2, 3, 8-10, 16, 36-38, 44) as documented in the Technical Support 

Document combine to total 16,373 tons per year by 2010.

Page 5 of 720
9. Demonstration that NAAQS (PSD) Increments/RFP Demonstration are Protected 

(As Appropriate):

Maricopa County is protecting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 

particulate matter.

On June 6, 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that the Phoenix 

metropolitan area failed to attain the 24-hour PM10 standard by the December 31, 2006, 

attainment deadline. This failure triggered a special requirement under Section 189(d) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) to submit a state implementation plan (SIP) revision to the EPA by 

December 31, 2007. Such SIP revision was required to provide for annual reductions of 

PM10 or PM10 precursors of not less than five percent of the most recent emissions 

inventory, until the PM10 standard is attained. In addition, such SIP revision was required to 

continue to demonstrate that the revisions would meet the best available control measures 

(BACM) test and the most stringent measures (MSM) test for significant sources and source 

categories in accordance with CAA § 189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e). This SIP revision (referred to 

as the “Five Percent Plan”) was prepared by the Maricopa Association of Governments and 

submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to the EPA by 

the December 31, 2007, deadline. In March 2008, to meet commitments made in the Five 

Percent Plan, the department revised Rules 200, 310, 310.01 and Appendix C.

In September 2008, the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (department) began a 

rulemaking process to reduce confusion, improve understanding and readability of Rules 310 

and 310.01 and to re-insert text inadvertently omitted from Rule 310.01. The rule 

amendments, which became effective January 27, 2010, do not interfere with the BACM and 

MSM tests and do not reduce the emissions reductions claimed in the Five Percent Plan. 

During the rulemaking process, the department conducted three public workshops, one 

Director’s courtesy briefing, one informational workshop, seven meetings with stakeholders, 

and eight conference calls with EPA. The department received comments from 20 

stakeholders regarding this rulemaking process. The issues that were raised and discussed 

during this rulemaking process can be categorized as follows: rooftop tile cutting exemption, 

affirmative defense during a wind event, “immediate” clean-up of trackout, definition of 

“area accessible to the public” and “public roadways”, definition of “gravel pad”, definition 

of “unpaved parking lot”, stabilization standards for unpaved parking lots and unpaved 

roads, the phrase “as necessary”, and alternative control measures.

In general, the amendments to Rules 310 clarify the following issues: exemptions, dust 

control permits and dust control plan requirements, trackout control device requirements, 

control measures for certain activities, and how Rules 310 applies to certain sources. 

10. Modeling Information Used to Support Rule Revision:

The amendments to Rule 310, which became effective January 27, 2010, do not affect the SIP 

therefore modeling did not need to be performed. Information on regional modeling 

activities can be found in the Technical Support Document for the Maricopa County Five 

Percent Plan (available at: 

www.mag.maricopa.gov/pdf/cms.resource/PM10_2007_Appendices_vol-3.pdf), which was 

submitted to the EPA in December 2007.

Page 6 of 720
11. Evidence that Emission Limitations are Based on Emission Reduction Technology, 

Add-On Controls, Reformulated Materials, and/or Industrial /Process Equipment 

Designs:

In Rule 310, emission limitations are based on emission reduction technology and work 

practices. Rule 310 lists emission limitations in the following sections:

Section 303 – Visible Emissions Requirements for Dust-Generating Operations 

Section 304 – Stabilization Requirements for Dust-Generating Operations 

Section 305 – Control Measures for Dust-Generating Operations 

Section 306 – Trackout, Carry- Out, Spillage, and/or Erosion 

12. Identification of Section/Paragraph in Rule that Contains Emissions Limitations, 

Work Practice Standards, Averaging Times, Test Procedures and/or

Recordkeeping/Reporting Requirements:

Rule 310 contains emission limitations, work practice standards, test procedures and 

recordkeeping/reporting requirements in the following sections: 

Section 303 – Visible Emissions Requirements for Dust-Generating Operations 

Section 304 – Stabilization Requirements for Dust-Generating Operations 

Section 305 – Control Measures for Dust-Generating Operations

Section 306 – Trackout, Carry- Out, Spillage, and/or Erosion 

Section 501 – Compliance Determination

Section 502 – Recordkeeping 

Section 503 – Records Retention 

Section 504 – Test Methods Adopted by Reference

13. Compliance/Enforcement Strategies to Be Used to Determine Compliance (Including 

Frequency of Inspection):

Rule 310 includes compliance/enforcement strategies in the following sections: 

501 – Compliance Determination

502 – Recordkeeping 

Rule 310 requirements are administered through a visual inspection program and/or a permit 

program that includes review of permits, inspection of work sites, performance of compliance 

test methods, and review of records and activities. The department’s enforcement options 

include: notice to comply, notice of violation, follow-up inspection/investigation, department 

report, referral to County Attorney, review by Enforcement officer, order of abatement by 

consent, order of abatement, civil complaint, notice to appear and complaint (criminal 

complaint), injunctive relief, photographs, videos, compliance inspection reports, 

correspondence, records, other applicable documentation, and analytical tests.

14. Special Economic/Technological Justifications for Deviations from EPA Policies (As 

Appropriate):

Not Applicable. 

15. Other Comments:

Page 7 of 720