______________________________________________________________________________ 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 /2 7/ 10

3. EPA Analogo us Approved Rule (Applicable SIP):

Rule 310 is analogous to the EPA applicable SIP approved Rule 310: Fugitive Dust, whi ch 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  , SO X ___, 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: l and clearing maintenance, earthmoving, weed abatement by discing or blading, excavating, construction, demolition, bulk material handling, storage and/or transporting operations, operation of any outdoo r equipment, operation of motorized machinery, establishing and/or using stag ing 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.

PM 10 C lassification: 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 PM 10 standard by the December 31, 2006, attainment deadline. This failure triggered a spec ial 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

PM 10 or PM 10 precursors of not less than five percent of the most recent emissions inventory, until the PM 10 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 st ringent 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 bythe 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 Ma ricopa 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 ef fective 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 publi c 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 w ere 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 J anuary 27, 2010, achieve the following:

Clarif y 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 eve nt exemption from the visible emissions requirement and added text similar to Clark County Section 94.9.3

Clarif y Dust Control Permit a nd Dust Control Plan Requirements

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

• Ad ded 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

Clarif y 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

Clarif y 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• 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

p rocess”, 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 specifi es that water must be applied to maintain a soil moisture content at a minimum of 12%

Clarif y 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 te xt regarding w hat 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 P ercent Plan for PM 10 and the technical support document is available

at: www.mag.maricopa.gov/pdf/cms.resource/PM1 0_2007_Appendices_vol-3.pdf )

The Five Percent Plan for PM 10 was submitted to the EPA in December 2007 . The effect on emissions, as published in the MAG’s 2007 Five Percent Plan for PM 10 , remains valid, s inc e the rule amendments correct and clarify existi ng 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 w ind days at two separate sites. For a low wind design day,

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

11.39 **μ** g/m 3 out of a total of 233.09 **μ** g/m 3

. A sour ce category that contributes 5 **μ** g/m 3 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 PM 10 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 to tal 16,373 tons per year by 2010.9. 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 PM 10 standard by the December 31, 2006, attainment deadline. This failure triggered a special requirement under Section 189(d) of the

Clean Ai r 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

PM 10 or PM 10 precursors of not less than five percent of the most recent emissions inventory, until the PM 10 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 (ADE Q) 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 read ability 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 th e 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 t o 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 2007.11. Evidence t h at 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

- Generati ng 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 Requir ements:
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

– Stab iliz ation 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

– Re cords Retention

Section 504 – Test Methods Adopted by Reference

13. Compliance/Enforcement Strategies t o Be Used t o Determine Compliance (Including Frequency of Inspection):

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

5 01

– 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 rev iew of records and activities. The department’s enforcement options

include : notice to comply, notice of violation, follow

- up inspection/investigation, d epartment report, referral to County Attorney, review by Enforcement of ficer, order of abatement by

con sent, 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. Speci al Economic/Technological Justifications for Deviations from EPA Policies (As Appropriate): Not Applicable.

15. Other Comments: