Appendix 2 

NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING 

MARICOPA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS 

FIVE PERCENT PLAN RULEMAKING PROJECT 

PREAMBLE

1. Sections affected Rulemaking action

Rule 200 Amend 

Rule 310 Amend 

Rule 310.01 Amend 

Appendix C Amend 

2. Statutory authority for the rulemaking:

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

Implementing statute: A.R.S. § 49-112 

3. The effective date of the rules:

Date of Adoption: March 26, 2008 

4. List of all previous notices appearing in the Register addressing the rulemaking:

Notice of Rulemaking Docket Opening: 13 A.A.R. 2175, June 22, 2007 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: 13 A.A.R. 3768, November 9, 2007 

5. The name and address of department personnel with whom persons may communicate 

regarding the rulemaking:

Name: Johanna M. Kuspert or Jo Crumbaker 

Maricopa County Air Quality Department 

Address: 1001 N. Central Ave, Suite 595 

 Phoenix, AZ 85004 

Telephone: (602) 506-6710 or (602) 506-6705 

Fax: (602) 506-6179 

E-mail: jkuspert@mail.maricopa.gov or jcrumbak@mail.maricopa.gov 

6. An explanation of the rule, including the agency’s reasons for initiating the rulemaking:

The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) revised Rules 200, 310, 310.01 and 

Appendix C to implement control measures and increase compliance with existing rules for the Five 

Percent Plan for PM10. On June 6, 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized its 

finding that the Phoenix Nonattainment Area did not attain the 24-hour PM10 standard by the deadline 

mandated in the Clean Air Act (CAA), December 31, 2006. (72 FR 31183, June 6, 2007) Under 

Section 189(d) of the CAA, serious PM10 nonattainment areas that fail to attain are required to submit 

1 
within 12 months of the applicable attainment date, “plan revisions which provide for attainment of the 

PM10 air quality standard and, from the date of such submission until attainment, for an annual 

reduction in PM10 or PM10 precursor emissions within the area of not less than 5 percent of the amount 

of such emissions as reported in the most recent inventory prepared for such area.” In accordance with 

the CAA section 179(d)(3), the attainment deadline applicable to an area that misses the serious area 

attainment date is as soon as practicable. The region submitted a Five Percent Plan for PM10 by 

December 31, 2007. 

PM10 Nonattainment Status History: 

In accordance with 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the Maricopa County nonattainment area was 

initially classified as "moderate" for PM10 pollution. As a moderate nonattainment area, Maricopa 

County was required to submit to the EPA a moderate PM10 nonattainment area plan and to show 

attainment of the PM10 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) by December 31, 1994. 

Moderate PM10 nonattainment area plans were submitted to the EPA in 1991 and 1993. 

The Maricopa County moderate PM10 nonattainment area, upon the EPA’s findings, failed to attain the 

NAAQS by December 31, 1994. Consequently, on May 10, 1996, the EPA reclassified Maricopa 

County as a serious PM10 nonattainment area. Maricopa County was then required to submit a serious 

PM10 nonattainment area plan, which had to include Best Available Control Measures (BACM), 

measures designed to achieve the maximum degree of emissions reduction for PM10 sources. Maricopa 

County had to show attainment of the PM10 NAAQS by December 21, 2001. 

Emission inventories and air quality modeling analysis of existing control measures showed that 

attainment could not be reached by December 21, 2001. A shortfall of a 16.4% reduction in PM10

concentration was identified. The CAA allows states to request an extension of this attainment date for 

up to five years, providing the state demonstrates that the plan includes the Most Stringent Measures 

(MSM) that are included in any state’s plan or achieved in practice by any State, and can be feasibly 

implemented in the area. Consequently, a rigorous planning effort was conducted to develop 77 

additional control measures. The serious PM10 nonattainment area plan was submitted to the EPA on 

July 9, 1999. The EPA approved the revised serious PM10 nonattainment area plan in April 2002, 

contingent on the completion of three commitments by Maricopa County. The revisions to Rule 310 

(adopted April 7, 2004) addressed the commitments. 

As a result of litigation on the moderate PM10 nonattainment area plan, the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ's) prepared and submitted a Plan for Attainment of The 24-Hour PM10

Standard–Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area in May 1997. The EPA partially disapproved 

the Arizona 24-hour Standard PM10 SIP revision triggering a federal implementation plan (FIP) 

obligation, which remains in place, related to the area’s PM10 moderate area plan. The obligation 

resulted from EPA’s disapproval of those sections of the SIP addressing unpaved roads, unpaved 

2 
shoulders, unpaved parking lots, vacant lots and agriculture. The EPA found that the SIP did not 

contain measures to reduce the emissions from or the number of existing sources in these categories 

and therefore failed to implement reasonably available control measures. Under the court ordered 

consent decree, the EPA finalized a FIP in July 1998 for the Maricopa County PM10 nonattainment 

area that addresses those four categories of sources. 

On July 2, 2002, the EPA found the controls proposed in the Arizona 24-hour Standard PM10 SIP 

revision were inadequate to ensure the attainment of the PM10 NAAQS at the Salt River air quality 

monitoring sites. The finding of inadequacy included the State Implementation Plan’s (SIP’s) 

attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstrations for the 24-hour PM10 standard at the 

Salt River monitoring sites and three other microscale sites in the Maricopa County PM10

nonattainment area (Maryvale, Gilbert, and West Chandler). 

Although the EPA approved Arizona's 1997 SIP revision and additional required controls proposed by 

Maricopa County on August 4, 1997, EPA's Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) continued to show exceedances at the Maricopa County PM10 nonattainment area Salt River site - 

recording expected exceedances in 1999, 2000, and through three quarters of 2001. Consequently, the 

EPA required Arizona to submit a SIP revision to identify and implement corrective PM10 control 

provisions in the Salt River Study Area and for similar significant sources in the Maricopa County 

PM10 nonattainment area. 

Arizona's SIP revision was required to provide for attainment in the Salt River site no later than 

December 31, 2006, in accordance with CAA §189(b)(1)(A) and 188(e), and was required to include 

control strategies that meet the Best Available Control Measures (BACM) test and the Most Stringent 

Measures (MSM) test for significant sources and source categories. 

The Final Revised PM10 State Implementation Plan for The Salt River Area dated August 2004

contained Arizona’s revisions to the State Implementation Plan for the Maricopa County PM10 serious 

nonattainment area and included the following State Implementation Plan requirements, as described 

by the EPA in its Federal Register notice of disapproval (67 FR 44369, July 2, 2002): 

● A modeling demonstration showing that the level of emissions reductions from application of 

BACM-MSM for all significant sources of PM10 will result in attainment of the 24-hour 

NAAQS by December 31, 2006, at the Salt River PM10 monitoring site, in accordance with 

CAA §189(b)(1)(A) and §188(e). 

● Commitments to implement Best Available Control Measures (BACM)-Most Stringent 

Measures (MSM) for sources significantly contributing to exceedances of the 24-hour PM10

standard in the Salt River area as expeditiously as possible (CAA §189(b)(1)(B)) and a 

commitment that all BACM and MSM control measures adopted and applied to sources in the 

3 
Salt River Study Area will be applied to all similar sources throughout the Maricopa County 

PM10 serious nonattainment area. 

● A demonstration that the plan constitutes Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) up to the 

attainment deadline of December 31, 2006. 

● A demonstration that all the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act Amendments that 

pertain to serious PM10 nonattainment areas are met, including CAA §110(l), 

§110(a)(2)(E)(i), and 40 CFR §51.280 and §51.111). 

Explanation for Current Rulemaking Proposals: 

For the Five Percent Plan for PM10, an analysis was again conducted to identify additional measures to 

reduce emissions and/or improve compliance with existing requirements. In addition, the Arizona State 

Legislature enacted SB 1552 that also contains requirements for additional control measures that are 

included in the rules in this notice. The MCAQD re-formatted the rules and clarified text to address 

concerns and comments that arose in the enforcement process. Finally, the MCAQD also included in 

Rules 310 and 310.01 several control measures adopted as BACM/MSM in Maricopa County Air 

Pollution Control Regulations Rule 316 in June 2005 for the Salt River SIP. 

From July 2006 through January 2007, the MCAQD conducted a rule effectiveness study for Rules 

310, 310.01 and 316. The results of the study were applied to the 2005 periodic emissions inventory 

for PM10 to estimate emissions from the affected source categories. The study found that 51% of 

permitted sites complied with Rule 310 and 68% on the non-permitted sites complied with Rule 

310.01. To improve the compliance rate for the rules, the rule revisions include provisions to train and 

educate affected sources consistent with SB 1552, clarify existing rule provisions and include new 

provisions to increase the consistency of compliance. 

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 ug/m3

 out of a total of 

233.09 ug/m3

. A source category that contributes 5 ug/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 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. 

4 
Windblown dust from vacant lots represents a significant contribution to the attainment demonstration 

high wind days at the West 43rd Avenue site. Table 8-13 on page 8-55 shows that windblown dust from 

vacant lots contributes 20.50 ug/m3

 out of a total of 202.22 ug/m3. A source category that contributes 5 

ug/m3

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

Table 8-13 also indicates that a 26% reduction in windblown dust from vacant lots is needed in order 

for the monitor to achieve attainment. Lastly, the emissions reductions from vacant lots, attributed to 

the control measures (see measures 8, 30-33) as documented in the Technical Support Document, 

combine to total 1,454 tons per year by 2010. 

The MCAQD reviewed rules from Clark County, Nevada; Pima County Department of Environmental 

Quality, Arizona (Pima DEQ); South Coast Air Quality Management District, California (SCAQMD); 

and San Joaquin Unified Air Pollution Control District, California (SJUAPCD) to identify differences 

between County rules and rules from areas that successfully met the December 31, 2006 attainment 

date. 

Clark County fugitive dust rules apply to a desert environment and Clark County did attain the PM10

standard by December 31, 2006. Clark County Regulation Section 94 – Permitting and Dust Control 

for Construction Activities includes specific actions than an affected owner or operator must complete 

each day (94.7.8) and includes a subsection on Construction Activities Violations (94.10.1) that 

provides an extensive list of actions that may result in a violation. The MCAQD modeled 

recordkeeping requirements after the Clark County rule, to more clearly describe what actions are 

necessary in order to record daily the application of dust control measures. The MCAQD also added a 

General Requirements section that includes an extensive list summarizing and reminding owners and 

operators of all the various requirements. 

SCAQMD Rule 403 includes a requirement that the cumulative trackout from all exits for a site shall 

not exceed 25 feet. This requirement was included in Rule 316 as BACM/MSM for the Salt River SIP 

revision. The Maricopa County Associations of Government (MAG) included this measure as a 

suggested measure in the Five Percent Plan. The MCAQD is applying this measure to the other 

fugitive dust sources in Rules 310 and 310.01. 

Clark County, Pima DEQ, SCAQMD, and SJUAPCD rules all include provisions that do not allow 

visible emissions from activities on a site to extend beyond the property line. MAG also included this 

measure as a suggested measure in the Five Percent Plan. The MCAQD included this measure in Rules 

310 and in 310.01 to improve compliance with the rules. 

Clark County Sections 90 and 94 include requirements for long-term stabilization. Section 94.8.3 

requires long-term stabilization when a site or part thereof becomes inactive for a period of 30 days or 

longer to be implemented within 10 days. The Clark County Section 90.2.1.1(a) does not allow the use 

5 
of water where measures to prevent vehicular trespassing and movement are not effective. The 

MCAQD revised the long-term stabilization control measures that reduce the period of inactivity to 30 

days and linked the stabilization by water control measure with the requirement for barriers. 

Rule 310 incorporates the provisions of SB 1552 that mandate training and require a dust coordinator 

to be onsite at all times. This training requirement is designed to improve the site oversight and 

increase the compliance rate with the existing rule provisions. Based on the MCAQD’s experience in 

enforcing the current rules, Rule 310 now clarifies existing requirements. For example, the MCAQD 

has been receiving complaints about dust emissions from vehicles driving on dusty surfaces on 

construction projects at schools and hospitals and from vehicles passing dusty curbs, gutters and 

sidewalks. The MCAQD clarified the definition of “area accessible to the public” by removing the 

word “retail” from the definition and adding “entered or used for public travel”. The MCAQD also 

extended the trackout clean up requirements to include curbs, gutters and sidewalks as well as paved 

roads. 

In Rule 310.01, the MCAQD added the requirement to install a trackout control device to the 

subsection covering unpaved parking lots and the subsection covering off-site hauling of bulk 

materials by livestock operations. The MCAQD also added control measures for other areas of a 

livestock operation beyond the livestock areas and modified the data reduction method for the opacity 

standard. SB 1552 does not include a de minimis threshold for vacant lots or unpaved ingress, egress, 

vehicle parking and use areas other than for a property with four or fewer residential units. The 

MCAQD revised the threshold for vehicle use in open areas and vacant lots to be consistent with the de 

minimis threshold in the open areas and vacant lot subsection. In addition, the threshold for stabilizing 

an unpaved parking lot matches the requirements of SB 1552. The MCAQD also included another 

provision from SB 1552 authorizing the County to enter a lot to stabilize the disturbed surface at the 

expense of the owner if the vacant lot has not been stabilized by the day set for compliance in the 30 

day notification letter. 

In Rule 200, the MCAQD added provisions, to comply with SB 1552, that require subcontractors 

working on dust-generating operations to register with the MCAQD. The subcontractors will receive a 

registration number that they are required to keep readily accessible to the Control Officer. 

Section By Section Explanation of Changes: 

Rule 200-Permit Requirements: 

Rule 200, Section 301-Permits Required: Changed “this rule” to “these rules” and added as last 

sentence “The Maricopa County Air Quality Department issues the following permits: Title V permits, 

Non-Title V permits, General permits, Dust Control permits, and Permits To Burn. The standards 

and/or requirements for these permits are described in Section 302 thru Section 305 and Section 307 of 

this rule. Additional standards, administrative requirements, and monitoring and records requirements 

6 
for some of these permits are described in individual rules of these rules, as applicable/as specified in 

Section 302 thru Section 305 and Section 307 of this rule.” 

Rule 200, Section 305-Earth Moving Permit: Changed heading “Earth Moving Permit” to “Dust 

Control Permit”. Changed introduction “No person shall cause, commence, suffer, allow, or engage in 

any earth moving operation that disturbs a total surface area of 0.10 acre or more without first 

obtaining a permit from the Control Officer. This requirement for a permit shall apply to all such 

activities conducted for commercial, industrial, or institutional purposes or conducted by any 

governmental entity. The property owner, lessee, developer, or general/prime contractor will be 

responsible for acquiring the permit. Permits shall not be required for earth moving operations for 

emergency repair of utilities, paved roads, unpaved roads, shoulders, and/or alleys” to “A Dust Control 

permit shall be required before a person, including but not limited to, the property owner, lessee, 

developer, responsible official, Dust Control permit applicant (who may also be the responsible party 

contracting to do the work), general contractor, prime contractor, supervisor, management company, or 

any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises a dust-generating operation subject to 

the requirements of Rule 310 of these rules, causes, commences, suffers, allows, or engages in any 

dust-generating operation that disturbs a total surface area of 0.10 acre (4,356 square feet) or more. The 

provisions of Rule 310 of these rules shall apply to Dust Control permits, except as otherwise provided 

in Rule 310 of these rules.” Permit requirements from Rule 200 have been moved to Rule 310, Section 

302 where they are more directly applicable. The permit requirements are existing requirements and 

are not new or additional requirements. The permit requirements have only been moved from Rule 200 

to Rule 310. 

Rule 200, Section 305.1: Deleted “Application: The applicant shall file an application, which includes 

an 81⁄2" x 11" site map showing all linear dimensions, and shall submit a control plan as described in 

Rule 310 of these rules.” This information is addressed in Rule 310. 

Rule 200, Section 305.2: Deleted “Annual Block Permit: Any person responsible for more than one 

earth moving operation consisting of routine operation, maintenance, and expansion or extension of 

utilities, paved roads, unpaved roads, road shoulders and/or alleys, and public right of ways at noncontiguous sites may submit one permit application covering multiple sites at which construction will 

commence within 12 months of permit issuance provided that: a. The control plan as described in Rule 

310 of these rules applies to all sites; and b. The applicant submits a list of all sites, including the 

location and size of each site, with the application; and c. For any project not listed in the application, 

the applicant notifies the Control Officer in writing at least three working days prior to commencing 

the earth moving operation. The notice shall include the site location, size, type of activity, and start 

date.” This information is addressed in Rule 310. 

7 
Rule 200, Section 305.3: Deleted “Action On Permit Application: The Control Officer shall take final 

action on an earth moving permit application within 14 calendar days of the filing of the completed 

application. The Control Officer shall notify the applicant in writing of his approval or denial.” This 

information is addressed in Rule 310. 

Rule 200, Section 305.4: Deleted “Permit Term: Earth Moving permits issued pursuant to this rule 

shall be issued for a period of one year from the date of issuance.” This information is addressed in 

Rule 310. 

Rule 200, Section 305.5: Deleted “Permit Renewal: Earth Moving permits shall be renewed annually 

should the project last longer than one year from the date the permit was issued. Applications for 

permit renewal shall be submitted to the Control Officer at least 14 calendar days prior to the 

expiration date of the original permit.” This information is addressed in Rule 310. 

Rule 200, New Section 306-Subcontractor Registration: Added new Section 306 to comply with 

Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 49-474.06: “306.1 A subcontractor who is engaged in dustgenerating operations at a site that is subject to a permit that is issued by a Control Officer and that 

requires control of PM10 emissions from dust-generating operations shall register with the Control 

Officer by submitting information in the manner prescribed by the Control Officer. The Control 

Officer shall issue a registration number after payment of the fee. The Control Officer may establish 

and assess a fee for the registration based on the total cost of processing the registration and issuance 

of a registration number. 306.2 The subcontractor shall have its registration number readily accessible 

on-site while conducting any dust-generating operations. The subcontractor’s registration number must 

be visible and readable by the public without having to be asked by the public (e.g., included/posted in 

a sign that is visible on the subcontractor’s vehicle or equipment, included/posted on a sign that is 

visible in the window of the subcontractor’s vehicle or equipment, or included/posted on a sign where 

the subcontractor is working on the site).” The MCAQD intends to work with stakeholders to notify 

subcontractors of the registration requirement. The MCAQD also intends to issue a Notice to Correct 

(NTC) to subcontractors for first-time violations of non-registration and to require subcontractors to 

register within 30 days of the NTC issuance. 

Rule 310-Fugitive Dust: 

Rule 310, Rule Title: Changed “Fugitive Dust” to “Fugitive Dust from Dust-Generating Operations.” 

Rule 310, Section 101: Added “(PM10).” 

Rule 310, Section 102: Added “of this rule.” 

Rule 310, Section 103: Changed format. Added exemption for non-traditional sources. Added 

exemption for emergency activities. Deleted “The following are exempt from the requirements of this 

8 
rule: normal farm cultural practices under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 49-457 and § 49-504.4, 

and open areas, vacant lots, unpaved parking lots, and unpaved roadways that are not located at 

sources that require any permit under these rules” and added “The provisions of this rule shall not 

apply to the following activities: 103.1 The provisions of this rule shall not apply to normal farm 

cultural practices according to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 49-457 and A.R.S. § 49-504.4. 

103.2 The provisions of this rule shall not apply to the following non-traditional sources of fugitive 

dust that are located at sources that do not require any permit under these rules. These non-traditional 

sources of fugitive dust are subject to the standards and/or requirements described in Rule 310.01-

Fugitive Dust from Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive Dust of these rules. a. Vehicle use in open 

areas and vacant lots. b. Open areas and vacant lots. c. Unpaved parking lots. d. Unpaved roadways 

(including alleys). e. Livestock activities. f. Erosion-caused deposition of bulk materials onto paved 

surfaces. g. Easements, rights-of-way, and access roads for utilities (transmission of electricity, natural 

gas, oil, water, and gas). 103.3 The provisions of this rule shall not apply to emergency activities that 

may disturb the soil conducted by any utility or government agency in order to prevent public injury or 

to restore critical utilities to functional status. 103.4 An area is considered to be a disturbed surface 

area until the activity that caused the disturbance has been completed and the disturbed surface area 

meets the standards described in Section 304 of this rule. 103.5 Establishing initial landscapes without 

the use of mechanized equipment, conducting landscape maintenance without the use of mechanized 

equipment, and playing on or maintaining a field used for non-motorized sports shall not be considered 

a dust-generating operation. However, establishing initial landscapes without the use of mechanized 

equipment and conducting landscape maintenance without the use of mechanized equipment shall not 

include grading, or trenching performed to establish initial landscapes or to redesign existing 

landscapes. 103.6 Fugitive dust does not include particulate matter emitted directly from the exhaust of 

motor vehicles and other internal combustion engines, from portable brazing, soldering, or welding 

equipment, and from piledrivers, and does not include emissions from process and combustion sources 

that are subject to other rules in Regulation III-Control of Air Contaminants of these rules.” 

Rule 310, New Section 201: Added “Area A – As defined in A.R.S. § 49-541(1), the area in Maricopa 

County delineated as follows: Township 8 North, Range 2 East and Range 3 East; Township 7 North, 

Range 2 West through Range 5 East; Township 6 North, Range 5 West through Range 6 East; 

Township 5 North, Range 5 West through Range 7 East; Township 4 North, Range 5 West through 

Range 8 East; Township 3 North, Range 5 West through Range 8 East; Township 2 North, Range 5 

West through Range 8 East; Township 1 North, Range 5 West through Range 7 East; Township 1 

South, Range 5 West through Range 7 East; Township 2 South, Range 5 West through Range 7 East; 

Township 3 South, Range 5 West through Range 1 East; Township 4 South, Range 5 West through 

Range 1 East.” 

9 
Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 202: Deleted “retail”. Deleted “open”. In Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPR), “accessible” was proposed to replace “open”. In this Notice of Final Rulemaking 

(NFR) instead-of using the term in the definition of the term that’s being defined (“accessible”), 

deleted “accessible” and added “can be entered or used for.” The definition of area accessible to the 

public to read as follows: “Any parking lot or public roadway that can be entered or used for public 

travel primarily for purposes unrelated to the dust-generating operation.” Areas accessible to the public 

should not be limited-to retail parking lots. Parking lots for churches, schools, other institutions meet 

the definition. The definition of “area accessible to the public” replaces the definition of “public 

roadway”. The new term covers areas previously not included, such as paved parking lots accessible to 

the public. The MCAQD made this change on recommendation from enforcement/County Attorney. 

The MCAQD was unable to proceed with enforcement, when a contractor claimed the shopping center 

driveway was a site’s trackout control device, instead of installing a device prior to the exit from the 

building site. The change closes this loophole. Because of the expansion of the “public access” theory, 

dust-generating operations may have increased areas in which they have to use certain dust control 

measures. The MCAQD predicts that the number of projects that will be newly affected by this change 

in terminology will be small. Additionally because of existing dust management requirements, it is 

expected that sources affected by this change have the necessary equipment to easily implement the 

new standard. The definition of “areas accessible to the public”, as reflected in amendments adopted 

by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors during a Public Hearing on April 7, 2004, was the 

product of Maricopa County’s collaboration with small businesses to design a definition that meets the 

needs of the regulated community while meeting Maricopa County’s commitments in the serious area 

PM10 plan. The exception for paved areas that have been designated as a trackout control device allows 

Maricopa County the discretion, at the time of approving a Dust Control Plan, to distinguish between 

suitable paved area trackout control devices that are accessible to the public and those that are not 

suitable (i.e., shopping mall parking lots). If a source is using a paved area accessible to the public as 

the trackout control device, then the paved area accessible to the public must be part of the designated 

work site. The source must identify such paved area accessible to the public as a trackout control 

device in the Dust Control Plan and must follow the requirements for maintaining a trackout control 

device. Regardless of an area being an interior road or not, such area accessible to the public is subject 

to the requirements of Rule 310. 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 203: Changed format of definition of bulk material and listed only 

once materials that are listed twice (i.e., earth and soil). 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 204: Changed format. Unloading applies to dumping activities. 

10 
Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 205.3: Changed “pre-wetting” to “pre-watering.” Matched term used 

in Application for Dust Control Permit and Guidance for Application for Dust Control Permit - “prewatering”. 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 206: Matched definition of disturbed surface area to definition of 

disturbed surface area in Senate Bill 1552. Senate Bill 1552 reads, in part, as follows: A.R.S. § 49-

474.01(A)(11) In a county with a population of two million or more persons or any portion of a county 

within an area designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as a serious PM10 nonattainment 

area or a maintenance area that was designated as a serious PM10 nonattainment area, no later than 

March 31, 2008, adopt rule provisions, and, no later than October 1, 2008, commence enforcement of 

those rule provisions regarding the stabilization of disturbed surfaces of vacant lots that include the 

following: “Disturbed surface” means a portion of the earth’s surface or material placed on the earth’s 

surface that has been physically moved, uncovered, destabilized, or otherwise modified from its 

undisturbed native condition if the potential for the emission of fugitive dust is increased by the 

movement, destabilization, or modification. Vacant lots do not include any site of disturbed surface 

area that is subject to a permit issued by the Control Officer that requires control of PM10 emissions 

from dust-generating operations. Moved “For the purpose of this rule, an area is considered to be a 

disturbed surface area until the activity that caused the disturbance has been completed and the 

disturbed surface area meets the standards described in Section 301 and Section 302 of this rule” to 

New Section 103.4. 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 208: Deleted “fugitive dust” and added “to be implemented and 

maintained in order to prevent or minimize the generation, emission, entrainment, suspension, and/or 

airborne transport of fugitive dust.” 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 209: Changed format and changed definition to match Clark County’s 

definition of “construction activities” in Section 94-Permitting and Dust Control for Construction 

Activities. Moved “For the purpose of this rule, landscape maintenance and playing on or maintaining 

a field used for non-motorized sports shall not be considered a dust-generating operation. However, 

landscape maintenance shall not include grading, trenching, or any other mechanized surface 

disturbing activities performed to establish initial landscapes or to redesign existing landscapes” to 

New Section 103.5. 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 211: Changed format. 

Rule 310, New Section 212: Added “Emergency – A situation arising from sudden and reasonably 

unforeseeable events beyond the control of the source, including acts of God, which situation requires 

immediate corrective action to restore normal operation, and that causes the source to exceed a 

limitation in this rule, due to unavoidable increases in emissions attributable to the emergency. An 

11 
emergency shall not include any noncompliance due to improperly designed equipment, lack of 

preventative maintenance, careless or improper operation, or operator error.” 

Rule 310, New Section 213: Added “Emergency Activity – Repairs that are a result of an emergency 

which prevents or hinders the provision of electricity, the distribution/collection of water, and the 

availability of other utilities due to unforeseen circumstances that are beyond the routine maintenance 

and repair due to normal wear conducted by a utility or municipality.” 

Rule 310, New Section 214: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), the definition of end of 

work day was proposed to read as follows: “The end of a working period that may include one or more 

work shifts but not later than 8 pm.” In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR) made the definition less 

ambiguous as to what is considered to be the end of a working period, because some sources work 24 

hours a day. Changed the definition of end of work day such that it reads as follows: “The end of a 

working period that may include one or more work shifts. If working 24 hours a day, the end of a 

working period shall be considered no later than 8 pm.” 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 216: Moved “For the purpose of this rule, fugitive dust does not 

include particulate matter emitted directly from the exhaust of motor vehicles and other internal 

combustion engines, from portable brazing, soldering, or welding equipment, and from piledrivers, and 

does not include emissions from process and combustion sources that are subject to other rules in 

Regulation III-Control of Air Contaminants of these rules” to New Section 103.6. 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 217: Added “A gravel pad shall consist of one inch to 3 inches rough 

diameter, clean, well-graded gravel or crushed rock. Minimum dimensions must be 30 feet wide by 3 

inches deep, and, at minimum, 50 feet long or the length of the longest haul truck, whichever is 

greater.” Added dimensions of gravel pad to the definition of gravel pad and removed dimensions of 

gravel pad from Rule 310 regarding trackout. Staff recommended that gravel pad be required to be 

three inches deep instead-of six inches deep because experience in the field has shown six inches deep 

to inhibit vehicle travel rather than reduce trackout. Dimensions of gravel pad are same dimensions 

required in Clark County’s Construction Activities Dust Control Handbook. 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 219: Deleted “Open Areas and Vacant Lots – Any of the following 

described in Section 219.1 through Section 219.4 of this rule. For the purpose of this rule, vacant 

portions of residential or commercial lots that are immediately adjacent and owned and/or operated by 

the same individual or entity are considered one open area or vacant lot. 219.1 An unsubdivided or 

undeveloped tract of land adjoining a developed or partially developed residential, industrial, 

institutional, governmental, or commercial area. 219.2 A subdivided residential, industrial, 

institutional, governmental, or commercial lot that contains no approved or permitted buildings or 

structures of a temporary or permanent nature. 219.3 A partially developed residential, industrial, 

12 
institutional, governmental, or commercial lot. 219.4 A tract of land, in the nonattainment area, 

adjoining agricultural property.” Term is used in Rule 310.01-Fugitive Dust from Non-Traditional 

Sources of Fugitive Dust. 

Rule 310, New Section 223: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to add the 

definition of open storage pile - to read as follows: “Any accumulation of bulk material with a 5% or 

greater silt content which in any one point attains a height of three feet and a total surface area of 150 

square feet or more. Silt content shall be assumed to be 5% or greater unless a person can show, by 

testing in accordance with ASTM Method C136-06 or other equivalent method approved in writing by 

the Control Officer and the Administrator that the silt content is less than 5%.” In the NPR, proposed 

to move definition of “open storage pile” from standards section to definitions section; Term and 

definition were used in Rule 310, Section 308.6 adopted April 7, 2004. An open storage pile is an open 

storage pile if/when such pile attains a height of three feet and a total surface area of 150 square feet or 

more. Such dimensions match dimensions used in South Coast’s Rule 403-Fugitive Dust definition of 

open storage pile. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), in the first sentence of the definition of 

open storage pile, deleted “which in any one point attains a height of three feet and covers a total 

surface area of 150 square feet or more” and added “that has a total surface area of 150 square feet or 

more and that at any one point attains a height of three feet.” The intent is that the surface area of the 

storage pile is of concern, rather than the footprint of the storage pile. 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 224: Deleted “responsible for obtaining an earthmoving permit under 

Rule 200, Section 305” and added “including, but not limited to, the property owner, lessee, developer, 

responsible official, Dust Control permit applicant (who may also be the responsible party contracting 

to do the work), general contractor, prime contractor, supervisor, management company.” 

Rule 310, New Section 226: Added “Property Line – The boundaries of an area in which either a 

person causing the emission or a person allowing the emission has the legal use or possession of the 

property. Where such property is divided into one or more sub-tenancies, the property line(s) shall 

refer to the boundaries dividing the areas of all sub-tenancies.” Definition matches definition used in 

South Coast’s Rule 403-Fugitive Dust. 

Rule 310, Section 230: Deleted “Urban or Suburban Open Area – The definition of urban or suburban 

open area is included in Section 219-Definition of Open Areas and Vacant Lots of this rule.” Term is 

used in Rule 310.01-Fugitive Dust from Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive Dust. 

Rule 310, Section 231: Deleted “Vacant Lot – The definition of vacant lot is included in Section 219-

Definition of Open Areas and Vacant Lots of this rule.” Term is used in Rule 310.01-Fugitive Dust 

from Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive Dust. 

13 
Rule 310, Section 232: Deleted “Vacant Parcel – The definition of vacant parcel is included in Section 

219-Definition of Open Areas and Vacant Lots of this rule.” Term is used in Rule 310.01-Fugitive 

Dust from Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive Dust. 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 233: Deleted “larger than 5,000 square feet” and added “material 

handling”, “and equipment”, and “An unpaved parking lot includes, but is not limited to, automobile 

impound yards, wrecking yards, automobile dismantling yards, salvage yards, material handling yards, 

and storage yards. For the purpose of this definition, maneuvering shall not include military maneuvers 

or exercises conducted on federal facilities.” Changed definition of “unpaved parking lot” to match 

Clark County’s definition of “unpaved parking lot” in Section 92-Fugitive Dust from Unpaved Parking 

Lots; Material Handling and Storage Yards; and Vehicle and Equipment Storage Yards. 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 234: Moved “For the purpose of this rule, an unpaved road is not a 

horse trail, hiking path, bicycle path, or other similar path used exclusively for purposes other than 

travel by motor vehicles” to New Section 103.8. 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 237: Deleted “and/or earthmoving operations”, because the phrase is 

included in the definition of “dust-generating operations.” 

Rule 310, New Section 301: Added general requirements for dust-generating operations. General 

requirements for dust-generating operations are intended to clarify the duties to which an owner and/or 

operator must comply and to distinguish between control measures, stabilization standards, and test 

methods. The intent of the language in Section 301 is to make it clear that regardless of a site’s 

permitting status – permit or no permit, Dust Control Plan or no Dust Control Plan – the site must 

comply with all the applicable provisions of Rule 310 if engaging in a dust-generating operation. 

Ignorance of Rule 310 through lack of a permit or Dust Control Plan is not an acceptable defense for 

not implementing Rule 310 provisions at a site that has dust-generating operations. Also, added a 

statement that requirements of Rule 310 must be complied-with before, after, and while conducting 

dust-generating operations, including during weekends, after work hours, and on holidays. The 

MCAQD does not intend to reference Rule 310, Section 301 when issuing a Notice To Correct (NTC) 

or when issuing a Notice of Violation (NOV). 

Rule 310, New Section 302: Added permit requirements for dust-generating operations from Rule 200-

Permit Requirements. The permit requirements are existing requirements and are not new or additional 

requirements. The permit requirements were just moved from Rule 200 to Rule 310. 

Rule 310, New Section 302.3: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed new Section 

302 – to add permit requirements for dust-generating operations from Rule 200-Permit Requirements; 

Permit requirements for earthmoving operations to be revised in Rule 200 and to reference Rule 310. 

14 
Also in the NPR, proposed revisions to Section 402 – to move the description of the required elements 

of a Dust Control Plan from standards section of Rule 310 to administrative requirements section of 

Rule 310. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), revised new Section 302.3 – permit requirements 

for routine dust-generating operations at a site with a Title V permit, Non-Title V permit, or General 

permit - to be consistent with revised Section 402.1 – Dust Control Plan requirements for routine dustgenerating operations at a site with a Title V permit, Non-Title V permit, or General permit. In the 

NFR, added “that disturbs a surface area of 0.10 acre or greater” to new Section 302.3. New Section 

302.3 reads: “No person shall commence any routine dust-generating operation that disturbs a surface 

area of 0.10 acre or greater at a site that has obtained or must obtain a Title V, Non-Title V, or General 

permit under Regulation III-Permits and Fees of these rules without first submitting to the Control 

Officer a Dust Control Plan.” 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 303: Deleted “The owner and/or operator of a dust-generating 

operation shall not allow visible fugitive dust emissions to exceed 20% opacity as tested by methods 

described in Appendix C of these rules” and added heading “Visible Emissions Requirements for DustGenerating Operation.” 

Rule 310, New Section 303.1: Added the heading “Dust-Generating Operation Opacity Limitation 

Requirement” and clarified the opacity limitation requirements. Visible emissions cannot exceed 20% 

opacity and cannot extend beyond the property line within which the emissions are generated. Visible 

emissions will be determined to have extended beyond the property line when visible emissions extend 

beyond the property line for 30 seconds in duration in any six minute period (EPA Reference Method 

22). The “property line standard” matches the standard in Rule 316-Nonmetallic Mineral Processing, 

the standard in Clark County Section 94-Permitting and Dust Control for Construction Activities, and 

the standard in Pima County 17.16. Visible emissions are allowed to cross the property line if dustgenerating operations are being conducted within 25 feet of the property line. (Rule 310, Section 

303.2(d)) The MCAQD will not enforce on a single puff of dust. The MCAQD intends to issue a 

Notice To Correct (NTC) for first-time violations at sites that are applying dust controls and have 

obtained the appropriate permits, if permits are required. 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 303.2: Added heading “Exemptions from Dust-Generating Operation 

Opacity Limitation Requirement.” 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 303.2(a): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to 

delete “The 20% opacity exceedance” and to add “Exceedances of the opacity limit described in 

Section 303.1(a) of this rule.” In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), changed “Exceedances of the 

opacity limit described in Section 303.1(a) of this rule” to “Exceedances of the opacity limits described 

in Section 303.1 of this rule.” With this change, an exemption will be provided from the 20% opacity 

15 
limitation and from the property line standard provided specific/specified control measures are 

implemented. 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 303.2(a)(1): Deleted “1” and added “one.” Added “following.” 

Deleted “in Tables 20 & 21 was” and added “were.” Removed reference to Table 20 and Table 21 and 

added control measures from Table 20 and Table 21 (regarding wind events) to Rule 310, Section 

303.2(a)(1). 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 303.2(a)(2): Deleted “The 20% opacity exceedance” and added 

“Exceedances of the opacity limit described in Section 303.1 of this rule.” With this change, an 

exemption will be provided from the 20% opacity limitation and from the property line standard 

provided specific/specified control measures are implemented. 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 303.2(a)(4): Deleted “Maricopa County Environmental Services 

Department Air Quality Division” and added “Maricopa County Air Quality Department.” 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 303.2(b): Deleted “No opacity limitation shall” and added “The 

opacity limit described in Section 303.1 of this rule shall not.” With this change, an exemption will be 

provided from the 20% opacity limitation and from the property line standard provided 

specific/specified control measures are implemented. 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 303.2(c): Deleted “No opacity limitation shall” and added “The 

opacity limit described in Section 303.1(a) of this rule shall not.” Added “However, all areas used to 

test and validate design integrity, product quality, and/or commercial acceptance shall be stabilized 

after such testing, in compliance with Appendix C-Fugitive Dust Test Methods of these rules. All areas 

not used to test and validate design integrity, product quality, and/or commercial acceptance shall be 

stabilized, in compliance with Appendix C-Fugitive Dust Test Methods of these rules. In addition, 

vehicle test and development facilities may require a Dust Control permit in accordance with Section 

302 of this rule.” Added requirement that all areas used to test and validate design integrity, product 

quality, and/or commercial acceptance and all areas not used to test and validate design integrity, 

product quality, and/or commercial acceptance must be stabilized and that vehicle test and 

development facilities may require a Dust Control permit in accordance with Rule 310, Section 302. 

Rule 310, New Section 303.2(d): In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), added new Section 

303.2(d), which adds an exemption from the property line standard when an owner and/or operator 

conducts dust-generating operations within 25 feet of the property line. This addition was not in the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR). This addition was made in response to formal comments 

received during the formal comment period. Visible emissions will be determined to have extended 

beyond the property line when visible emissions extend beyond the property line for 30 seconds in 

16 
duration in any six minute period (EPA Reference Method 22). The MCAQD will not enforce on a 

single puff of dust. The MCAQD intends to issue a Notice To Correct (NTC) for first-time violations 

at sites that are applying dust controls and have obtained the appropriate permits, if permits are 

required. 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 304: Moved Dust Control Plan requirements from standards section 

to administrative requirements section. 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 304.1: Added “Section 304.1(a) or Section 304.1(b) of this rule.” 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 304.2(a): Added “Section 304.2(a)(1) or Section 304.2(a)(2) of this 

rule.” 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 304.2(b): Added “in Section 304.2(a) of this rule”. Deleted 

“subsection” and added “section of this rule.” Added “and a description of how vehicle speeds will be 

restricted to no more than 15 miles per hour.” 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 304.3: Deleted heading “Open Area and Vacant Lot.” Deleted “an 

open area and/or vacant lot or.” Deleted “1” and added “one.” Deleted “Sections 302.3(a) through 

302.3(g)” and added “Section 304.3(a) through 304.3(g).” Deleted “a disturbed open area and/or 

vacant lot or.” Deleted “disturbance” and added “visibly distinguishable stabilization characteristics.” 

Deleted “according to the appropriate test methods in Appendix C of these rules, and include or 

eliminate it from the total size assessment of disturbed surface area(s) depending upon test method 

results” and to add “in accordance with the appropriate test methods described in Section 501.2(c) of 

this rule and in Appendix C-Fugitive Dust Test Methods of these rules.” 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 304.3(a): Deleted “visible” and added “soil.” 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 304.3(g): Deleted “of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).” 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 304.4: Added “However, all areas used to test and validate design 

integrity, product quality, and/or commercial acceptance shall be stabilized after such testing, in 

compliance with Appendix C-Fugitive Dust Test Methods of these rules. All areas not used to test and 

validate design integrity, product quality, and/or commercial acceptance shall be stabilized, in 

compliance with Appendix C-Fugitive Dust Test Methods of these rules. In addition, vehicle test and 

development facilities may require a Dust Control permit in accordance with Section 302 of this rule.” 

Added requirement that all areas used to test and validate design integrity, product quality, and/or 

commercial acceptance and all areas not used to test and validate design integrity, product quality, 

and/or commercial acceptance must be stabilized and that vehicle test and development facilities may 

require a Dust Control permit in accordance with Rule 310, Section 302. 

17 
Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 305: Added heading “For Dust- Generating Operations” and added 

“When engaged in a dust-generating operation, the owner and/or operator shall install, maintain, and 

use control measures, as applicable. The owner and/or operator of a dust-generating operation shall 

implement control measures before, after, and while conducting dust-generating operations, including 

during weekends, after work hours, and on holidays. Control measures for specific dust-generating 

operations are described in Section 305.1 through Section 305.12 of this rule.” Moved the general 

requirements for control measures to New Section 301 and retained Section 305 requirements 

addressing specific control measures. General requirements for dust-generating operations are intended 

to clarify the duties to which an owner and/or operator must comply and to distinguish between control 

measures, stabilization standards, and test methods. Deleted Rule 310, Section 308 and added work 

practices to specific control measures described in re-numbered Section 305. 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 305.1: Deleted Table 15 and added control measures from Table 15 to 

Rule 310, Section 305.1. Changed heading to “Off-Site Hauling Onto Paved Areas Accessible To The 

Public.” Added requirement to install, maintain, and use a trackout control device. Normally, scrapers 

would not be subject to Section 305.1, because scrapers are not often utilized to haul or transport bulk 

material onto a public roadway. If a scraper is utilized for this purpose, then the compartment of the 

scraper that is hauling bulk material would need to be tarped. “Across the roadway” simply refers to 

any and all vehicle traffic that goes from one side of the roadway to the other side. 

Rule 310, New Section 305.1(a)(2): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), the intent of 

proposed new Section 305.1(a)(2) was to require that haul trucks be loaded such that the bulk material 

within the cargo compartment be no higher than the bulk material along the sides, front, and back of 

the cargo compartment. In the NPR, the text of new Section 305.1(a)(2) did not clearly express such 

intent. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted “the highest point at which the bulk material 

contacts”. In the NFR, new Section 305.1(a)(2) reads: “Load all haul trucks such that at no time shall 

the highest point of the bulk material be higher than the sides, front, and back of a cargo container 

area.” Until May 1, 2008, a Notice To Correct (NTC) will be issued for first-time violations of this 

requirement. Until May 1, 2008, if the NTC is not complied with, then a Notice of Violation (NOV) 

will be issued. As of May 1, 2008, if this requirement is not complied with, then an NOV will be 

issued. 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 305.2: Deleted Table 13 and Table 14 and added control measures 

from Table 13 and Table 14 to Rule 310, Section 305.2 and Section 305.3. Re-numbered Section 305.2 

provides for the implementation of one of three control measures: tarping, wetting the load, or limiting 

vehicle speed. The MCAQD has determined that bulk material hauling and transporting does produce 

significant emissions and at least one of the three control measures are needed to control emissions. 

18 
Rule 310, New Section 305.3: Deleted Table 13 and Table 14 and added control measures from Table 

13 and Table 14 to Rule 310, Section 305.2 and Section 305.3. The MCAQD has determined that bulk 

material hauling and transporting does produce significant emissions and control measures are needed 

to control emissions. 

Rule 310, Section 305.3(b): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), the intent of proposed new 

Section 305.3(b) was to require that haul trucks be loaded such that the bulk material within the cargo 

compartment be no higher than the bulk material along the sides, front, and back of the cargo 

compartment. In the NPR, the text of new Section 305.3(b) did not clearly express such intent. In the 

Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted “the highest point at which the bulk material contacts”. In 

the NFR, new Section 305.3(b) reads: “Load all haul trucks such that at no time shall the highest point 

of the bulk material be higher than the sides, front, and back of a cargo container area.” Until May 1, 

2008, a Notice To Correct (NTC) will be issued for first-time violations of this requirement. Until May 

1, 2008, if the NTC is not complied with, then a Notice of Violation (NOV) will be issued. As of May 

1, 2008, if this requirement is not complied with, then an NOV will be issued. 

Rule 310, New Section 305.4: Deleted Table 11 and added control measures from Table 11 to Rule 

310, Section 305.4. 

Rule 310, New Section 305.5: Deleted Table 11 and Table 12 and added control measures from Table 

11 and Table 12 to Rule 310, Section 305.5. 

Rule 310, New Section 305.6: Added control measures for staging areas, parking areas, material 

storage areas, and/or access routes to and from a site. Control measures address vehicle use and 

parking on sites that require a permit and match Clark County’s Section 94-Permitting and Dust 

Control for Construction Activities. 

Rule 310, New Section 305.7: Deleted Table 3 and added control measures from Table 3 to Rule 310, 

Section 305.7. 

Rule 310, New Section 305.8: Deleted Table 18 and added control measures from Table 18 to Rule 

310, Section 305.8. 

Rule 310, New Section 305.9: Deleted Table 9 and added control measures from Table 9 to Rule 310, 

Section 305.9. Pre-watering is intended to control the areas where vehicles and support equipment are 

operating, not necessarily where the actual blasting is occurring. The "blasting operations" referred to 

in Rule 310 apply to explosive blasting practices, such as rock removal or structural concrete removal. 

Rule 310 does not apply to abrasive blasting operations that are subject to more stringent requirement 

under Rule 312. Rule 310, Section 103.6 clarifies that the abrasive blasting process is covered by Rule 

19 
312. However, vehicles hauling the equipment into the site or re-stabilizing any soil surfaces 

surrounding the structure being blasted will be subject to Rule 310. 

Rule 310, New Section 305.10: Deleted Table 10 and added control measures to Rule 310, Section 

305.10. 

Rule 310, New Section 305.11: Deleted Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, and Table 8 and added control 

measures from Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, and Table 8 to Rule 310, Section 305.11. Section 

305.11(c)(4) matches Clark County’s Construction Activities Dust Control Handbook. The intent of 

Section 305.11 is to establish a more permanent form of stabilization than water can provide, since the 

site is complete and most likely will not be visited regularly by site personnel. Water, as a control 

measure, is too temporary in these instances. Permanent stabilization must be implemented within 10 

days of finishing a dust-generating operation (rather than within eight months as previously required), 

if such dust-generating operation will be finished for 30 days or longer. Until May 1, 2008, a Notice 

To Correct (NTC) will be issued for first-time violations of this requirement. If the NTC is not 

complied with, then a Notice of Violation (NOV) will be issued. As of May 1, 2008, if this 

requirement is not complied with, then an NOV will be issued. An owner/operator is not required to 

prevent access or prevent trespass as Rule 310, Section 305.11(c)(4) requires, if the owner/operator is 

conducting dust-generating operations within the identified boundaries of the Dust Control permit, has 

not closed the Dust Control permit (i.e., the Dust Control permit is still active), and is monitoring 

control measures in all areas of the permitted site. 

Rule 310, New Section 305.11(b)(1): Added “as necessary” to the end of new Section 305.11(b)(1). 

New Section 305.11(b)(1) reads: “Apply water or other suitable dust suppressant other than water, as 

necessary.” 

Rule 310, New Section 305.12: Deleted Table 19 and added control measures from Table 19 to Rule 

310, Section 305.12. Changed “(electricity, natural gas, oil, water, and gas transmission)” to 

“(transmission of electricity, natural gas, oil, water, and gas).” Changed “inside the PM10

nonattainment area and “outside the PM10 nonattainment area” to “inside Area A” and “outside Area 

A.” Dust generating operations regarding rights–of-way (ROW) are subject to Rule 310.01, not 310, 

unless the site in question already has a General, Non-Title V, or Title V permit, in which case Rule 

310, Section 305.12 applies. 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 306: Deleted Table 16 and Table 17 and added control measures from 

Table 16 and Table 17 to Rule 310, Section 306. The dimensions of the gravel pad are minimums. If 

those dimensions do not produce a reduction in the trackout as required by Section 306, then the site 

has several options available to it, such as a grizzly, wheel washer, pavement, or extending the length 

of the gravel pad if that’s the site’s choice of action. Requiring extra length is not necessary given the 

20 
other options available to the site. If visible emissions are observed crossing over the property line, 

then the site would be in violation of that standard. Since trackout is already outside the property line, 

the property line standard will have no effect on the standards for trackout. Trackout is now limited to 

25 cumulative linear feet from the previous 50 cumulative linear feet. Until May 1, 2008, a Notice To 

Correct (NTC) will be issued for first-time violations, if trackout extends between 25 cumulative linear 

feet and 50 cumulative linear feet. Until May 1, 2008, a Notice of Violation (NOV) will be issued if 

the NTC is not complied with or if trackout extends a cumulative distance of 50 linear feet or more. As 

of May 1, 2008, if trackout exceeds 25 cumulative linear feet, then an NOV will be issued. Curbs, 

gutters, and sidewalks must be cleaned-up but are not included in the cumulative linear distance. 

Rule 310, New Section 306.1(b): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to delete 

Table 16-Clean-Up of Trackout, Carry-Out, Spillage, and Erosion and Table 17-Trackout Control and 

proposed to add control measures from Table 16 and Table 17 to new Section 306. In so doing, the 

control measures described in new Section 306.1(b) were intended to correspond with the work sites 

described in new Section 306.1(a). In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), added to the beginning 

of new Section 306.1(b) the phrase: “For those work sites identified in Section 306.1(a) of this rule” to 

make it clear that the control measures described in new Section 306.1(b) are intended to correspond 

with the work sites described in new Section 306.1(a). 

Rule 310, New Section 306.1(b)(2): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to delete 

Table 16-Clean-Up of Trackout, Carry-Out, Spillage, and Erosion and Table 17-Trackout Control and 

proposed to add control measures from Table 16 and Table 17 to new Section 306. In so doing, the 

reference to the definition of gravel pad was incorrect in new Section 306.1(b)(2). In the Notice of 

Final Rulemaking (NFR), corrected the reference to the definition of gravel pad in new Section 

306.1(b)(2). 

Re-Numbered Section 307: Changed “visible crust” to “soil crust.” 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 308: Moved project information sign requirements from standards 

section to administrative requirements section. Specific information required to be on the project 

information sign matches requirements in Clark County’s Construction Activities Dust Control 

Handbook adopted March 18, 2003. 

Rule 310, New Section 309: Added requirements for dust control training classes to comply with 

Senate Bill 1552. Training classes will include information regarding implementation of control 

measures and discussion of what opacity is. However, formal opacity certification training will not be 

part of the training classes. Opacity certification can only be done by the EPA-approved or ADEQapproved trainers. Site superintendents, water truck drivers, and water pull drivers must successfully 

complete a Basic Dust Control Training Class if present at a site that has a Dust Control permit for 

21 
more than one acre of disturbed surface area. A Basic Dust Control Training Class is required at least 

once every three years. A Dust Control Coordinator must be on-site at all times during primary dustgenerating operations related to the Dust Control permit for any site of five or more acres of disturbed 

surface area. A Comprehensive Dust Control Training Class is required at least once every three years. 

Rule 310, New Section 310: Added requirements for a Dust Control Coordinator to comply with 

Senate Bill 1552. A Dust Control Coordinator must be on-site at all times during primary dustgenerating operations related to the Dust Control permit for any site of five or more acres of disturbed 

surface area. A Comprehensive Dust Control Training Class is required at least once every three years. 

Rule 310, Section 401: Added requirements for Dust Control permits to Rule 310. Dust Control permit 

requirements are existing requirements (in Rule 200-Permit Requirements) and are not new or 

additional requirements. The Dust Control permit requirements have only been added to Rule 310 

where they are more directly applicable. 

Rule 310, New Section 401.1: In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted the reference to 

Maricopa County’s “Application for Dust Control Permit” and revised the introductory statement to 

read as follows: “To apply for a Dust Control permit, an applicant shall complete a permit application 

in the manner and form prescribed by the Control Officer. At a minimum, such application shall 

contain the following information.” 

Rule 310, Section 402: Moved elements of a Dust Control Plan from standards section to 

administrative requirements section. 

Rule 310, Section 402.2: In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted the second sentence in 

Section 402.2: “Applicants shall complete Maricopa County’s “Application for Dust Control Permit” 

and submit such information as a Dust Control Plan.” 

Rule 310, New Section 402.3(c): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to move the 

description of the required elements of a Dust Control Plan from standards section of Rule 310 to 

administrative requirements section of Rule 310. In the NPR, new Section 402.3(c) required that the 

control measures described in Section 305-Control Measures for Dust-Generating Operations be 

included in the Dust Control Plan. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), added Section 306-

Trackout, Carry-Out, Spillage, and/or Erosion to new Section 402.3(c), so that the control measures for 

trackout, carry-out, spillage, and/or erosion will also be required to be included in the Dust Control 

Plan. New Section 402.3(c) reads: “Appropriate control measures, or a combination thereof, as 

described in Section 305 and Section 306 of this rule, for every actual and potential dust-generating 

operation.” 

22 
Rule 310, New Section 402.3(c)(2): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to add the 

following two sentences to new Section 402.3(c)(2): “Should any primary control measure(s) prove 

ineffective, the owner and/or operator shall immediately implement the contingency control 

measure(s). If the identified contingency control measure(s) is effective to comply with all of the 

requirements of this rule, the owner and/or operator need not revise the Dust Control Plan.” In the 

Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted these two sentences in new Section 402.3(c)(2), because 

they are already written in new Section 402.6. 

Rule 310, New Section 402.3(c)(3): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to move 

the description of the required elements of a Dust Control Plan from standards section of Rule 310 to 

administrative requirements section of Rule 310. In the NPR, new Section 402.3(c)(3) allowed 

alternative control measures to be used - control measures that were not listed in Section 305-Control 

Measures for Dust-Generating Operations. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), added Section 

306-Trackout, Carry-Out, Spillage, and/or Erosion to new Section 402.3(c)(3), so that alternative 

control measures can be used - control measures that are not listed in Section 306-Trackout, Carry-Out, 

Spillage, and/or Erosion. New Section 402.3(c)(3) reads: “A control measure that is not listed in 

Section 305 or in Section 306 of this rule may be chosen provided that such control measure is 

implemented to comply with the requirements described in Section 301 of this rule.” 

Rule 310, New Section 402.3(e): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to move the 

description of the required elements of a Dust Control Plan from standards section of Rule 310 to 

administrative requirements section of Rule 310. In so doing, the word “roads” was inadvertently 

omitted from the description of one of the required elements of a Dust Control Plan. In the Notice of 

Final Rulemaking (NFR), added the word “roads” to new Section 402.3(e). New Section 402.3(e) 

reads: “Specific surface treatment(s) and/or control measures utilized to control material trackout and 

sedimentation where unpaved roads and/or access points join paved areas accessible to the public.” 

Rule 310, Section 402.6: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to add the following 

sentence to new Section 402.6: “At least one primary control measure and one contingency measure 

must be identified in the Dust Control Plan for all dust-generating sources.” In the Notice of Final 

Rulemaking (NFR), deleted this sentence from new Section 402.6 and added this sentence to the 

introduction in re-numbered Section 305-Control Measures for Dust-Generating Operations. The 

introduction in re-numbered Section 305 reads: “When engaged in a dust-generating operation, the 

owner and/or operator shall install, maintain, and use control measures, as applicable. The owner 

and/or operator of a dust-generating operation shall implement control measures before, after, and 

while conducting dust-generating operations, including during weekends, after work hours, and on 

holidays. At least one primary control measure and one contingency measure must be identified in the 

23 
Dust Control Plan for all dust-generating operations. Control measures for specific dust-generating 

operations are described in Section 305.1 through Section 305.12 of this rule.” 

Rule 310, New Section 403: Moved Dust Control Plan revisions from standards section to 

administrative requirements section. Added requirements for Dust Control Plan revisions, if requested 

by the permittee, to match explanation/criteria in Guidance for Application for Dust Control Permit. 

Rule 310, New Section 404: Added Dust Control permit-Block permit requirements from Rule 200. 

Deleted Dust Control permit-Block permit requirements from Rule 200 and referenced Rule 310. Dust 

Control permit-Block permit requirements are existing requirements and are not new or additional 

requirements. The Dust Control permit-Block permit requirements have been added to Rule 310 where 

they are more directly applicable. 

Rule 310, New Section 404.1(a) and New Section 404.1(b): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPR), proposed new Section 404 .1 - to add Block permit requirements from Rule 200-Permit 

Requirements; Block permit requirements to be deleted from Rule 200 and to reference Rule 310. In 

the NPR, new Section 404.1(a) and new Section 404.1(b) referred to “canal road grading”. In the 

Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), changed “canal road grading” to “canal bank and road grading”. 

New Section 404.1(a) and new Section 404.1(b) read in part as follows: “...including but not limited 

to, weed control around a prison, canal bank and road grading, and road shoulder grading.” 

Rule 310, New Section 404.3: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed new Section 

404.3 - to add Block permit requirements from Rule 200-Permit Requirements; Block permit 

requirements to be deleted from Rule 200 and to reference Rule 310. In the NPR, the intent was that 

new Section 404.3 replicate the text from Rule 200: “...may submit one permit application covering 

multiple sites at which construction will commence within 12 months of permit issuance...” The 

purpose of new Section 404.3 was to make clear to stakeholders that a Block permit will not be granted 

if the dust-generating operation does not commence within one year of issuance. However, with the 

other revisions proposed in Rule 310, replicating the text from Rule 200 makes new section 404.3 

unclear. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted new Section 404.3 and re-numbered new 

Section 404.4 to new Section 404.3. 

Rule 310, New Re-Numbered Section 404.3: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed 

new Section 404.4 - to add Block permit requirements from Rule 200-Permit Requirements; Block 

permit requirements to be deleted from Rule 200 and to reference Rule 310. In the NPR, new Section 

404.4 referred to “municipalities and/or utilities” while new Section 404.1 referred to “municipalities, 

governmental agencies, and utilities”. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), revised new renumbered Section 404.3 to be consistent with new Section 404.1. In the NFR, changed “municipalities 

and/or utilities” in new re-numbered Section 404.3 such that it reads “municipalities, governmental 

24 
agencies, and utilities.” New re-numbered Section 404.3 reads: “The Dust Control permit-Block permit 

will cover crews that work for municipalities, governmental agencies, and utilities, including 

subcontractors. However, municipalities, governmental agencies, and utilities shall retain overall 

authority for dust control on the project.” 

Rule 310, New Section 405: Added administrative requirements/specifics regarding Dust Control 

permits and Dust Control Plans. The administrative requirements/specifics are existing requirements 

(in Rule 200-Permit Requirements) and are not new or additional requirements. The Dust Control 

permits and Dust Control Plans requirements have only been added to Rule 310 where they are more 

directly applicable. 

Rule 310, New Section 406: Added administrative requirements/specifics regarding Dust Control 

permits and Dust Control Plans. The administrative requirements/specifics are existing requirements 

(in Rule 200-Permit Requirements) and are not new or additional requirements. The Dust Control 

permits and Dust Control Plans requirements have only been added to Rule 310 where they are more 

directly applicable. 

Rule 310, New Section 407: Added administrative requirements/specifics regarding Dust Control 

permits and Dust Control Plans. The administrative requirements/specifics are existing requirements 

(in Rule 200-Permit Requirements) and are not new or additional requirements. The Dust Control 

permits and Dust Control Plans requirements have only been added to Rule 310 where they are more 

directly applicable. 

Rule 310, New Section 408: Added administrative requirements/specifics regarding Dust Control 

permits and Dust Control Plans. The administrative requirements/specifics are existing requirements 

(in Rule 200-Permit Requirements) and are not new or additional requirements. The Dust Control 

permits and Dust Control Plans requirements have only been added to Rule 310 where they are more 

directly applicable. 

Rule 310, New Section 409: Clarified the permit posting requirements. In most recent version of Rule 

310 (revised April 7, 2004), permit posting requirements were in Section 401 - Dust Control Plan 

Posting. 

Rule 310, New Section 410: Clarified compliance schedule. Compliance schedule in Rule 310 adopted 

April 7, 2004 addressed making changes to an earthmoving permit and making changes to a Non-Title 

V permit or a Title V permit. The requirements and/or compliance schedule for making such changes 

are addressed in Section 403. Compliance schedule in Rule 310 adopted March 26, 2008 addressed 

training requirements. No later than June 30, 2008, a Dust Control Coordinator must be on-site at all 

times during primary dust-generating operations related to the Dust Control permit for any site of five 

25 
or more acres of disturbed surface area. A Comprehensive Dust Control Training Class is required at 

least once every three years. No later than December 31, 2008, site superintendents, water truck 

drivers, and water pull drivers must successfully complete a Basic Dust Control Training Class if 

present at a site that has a Dust Control permit for more than one acre of disturbed surface area. A 

Basic Dust Control Training Class is required at least once every three years. 

Rule 310, Section 501: Added “the visible emissions requirements in Section 303 of” and “and with 

the stabilization requirements in Section 304 of this rule.” Specified that test methods are for visible 

emissions requirements and stabilization requirements. 

Rule 310, Section 501.1(a): Added “of these rules.” In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), 

proposed to retain original text of Section 501.1(a): “Opacity observations of a source engaging in 

dust-generating operations shall be conducted in accordance with Appendix C, Section 3-Time 

Averaged Methods of Visual Opacity Determination of Emissions from Dust-Generating Operations.” 

In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted “a source engaging in” to make Section 501.1(a) 

consistent with the introductory statements in Section 501.1(b) and Section 501.1(c). Section 501.1(a) 

reads: “Opacity observations of dust-generating operations shall be conducted in accordance with 

Appendix C, Section 3-Time Averaged Methods of Visual Opacity Determination of Emissions from 

Dust-Generating Operations.” 

Rule 310, New Section 501.1(d): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), Section 501.1 

described test methods to determine compliance with visible emissions requirements for dustgenerating operations, an unpaved parking lot, and an unpaved haul/access road. In the Notice of Final 

Rulemaking (NFR), added new Section 501.1(d), which describes the test method to determine 

compliance with the property line standard - by conducting observations in accordance with EPA 

Reference Method 22. New Section 501.1(d) reads: “Visible Emissions Beyond The Property Line: 

Opacity observations of any visible emissions beyond the property line shall be conducted in 

accordance with EPA Reference Method 22.” Visible emissions cannot exceed 20% opacity and 

cannot extend beyond the property line within which the emissions are generated. Visible emissions 

will be determined to have extended beyond the property line when visible emissions extend beyond 

the property line for 30 seconds in duration in any six minute period (EPA Reference Method 22). The 

“property line standard” matches the standard in Rule 316-Nonmetallic Mineral Processing, the 

standard in Clark County Section 94-Permitting and Dust Control for Construction Activities, and the 

standard in Pima County 17.16. Visible emissions are allowed to cross the property line if dustgenerating operations are being conducted within 25 feet of the property line. (Rule 310, Section 

303.2(d)) The MCAQD will not enforce on a single puff of dust. The MCAQD intends to issue a 

Notice To Correct (NTC) for first-time violations at sites that are applying dust controls and have 

obtained the appropriate permits, if permits are required. 

26 
Rule 310, Section 501.2(a): Deleted “constitutes” and adds “shall constitute.” Deleted “1” and added 

“one.” Rule 310 already requires owners/operators to conduct compliance tests, as do the rules for 

other industries and processes in Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations-Regulation III. 

Any day an owner/operator conducts the Appendix C test methods, the owner/operator should record 

the type of test method conducted and the results. The MCAQD anticipates that owners/operators will 

choose simpler substitutes to the Appendix C test methods for daily self-inspection. The MCAQD 

expects the first step of daily self-inspections to be simple visual checks of the site. For example, check 

for crusted or damp soil, dust plumes, signs of disturbance on areas where no activity has been taking 

place, and for the presence of trackout onto paved surfaces. If the owner/operator takes corrective 

action for any problems identified during the visual inspection, then the owner/operator may not have 

to perform the formal Appendix C test methods. 

Rule 310, Section 501.2(b): Deleted “1” and added “one.” Deleted “constitutes” and added “shall 

constitute.” 

Rule 310, Section 501.2(c): Deleted “Open Area and Vacant Lot”. Deleted “subsection” and added 

“Section.” Deleted “subsection 302.2” and added “Section 304.3.” “Open area and vacant lot” is used 

in Rule 310.01-Fugitive Dust from Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive Dust. 

Rule 310, Section 501.2(c)(1): Deleted “visible” and added “soil.” Deleted “/Steel Ball.” 

Rule 310, Section 501.2(c)(7): Added “and equivalent” and deleted “of the EPA.” 

Rule 310, Section 502.1: Clarified when written records must be kept and what information must be 

kept in written records. Daily recordkeeping requirements more clearly describe what actions an 

owner/operator must take in order to record application of dust control measures each day dustgenerating operations are conducted. The written record must include daily self-inspections for crusted 

or damp soil, trackout conditions and clean-up measures, daily water usage, and dust suppressant 

application. Text matches Clark County’s Section 94-Permitting and Dust Control for Construction 

Activities. Any day an owner/operator conducts the Appendix C test methods, the owner/operator 

should record the type of test method conducted and the results. The MCAQD anticipates that 

owners/operators will choose simpler substitutes to the Appendix C test methods for daily selfinspection. The MCAQD expects the first step of daily self-inspections to be simple visual checks of 

the site. For example, check for crusted or damp soil, dust plumes, signs of disturbance on areas where 

no activity has been taking place, and for the presence of trackout onto paved surfaces. If the 

owner/operator takes corrective action for any problems identified during the visual inspection, then 

the owner/operator may not have to perform the formal Appendix C test methods. 

Rule 310, Section 502.3: Deleted “within” and added “as soon as possible but no later than.” 

27 
Rule 310, Section 503: Clarified who must maintain records and for how long. Records must be 

retained at least six months following termination of dust-generating operation and at least two years 

from the date the records were initiated. 

Rule 310, Section 504: Deleted “Maricopa County Environmental Services Department” and added 

“Maricopa County Air Quality Department.” 

Rule 310, Section 504.1: Deleted “C136-96A” and added “C136-06”. Deleted “1996” and added 

“2006.” 

Rule 310, Section 504.2: Deleted “D2216-98” and added “D2216-05.” Deleted “1998” and added 

“2005.” 

Rule 310, Section 504.3: Deleted “D1557-91(1998)” and added “D1557-02e1”. Deleted “1998” and 

added “2002.” 

Rule 310, New Section 504.4: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), Section 504 listed and 

described test methods adopted by reference. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), added new 

Section 504.4, which lists and describes the test method to determine compliance with the property line 

standard - by conducting observations in accordance with EPA Reference Method 22. New Section 

504.4 reads: “EPA Reference Method 22 (“Visual Determination of Fugitive Emissions from Material 

Sources and Smoke Emissions from Flares”), 2000 edition.” Visible emissions cannot exceed 20% 

opacity and cannot extend beyond the property line within which the emissions are generated. Visible 

emissions will be determined to have extended beyond the property line when visible emissions extend 

beyond the property line for 30 seconds in duration in any six minute period (EPA Reference Method 

22). The “property line standard” matches the standard in Rule 316-Nonmetallic Mineral Processing, 

the standard in Clark County Section 94-Permitting and Dust Control for Construction Activities, and 

the standard in Pima County 17.16. Visible emissions are allowed to cross the property line if dustgenerating operations are being conducted within 25 feet of the property line. (Rule 310, Section 

303.2(d)) The MCAQD will not enforce on a single puff of dust. The MCAQD intends to issue a 

Notice To Correct (NTC) for first-time violations at sites that are applying dust controls and have 

obtained the appropriate permits, if permits are required. 

Rule 310.01-Fugitive Dust from Open Areas, Vacant Lots, Unpaved Parking Lots, and Unpaved 

Roadways: 

Rule 310.01, Rule Title: Changed “Fugitive Dust from Open Areas, Vacant Lots, Unpaved Parking 

Lots, and Unpaved Roadways” to “Fugitive Dust from Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive Dust.” 

28 
Rule 310.01, Section 101: Deleted “To limit the emission of particulate matter into the ambient air 

from open areas, vacant lots, unpaved parking lots, and unpaved roadways which are not regulated by 

Rule 310-Fugitive Dust of these rules, and which do not require a permit nor a Dust Control Plan. The 

effect of this rule shall be to fine particulate matter (PM10) entrained into the ambient air as a result of 

the impact of human activities by requiring measures to prevent, reduce, or mitigate particulate matter 

emissions” and added “To minimize the amount of fugitive dust entrained into the ambient air from 

non-traditional sources of fugitive dust by requiring measures to prevent, reduce, or mitigate fugitive 

dust emissions.” Clarified the purpose of Rule 310.01. Introduced/used the term “non-traditional 

sources of fugitive dust”, in order to identify the types of activities that Rule 310.01 regulates. Using 

the term “non-traditional sources of fugitive dust” indicates that Rule 310.01 regulates more than open 

areas, vacant lots, unpaved parking lots, and unpaved roadways. 

Rule 310.01, Section 102: Deleted “The provisions of this rule shall apply to open areas, vacant lots, 

unpaved parking lots, and unpaved roadways which are not regulated by Rule 310-Fugitive Dust of 

these rules and which do not require a permit nor a Dust Control Plan. In addition, the provisions of 

this rule shall apply to any open area or vacant lot that is not defined as agricultural land and is not 

used for agricultural purposes according to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 42-12151 and § 42-

12152. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to normal farm cultural practices according to A.R.S. 

§ 49-457 and A.R.S. § 49-504.4” and added “102.1 The provisions of this rule shall apply to nontraditional sources of fugitive dust that are conducted in Maricopa County, except for those dustgenerating operations listed in Section 103 of this rule. 102.2 The provisions of this rule shall apply to 

any open area or vacant lot that is not defined as agricultural land and is not used for agricultural 

purposes according to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 42-12151 and A.R.S. § 42-12152.” 

Clarified the applicability of Rule 310.01. Introduced/used the term “non-traditional sources of fugitive 

dust”, in order to identify the types of activities that Rule 310.01 regulates. Using the term “nontraditional sources of fugitive dust” indicates that Rule 310.01 regulates more than open areas, vacant 

lots, unpaved parking lots, and unpaved roadways. 

Rule 310.01, New Section 103: Changed format. Added Exemptions: 

103.1 The provisions of this rule shall not apply to normal farm cultural practices according to A.R.S. 

§ 49-457 and A.R.S. § 49-504.4. 

103.2 The provisions of this rule shall not apply to dust-generating operations that are subject to the 

standards and/or requirements described in Rule 310-Fugitive Dust from Dust-Generating Operations 

of these rules. 

103.3 The provisions of this rule shall not apply to emergency activities that may disturb the soil 

conducted by any utility or government agency in order to prevent public injury or to restore critical 

utilities to functional status.” 

29 
103.4 An area is considered to be a disturbed surface area until the activity that caused the disturbance 

has been completed and the disturbed surface area meets the standards described in this rule. To move 

this provision from re-numbered Section 207. 

103.5 Establishing initial landscapes without the use of mechanized equipment, conducting landscape 

maintenance without the use of mechanized equipment, and playing on or maintaining a field used for 

non-motorized sports shall not be considered a dust-generating operation. However, establishing initial 

landscapes without the use of mechanized equipment and conducting landscape maintenance without 

the use of mechanized equipment shall not include grading, or trenching, performed to establish initial 

landscapes or to redesign existing landscapes. This provision relates-to new Section 208. 

103.6 Fugitive dust does not include particulate matter emitted directly from the exhaust of motor 

vehicles and other internal combustion engines, from portable brazing, soldering, or welding 

equipment, and from piledrivers, and does not include emissions from process and combustion sources 

that are subject to other rules in Regulation III (Control of Air Contaminants) of these rules. To move 

this provision from re-numbered Section 213. 

Rule 310.01, New Section 201: Added “Animal Waste - Any animal excretions and mixtures 

containing animal excretions.” Definition matches definition used in San Joaquin’s Rule 4570-

Confined Animal Facilities. 

Rule 310.01, New Section 202: Added “Area A - As defined in A.R.S. § 49-541(1), the area in 

Maricopa County delineated as follows: Township 8 North, Range 2 East and Range 3 East; Township 

7 North, Range 2 West through Range 5 East; Township 6 North, Range 5 West through Range 6 East; 

Township 5 North, Range 5 West through Range 7 East; Township 4 North, Range 5 West through 

Range 8 East; Township 3 North, Range 5 West through Range 8 East; Township 2 North, Range 5 

West through Range 8 East; Township 1 North, Range 5 West through Range 7 East; Township 1 

South, Range 5 West through Range 7 East; Township 2 South, Range 5 West through Range 7 East; 

Township 3 South, Range 5 West through Range 1 East; Township 4 South, Range 5 West through 

Range 1 East.” 

Rule 310.01, New Section 203: Added “Area Accessible To The Public - Any parking lot or public 

roadway that can be entered or used for public travel primarily for purposes unrelated to the dustgenerating operation.” Definition matches definition in Rule 310. In the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to add the definition of area accessible to the public, which was 

proposed to read: “Any parking lot or public roadway that is accessible to public travel primarily for 

purposes unrelated to the dust-generating operation.” In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR) 

instead-of using the term “accessible” in the definition of area accessible to the public, deleted “is 

accessible to” and to added “can be entered or used for.” The definition of area accessible to the public 

30 
reads: “Any parking lot or public roadway that can be entered or used for public travel primarily for 

purposes unrelated to the dust-generating operation.” 

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 204: Changed format of definition of bulk material and listed only 

once materials that are listed twice (i.e., earth and soil). 

Rule 310.01, Section 206: Deleted “Feedlots and/or Livestock Areas - Any area on which an operation 

directly related to feeding animals, displaying animals, racing animals, exercising animals, and/or for 

any other such activity exists. Instead, used and defined the term “livestock activities.” 

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 207: Deleted “(or material placed thereupon) which” and added 

“or material placed on the earth’s surface that”. Deleted “thereby increasing the potential for the 

emission of fugitive dust” and added “if the potential for the emission of fugitive dust is increased by 

the movement, destabilization, or modification.” Moved “For the purpose of this rule, an area is 

considered to be a disturbed surface area until the activity that caused the disturbance has been 

completed and the disturbed surface area meets the standards described in Section 300 of this rule” to 

New Section 103.4. Matched definition of disturbed surface area to definition of disturbed surface area 

in Senate Bill 1552. Senate Bill 1552 reads, in part, as follows: A.R.S. § 49-474.01(A)(11) In a county 

with a population of two million or more persons or any portion of a county within an area designated 

by the Environmental Protection Agency as a serious PM10 nonattainment area or a maintenance area 

that was designated as a serious PM10 nonattainment area, no later than March 31, 2008, adopt rule 

provisions, and, no later than October 1, 2008, commence enforcement of those rule provisions 

regarding the stabilization of disturbed surfaces of vacant lots that include the following: “Disturbed 

surface” means a portion of the earth’s surface or material placed on the earth’s surface that has been 

physically moved, uncovered, destabilized, or otherwise modified from its undisturbed native 

condition if the potential for the emission of fugitive dust is increased by the movement, 

destabilization, or modification. Vacant lots do not include any site of disturbed surface area that is 

subject to a permit issued by the Control Officer that requires control of PM10 emissions from dustgenerating operations.” 

Rule 310.01, New Section 208: Added “Dust-Generating Operation - Any activity capable of 

generating fugitive dust, including but not limited to, the following activities: 208.1 Land clearing, 

maintenance, and land cleanup using mechanized equipment 208.2 Earthmoving 208.3 Weed 

abatement by discing or blading 208.4 Excavating 208.5 Construction 208.6 Demolition 208.7 Bulk 

material handling (e.g., bulk material hauling and/or transporting, bulk material stacking, loading, and 

unloading operations) 208.8 Storage and/or transporting operations (e.g., open storage piles, bulk 

material hauling and/or transporting, bulk material stacking, loading, and unloading operations) 208.9 

Operation of any outdoor equipment 208.10 Operation of motorized machinery 208.11 Establishing 

and/or using staging areas, parking areas, material storage areas, or access routes to and from a site 

31 
208.12 Establishing and/or using unpaved haul/access roads to, from, and within a site 208.13 

Disturbed surface areas associated with a site 208.14 Installing initial landscapes using mechanized 

equipment.” Definition matches definition in Rule 310. New Section 208 relates-to new Section 103.5. 

Rule 310.01, New Section 210: Added “Emergency - A situation arising from sudden and reasonably 

unforeseeable events beyond the control of the source, including acts of God, which situation requires 

immediate corrective action to restore normal operation, and that causes the source to exceed a 

technology-based emission limitation under the permit, due to unavoidable increases in emissions 

attributable to the emergency. An emergency shall not include any noncompliance due to improperly 

designed equipment, lack of preventative maintenance, careless or improper operation, or operator 

error.” In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), the phrase “technology-based emission 

limitation under the permit” was included in the proposed definition of emergency. In the Notice of 

Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted the phrase “technology-based emission limitation under the permit” 

and added the phrase “limitation in this rule.” New Section 210 - definition of emergency reads: “A 

situation arising from sudden and reasonably unforeseeable events beyond the control of the source, 

including acts of God, which situation requires immediate corrective action to restore normal 

operation, and that causes the source to exceed a limitation in this rule, due to unavoidable increases in 

emissions attributable to the emergency. An emergency shall not include any noncompliance due to 

improperly designed equipment, lack of preventative maintenance, careless or improper operation, or 

operator error.” 

Rule 310.01, New Section 211: Added “Emergency Activity - Repairs that are a result of an 

emergency which prevents or hinders the provision of electricity, the distribution/collection of water, 

and the availability of other utilities due to unforeseen circumstances that are beyond the routine 

maintenance and repair due to normal wear conducted by a utility or municipality.” 

Rule 310.01, New Section 212: Added “Feed Lane Access Areas - Roads providing access from the 

feed preparation areas to and including feed lane areas at a livestock activity. These access roads are 

typically used to distribute feed from feed trucks to the animals.” Definition matches definition used in 

South Coast’s Rule 1186-PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads and Livestock Operations. 

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 213: Moved “For the purpose of this rule, fugitive dust does not 

include particulate matter emitted directly from the exhaust of motor vehicles and other internal 

combustion engines, from portable brazing, soldering, or welding equipment, and from piledrivers, and 

does not include emissions from process and combustion sources that are subject to other rules in 

Regulation III (Control of Air Contaminants) of these rules” to New Section 103.6. 

Rule 310.01, New Section 214: Added “Gravel Pad – A layer of washed gravel, rock, or crushed rock 

that is at least one inch or larger in diameter, that is maintained at the point of intersection of a paved 

32 
area accessible to the public and a work site entrance to dislodge mud, dirt, and/or debris from the tires 

of motor vehicles and/or haul trucks, prior to leaving the work site. A gravel pad shall consist of one 

inch to 3 inches rough diameter, clean, well-graded gravel or crushed rock. Minimum dimensions must 

be 30 feet wide by 3 inches deep, and, at minimum, 50 feet long or the length of the longest haul truck, 

whichever is greater.” Definition matches definition used in Rule 310. 

Rule 310.01, New Section 215: Added “Grizzly - A device (i.e., rails, pipes, or grates) used to dislodge 

mud, dirt, and/or debris from the tires and undercarriage of motor vehicles and/or haul trucks prior to 

leaving the work site.” Definition matches definition used in Rule 310. 

Rule 310.01, New Section 216: Added “Livestock Activities - Any activity directly related to feeding 

animals, displaying animals, racing animals, exercising animals, and/or for any other such activity, 

including but not limited to, livestock arenas, horse arenas, and feed lots.” Definition matches 

definition used in South Coast’s Rule 1186-PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads and 

Livestock Operations. 

Rule 310.01, New Section 218: Added “Non-Traditional Source of Fugitive Dust - A source of fugitive 

dust that is located at a source that does not require any permit under these rules. The following nontraditional sources of fugitive dust are subject to the standards and/or requirements described in Rule 

310.01-Fugitive Dust from Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive Dust of these rules: 218.1 Vehicle use 

in open areas and vacant lots; 218.2 Open areas and vacant lots; 218.3 Unpaved parking lots; 218.4 

Unpaved roadways (including alleys); 218.5 Livestock activities; 218.6 Erosion-caused deposition of 

bulk materials onto paved surfaces; 218.7 Easements, rights-of-way, and access roads for utilities 

(electricity, natural gas, oil, water, and gas transmission).” Introduced/used the term “non-traditional 

sources of fugitive dust”, in order to identify the types of activities that Rule 310.01 regulates. Using 

the term “non-traditional sources of fugitive dust” indicates that Rule 310.01 regulates more than open 

areas, vacant lots, unpaved parking lots, and unpaved roadways. 

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 221: Deleted “Section 211.1” and added “Section 221.1.” Deleted 

“Section 211.4” and added “Section 221.3.” Deleted “adjoining a developed or partially developed 

residential, industrial, institutional, governmental, or commercial area.” Deleted “A tract of land, in the 

PM10 nonattainment area, adjoining agricultural property.” 

Rule 310.01, New Section 225: Added “Property Line - The boundaries of an area in which either a 

person causing the emission or a person allowing the emission has the legal use or possession of the 

property. Where such property is divided into one or more sub-tenancies, the property line(s) shall 

refer to the boundaries dividing the areas of all sub-tenancies.” Definition matches definition used in 

South Coast’s Rule 403-Fugitive Dust. 

33 
Rule 310.01, New Section 227: Added “Trackout/Carryout – Any and all bulk materials that adhere to 

and agglomerate on the surfaces of motor vehicles, haul trucks, and/or equipment (including tires) and 

that have fallen or been deposited onto a paved area accessible to the public.” Definition matches 

definition used in Rule 310. 

Rule 310.01, New Section 228: Added “Trackout Control Device - A gravel pad, grizzly, wheel wash 

system, or a paved area, located at the point of intersection of an unpaved area and a paved area 

accessible to the public that controls or prevents vehicular trackout.” Definition matches definition 

used in Rule 310. 

Rule 310.01, New Section 229: Added Unpaved Access Connections - Any unpaved road connection 

with a paved pubic road.” Definition matches definition used in South Coast’s Rule 1186-PM10

Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads and Livestock Operations. 

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 230: Deleted “larger than 5,000 square feet” and added “material 

handling”, “and equipment”, and “An unpaved parking lot includes, but is not limited to, automobile 

impound yards, wrecking yards, automobile dismantling yards, salvage yards, material handling yards, 

and storage yards. For the purpose of this definition, maneuvering shall not include military maneuvers 

or exercises conducted on federal facilities.” Changed definition of “unpaved parking lot” to match 

Clark County’s definition of “unpaved parking lot” in Section 92-Fugitive Dust from Unpaved Parking 

Lots; Material Handling and Storage Yards; and Vehicle and Equipment Storage Yards. 

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 231: Added “An unpaved roadway (including alleys) includes 

designated or opened trail systems and service roads regardless of surface composition and any other 

property dedicated or otherwise reserved for public or private street uses, as evidence by a recorded 

document, or having thereon a public easement for such use.” Added to the definition of unpaved 

roadway (including alleys) “any other property dedicated or otherwise reserved for public or private 

street uses, as evidenced by a recorded document, or having thereon a public easement for such use”. 

When developing new ordinance P-28-Off-Road Vehicle Use In Unincorporated Areas of Maricopa 

County, one of the main categories in which public comment and discussion were focused included the 

definition of road or highway. Stakeholders expressed the following concerns: clarify where 

designated and open trails fall, address service roads, and address private roads. In response to those 

concerns, the MCAQD reviewed state statutes, the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Maricopa 

County Zoning Ordinance and consulted with a group of public and trust Land Managers and 

developed the following language to supplement the definition of road or highway that the MCAQD 

initially proposed: “For the purposes of this definition the term “road or highway” also includes 

designated or opened trail systems, service roads regardless of surface composition, and any other 

property dedicated or otherwise reserved for public or private street uses, as evidenced by a recorded 

document, or having thereon a public easement for such use.” To maintain consistency among rules 

34 
and ordinances in the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations, the definition of unpaved 

roadway (including alleys) in Rule 310.01 now reads: “A road that is not paved and that is owned by 

Federal, State, county, municipal, or other governmental or quasi-governmental agencies. An unpaved 

roadway (including alleys) includes designated or opened trail systems and service roads regardless of 

surface composition and any other property dedicated or otherwise reserved for public or private street 

uses, as evidenced by a recorded document, or having thereon a public easement for such use.” 

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 232: Deleted “Section 211” and added “Section 220.” 

Rule 310.01, New Section 301: Added “General Requirements for Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive 

Dust: 

301.1 An owner and/or operator of a non-traditional source of fugitive dust shall be subject to the 

standards and/or requirements described in this rule. Failure to comply with any such standards and/or 

requirements is deemed a violation of this rule. 

301.2 When an owner and/or operator of a non-traditional source of fugitive dust fails to stabilize 

disturbed surfaces of vacant lots as required in Section 302.4 and Section 302.5 of this rule, the Control 

Officer shall commence enforcement of those rule provisions regarding the stabilization of disturbed 

surfaces of vacant lots that include the following: 

a. Reasonable written notice to the owner or the owner’s authorized agent or the owner’s statutory 

agent that the unpaved disturbed surface of a vacant lot is required to be stabilized. The notice shall be 

given not less than 30 days before the day set for compliance and shall include a legal description of 

the property and the estimated cost to the county for the stabilization if the owner does not comply. 

The notice shall be either personally served or mailed by certified mail to the owner’s statutory agent, 

to the owner at the owner’s last known address or to the address to which the tax bill for the property 

was last mailed. 

b. Authority to enter upon any said land/property where such non-traditional source of fugitive dust 

exists/where such disturbed surface area exists and to take remedial and/or corrective action as may be 

deemed appropriate to cope with and relieve, reduce, remedy, and/or stabilize such non-traditional 

source of fugitive dust/such disturbed surface area. Any cost incurred in connection with any such 

remedial or corrective action by the Maricopa County Air Quality Department or any person acting for 

the Maricopa County Air Quality Department shall be reimbursed by the owner and/or operator of 

such non-traditional source of fugitive dust.” 

Clarified the standards to which an owner and/or operator is subject. The new General Requirements 

section has been added to identify all of the applicable provisions of Rule 310 with which an 

owner/operator must comply. The MCAQD does not intend to reference Rule 310, Section 301 when 

issuing a Notice To Correct (NTC) or when issuing a Notice of Violation (NOV). Matched Clark 

County’s Section 94-Permitting and Dust Control for Construction Activities and Senate Bill 1552. 

Senate Bill 1552 reads, in part, as follows: A.R.S. § 49-474.01(A)(11) In a county with a population of 

35 
two million or more persons or any portion of a county within an area designated by the Environmental 

Protection Agency as a serious PM10 nonattainment area or a maintenance area that was designated as 

a serious PM10 nonattainment area, no later than March 31, 2008, adopt rule provisions, and, no later 

than October 1, 2008, commence enforcement of those rule provisions regarding the stabilization of 

disturbed surfaces of vacant lots that include the following: “Disturbed surface” means a portion of the 

earth’s surface or material placed on the earth’s surface that has been physically moved, uncovered, 

destabilized, or otherwise modified from its undisturbed native condition if the potential for the 

emission of fugitive dust is increased by the movement, destabilization, or modification. Vacant lots do 

not include any site of disturbed surface area that is subject to a permit issued by the Control Officer 

that requires control of PM10 emissions from dust-generating operations. (a) Reasonable written notice 

to the owner or the owner’s authorized agent or the owner’s statutory agent that the unpaved disturbed 

surface of a vacant lot is required to be stabilized. The notice shall be given not less than 30 days 

before the day set for compliance and shall include a legal description of the property and the 

estimated cost to the county for the stabilization if the owner does not comply. The notice shall be 

either personally served or mailed by certified mail to the owner’s statutory agent, to the owner at the 

owner’s last known address or to the address to which the tax bill for the property was last mailed. (b) 

Authority for the county to enter the lot to stabilize the disturbed surface at the expense of the owner if 

the vacant lot has not been stabilized by the day set for compliance. (c) Methods for stabilization of the 

disturbed surface of the vacant lot, the actual cost of stabilization, and the fine that may be imposed for 

a violation of this section.” 

Rule 310.01, New Section 302: Added “Control Measures for Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive 

Dust.” Clarified the standards for control measures to which an owner and/or operator is subject. 

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.1: Added “When engaged in the activities described in Section 302.4 

through Section 302.10 of this rule, the owner and/or operator of a non-traditional source of fugitive 

dust shall implement control measures as described in Section 302.4 through Section 302.10 of this 

rule, as applicable.” 

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.2: Added “Control measures shall be implemented to achieve the 

visible emissions requirements, as required for each activity and the compliance determination in 

Section 501 of this rule.” 

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.3: Added “Failure to implement control measures as required by this 

rule, as applicable, and/or failure to maintain stabilization of a non-traditional source of fugitive dust 

with adequate surface crusting to prevent wind erosion as measured by the requirements in this rule 

shall be deemed a violation of this rule.” 

36 
Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.4: Changed format. Added visible emissions requirements. 

Changed “If open areas and vacant lots are 0.10 acre or larger and have a cumulative of 500 square feet 

or more that are driven over and/or used by motor vehicles and/or off-road vehicles, then the owner 

and/or operator of such open areas and vacant lots shall implement one of the control measures 

described in Section 301.1 of this rule within 60 calendar days following the initial discovery of 

vehicle use on open areas and vacant lots” to “If open areas and vacant lots are 0.10 acre (4,356 square 

feet) or larger and have a cumulative of 500 square feet or more that are disturbed by being driven over 

and/or used by motor vehicles, by off-road vehicles, or for material dumping, then the owner and/or 

operator shall implement one or more of the control measures described in Section 302.4(b) of this rule 

within 60 calendar days following the initial discovery by the Control Officer of disturbance or vehicle 

use on open areas and vacant lots.” Added posting provisions as a control measure for preventing 

motor vehicle and/or off-road vehicle trespassing, parking, and/or access: “Prevent motor vehicle 

and/or off-road vehicle trespassing, parking, and/or access by posting that consists of one of the 

following: (a) A sign written in compliance with ordinance(s) of local, County, State, or Federal sign 

standards. (b) An order of a government land management agency. (c) Most current maps approved by 

a government land management agency. (d) Virtual posting a government land management agency.” 

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.5: Changed format. Added visible emissions requirements. 

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.5(c)(1): Changed “If open areas and vacant lots have 0.5 acre 

or more of disturbed surface area and remain unoccupied, unused, vacant, or undeveloped for more 

than 15 days, then the owner and/or operator of such open areas and vacant lots shall implement one of 

the control measures described in Section 302.1 of this rule within 60 calendar days following the 

initial discovery of the disturbance on the open areas and vacant lots” to “If open areas and vacant lots 

are 0.10 acre (4,356 square feet) or larger and have a cumulative of 500 square feet or more that are 

disturbed and if such disturbed area remains unoccupied, unused, vacant, or undeveloped for more than 

15 days, then the owner and/or operator shall implement one or more of the control measures described 

in Section 302.5(b) of this rule within 60 calendar days following the initial discovery by the Control 

Officer of the disturbance on the open areas and vacant lots.” Revised the specifications (i.e., acreage 

and square footage dimensions) for when an area would have-to comply with Section 302.5-Open 

Areas and Vacant Lots to match the specifications (i.e., acreage and square footage dimensions) for 

when an area would have-to comply with Section 302.4-Vehicle Use In Open Areas and Vacant Lots, 

since both sections address open areas and vacant lots. 

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.6: Changed format. Added visible emissions requirements. 

Added trackout control device requirement and water as control measures. Added control measures for 

cleaning-up trackout. 

37 
Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.6(c)(1): Changed “The owner and/or operator of an unpaved 

parking lot shall implement one of the control measures described in Section 303.1 of this rule on any 

surface area(s) of the lot on which vehicles enter, park, and exit. For unpaved parking lots that are 

utilized intermittently, for a period of 35 days or less during the calendar year, the owner and/or 

operator shall implement one of the control measures described in Section 303.1 of this rule, during the 

period that the unpaved parking lots are utilized for vehicle parking” to “The owner and/or operator of 

an unpaved parking lot shall implement one of the control measures described in Section 302.6(b) of 

this rule [(i.e., pave; apply dust suppressants other than water and install, maintain, and use a suitable 

trackout control device that controls and prevents trackout and/or removes particulate matter from tires 

and the exterior surfaces of motor vehicles that traverse the site; uniformly apply and maintain surface 

gravel; or apply water and install, maintain, and use a suitable trackout control device that controls and 

prevents trackout and/or removes particulate matter from tires and the exterior surfaces of motor 

vehicles that traverse the site.)] on any surface area(s) of the lot on which vehicles enter, park, and exit. 

(a) If an unpaved parking lot is utilized for a period of 35 days or less during the calendar year, the 

owner and/or operator shall implement one or more of the control measures described in Section 

302.6(b) of this rule [(i.e., pave; apply dust suppressants other than water and install, maintain, and use 

a suitable trackout control device that controls and prevents trackout and/or removes particulate matter 

from tires and the exterior surfaces of motor vehicles that traverse the site; uniformly apply and 

maintain surface gravel; or apply water and install, maintain, and use a suitable trackout control device 

that controls and prevents trackout and/or removes particulate matter from tires and the exterior 

surfaces of motor vehicles that traverse the site)] during the period that the unpaved parking lot is 

utilized for vehicle parking and shall restrict vehicle access to only those areas upon which a control 

measure has been implemented. (b) If an unpaved parking lot is utilized for more than 35 days during 

the calendar year, the owner and/or operator shall implement one or more of the control measures 

described in Section 302.6(b)(1) through Section 302.6(b)(3) of this rule [(i.e., pave; apply dust 

suppressants other than water and install, maintain, and use a suitable trackout control device that 

controls and prevents trackout and/or removes particulate matter from tires and the exterior surfaces of 

motor vehicles that traverse the site; or uniformly apply and maintain surface gravel)] during the 

period that the unpaved parking lot is utilized for vehicle parking and shall restrict vehicle access to 

only those areas upon which a control measure has been implemented.” 

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.6(c)(2): Added “Control measure(s) shall be considered 

effectively implemented when the unpaved parking lot achieves the compliance determinations 

described in Section 302.6(a) of this rule.” 

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.6(c)(3): Added “If trackout occurs, the owner and/or operator 

shall repair and/or replace the control measure(s) and shall clean-up immediately such trackout from 

38 
paved areas accessible to the public including curbs, gutters, and sidewalks when trackout extends a 

cumulative distance of 25 linear feet or more and at the end of the day for all other trackout.” 

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.6(c)(4): Added “Parking, maneuvering, ingress, and egress 

areas at developments other than residential buildings with four or fewer units shall be maintained with 

one or more of the following dustproof paving methods: (a) Asphaltic concrete. (b) Cement concrete. 

(c) Penetration treatment of bituminous material and seal coat of bituminous binder and a mineral 

aggregate. (d) A stabilization method approved in writing by the Control Officer and the 

Administrator.” Matched Senate Bill 1552. Senate Bill 1552 reads, in part, as follows: A.R.S. § 49-

474.01(A)(5) In a county with a population of two million or more persons or any portion of a county 

in an area designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as a serious PM10 nonattainment area or 

a maintenance area that was designated as a serious PM10 nonattainment area, no later than March 31, 

2008, adopt or amend codes or ordinances and, no later than October 1, 2008, commence enforcement 

of those codes or ordinances as necessary to require that parking, maneuvering, ingress, and egress 

areas at developments other than residential buildings with four or fewer units are maintained with one 

or more of the following dustproof paving methods: (a) Asphaltic concrete. (b) Cement concrete. (c) 

Penetration treatment of bituminous material and seal coat of bituminous binder and a mineral 

aggregate. (d) A stabilization method approved by the county. 

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.6(c)(5): Added “Parking, maneuvering, ingress, and egress 

areas 3,000 square feet or more in size at residential buildings with four or fewer units shall be 

maintained with a paving or stabilization method authorized by the county by code, ordinance, or 

permit.” Matched Senate Bill 1552. Senate Bill 1552 reads, in part, as follows: A.R.S. § 49-

474.01(A)(6) In a county with a population of two million or more persons or any portion of a county 

in an area designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as a serious PM10 nonattainment area or 

a maintenance area that was designated as a serious PM10 nonattainment area, no later than March 31, 

2008, adopt or amend codes or ordinances and, no later than October 1, 2009, commence enforcement 

of those codes or ordinances as necessary to require that parking, maneuvering, ingress, and egress 

areas 3,000 square feet or more in size at residential buildings with four or fewer units are maintained 

with a paving or stabilization method authorized by the county by code, ordinance, or permit. 

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.7: Changed format. Added requirement to conduct vehicle 

counts/traffic counts. 

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.7(a): Deleted “a non-traditional source of fugitive dust that involves” 

from new Section 302.7(a). New Section 302.7(a) reads: “The owner and/or operator of unpaved 

roadways (including alleys) shall not cause or allow visible fugitive dust emissions to exceed 20% 

opacity and either Section 302.7(a)(1) or Section 302.7(a)(2) of this rule.” 

39 
Rule 310.01, New Section 302.7(c)(1): Added “If a person allows 150 vehicle trips or more per day on 

an unpaved roadway (including an alley) in the PM10 nonattainment area, then such person shall first 

implement one of the control measures described in Section 302.7(b) of this rule.” 

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.7(c)(2): Added “A person, who allows 150 vehicle trips or more per 

day on an unpaved roadway (including an alley) in the PM10 nonattainment area, shall be responsible 

for conducting vehicle counts/traffic counts to determine if 150 vehicle trips or more per day occur on 

an unpaved roadway (including an alley). Two separate 24-hour traffic counts shall be conducted. The 

average vehicle counts/traffic counts on the highest trafficked days shall be recorded and provided to 

the Control Officer in writing within 60 days of verbal or written request by the Control Officer.” 

Deleted “two separate 24-hour traffic counts shall be conducted” and to add “A traffic count shall 

measure vehicular traffic over a 48-hour period, which may consist of two non-consecutive 24-hour 

periods. Vehicular traffic shall be measured continuously during each 24-hour period.” New Section 

302.7(c)(2) reads: “A person, who allows 150 vehicle trips or more per day to use an unpaved roadway 

(including an alley) in the PM10 nonattainment area, shall be responsible for conducting vehicle 

counts/traffic counts to determine if 150 vehicle trips or more per day occur on an unpaved roadway 

(including an alley). A traffic count shall measure vehicular traffic over a 48-hour period, which may 

consist of two non-consecutive 24-hour periods. Vehicular traffic shall be measured continuously 

during each 24-hour period. The average vehicle counts/traffic counts on the highest trafficked days 

shall be recorded and provided to the Control Officer in writing within 60 days of verbal or written 

request by the Control Officer.” 

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.7(c)(3)(a): Changed “Section 302.8(a)” to “Section 302.7(a).” 

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.7(c)(3)(b): Added “Control measure(s) shall be considered effectively 

implemented under the following conditions: (b) When one of the control measures described in 

Section 302.7(b) of this rule is implemented on 5 miles of unpaved roadways (including alleys) having 

vehicle traffic of 150 vehicle trips or more per day within one calendar year beginning in calendar year 

of 2008. If the control measure described in Section 302.7(b)(2) of this rule is implemented, the 

unpaved roadways (including alleys) must be maintained so as to comply with Appendix C of these 

rules.” 

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.8: Changed format. Added visible emissions requirements. 

Added control measures for cleaning-up trackout. Changed “feedlots and/or livestock areas” to 

“livestock activities.” 

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.8(b): Added “Control Measures: (1) For unpaved access connections: 

(a) Apply and maintain dust suppressants other than water; or (b) Apply and maintain pavement, gravel 

(maintained to a depth of four inches), or asphaltic roadbase. (2) For unpaved feed lane access areas: 

40 
(a) Apply and maintain dust suppressants other than water; or (b) Apply and maintain pavement, gravel 

(maintained to a depth of four inches), or asphaltic roadbase. (3) For bulk material hauling, including 

animal waste, off-site and crossing and/or accessing a paved area accessible to the public: (a) Load all 

vehicles used to haul bulk material, including animal waste, such that the freeboard is not less than 

three inches; (b) Prevent spillage or loss of bulk material, including animal waste, from holes or other 

openings in the cargo compartment’s floor, sides, and/or tailgate(s); (c) Cover cargo compartment with 

a tarp or other suitable closure; and (d) Install, maintain, and use a suitable trackout control device that 

controls and prevents trackout and/or removes particulate matter from tires and the exterior surfaces of 

motor vehicles that traverse the site. (4) For corrals, pens, and arenas: (a) Apply water; (b) Install 

shrubs and/or trees within 50 feet to 100 feet of corrals, pens, and arenas; (c) Scrape and/or remove 

manure; (d) Apply a fibrous layer (i.e., wood chips) in working areas; or (e) Apply and maintain an 

alternative control measure approved in writing by the Control Officer and the Administrator.” In Rule 

310.01, New Section 302.8(b)(4), added three control measures for corrals, pens, and arenas. Three 

control measures are similar to control measures included in “Handbook for Conservation 

Management Practices for San Joaquin Valley-Minimizing Agricultural PM10 from Animal Feeding 

Operations (AFOs)-Dairies and Feedlots” dated May 2004. 

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.8(c)(2): Added “Control measure(s) shall be considered effectively 

implemented when the livestock activities achieve the compliance determinations described in Section 

302.8(a) of this rule.” 

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.8(c)(3): Added “If trackout occurs, the owner and/or operator shall 

repair and/or replace the control measure(s) and shall clean-up immediately such trackout from paved 

areas accessible to the public including curbs, gutters, and sidewalks when trackout extends a 

cumulative distance of 25 linear feet or more and at the end of the day for all other trackout.” 

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.9: Changed format. 

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.9(b): Deleted “Opacity Limitation: For the purpose of this 

rule, control measures shall be considered effectively implemented when opacity observations for 

fugitive dust emissions from erosion-caused deposition of bulk materials onto paved surfaces do not 

exceed 20% opacity, as described in Appendix C, Section 2.1 (Test Methods for Stabilization-for 

Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots) of these rules” and added “Additional Requirements: (1) 

In the event that erosion-caused deposition of bulk materials or other materials occurs on any adjacent 

paved roadway, paved parking lot, curb, gutter, or sidewalk, the owner and/or operator of the property 

from which the deposition eroded shall implement both of the control measures described in Section 

302.9(a) of this rule. (2) Failure to comply with both of the control measures described in Section 

302.9(a) of this rule shall constitute a violation of this rule.” 

41 
Rule 310.01, New Section 302.10: Changed format. Added requirement to conduct vehicle 

counts/traffic counts. Added control measure “install locked gates at each entry point”. Changed 

heading “Easements, Rights-of-Way, and Access Roads for Utilities (Electricity, Natural Gas, Oil, 

Water, and Gas Transmission)” to “Easements, Rights-of-Way, and Access Roads for Utilities 

(Transmission of Electricity, Natural Gas, Oil, Water, and Gas).” In the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, proposed to change “If an owner and/or operator allows 150 vehicles or more per day to 

use an easement, right-of-way, and access road for utilities (electricity, natural gas, oil, water, and gas 

transmission) in the PM10 nonattainment area, then such owner and/or operator shall first implement 

one of the control measures described in Section 307.1 of this rule” to “The owner and/or operator of a 

non-traditional source of fugitive dust that involves easements, rights-of-way, and access roads for 

utilities (transmission of electricity, natural gas, oil, water, and gas) that are used by 130 vehicle trips 

or more per day in Area A shall be subject to the stabilization requirements described in Section 

302.10(a) of this rule and unless otherwise specified and/or required, comply with one of the control 

measures described in Section 302.10(b) of this rule and the additional requirements described in 

Section 302.10(c) of this rule.” In this Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), changed “130 vehicle trips 

or more per day in Area A” to “150 vehicle trips or more per day in the PM10 nonattainment area.” 

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.10(b)(2): Changed “Apply dust suppressants, in compliance 

with the stabilization and opacity limitations described in Section 307.2 of this rule” to “Control 

Measures: (2) Apply dust suppressants other than water.” 

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.10(b)(4): Added “Control Measures: (4) Install locked gates at each 

entry point.” 

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.10(c): Changed “For the purpose of this rule, control measures 

shall be considered effectively implemented when stabilization and opacity observations for fugitive 

dust emissions from easements, rights-of-way, and access roads for utilities (electricity, natural gas, 

oil, water, and gas transmission) do not exceed 20% opacity and meet one of the following, as 

determined by Appendix C, Section 2.1 (Test Methods for Stabilization-for Unpaved Roads and 

Unpaved Parking Lots) of these rules: a. Silt loading is not equal to or greater than 0.33 oz/ft2

; or b. 

Silt content does not exceed 6%” to “Additional Requirements: (1) If an owner and/or operator allows 

150 vehicle trips or more per day to use an easement, right-of-way, and access road for utilities 

(transmission of electricity, natural gas, oil, water, and gas) in the PM10 nonattainment area, then such 

owner and/or operator shall first implement one of the control measures described in Section 302.10(b) 

of this rule. (2) A person, who allows 150 vehicle trips or more per day to use an easement, right-ofway, and access road for utilities (transmission of electricity, natural gas, oil, water, and gas) in the 

PM10 nonattainment area, shall be responsible for conducting vehicle counts/traffic counts to determine 

if 150 vehicle trips or more per day occur on an easement, right-of-way, and access road for utilities 

42 
(transmission of electricity, natural gas, oil, water, and gas). Such person shall provide to the Control 

Officer written results of such vehicle counts/traffic counts within 60 days of verbal or written request 

by the Control Officer. (3) Control measure(s) shall be considered effectively implemented when the 

easement, right-of-way, and access road for utilities (transmission of electricity, natural gas, oil, water, 

and gas) achieves the compliance determinations described in Section 302.10(a) of this rule.” 

Rule 310.01, Section 501: Added opacity observations. Changed title of test method referenced in 

Appendix C, Section 2.3 to “Test Methods for Stabilization-Soil Crust Determination -The Drop Ball 

Test. Matched Clark County’s Section 94-Permitting and Dust Control for Construction Activities. 

Deleted “Stabilization Observations” and added “Compliance Determination: To determine 

compliance with this rule, the following test methods shall be followed.” 

Rule 310.01, New Section 501.1: Added “Opacity Observations: a. Opacity observations to measure 

visible emissions shall be conducted in accordance with the techniques specified in EPA Reference 

Method 203B (Visual Determination of Opacity of Emissions from Stationary Sources for TimeException Regulations). Emissions shall not exceed the applicable opacity standards of this rule for a 

period aggregating more than three minutes in any 60-minute period. b. Opacity observations to 

determine compliance with Sections 302.6, 302.7, 302.8(a)(1), 302.8(a)(2), and 302.10 of this rule 

shall be conducted in accordance with the techniques specified in Appendix C (Fugitive Dust Test 

Methods) of these rules.” 

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 501.3(a): Deleted “visible” and added “soil.” Deleted “/Steel 

Ball.” 

Rule 310.01, Section 502: Deleted “within” and added “as soon as possible but no later than.” 

Rule 310.01, Section 503: Deleted “one year” and added “two years.” 

Appendix C-Fugitive Dust Test Methods: 

Appendix C, Section 2.2: Deleted “and include or eliminate it from the total size assessment of 

disturbed surface area(s) depending upon test method results.” 

Appendix C, Section 2.3: Changed heading “Visible Crust Determination” to “Soil Crust 

Determination (The Drop Ball Test).” 

Appendix C, Section 2.3.1: Deleted “where a visible crust exists, drop” and added “drop”. Added 

“(0.56-0.60 ounce).” Deleted “30 centimeters (one foot)” and added “one-foot.” Deleted “visible crust 

test method” and added “Drop Ball Test.” Added “or project site”. Deleted “which” and added “that.” 

Deleted “vacant lot.” Added “Determination of Threshold Friction Velocity (TFV).” 

43 
Appendix C, Section 2.3.3: Added “Randomly select each representative disturbed surface for the 

Drop Ball Test by using a blind “over the shoulder” toss of a throwable object (e.g., a metal weight 

with survey tape attached). Using the point of fall as the lower left-hand corner, measure a one-foot 

square area.” Deleted “a survey area that measures 1 foot by 1 foot and that represents a random 

portion of the overall disturbed conditions of the site” and added “the one-foot by one-foot square 

survey area, using a consistent pattern across the survey area.” Deleted “Visible Crust Determination” 

and added “Drop Ball Test.” 

Appendix C, Section 2.3.4: Deleted “visible crust test” and added “Drop Ball Test.” Deleted “random.” 

Added “using the random selection method set forth in subsection 2.3.3 of this appendix.” 

Appendix C, Section 3: Changed heading “Time Average Methods of Visual Opacity Determination of 

Emissions from Dust-Generating Operations” to “Visual Opacity Determination of Emissions from 

Dust-Generating Operations.” 

Appendix C, Section 3.1: Deleted “A time average regulation is any regulation that requires averaging 

visible emission data to determine the opacity of visible emissions over a specific time period.” 

Appendix C, Section 3.3.1: Deleted “Procedures for Emissions from Stationary Sources. These 

procedures are not applicable to this section.” 

Appendix C, Re-Numbered Section 3.3.1(f): Deleted “with the opacity standard described in Rule 310 

of these rules.” 

Appendix C, Re-Numbered Section 3.3.2(g)”: Deleted “with the opacity standard described in Rule 

310 of these rules.” 

Appendix C, Section 4: Added heading “Visual Opacity Determination of Emissions from Livestock 

Activities-Corrals, Pens, and Arenas.” 

Appendix C, Section 4.1: Added “Applicability. This method is applicable for the determination of 

opacity of fugitive dust plumes from livestock activities-corrals, pens, and arenas.” 

Appendix C, Section 4.2: Added “Principle. The opacity of emissions from livestock activities-corrals, 

pens, and arenas is determined visually by an observer qualified according to Section 3.4 of this 

appendix.” 

Appendix C, Section 4.3: Added “Procedures. An observer qualified, in accordance with Section 3.4 of 

this appendix, shall use the following procedures for visually determining the opacity of emissions:” 

44 
Appendix C, Section 4.3.1: Added “Position. Stand at a position at least 5 meters from the livestock 

activities-corrals, pens, and arenas in order to provide a clear view of the emissions with the sun 

oriented in the 140° sector to the back. Consistent as much as possible with maintaining the above 

requirements, make opacity observations from a position such that the line of sight is approximately 

perpendicular to the plume and wind direction. As much as possible, if multiple plumes are involved, 

do not include more than one plume in the line of sight at one time.” 

Appendix C, Section 4.3.2: Added “Field Records. Record the name of the site, method of control 

used, if any, observer's name, certification data and affiliation, and a sketch of the observer's position 

relative to the livestock activity-corrals, pens, and arenas. Also, record the time, estimated distance to 

the livestock activity-corrals, pens, and arenas location, approximate wind direction, estimated wind 

speed, description of the sky condition (presence and color of clouds), observer's position relative to 

the livestock activity-corrals, pens, and arenas, and color of the plume and type of background on the 

visible emission observation from when opacity readings are initiated and completed.” 

Appendix C, Section 4.3.3: Added “Observations. Make opacity observations, to the extent possible, 

using a contrasting background. For storage piles, make opacity observations approximately 1 meter 

above the surface from which the plume is generated. The initial observation should begin immediately 

after a plume has been created above the surface involved. Do not look continuously at the plume, but 

instead observe the plume momentarily at 15-second intervals.” 

Appendix C, Section 4.3.4: Added “Recording Observations. Record the opacity observations to the 

nearest 5% every 15 seconds on an observational record sheet. If a multiple plume exists at the time of 

an observation, do not record an opacity reading. Mark an “x” for that reading. If the livestock activitycorrals, pens, and arenas ceases operating, mark an “x” for the 15-second interval reading. Readings 

identified as “x” shall be considered interrupted readings.” 

Appendix C, Section 4.3.5: Added “Data Reduction. Within any 60-minute period, count at least three 

minutes that are greater than 20% opacity. If at least 13 readings are greater than 20% opacity, the 

livestock activity-corrals, pens, and arenas is not in compliance. Readings immediately preceding and 

following interrupted readings shall be deemed consecutive and in no case shall two sets overlap, 

resulting in multiple violations.” 

7. Demonstration of compliance with A.R.S. § 49-112:

Under A.R.S. § 49-479(C), a county may not adopt a rule or ordinance that is more stringent than the 

rules adopted by the Director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) for similar 

sources unless it demonstrates compliance with the requirements of A.R.S. § 49-112. 

A.R.S. § 49-112 (A) 

45 
When authorized by law, a county may adopt a rule, ordinance, or other regulation that is more 

stringent than or in addition to a provision of this title or rule adopted by the director or any board or 

commission authorized to adopt rules pursuant to this title if all the following conditions are met: 

1. The rule, ordinance or other regulation is necessary to address a peculiar local condition; 

2. There is credible evidence that the rule, ordinance or other regulation is either: 

(a) Necessary to prevent a significant threat to public health or the environment that results from 

a peculiar local condition and is technically and economically feasible 

(b) Required under a federal statute or regulation, or authorized pursuant to an intergovernmental 

agreement with the federal government to enforce federal statutes or regulations if the county 

rule, ordinance or other regulation is equivalent to federal statutes or regulations. 

The MCAQD revised Rules 200, 310, 310.01 and Appendix C in order to address a peculiar local 

condition: EPA’s finding that the Phoenix Nonattainment Area did not attain the 24-hour PM10

standard by the deadline mandated in the Clean Air Act (CAA), December 31, 2006. (72 FR 31183, 

June 6, 2007). The Phoenix Nonattainment Area is the only nonattainment area designated serious for 

PM10 in Arizona. Consequently stronger regulations must be adopted in this area to address a serious 

health threat. Under Section 189(d) of the CAA, serious PM10 nonattainment areas that fail to attain are 

required to submit within 12 months of the applicable attainment date, “plan revisions which provide 

for attainment of the PM10 air quality standard and, from the date of such submission until attainment, 

for an annual reduction in PM10 or PM10 precursor emissions within the area of not less than 5 percent 

of the amount of such emissions as reported in the most recent inventory prepared for such area.” In 

accordance with the CAA section 179(d)(3) and 189(d)(3), the attainment deadline applicable to an 

area that misses the serious area attainment date is as soon as practicable. The region submitted a Five 

Percent Plan for PM10 by December 31, 2007. The Phoenix Nonattainment Area is one of three areas in 

the entire country for which EPA has issued a finding that Section 189(d) has been triggered. As 

described in Sections 6 and 10 of this Notice of Final Rulemaking, Maricopa County and the EPA have 

concluded that the revisions implement control measures that are technologically and economically 

feasible based on creditable evidence of implementation in other western and desert environments. 

Because of this, the revisions comply with A.R.S. § 49-112 (A)(1) and A.R.S. § 49-112 (A) (2). 

In addition, several of the revisions are required to by A.R.S. § 49-474.01(A)(5, 6 and 11), 49-474.05 

and 49-474.06 recently enacted in Senate Bill 1552. Therefore, a demonstration of compliance with 

A.R.S. § 49-112 as required by the County’s general grant of rulemaking and ordinance authority in 

A.R.S. § 49-479 does not apply to those rule provisions. 

8. A reference to any study relevant to the rule that the agency reviewed and either proposes to rely 

on in its evaluation of or justification for the rule, where the public may obtain or review each 

46 
study, all data underlying each study, and any analysis of each study and other supporting 

material:

ADEQ, 2004. “Summary of economic, small business, and consumer impact”. Contained in: Notice of 

Final Rulemaking, Maricopa County Rule 325: Brick and Structural Clay Products (BSCP) 

Manufacturing. Arizona Administrative Register, Vol. 11, Issue 37, Sep. 9, 2005. 

ADHS, 2002. Arizona Department of Health Services, Asthma Control Program, Office of Nutrition 

and Chronic Disease Prevention Services, Phoenix, AZ: Oct. 2002. 

American Lung Association, 2003. Trends in Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema: Morbidity and 

Mortality. Epidemiology and Statistics Unit, Research and Scientific Affairs, Washington, DC: March 

2003. 

Sierra Research, Inc., 2007. Analysis of Particulate Control Measure Cost Effectiveness. Document 

prepared for Maricopa Association of Governments, Phoenix AZ: April 2007. 

STAPPA/ALAPCO, 1996. Controlling Particulate Matter Under the Clean Air Act: A Menu of 

Options. State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and the Association of 

Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO), Washington, DC: July 1996. 

U.S. EPA, 1999a. “Human Health Effects of Criteria Pollutants.” Chapter 5 in The Benefits and Costs 

of the Clean Air Act 1990 to 2010, Report to Congress, Washington, DC: Nov.1999. 

U.S. EPA, 1999b. “Economic Valuation of Human Health Effects.” Chapter 6 in The Benefits and 

Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990 to 2010, Report to Congress, Washington, DC: Nov.1999. 

9. A showing of good cause why the rule is necessary to promote a statewide interest if the rule will 

diminish a previous grant of authority of a political subdivision of this state:

Not applicable 

47 
10. Summary of the economic, small business, and consumer impact:

10.1 Summary 

The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) revised Rule 200, Rule 310, Rule 310.01, 

and Appendix C. As required by A.R.S. § 41-1055, this economic, small business and consumer 

impact statement includes a discussion of the persons most likely to be impacted by the rules, along 

with a cost-benefit analysis of the rules’ probable impact on the MCAQD as the implementing agency 

and other public agencies, other political subdivisions of the state, and businesses affected by the 

rulemaking. Where data are unavailable or highly uncertain, this statement discusses the limitations of 

the data, the methods used to develop qualitative and/or quantitative estimates, and attempts to 

characterize all probable impacts in qualitative terms. 

To submit or request additional data on the information included in the economic, small business and 

consumer impact statement, please contact: 

Johanna Kuspert or Jo Crumbaker 

Planning and Analysis Division 

Maricopa County Air Quality Department 

1001 N. Central Ave. Suite 595 

Phoenix, AZ 85004 

jkuspert@mail.maricopa.gov or jcrumbak@mail.maricopa.gov 

10.2 Identification of the proposed rule making 

Each change to these rules are described in detail under Item 6 above. While some changes are 

primarily administrative in nature, or designed to clarify existing County air quality rules, a subset of 

the rule changes have been deemed to have potentially significant economic impacts, and are thus 

explicitly addressed in this Economic Impact Statement (EIS). These rule changes, and the relevant 

sections, include: 

• Subcontractor Registration: Rule 200, § 306 

• Unpaved Parking Lots: Rule 310, § 233 and Rule 310.01, § 230 

• Visible Emissions Beyond Property Line: 

− Dust-Generating Operations: Rule 310, § 303 

− Vehicle Use in Open Areas and Vacant Lots: Rule 310.01, § 302.4 

− Open Areas and Vacant Lots: Rule 310.01, § 302.5 

− Unpaved Parking Lots: Rule 310.01, § 302.6 

− Livestock Activities: Rule 310.01, § 302.8 

• Cumulative Trackout Limit of 25 Feet: 

− Dust-Generating Operations: Rule 310, § 306 

− Unpaved Parking Lots: Rule 310.01, § 302.6 

− Livestock Activities: Rule 310.01, § 302.8 

48 
• Dust Control Training Classes 

− Basic: Rule 310, § 309.1 

− Comprehensive: Rule 310, § 309.2 

• Dust Control Coordinator for Dust-Generating Operations: Rule 310, § 310 

• Unpaved Roadways: Rule 310.01, § 302.7 

• Trackout Control Devices: 

− Unpaved Parking Lots: Rule 310.01, § 302.6 

− Livestock Activities: Rule 310.01, § 302.8 

• Control Measure Options for Easements and Rights of Way: Rule 310.01, § 302.10 

• Visible Emission Limits for Livestock Activities: Rule 310.01, §302.8 

10.3 Entities Expected to Be Affected by, Bear the Costs of, or Directly Benefit from the 

Proposed Rule Making 

Rule 200, § 306: Subcontractor Registration: It is estimated that up to 10,000 subcontractors are 

subject to the registration requirement. This figure includes those individuals and entities involved in 

performing ancillary services (including but not limited to: site foremen/supervisors, superintendents, 

truck drivers, initial grading, excavation, pouring concrete/footings, landscapers, utility installation, 

framers, drywall installation, electricians, swimming pool installers, et al.) that perform work on a 

permitted site. In addition, the MCAQD, as the implementing agency, will incur costs for the design, 

implementation, and administration of this program. 

Rule 310, § 233 and Rule 310.01, § 230: Unpaved Parking Lots: With the elimination of the 5000-

square-foot size criterion under these rules, all owners of unpaved parking lots of any size are required 

to meet the requirements of the rules. 

Rule 310, § 303 and Rule 310.01, §§ 302.4, 302.5, 302.6, and 302.8: Visible Emissions Beyond 

Property Line: Owners of unpaved parking lots, open areas, vacant lots, and areas containing livestock 

activities will bear the costs of implementing required control measures required to prevent no visible 

emissions beyond the property line. 

Rule 310, § 306 and Rule 310.01, §§ 302.6 and 302.8: Cumulative Trackout Limit of 25 Feet: Owners 

of unpaved parking lots and areas containing livestock activities will bear the costs of monitoring, 

implementing immediate clean-up measures, and repairing/replacing control measures when trackout 

extends a cumulative distance of 25 linear feet or more. 

Rule 310, §§ 309.1 and 309.2: Basic and Comprehensive Dust Control Training Classes: Those entities 

(individuals, corporations, or other organizations) currently required to obtain a Dust Control permit 

for dust-generating operations within Maricopa County are the groups that are directly affected by the 

requirement to attend a basic or comprehensive dust control class. In addition, the implementing 

49 
agency (MCAQD) will be responsible for the design, implementation, and administration of this 

program. 

Rule 310.01, § 302.7: Unpaved Roadways: Owners of a non-traditional source of fugitive dust that 

involves unpaved roadways will bear the cost of conducting and documenting vehicle/traffic counts 

and ensuring that the unpaved roadways are used for less than 150 vehicle trips per day. 

Rule 310.01, §§ 302.6 and 302.8: Trackout Control Devices: Owners of unpaved parking lots and 

livestock activities will bear the cost of installing trackout control devices as an optional control 

measure to comply with the requirements of the rules. 

Rule 310.01, § 302.10: Control Measure Options for Easements and Rights of Way: Owners of 

easements, right-of-way, and access roads for utilities who choose to install locked gates as a control 

measure option will bear the costs associated with this option. 

Rule 310.01, § 302.8: Visible Emission Limits for Livestock Activities: There should be no significant 

additional costs associated with the use of the aggregate number of 15-second observations which 

exceed the 20 percent opacity standard. 

10.4 Cost-benefit analysis 

10.4.1 The probable costs and benefits to the implementing agency and other agencies directly 

affected by the implementation and enforcement of the proposed rule making 

Rule 200, § 306: Subcontractor Registration: The MCAQD will require four additional permit 

technicians to administer the subcontractor registration program. The direct annual costs associated 

with four additional permit technicians, as well as database maintenance personnel, are estimated to be 

$232,000. Annual costs of administering the program (including database development and 

maintenance, consumables, etc.) are estimated to be $88,000. Total agency costs, including the 

allotment of overhead costs (for administrative, financial, cashiering personnel etc.) are estimated to be 

$444,500. 

Rule 310, § 233 and Rule 310.01, § 230: Unpaved Parking Lots: The elimination of the 5000-squarefoot size criterion will not have a direct impact on the MCAQD workload associated with inspections 

of unpaved parking lots. The MCAQD committed to begin proactive inspections of unpaved parking 

lots, because this was on the list of suggested county-implemented measures (MAG measure 31) to 

reduce PM10 emissions. As a result, the MCAQD committed to conduct proactive and complaint-based 

inspections of existing parking lots located within unincorporated areas of Maricopa County. The 

MCAQD will hire four dust control vacant lot compliance inspectors to conduct proactive and 

complaint-based inspections of parking lots within the unincorporated areas. The annual costs 

associated with four additional dust control vacant lot inspectors are estimated to be $255,000. One50 
time costs are estimated to be $82,000. The Maricopa County Planning and Development Department 

also estimated that five drainage plan reviewers will be required to perform drainage reviews of parcels 

requiring dustproof paving. Annual costs associated with five additional drainage plan reviewers are 

estimated at an annual cost of $378,000, and one-time costs are estimated to be $93,000. 

Rule 310, § 303 and Rule 310.01, §§ 302.4, 302.5, 302.6, and 302.8: Visible Emissions Beyond 

Property Line: A workload analysis was conducted by the MCAQD Planning and Analysis Division 

and it was determined that dust inspection labor time will not appreciably increase from the additional 

requirement that no visible emissions be allowed beyond the property line. Based on this analysis, the 

rule change should yield no additional costs for MCAQD or any other agency. 

Rule 310, § 306 and Rule 310.01, §§ 302.6 and 302.8: Cumulative Trackout Limit of 25 Feet: Since 

the existing rules already contain immediate clean-up and control measure replacement/repair 

requirements for a cumulative trackout distance criterion of 50 feet, there should not be any cost 

increases to the MCAQD or any other agency in association with the decrease in cumulative distance 

criteria to 25 feet. 

Rule 310, § 309.1 and 309.2: Basic and Comprehensive Dust Control Training Classes: Maricopa 

County will hire four additional FTEs to coordinate and conduct dust control training. Annual costs 

associated with the four additional FTEs, database maintenance, training materials, and room rental are 

estimated to be $382,000. One-time costs are estimated to be $460,000 for database development, 

equipment costs, and training materials. 

Rule 310.01, § 302.7: Unpaved Roadways: The current rules for unpaved roads already have 

provisions for required implementation of control measures based on the threshold criterion of 150 

vehicles per day. There should be minimal additional cost to Maricopa County to ensure that required 

traffic counts are conducted and properly documented for applicable unpaved roadways. Compliance 

with the rule change can be assured by the MCAQD during the normal dust inspection process. There 

should be no additional costs to any other agencies associated with this rule change. 

Rule 310.01, §§ 302.6 and 302.8: Trackout Control Devices: The addition of a trackout control device 

as a possible control measure to ensure compliance with all visible emissions requirements under these 

rules should not yield increased cost for Maricopa County or any other agencies. 

Rule 310.01, § 302.10: Control Measure Options for Easements and Rights of Way: The addition of 

the control measure option to install locked gates at entry points under this rule should not yield any 

increased costs to MCAQD or any other agencies. 

51 
Rule 310.01, § 302.8 Visible Emission Limits for Livestock Activities: There should be no additional 

cost to the MCAQD or any other agency in association with the use of the aggregate number of 15-

second observations which exceed the 20 percent opacity standard. 

10.4.2 Probable costs and benefits to other political subdivisions of the state 

It is assumed that the only potential impact on other agencies and other political subdivisions of the 

state would be in a limited number of instances where these entities are themselves permit holders for 

activities regulated under the rule(s). As this occurs rather infrequently and these permits comprise 

only a small fraction of all regulated activity under the rule(s), it is anticipated that compliance with the 

rules will impose no significant economic impact on any other agency or political subdivision of the 

state. 

10.4.3 Probable costs and benefits to businesses directly affected by the proposed rule making 

Rule 200, § 306: Subcontractor Registration: The annual subcontractor registration fee is $50. 

Additional indirect costs (e.g., time spent to complete and submit the forms, and the associated 

recordkeeping) are estimated to average 1.5 hours per registrant. Assuming an average wage of 

$25/hour, the indirect costs of registering under this program would be $37.50, for a total cost per 

registrant of $87.50, and a total cost on businesses of all sizes impacted by this rule of $875,000. 

Rule 310, § 233 and Rule 310.01, § 230: Unpaved Parking Lots: With the elimination of the minimum 

size criterion under these rules, all owners of unpaved parking lots will bear the costs of implementing 

control measures to meet all new/revised requirements for unpaved parking lots under Rule 310 and 

Rule 310.01. Control measures must be implemented to prohibit visible emissions beyond the property 

line and trackout must be cleaned-up immediately (including repairing or changing control measures to 

eliminate trackout), when it extends a cumulative distance of 25 feet or more. The discussion of 

possible cost impacts of these requirements for all unpaved parking lots is included below. 

Rule 310, § 303 and Rule 310.01, §§ 302.4, 302.5, 302.6, and 302.8: Visible Emissions Beyond 

Property Line: Owners of unpaved parking lots, open areas and vacant lots, and livestock activities 

must implement control measures to prevent visible emissions beyond the property line. Estimated 

costs will vary depending on the type and number of control measures required to prevent visible 

emissions beyond the property line. Annualized costs for implementing each possible control measure 

under each applicable section have not been fully developed at this time, however some preliminary 

cost data for control measures under the various rule sections are provided below. 

Annualized costs for the installation of a rock barrier as a possible control measure under § 302.4 have 

been estimated to be approximately $1,340 per vacant lot per year with installation costs estimated to 

be approximately $11,400 for a three-acre parcel of land (Sierra Research, 2007). 

52 
The possible range of annualized control measure costs for unpaved parking lots (based on a 0.1 acre 

parking lot) for reducing visible emissions under the rule changes is expected to range from as low as 

$100 per parking lot per year (assumes annual subgrade preparation and polymer emulsion application) 

for application of a dust palliative to as high as $1,700 per parking lot per year for paving of the 

parking lot (based on total construction cost of $15,400 and a useful life of 25 years). 

Rule 310, § 306 and Rule 310.01, §§ 302.6 and 302.8: Cumulative Trackout Limit of 25 Feet: Prior to 

these rule revisions, the rule contained requirements for both (a) immediate cleanup, and (b) control 

measure replacement/repair when trackout exceeds 50 feet. Since the amount of trackout tends to 

decrease sharply as distance from the exit increases, the new rule's limit of 25 feet will require only a 

marginal increase in the maintenance frequency of control devices or measures to restore the efficiency 

of the trackout control device to its original condition. The cost of this incremental activity is expected 

to be negligible in most circumstances. 

Rule 310, § 309.1: Basic Dust Control Training Class: The MCAQD fee for the basic dust control 

training class is $50. Each attendee will spend 4 hours in class, plus an estimated 1.5 hours for travel 

time, associated recordkeeping, etc. Assuming an average wage of $24.23/hour, the indirect costs of 

registering under this program would be $133.27, for a total cost per registrant of $183.27. With an 

estimated 10,336 persons required to enroll for a basic dust control training class, the estimated total 

costs on businesses of all sizes impacted by this rule of $1,894,227. 

Rule 310, § 309.1 Comprehensive Dust Control Training Class: The MCAQD fee for the 

comprehensive dust control training class is $125. Each attendee will spend 8 hours in class, plus an 

estimated 1.5 hours for travel time, recordkeeping, etc. Assuming an average wage of $29.27/hour, the 

indirect costs of registering under this program would be $278.07, for a total cost per registrant of 

$403.07, and a total cost on businesses of all sizes impacted by this rule of $803,712. 

Rule 310, § 310: Dust Control Coordinator for Dust-Generating Operations: The incremental costs 

imposed by the requirement for a Dust Control Coordinator to be on-site for sites that are five acres or 

larger are expected to vary, depending on current management practices at a site. For those sites that 

presently have supervisory management personnel on-site whenever dust-generating operations are 

occurring, this provision will impose no additional costs. As a most conservative estimate for a project 

lasting 6 months, this provision will require additional personnel (at an average salary of $35/hr) to be 

present on-site 10 hours per day for 133 work-days of the lifetime of the project, for a total cost of 

$46,550. 

Rule 310.01, § 302.7: Unpaved Roadways: Prior to these rule revisions, control measures were 

required for unpaved roads based on the threshold criterion of 150 vehicles per day. With the rule 

revisions, formal, documented traffic counts are required if an unpaved roadway is used for 150 

53 
vehicle trips or more per day. Based on rough estimates obtained from the Maricopa County 

Department of Transportation (MCDOT), the estimated daily cost to conduct traffic counts will be 

approximately $85 per road per count. It is assumed that conducting the traffic counts will require 

approximately 4 hours of total labor each day to both place and remove a bi-directional traffic counting 

cord. 

Rule 310.01, §§ 302.6 and 302.8: Trackout Control Devices: Owners of unpaved parking lots and 

livestock activities may have to bear the cost of installing trackout control devices as a required control 

measure. A trackout control device is one of several control measures that owners can implement in 

order to comply with all requirements under §§ 302.6 and 302.8, but is not mandatory. Trackout 

control devices include: a gravel pad, a grizzly, a wheel wash system, or a paved area. It is expected 

that the cost of these trackout control devices will fall within the range of costs specified for possible 

control measures to be used to prevent visible emissions beyond the property line. 

Rule 310.01, § 302.10: Control Measure Options for Easements and Rights of Way: Owners of 

easements, rights-of-way, and access roads for utilities will bear the cost of installing locked gates as a 

possible control measure under this rule. The annualized cost for installing an individual locked gate at 

an entry point is expected to be no more $150 per year based on a total installation cost of $1,500 and a 

useful life of at least 10 years. 

Rule 310.01, § 302.8 Visible Emission Limits for Livestock Activities: There should be no additional 

cost associated with the use of the aggregate number of 15-second observations which exceed the 20 

percent opacity standard. 

10.5 Impact on private and public employment 

In cases where estimates of increased workloads and anticipated additional staff (FTE’s) required for 

MCAQD to design, implement, and administer the programs associated with these rule revisions have 

been quantified individually in section 10.4.1 above. Since Maricopa County will be the implementing 

entity for these programs, no other significant impacts on public-sector employment of other agencies 

or political subdivisions of the state are anticipated. 

The potential financial impacts on permit holders (businesses and individuals), on a per-case basis, and 

cumulative impacts on all permit holders, have been described and quantified, insofar as possible, in 

section 10.4.3 above. 

Rule 200, § 306: Subcontractor Registration: Since a single business entity (corporation, LLC, 

individual, etc.) only requires a single registration, no impact on private employment is anticipated. 

The only direct effect on employment will be the four additional permit technicians anticipated to be 

required by implementation of this rule. 

54 
Rule 310, § 233 and Rule 310.01, § 230: Unpaved Parking Lots: As discussed above, all owners of 

unpaved parking lots will bear the costs of implementing control measures to meet proposed visibility 

and trackout requirements for unpaved parking lots. Very rough cost impacts were estimated and 

presented for the businesses directly affected by the rule changes. The affected businesses may be 

forced to offset any additional costs incurred in order to comply with the rules. Based on the cost data 

presented above, the MCAQD does not have sufficient data at this time to quantitatively evaluate 

potential employment impacts for businesses impacted by the rules. 

Rule 310, § 303 and Rule 310.01, §§ 302.4, 302.5, 302.6, and 302.8: Visible Emissions Beyond 

Property Line: Costs associated with achieving zero visible emissions beyond the property line 

through the use of one or more control measures may affect employment for the various 

owners/operators of the applicable fugitive dust source areas under the rule changes. The MCAQD 

does not have sufficient data at this time to quantitatively evaluate potential employment impacts for 

businesses directly affected by the requirements. 

Enforcing the visible emissions requirement beyond the property line will require some additional 

labor time for the MCAQD dust inspectors, but the amount of labor time is not expected to 

substantially increase the resources (full-time employees) required to conduct and complete the 

required dust inspection backlog. Employment at political subdivisions of the state are not expected to 

be affected by this rulemaking. 

Rule 310, § 306 and Rule 310.01, §§ 302.6 and 302.8: Cumulative Trackout Limit of 25 Feet: Prior to 

these rule revisions, if trackout extended 50 feet or more, then trackout was required to be cleaned-up 

immediately. The trackout control device was also required to be replaced/repaired when needed. 

Consequently, there should be no impact on employment associated with changing the trackout limit 

from 50 feet to 25 feet. 

Rule 310, §§ 309.1 and 309.2: Basic and Comprehensive Dust Control Training Classes: It is 

anticipated that the MCAQD, as the implementing agency, will require approximately 2.2 additional 

FTE’s to oversee and implement these training programs. The MCAQD is training and certifying thirdparty entities to conduct these training programs, so some additional private-sector employment impact 

is likely. 

Rule 310.01, § 302.7: Unpaved Roadways: Prior to these rule revisions, control measures were 

required for unpaved roadways based on the threshold criterion of 150 vehicles per day. The rules 

revisions require formal, documented traffic counts, if unpaved roadways are used for 150 vehicle trips 

or more per day. Employment may be effected by businesses required to bear the cost of implementing 

55 
a traffic counting system and documenting the traffic count results. Sufficient data does not exist to 

determine precise employment impacts based on the cost impacts presented above. 

Rule 310.01, §§ 302.6 and 302.8: Trackout Control Devices: As stated above, owners of unpaved 

parking lots and livestock activities may have to bear the cost of installing trackout control devices as a 

required control measure to comply with the requirements of §§ 302.6 and 302.8. It is one of several 

control measure options, but is not a mandatory control option. The inclusion of a trackout control 

device as one of the possible control options should not have an effect on employment for affected 

businesses, implementing agencies, or political subdivisions of the state. 

Rule 310.01, § 302.10: Control Measure Options for Easements and Rights of Way: Owners of 

easements, right-of-way, and access roads for utilities will bear the cost of installing locked gates as a 

control measure. This is only one of several possible control measures and is not cost prohibitive based 

on the data provided above. Costs to affected businesses will not be appreciably increased under this 

addition to the rule; therefore, employment should not be impacted at any businesses directly impacted 

by this rule. Employment at agencies and political subdivisions of the state should not be impacted by 

this rule change. 

Rule 310.01, § 302.8 Visible Emission Limits for Livestock Activities: Since no additional costs will 

be incurred by any party as a result of the change in the opacity calculation methodology, employment 

will not be affected at any businesses, agencies or political subdivisions of the state. 

10.6 Probable Impact of the Proposed Rule Making on Small Businesses 

For all rule changes discussed in this analysis, a description of affected entities of all sizes is contained 

in Section 10.3 above. Due to constraints in time, available resources, and readily accessible current 

data, no reliable estimates on the separate impact on small businesses have yet been developed. 

10.6.1 Alternative Methods Considered to Reduce Impact on Small Business 

Rule 200, § 306: Subcontractor Registration: No alternatives considered; the parameters of the 

program have been developed to comply with A.R.S. § 49-474.06. 

Rule 310, §§ 309.1 and 309.2: Basic and Comprehensive Dust Control Training Programs: The 

rulemaking imposes permitting and training requirements only on dust-generating operations greater 

than 0.1 acre (4,356 sq. ft.). All projects below this minimum size threshold are exempt from 

permitting and training requirements, limiting the financial and administrative burden for very small 

projects. As little or no relevant information is available, no attempt has been made to quantify the 

number of projects under this size threshold or to estimate the increase in costs (additional inspectors 

and enforcement personnel) that would be required to apply the rules to dust-generating operations of 

56 
less than 0.1 acre. No other alternatives have been considered; the parameters of the permitting and 

training programs have been prepared to comply with A.R.S. 49-474.05. 

10.6.2 Probable Cost and Benefit to Private Persons and Consumers 

All changes to Rules 310 and 310.01 are designed to reduce particulate matter emissions with the 

ultimate goal of protecting the public health and welfare by attaining PM10 and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) throughout Maricopa County. A detailed description of the 

benefits for the public at large are excerpted from a cost analysis conducted by ADEQ (2004) and is 

provided below. 

Improvement in air quality will generate cost-saving benefits by avoiding adverse-health effects, such 

as emergency room visits, hospital admissions, acute pediatric bronchitis, chronic adult bronchitis, 

acute respiratory symptom days, and even premature death. Potential benefits arising from a reduction 

PM and other pollutants emitted into the atmosphere can be inferred from data associated with the 

reduction of any airborne Particulate Matter (PM). 

Some of health effects of human exposure to PM can be quantified while others cannot. Quantified 

adverse-health effects include: mortality, bronchitis (chronic and acute), new asthma cases, hospital 

admissions (respiratory and cardiovascular), emergency room visits for asthma, lower and upper 

respiratory illness, shortness of breath, respiratory symptoms, minor restricted activity days, days of 

work loss, moderate or worse asthma status of asthmatics. Unquantifiable adverse-health effects 

include: neonatal mortality, changes in pulmonary function, chronic respiratory diseases (other than 

chronic bronchitis), morphological changes, altered host defense mechanisms, cancer, and non-asthma 

respiratory emergency room visits (U.S. EPA, 1999a). 

Epidemiological evidence shows that particulates have negative health impacts in a variety of ways, 

including: increased mortality and morbidity; more frequent hospital admissions, emergency room and 

clinician visits; increased need and demand for medication; and lost time from work and school. There 

is also increasing evidence that ambient air pollution can precipitate acute cardiac episodes, such as 

angina pectoris, cardiac arrhythmia, and myocardial infraction, although the majority of PM-related 

deaths are attributed to cardiovascular disease (The U.S. EPA’s PM Health Effects Research Center 

Program, prepared by PM Centers Program staff, January 2002). 

New evidence also links exposure to ambient PM concentrations to airway inflammation that in turn 

produces systemic effects, such as acute phase response with increased blood viscosity and 

coagulability, as well as increased risk of myocardial infraction in patients with coronary artery 

disease. Chronic effects of repeated airway inflammation may also cause airway remodeling, leading 

to irreversible lung disease. Individuals with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease may be 

57 
at even higher risk from repeated exposure to particulates, according to the U.S. EPA’s PM Health 

Effects Research Center Program. 

The Health Effects Institute confirmed the existence of a link between particulate matter and human 

disease and death (premature mortality). The data revealed that long-term average mortality rates, even 

after accounting for the effects of other health effects, were 17-26% higher in cities with higher levels 

of airborne PM (Health Effects of Particulate Air Pollution: What Does The Science Say Hearing 

before the Committee on Science, House of Representatives, 107th Congress of the U.S., second 

session, May 8, 2002). Data further reveal that every 10-microgram increase in fine particulates per 

cubic meter produces a 6% increase in the risk of death by cardiopulmonary disease, and an 8% 

increase for lung cancer. Even very low concentrations of PM can increase the risk of early death, 

particularly in elderly populations with preexisting cardiopulmonary disease (STAPPA/ALAPCO, 

1996). 

In 2002 alone, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease cost the U.S. more than $32 million, a sum not 

including costs attributable to asthma (American Lung Association, 2003). In Arizona, deaths 

attributable to asthma have equaled or exceeded national rates from 1991-1998. In 1998, some 316,200 

Arizonans suffered breathing discomfort or asthma related stress (ADHS, 2002). 

The MCAQD expects that a reduction in PM potentially will create commensurate cost-saving benefits 

to the general public by contributing towards reducing these emissions-related health problems. This 

rulemaking will help improve the general quality of life for the citizens of Maricopa County, 

particularly those residing near sources that have reduced PM emissions and other air pollutants 

associated with the manufacturing processes. 

Health benefits can be expressed as avoided cases of PM related-health effects and assigned a dollar 

value. EPA used an average estimate of value for each adverse-health effect of criteria air pollutants. 

Table 1 contains valuation estimates from the literature reported in dollars per case reduced. For 

example, the table shows a value of $401,000 (in 2006 dollars) per case of chronic bronchitis avoided. 

Table 1. Monetized Adverse-Health Effects Avoided from Exposure to PM 

Adverse Health Effect * 

Per Case Valuation 

(1990 dollars) 

Per Case Valuation 

(2006 dollars) 

Mortality $4,800,000 $7,403,800 

Chronic bronchitis $260,000 $401,000 

Hospital admissions for respiratory conditions $6,900 $10,640 

Hospital admissions for cardiovascular 

conditions 

$9,500 $14,650 

Emergency room visits for asthma $194 $299 

Acute Bronchitis $45 $69 

Asthma attack $32 $49 

Moderate or worse asthma day $32 $49 

Acute respiratory symptom $18 $28 

58 
Upper respiratory symptom $19 $29 

Lower respiratory symptom $12 $19 

Shortness of breath, chest tightness, or wheeze $5 $8 

Work loss day $83 $128 

Mild restricted activity day $38 $59 

* An individual’s health status and age prior to exposure impacts his/her susceptibility. At risk persons 

include those who have suffered a stroke or have cardiovascular disease. Some age cohorts are more 

susceptible to air pollution than others, i.e., children and elderly. 

Source: Derived from U.S. EPA, 1999b. According to EPA, cost values 

of these illnesses tend to underestimate the true value of avoiding these 

adverse-health effects. Mean estimates of willingness-to-pay (WTP) 

were used to derive values, unless WTP values were not available, in 

which case, the cost of treating or mitigating the effects was used. The 

value of an avoided asthma attack, for example, would be a person’s 

WTP to avoid that symptom. 

Mortality in Table 1 actually refers to statistical deaths, or inferred deaths due to premature mortality. 

A small decline in the risk for premature death will have a certain monetary value for individuals, and 

as such, they will be willing to pay a certain amount to avoid premature death. For instance, if PM 

emissions are reduced so that the mortality risk on the exposed population is decreased by one in onehundred thousand, then among 100,000 persons, one less person will be expected to die prematurely. If 

the average willingness-to-pay (WTP) per person for such a risk reduction were $75, the implied value 

of the statistical premature death avoided would be $7.5 million. 

10.7 Probable effect on county revenues 

Some of the rule changes would result in increased fee revenue to the MCAQD, which has revised its 

fee schedule (under a separate rulemaking) in order to recoup the costs of designing, implementing and 

administering new programs contained within this rulemaking. A list of the programs, along with 

estimates of user fees and overall revenue projections, is as follows: 

Program 

Estimated 

Users Fee/User 

Estimated Annual 

Revenue 

Subcontractor Registration Program 10,000 $50 $500,000 

Basic Dust Control Training Class 10,336 $50 $516,800 

Comprehensive Dust Control Training Class 1,994 $125 $249,250 

No other significant impact on state or County revenues from this rulemaking is anticipated. 

10.8 Alternative Methods Considered to Achieve the Purpose of the Proposed Rule Making 

State law requires agencies to reduce the impact of a rule on small businesses by using certain 

methods, when they are legal and feasible, in meeting the statutory objectives of the rulemaking. The 

MCAQD considered each of the methods prescribed in A.R.S. § 41-1035 and A.R.S. § 41-1055(B) for 

reducing the impact on small businesses. Methods that may be used include the following: (1) exempt 

them from any or all rule requirements, (2) establish performance standards that would replace any 

design or operational standards, or (3) institute reduced compliance or reporting requirements, such as 

59 
establishing less stringent requirements, consolidating or simplifying them or setting less stringent 

schedules or deadlines. 

In some cases, no alternatives have been considered, as the rule changes are designed to comply with 

state statute: e.g., the Subcontractor Registration Program (Rule 200, § 306), has been developed to 

comply with A.R.S. § 49-474.06; and the Basic and Comprehensive Dust Control Training Classes 

(Rule 310, §§ 309.1 and 309.2) have been developed to comply with A.R.S. § 49-474.05. 

10.9 Data Availability and Limitations of Assumptions 

This economic impact statement was developed in accordance with A.R.S. § 41-1055 to assess the 

potential economic impacts of the changes to these rules. Sources of data and any assumptions used to 

develop these estimates have been included in the discussion of these analyses; and where data are 

lacking or uncertain, this has been noted wherever possible. 

11. Name and address of department personnel with whom persons may communicate regarding the 

accuracy of the economic, small business, and consumer impact statement:

Name: Johanna M. Kuspert or Jo Crumbaker 

Maricopa County Air Quality Department 

Address: 1001 N. Central Ave, Suite 595 

 Phoenix, AZ 85004 

Telephone: (602) 506-6710 or (602) 506-6705 

Fax: (602) 506-6179 

E-mail: jkuspert@mail.maricopa.gov or jcrumbak@mail.maricopa.gov 

12. Description of the changes between the proposed rules, including supplemental notices and final 

rules:

Since the final drafts of Rules 200, 310, 310.01, and Appendix C were published in the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking on November 9, 2007 and in response to formal comments received during the 

formal comment period - November-December 2007, the following changes to Rules 200, 310, 310.01, 

and Appendix C have been made. These changes appear in the text of the final rules published in this 

Notice of Final Rulemaking: 

Rule 200, Section 301: Corrected the references made in this section. Deleted “Section 302 thru 

Section 305 of this rule” and added “Section 302 thru Section 305 and Section 307 of this rule.” 

Section 301reads in part as follows: “The standards and/or requirements for these permits are described 

in Section 302 thru Section 305 and Section 307 of this rule. Additional standards, administrative 

requirements, and monitoring and records requirements for some of these permits are described in 

individual rules of these rules, as applicable/as specified in Section 302 thru Section 305 and Section 

307 of this rule.” 

60 
Rule 310, New Section 103.7: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to add new 

Section 103 - exemptions from Rule 310. New Section 103.7 read: “An unpaved road is not a horse 

trail, hiking path, bicycle path, or other similar path used exclusively for purposes other than travel by 

motor vehicles.” This text was deleted from re-numbered Section 234-Definition of Unpaved Road. In 

the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted new Section 103.7 and returned the following text to 

re-numbered Section 234: “An unpaved road is not a horse trail, hiking path, bicycle path, or other 

similar path used exclusively for purposes other than travel by motor vehicles.” 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 202: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) in the definition of 

area accessible to the public, proposed to delete “retail” and to delete “open”; “accessible” was 

proposed to replace “open”. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR) instead-of using the term 

“accessible” in the definition of area accessible to the public, deleted “accessible” and added “can be 

entered or used for.” The definition of area accessible to the public reads: “Any parking lot or public 

roadway that can be entered or used for public travel primarily for purposes unrelated to the dustgenerating operation.” 

Rule 310, New Section 212: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), the phrase “technologybased emission limitation under the permit” was included in the proposed definition of emergency. In 

the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted the phrase “technology-based emission limitation 

under the permit” and added the phrase “limitation in this rule.” New Section 212 - definition of 

emergency reads: “A situation arising from sudden and reasonably unforeseeable events beyond the 

control of the source, including acts of God, which situation requires immediate corrective action to 

restore normal operation, and that causes the source to exceed a limitation in this rule, due to 

unavoidable increases in emissions attributable to the emergency. An emergency shall not include any 

noncompliance due to improperly designed equipment, lack of preventative maintenance, careless or 

improper operation, or operator error.” 

Rule 310, New Section 214: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), the definition of end of 

work day was proposed to read as follows: “The end of a working period that may include one or more 

work shifts but not later than 8 pm.” In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), made the definition less 

ambiguous as to what is considered to be the end of a working period, because some sources work 24 

hours a day. Changed the definition of end of work day such that it reads: “The end of a working 

period that may include one or more work shifts. If working 24 hours a day, the end of a working 

period shall be considered no later than 8 pm.” 

Rule 310, New Section 223: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to add the 

definition of open storage pile - to read as follows: “Any accumulation of bulk material with a 5% or 

greater silt content which in any one point attains a height of three feet and a total surface area of 150 

61 
square feet or more. Silt content shall be assumed to be 5% or greater unless a person can show, by 

testing in accordance with ASTM Method C136-06 or other equivalent method approved in writing by 

the Control Officer and the Administrator that the silt content is less than 5%.” In the NPR, proposed 

to move definition of “open storage pile” from standards section to definitions section; term and 

definition were used in Rule 310, Section 308.6 adopted April 7, 2004. An open storage pile is an open 

storage pile if/when such pile attains a height of three feet and a total surface area of 150 square feet or 

more. Such dimensions matched dimensions used in South Coast’s Rule 403-Fugitive Dust definition 

of open storage pile. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR) in the first sentence of the definition of 

open storage pile, deleted “which in any one point attains a height of three feet and covers a total 

surface area of 150 square feet or more” and added “that has a total surface area of 150 square feet or 

more and that at any one point attains a height of three feet.” The intent is that the surface area of the 

storage pile is of concern - not the footprint of the storage pile. 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 234: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to 

delete the following text from re-numbered Section 234-Definition of Unpaved Road: “An unpaved 

road is not a horse trail, hiking path, bicycle path, or other similar path used exclusively for purposes 

other than travel by motor vehicles.” This text was proposed to be added to new Section 103.7. In the 

Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), returned the text to re-numbered Section 234 and deleted new 

Section 103.7. 

Rule 310, New Section 302.3: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed new Section 

302 - to add permit requirements for dust-generating operations from Rule 200-Permit Requirements; 

Permit requirements for earthmoving operations to be revised in Rule 200 to “permit requirements for 

dust-generating operations” and to reference Rule 310. Also in the NPR, proposed revisions to Section 

402 - to move the description of the required elements of a Dust Control Plan from standards section of 

Rule 310 to administrative requirements section of Rule 310. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking 

(NFR), revised new Section 302.3 - permit requirements for routine dust-generating operations at a site 

with a Title V permit, Non-Title V permit, or General permit - to be consistent with revised Section 

402.1 - Dust Control Plan requirements for routine dust-generating operations at a site with a Title V 

permit, Non-Title V permit, or General permit. In the NFR, added “that disturbs a surface area of 0.10 

acre or greater” to new Section 302.3. New Section 302.3 reads: “No person shall commence any 

routine dust-generating operation that disturbs a surface area of 0.10 acre or greater at a site that has 

obtained or must obtain a Title V, Non-Title V, or General permit under Regulation III-Permits and 

Fees of these rules without first submitting to the Control Officer a Dust Control Plan.” 

Rule 310, New Section 303.1(b): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed new Section 

303.1(b), which required owners and/or operators of a dust-generating operation to not allow visible 

emissions of particulate matter, including fugitive dust, beyond the property line within which the 

62 
emissions are generated. This property line standard was a “presence” or “absence” limitation. To 

clarify that the MCAQD will not be enforcing on a single puff of dust, in the Notice of Final 

Rulemaking (NFR), added a second sentence to new Section 303.1(b). The second sentence reads: 

“Visible emissions shall be determined by a standard of no visible emissions exceeding 30 seconds in 

duration in any six minute period as determined using EPA Reference Method 22.” 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 303.2(a): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to 

add “described in Section 303.1(a) of this rule” to the first sentence in re-numbered Section 303.2(a). 

This addition provided an exemption from the 20% opacity limitation during a wind event provided 

specific/specified control measures were implemented. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), 

changed “described in Section 303.1(a) of this rule” to “described in Section 303.1 of this rule.” With 

this change, an exemption is provided from the 20% opacity limitation and from the property line 

standard provided specific/specified control measures are implemented. 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 303.2(a)(2): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed 

to delete “The 20% opacity exceedance” and to add “Exceedances of the opacity limit described in 

Section 303.1(a) of this rule.” In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), changed “Exceedances of the 

opacity limit described in Section 303.1(a) of this rule” to “Exceedances of the opacity limits described 

in Section 303.1 of this rule.” With this change, an exemption is provided from the 20% opacity 

limitation and from the property line standard provided specific/specified control measures are 

implemented. 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 303.2(b): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to 

delete “No opacity limitation shall” and to add “The opacity limit described in Section 303.1(a) of this 

rule shall not.” In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), changed “The opacity limit described in 

Section 303.1(a) of this rule shall not” to “The opacity limits described in Section 303.1 of this rule 

shall not.” With this change, an exemption is provided from the 20% opacity limitation and from the 

property line standard provided specific/specified control measures are implemented. 

Rule 310, New Section 303.2(d): In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), added new Section 

303.2(d), which adds an exemption from the property line standard when an owner and/or operator 

conducts dust-generating operations within 25 feet of the property line. New Section 303.2(d) reads: 

“Activities Near The Property Line: The opacity limit described in Section 303.1(b) of this rule shall 

not apply to dust-generating operations conducted within 25 feet of the property line.” 

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 305.1: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to 

delete Table 15-Bulk Material Hauling/Transporting Off-Site Hauling/Transporting Onto Paved Areas 

Accessible To The Public and to add control measures from Table 15 to re-numbered Section 305.1. In 

so doing, also proposed to change heading to “Off-Site Hauling.” In the Notice of Final Rulemaking 

63 
(NFR), added “onto paved areas accessible to the public” to the new heading of re-numbered Section 

305.1. The heading of re-numbered Section 305.1 reads: “Off-Site Hauling Onto Paved Areas 

Accessible To The Public.” 

Rule 310, New Section 305.1(a)(2): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), the intent of 

proposed new Section 305.1(a)(2) was to require that haul trucks be loaded such that the bulk material 

within the cargo compartment be no higher than the bulk material along the sides, front, and back of 

the cargo compartment. In the NPR, the text of new Section 305.1(a)(2) did not clearly express such 

intent. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted “the highest point at which the bulk material 

contacts”. In the NFR, new Section 305.1(a)(2) reads: “Load all haul trucks such that at no time shall 

the highest point of the bulk material be higher than the sides, front, and back of a cargo container 

area.” 

Rule 310, Section 305.3(b): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), the intent of proposed new 

Section 305.3(b) was to require that haul trucks be loaded such that the bulk material within the cargo 

compartment be no higher than the bulk material along the sides, front, and back of the cargo 

compartment. In the NPR, the text of new Section 305.3(b) did not clearly express such intent. In the 

Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted “the highest point at which the bulk material contacts”. In 

the NFR, new Section 305.3(b) reads: “Load all haul trucks such that at no time shall the highest point 

of the bulk material be higher than the sides, front, and back of a cargo container area.” 

Rule 310, New Section 305.11(b)(1): Added “as necessary” to the end of new Section 305.11(b)(1). 

New Section 305.11(b)(1) reads: “Apply water or other suitable dust suppressant other than water, as 

necessary.” 

Rule 310, New Section 306.1(b): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to delete 

Table 16-Clean-Up of Trackout, Carry-Out, Spillage, and Erosion and Table 17-Trackout Control and 

proposed to add control measures from Table 16 and Table 17 to new Section 306. In so doing, the 

control measures described in new Section 306.1(b) were intended to correspond with the work sites 

described in new Section 306.1(a). In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), added to the beginning 

of new Section 306.1(b) the phrase: “For those work sites identified in Section 306.1(a) of this rule” to 

make it clear that the control measures described in new Section 306.1(b) are intended to correspond 

with the work sites described in new Section 306.1(a). 

Rule 310, New Section 306.1(b)(2): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to delete 

Table 16-Clean-Up of Trackout, Carry-Out, Spillage, and Erosion and Table 17-Trackout Control and 

proposed to add control measures from Table 16 and Table 17 to new Section 306. In so doing, the 

reference to the definition of gravel pad was incorrect in new Section 306.1(b)(2). In the Notice of 

64 
Final Rulemaking (NFR), corrected the reference to the definition of gravel pad in new Section 

306.1(b)(2). 

Rule 310, New Section 310.7: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to add dust 

control training requirements for sources that obtain a single permit for multiple non-contiguous sites. 

This requirement matched the requirement in Senate Bill 1552. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking 

(NFR), added “in accordance with Section 404 of this rule” and “Basic Dust Control Training Class” 

to the introduction of new Section 310.7. Also in the NFR, deleted new Section 310.7(a) and added it 

to the introduction of new Section 310.7 and deleted in its entirety new Section 310.7(b). New Section 

310.7 reads: “The permittee, who is required to obtain a single permit for multiple non-contiguous sites 

in accordance with Section 404 of this rule, shall have on sites with greater than one acre of disturbed 

surface area at least one individual who is designated by the permittee as a Dust Control Coordinator 

trained in accordance with Section 309.1-Basic Dust Control Training Class of this rule. The Dust 

Control Coordinator shall be present on-site at all times during primary dust-generating activities that 

are related to the purposes for which the permit was obtained.” 

Rule 310, New Section 401.1: In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted the reference to 

Maricopa County’s “Application for Dust Control Permit” and revised the introductory statement to 

read as follows: “To apply for a Dust Control permit, an applicant shall complete a permit application 

in the manner and form prescribed by the Control Officer. At a minimum, such application shall 

contain the following information.” 

Rule 310, Section 402.2: In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted the second sentence in 

Section 402.2: “Applicants shall complete Maricopa County’s “Application for Dust Control Permit” 

and submit such information as a Dust Control Plan.” 

Rule 310, New Section 402.3(c): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to move the 

description of the required elements of a Dust Control Plan from standards section of Rule 310 to 

administrative requirements section of Rule 310. In the NPR, new Section 402.3(c) required that the 

control measures described in Section 305-Control Measures for Dust-Generating Operations be 

included in the Dust Control Plan. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), added Section 306-

Trackout, Carry-Out, Spillage, and/or Erosion to new Section 402.3(c), so that the control measures for 

trackout, carry-out, spillage, and/or erosion will also be required to be included in the Dust Control 

Plan. New Section 402.3(c) reads: “Appropriate control measures, or a combination thereof, as 

described in Section 305 and Section 306 of this rule, for every actual and potential dust-generating 

operation.” 

Rule 310, New Section 402.3(c)(2): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to add the 

following two sentences to new Section 402.3(c)(2): “Should any primary control measure(s) prove 

65 
ineffective, the owner and/or operator shall immediately implement the contingency control 

measure(s). If the identified contingency control measure(s) is effective to comply with all of the 

requirements of this rule, the owner and/or operator need not revise the Dust Control Plan.” In the 

Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted these two sentences in new Section 402.3(c)(2), because 

they are already written in new Section 402.6. 

Rule 310, New Section 402.3(c)(3): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to move 

the description of the required elements of a Dust Control Plan from standards section of Rule 310 to 

administrative requirements section of Rule 310. In the NPR, new Section 402.3(c)(3) allowed 

alternative control measures to be used - control measures that were not listed in Section 305-Control 

Measures for Dust-Generating Operations. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), added Section 

306-Trackout, Carry-Out, Spillage, and/or Erosion to new Section 402.3(c)(3), so that alternative 

control measures can be used - control measures that are not listed in Section 306-Trackout, Carry-Out, 

Spillage, and/or Erosion. New Section 402.3(c)(3) reads: “A control measure that is not listed in 

Section 305 or in Section 306 of this rule may be chosen provided that such control measure is 

implemented to comply with the requirements described in Section 301 of this rule.” 

Rule 310, New Section 402.3(e): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to move the 

description of the required elements of a Dust Control Plan from standards section of Rule 310 to 

administrative requirements section of Rule 310. In so doing, the word “roads” was inadvertently 

omitted from the description of one of the required elements of a Dust Control Plan. In the Notice of 

Final Rulemaking (NFR), added the word “roads” to new Section 402.3(e). New Section 402.3(e) 

reads: “Specific surface treatment(s) and/or control measures utilized to control material trackout and 

sedimentation where unpaved roads and/or access points join paved areas accessible to the public.” 

Rule 310, Section 402.6: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to add the following 

sentence to new Section 402.6: “At least one primary control measure and one contingency measure 

must be identified in the Dust Control Plan for all dust-generating sources.” In the Notice of Final 

Rulemaking (NFR), deleted this sentence from new Section 402.6 and added this sentence to the 

introduction in re-numbered Section 305-Control Measures for Dust-Generating Operations. The 

introduction in re-numbered Section 305 reads: “When engaged in a dust-generating operation, the 

owner and/or operator shall install, maintain, and use control measures, as applicable. The owner 

and/or operator of a dust-generating operation shall implement control measures before, after, and 

while conducting dust-generating operations, including during weekends, after work hours, and on 

holidays. At least one primary control measure and one contingency measure must be identified in the 

Dust Control Plan for all dust-generating operations. Control measures for specific dust-generating 

operations are described in Section 305.1 through Section 305.12 of this rule.” 

66 
Rule 310, New Section 404.1(a) and New Section 404.1(b): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPR), proposed new Section 404 .1 - to add Block permit requirements from Rule 200-Permit 

Requirements; Block permit requirements to be deleted from Rule 200 and to reference Rule 310. In 

the NPR, new Section 404.1(a) and new Section 404.1(b) referred to “canal road grading”. In the 

Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), changed “canal road grading” to “canal bank and road grading”. 

New Section 404.1(a) and new Section 404.1(b) read in part as follows: “...including but not limited 

to, weed control around a prison, canal bank and road grading, and road shoulder grading.” 

Rule 310, New Section 404.3: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed new Section 

404.3 - to add Block permit requirements from Rule 200-Permit Requirements; Block permit 

requirements to be deleted from Rule 200 and to reference Rule 310. In the NPR, the intent was that 

new Section 404.3 replicate the text from Rule 200: “...may submit one permit application covering 

multiple sites at which construction will commence within 12 months of permit issuance...” The 

purpose of new Section 404.3 was to make clear to stakeholders that a Block permit will not be granted 

if the dust-generating operation does not commence within one year of issuance. However, with the 

other revisions proposed in Rule 310, replicating the text from Rule 200 makes new section 404.3 

unclear. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted new Section 404.3 and re-numbered new 

Section 404.4 to new Section 404.3. 

Rule 310, New Re-Numbered Section 404.3: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed 

new Section 404.4 - to add Block permit requirements from Rule 200-Permit Requirements; Block 

permit requirements to be deleted from Rule 200 and to reference Rule 310. In the NPR, new Section 

404.4 referred to “municipalities and/or utilities” while new Section 404.1 referred to “municipalities, 

governmental agencies, and utilities”. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), revised new renumbered Section 404.3 to be consistent with new Section 404.1. In the NFR, changed “municipalities 

and/or utilities” in new re-numbered Section 404.3 such that it reads “municipalities, governmental 

agencies, and utilities.” New re-numbered Section 404.3 reads: “The Dust Control permit-Block permit 

will cover crews that work for municipalities, governmental agencies, and utilities, including 

subcontractors. However, municipalities, governmental agencies, and utilities shall retain overall 

authority for dust control on the project.” 

Rule 310, Section 501.1(a): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to retain original 

text of Section 501.1(a): “Opacity observations of a source engaging in dust-generating operations 

shall be conducted in accordance with Appendix C, Section 3-Time Averaged Methods of Visual 

Opacity Determination of Emissions from Dust-Generating Operations.” In the Notice of Final 

Rulemaking (NFR), deleted “a source engaging in” to make Section 501.1(a) consistent with the 

introductory statements in Section 501.1(b) and Section 501.1(c). Section 501.1(a) reads: “Opacity 

observations of dust-generating operations shall be conducted in accordance with Appendix C, Section 

67 
3-Time Averaged Methods of Visual Opacity Determination of Emissions from Dust-Generating 

Operations.” 

Rule 310, New Section 501.1(d): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), Section 501.1 

described test methods to determine compliance with visible emissions requirements for dustgenerating operations, an unpaved parking lot, and an unpaved haul/access road. In the Notice of Final 

Rulemaking (NFR), added new Section 501.1(d), which describes the test method to determine 

compliance with the property line standard - by conducting observations in accordance with EPA 

Reference Method 22. New Section 501.1(d) reads: “Visible Emissions Beyond The Property Line: 

Opacity observations of any visible emissions beyond the property line shall be conducted in 

accordance with EPA Reference Method 22.” 

Rule 310, New Section 504.4: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), Section 504 listed and 

described test methods adopted by reference. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), added new 

Section 504.4, which lists and describes the test method to determine compliance with the property line 

standard - by conducting observations in accordance with EPA Reference Method 22. New Section 

504.4 reads: “EPA Reference Method 22 (“Visual Determination of Fugitive Emissions from Material 

Sources and Smoke Emissions from Flares”), 2000 edition.” 

Rule 310.01, New Section 103.7: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), the following text was 

proposed to be deleted from re-numbered Section 221-Definition of Open Areas and Vacant Lots and 

added to new Section 103.7: “Vacant portions of residential or commercial lots that are immediately 

adjacent and owned and/or operated by the same individual or entity are considered one vacant open 

area or vacant lot.” In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted new Section 103.7 and returned 

the text to re-numbered Section 221. 

Rule 310.01, New Section 103.8: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), the following text was 

proposed to be deleted from re-numbered Section 231-Definition of Unpaved Roadway (Including 

Alleys) and added to new Section 103.8: “For the purpose of this rule, an unpaved roadway (including 

alleys) is not a horse trail, hiking path, bicycle path, or other similar path used exclusively for purposes 

other than travel by motor vehicles.” In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted new Section 

103.8 and returned the text to re-numbered Section 231. 

Rule 310.01, New Section 203: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to add the 

definition of area accessible to the public, which was proposed to read: “Any parking lot or public 

roadway that is accessible to public travel primarily for purposes unrelated to the dust-generating 

operation.” In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR) instead-of using the term “accessible” in the 

definition of area accessible to the public, deleted “is accessible to” and added “can be entered or used 

68 
for.” The definition of area accessible to the public reads: “Any parking lot or public roadway that can 

be entered or used for public travel primarily for purposes unrelated to the dust-generating operation.” 

Rule 310.01, New Section 210: In the Notice of Propose Rulemaking (NPR), the phrase “technologybased emission limitation under the permit” was included in the proposed definition of emergency. In 

the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted the phrase “technology-based emission limitation 

under the permit” and added the phrase “limitation in this rule.” New Section 210 - definition of 

emergency reads: “A situation arising from sudden and reasonably unforeseeable events beyond the 

control of the source, including acts of God, which situation requires immediate corrective action to 

restore normal operation, and that causes the source to exceed a limitation in this rule, due to 

unavoidable increases in emissions attributable to the emergency. An emergency shall not include any 

noncompliance due to improperly designed equipment, lack of preventative maintenance, careless or 

improper operation, or operator error.” 

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 221: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), the following 

text was proposed to be deleted from re-numbered Section 221-Definition of Open Areas and Vacant 

Lots and added to new Section 103.7: “Vacant portions of residential or commercial lots that are 

immediately adjacent and owned and/or operated by the same individual or entity are considered one 

vacant open area or vacant lot.” In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), returned the text to renumbered Section 221 and deleted new Section 103.7. 

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 231: Add to the definition of unpaved roadway (including alleys) 

“any other property dedicated or otherwise reserved for public or private street uses, as evidenced by a 

recorded document, or having thereon a public easement for such use”. When developing proposed 

new ordinance P-28-Off-Road Vehicle Use In Unincorporated Areas of Maricopa County, one of the 

main categories in which public comment and discussion were focused included the definition of road 

or highway. Stakeholders expressed the following concerns: clarify where designated and open trails 

fall, address service roads, and address private roads. In response to those concerns, the MCAQD 

reviewed state statutes, the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance 

and consulted with a group of public and trust Land Managers and developed the following language 

to supplement the definition of road or highway that the MCAQD initially proposed: “For the purposes 

of this definition the term “road or highway” also includes designated or opened trail systems, service 

roads regardless of surface composition, and any other property dedicated or otherwise reserved for 

public or private street uses, as evidenced by a recorded document, or having thereon a public 

easement for such use.” To maintain consistency among rules and ordinances in the Maricopa County 

Air Pollution Control Regulations, the definition of unpaved roadway (including alleys) in Rule 310.01 

is now reads: “A road that is not paved and that is owned by Federal, State, county, municipal, or other 

governmental or quasi-governmental agencies. An unpaved roadway (including alleys) includes 

69 
designated or opened trail systems and service roads regardless of surface composition and any other 

property dedicated or otherwise reserved for public or private street uses, as evidenced by a recorded 

document, or having thereon a public easement for such use.” 

Rule 310.01, Section 302.4(c)(3): Changed “achieve the compliance determinations described in 

Section 501 of this rule” to “achieve the compliance determinations described in Section 302.4(a) of 

this rule.” 

Rule 310.01, Section 302.5(c)(3): Changed “achieves the compliance determinations described in 

Section 501 of this rule” to “achieves the compliance determinations described in Section 302.5(a) of 

this rule.” 

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.6(c)(2): Changed “achieves the compliance determinations 

described in Section 501 of this rule” to “achieves the compliance determinations described in Section 

302.6(a) of this rule.” 

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.7(a): Deleted “a non-traditional source of fugitive dust that involves” 

from new Section 302.7(a). New Section 302.7(a) reads: “The owner and/or operator of unpaved 

roadways (including alleys) shall not cause or allow visible fugitive dust emissions to exceed 20% 

opacity and either Section 302.7(a)(1) or Section 302.7(a)(2) of this rule.” 

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.7(c)(1) and New Section 302.7(c)(2): Changed “to use an unpaved 

roadway (including an alley)” to “on an unpaved roadway (including an alley).” 

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.7(c)(2): Added “A person, who allows 150 vehicle trips or more per 

day on an unpaved roadway (including an alley) in the PM10 nonattainment area”. 

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.7(c)(2): Deleted “two separate 24-hour traffic counts shall be 

conducted” and added “A traffic count shall measure vehicular traffic over a 48-hour period, which 

may consist of two non-consecutive 24-hour periods. Vehicular traffic shall be measured continuously 

during each 24-hour period.” New Section 302.7(c)(2) reads: “A person, who allows 150 vehicle trips 

or more per day to use an unpaved roadway (including an alley) in the PM10 nonattainment area, shall 

be responsible for conducting vehicle counts/traffic counts to determine if 150 vehicle trips or more 

per day occur on an unpaved roadway (including an alley). A traffic count shall measure vehicular 

traffic over a 48-hour period, which may consist of two non-consecutive 24-hour periods. Vehicular 

traffic shall be measured continuously during each 24-hour period. The average vehicle counts/traffic 

counts on the highest trafficked days shall be recorded and provided to the Control Officer in writing 

within 60 days of verbal or written request by the Control Officer.” 

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.7(c)(3)(a): Changed “Section 302.8(a)” to “Section 302.7(a).” 

70 
Rule 310.01, New Section 302.8(b)(4): Added three control measures for corrals, pens, and arenas. The 

three control measures are similar to control measures included in “Handbook for Conservation 

Management Practices for San Joaquin Valley-Minimizing Agricultural PM10 from Animal Feeding 

Operations (AFOs)-Dairies and Feedlots” dated May 2004. New Section 302.8(b)(4) reads: (a) Apply 

water; (b) Install shrubs and/or trees within 50 feet to 100 feet of corrals, pens, and arenas; (c) Scrape 

and/or remove manure; (d) Apply a fibrous layer (i.e., wood chips) in working areas; or (e) Apply and 

maintain an alternative control measure approved in writing by the Control Officer and the 

Administrator.” 

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.8(c)(2): Changed “achieve the compliance determinations described in 

Section 501 of this rule” to “achieve the compliance determinations described in Section 302.8(a) of 

this rule.” 

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.10: Changed “130 vehicle trips or more per day in Area A” to “150 

vehicle trips or more per day in the PM10 nonattainment area.” 

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.10(c)(3): Changed “achieves the compliance determinations described 

in Section 501 of this rule” to “achieves the compliance determinations described in Section 302.10(a) 

of this rule.” 

Rule 310.01, New Section 501.1(b): Deleted “302.4”. 

13. A summary of the comments made regarding the rule and the department response to them:

The Maricopa County Air Quality Department conducted six Public Workshops throughout the 

rulemaking process for the Five Percent Plan Rulemaking Project – April-August 2007 - and received 

formal comments during the formal comment period – November-December 2007 - from Arizona 

Public Service (APS) and Salt River Project (SRP), Arizona Associated General Contractors, Arizona 

Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Contractors Association, Inc., Arizona Department of Agriculture, 

Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Ballard Spahr, City of Mesa, El Paso Natural Gas, 

Farnsworth Development, Home Builders of Central Arizona, Joint Environmental Task Force, 

Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT), (4) Private Citizens, SCS Engineers, and 

Waste Management of Arizona, Inc. The formal comments and the MCAQD’s responses to such 

formal comments are written below: 

Rule 200, Section 300:

Comment #1: 

MCAQD should identify and include Dust Control Block Permits in this paragraph list. 

Response #1: 

71 
Rule 200 describes the types of permits that the MCAQD issues. Requirements specific to each type of 

permit are described in further detail in individual rules in the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control 

Regulations. Dust Control permits, as described in Rule 200, are a type of permit the MCAQD issues. 

Details about Dust Control permits are described in Rule 310. Block permits are a sub-set of Dust 

Control permits. Block permits are described in Rule 310, Section 404. 

Comment #2: 

Several comments recommend that the references to other sections made within this section, 301, be 

corrected from "Section 302 thru Section 305" to "Section 302 through Section 305 and Section 307". 

Response #2: 

The MCAQD will correct the references in Rule 200, Section 301. This correction will be documented 

in the Notice of Final Rulemaking. 

Comment #3: 

Is "area source" defined in MCAQD rules? 

Response #3: 

Yes, "area source" is defined in Rule 100, Section 200.18. 

Comment #4: 

In Section 305, the MCAQD should clearly identify where the primary responsibility for obtaining a 

dust control permit resides. A property owner may not have direct supervisory or operational control 

over the dust-generating activity caused by a hired contractor or operator. Is MCAQD intending for 

property owners to obtain the relevant dust control permits before any dust-generating activity caused 

by a contractor or operator hired by the property owner? Or alternatively, does MCAQD intend the 

contractor or operator of the dust-generating activity to possess the primary responsibility to obtain the 

dust control permit? 

Response #4: 

Section 302.4 of Rule 310 as well as Section 305 of Rule 200 clearly indicate that both the owner and 

the operator (or other designated official of the owner/operator) are responsible for ensuring a dust 

control permit has been obtained before any dust-generating activities occur. Dust Control Permits are 

site-specific; therefore only one permit is needed per site. The purpose of this section is to make clear 

that there is shared responsibility by the owner; operator or responsible official in ensuring an 

applicable permit is obtained before dust-generating operations commence. Neither owner nor operator 

nor responsible official can circumvent dust control permit requirements by claiming it is the sole 

responsibility of one particular party to obtain the required dust control permit. The Department has no 

ability to intervene in contractual issues. 

Rule 310, General Comments:

Comment #5: 

First and foremost, we believe the current Rule 310 may be sufficient to regulate the permitted 

community had the County Air Quality Department been given the necessary resources to fulfill the 

72 
previous commitments made in 2004. Adding new provisions onto an existing rule without testing out 

the effectiveness of the current rule under the present environment is onerous and will present 

problems with compliance. 

Response #5: 

From July 2006 through January 2007, the MCAQD conducted a rule effectiveness study for Rules 

310, 310.01 and 316. The results were described in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Even with 

additional personnel, the MCAQD staff will only inspect sites periodically. Permit holders are 

responsible for maintaining consistent compliance and could also have improved their site 

management efforts in the past several years so that another SIP revision would not have been 

necessary. Consistent compliance that will result in emission reductions requires the efforts of all 

affected parties and all must step up to meet the challenge to reduce PM10 in Maricopa County. 

Specifically under Section 189(d) of the Clean Air Act, the state was required to submit State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions which provide for attainment of the PM10 air quality standard in 

Maricopa County and, from the date of such submission until attainment, for an annual reduction in 

PM10 or PM10 precursor emissions within the area of not less than 5% of such emissions as reported in 

the most recent inventory prepared for such area. PM10 emissions from Rule 310 sources are 

significant and account for over 38% of the 2005 Periodic Inventory. In order for the Five Percent Plan 

to be effective, additional reductions from this source category are necessary. For the Five Percent Plan 

for PM10, an analysis was again conducted to identify additional measures to reduce emissions and/or 

improve compliance with existing requirements. In addition, the Arizona State Legislature enacted SB 

1552 that also contains requirements for additional control measures that are included in the revisions 

to the rules in this notice. The MCAQD also reformatted the rules and clarified text to address 

concerns and comments that arose in the enforcement process. Finally, the MCAQD also added, in 

Rules 310 and 310.01, several control measures that were adopted in June 2005 as BACM/MSM in 

Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations Rule 316.

Rule 310, Section 100:

Comment #6: 

For fairness and maximum emission reductions, significant sources, such as vacant lots and unpaved 

roads, should be subject to the same emission control requirements as permitted sources. Accordingly, 

rather than different rules for permitted and unpermitted sources, HBACA recommends that all 

fugitive dust sources be subject to Rule 310. This does not mean that all unpermitted sources would 

require permits. Vacant lots and unpaved roads could be excused from permitting requirements as they 

are currently. 

Response #6: 

Unpermitted sources present unique challenges to reducing particulate emissions and are subject to 

emission control requirements as consistent with those that apply to permitted sources as appropriate 

given the legal, technological and economic feasibility issues associated with those source categories. 

73 
Land use approvals, property rights, multiple property owners, shared easements, unoccupied 

properties, and the very large number of such sources are a few of the complications that must be 

addressed with unpermitted sources. Activities at permitted sources are initiated to conduct business, 

usually manned, and under common control whether direct or through contract. 

Comment #7: 

MCAQD should include transportation emergency repair activities as those necessary to return the 

transportation system to functional status in this rule paragraph. 

Response #7: 

MCAQD maintains that the current language of this section best describes the intent of the section. 

Emergency repair activities will be judged against the criteria described in this section. There are too 

many different types of governmental agencies to include language specific to each agency’s mission. 

Comment #8: 

Provision should not discriminate against private agencies. 

Response #8: 

The exemption in Rule 310, Section 103.3, for public protection and restoration of critical public 

utilities (which is also critical to public protection) does not constitute discrimination. This exemption 

is based on the activity conducted (i.e., protection of the public and not the nature of the agency). 

Comment #9: 

Strike "been completed" and replace with "ceased". 

Response #9: 

Rule 310, Section 103.4 was originally in the SIP approved definition of "disturbed surface area". Rule 

310, Section 103.4 has been created to make it clear which activities are exempt from Rule 310. 

Comment #10: 

Several commenters suggest this section be revised to accommodate the potential for trespassers, as 

follows: “An unpaved road is not a horse trail, hiking path, bicycle path, or other similar path for 

which the designated use is for purposes other than travel by motor vehicles.” This change is necessary 

as the owner/operator of the path should not be held accountable for illegal activity beyond their 

control. 

Response #10: 

A blanket exemption for trespassing is not appropriate and relaxes the rule. The department has no way 

to distinguish the vehicles of trespassers from those driven by legitimate employees. The 

owner/operator is ultimately responsible for conditions and emissions coming from their properties. 

The owner/operator will need to investigate why illegal activity is occurring, take steps to minimize the 

activity and mitigate the effects of that activity. The owner/operator can present information regarding 

the circumstances leading to a Notice of Violation should the situation escalate to the enforcement 

stage. 

Rule 310, Section 200:

74 
Comment #11: 

A clear definition of utilities should be added to the definitions. Throughout the regulations, whenever 

"utilities" are referenced a parenthetical definition follows. For consistency and clarity, all definitions 

should be contained in a Definitions section. An oil pipeline is not typically considered a "utility". 

Utilities should include interstate gas transmission and interstate gas transmission in addition to local 

gas distribution. Consider the definition of Utilities - Transmission or distribution of electricity, natural 

gas, oil and other petroleum products, water, gasoline including interstate natural gas transmission and 

intrastate natural gas transmission. 

Response #11: 

MCAQD maintains that the parenthetical definitions of utilities described in this rule best reflect the 

intended applicability of the Rule. 

Comment #12: 

Current Rule 310 and proposed Rule 310.01 include the term, “area accessible to the public” (defined 

as, “Any parking lot or public roadway that is accessible to public travel primarily for purposes 

unrelated to the dust-generating operation”). Rule 310, Section 201; Proposed Rule 310.01, Section 

203. This term creates confusion because the new term sounds like it is related to the definition 

elsewhere in the County rules for “ambient air” (i.e., “That portion of the atmosphere, external to 

buildings, to which the general public has access.”) See Rule 100, Section 200.13. The “ambient air” 

definition serves important but unrelated purposes under unrelated parts of the air program, including 

stationary source permitting. In response to a question at the July 19, 2007 public meeting, MCAQD 

explained that the term “area accessible to the public” is used for a unique purpose concerning trackout 

controls. Moreover, the definitions section in Rule 310 begins with this restrictive phrase, “For the 

purpose of this rule, the following definitions shall apply.” Thus, it appears that MCAQD correctly 

does not intend that this term and its definition have any effect on the unrelated definition or 

interpretation of “ambient air” in Rule 100, § 200.13. In order to avoid future confusion or controversy, 

the Chamber requests that MCAQD formally state that the term “area accessible to the public” and its 

definition in Rules 310 and 310.01 do not have an effect on the definition or interpretation of “ambient 

air” in Rule 100, Section 200.13. However, it would be preferable to use a term other than “area 

accessible to the public” in Rules 310 and 310.10. For example, either “paved public parking/travel 

area” or “public parking/travel area” would be a good, non-controversial substitute for “area accessible 

to the public.” This change also would avoid the circularity and the lack of clarity caused by using 

“accessible” in both the term being defined and in its definition. 

Response #12: 

The definition of “area accessible to the public” was adopted in 2004 to close a loophole that allowed 

several permittees to use parking lot surfaces as trackout control devices without restricting public 

travel during work hours. The revision is intended to clarify at what physical point trackout must be 

controlled and cleaned up. Based on the recommendations of the MCAQD Dust Compliance and 

75 
Enforcement Divisions, the current revisions to this definition address additional construction site 

locations such as schools, churches, and gated subdivisions. The terminology in this definition 

specifically addresses the circumstances encountered when conducting dust-generating operations. 

This definition in conjunction with rule limitations allows paved public parking/travel areas to be used 

as trackout control devices provided that 1) the surface is designated as a trackout control device in an 

approved dust control plan, 2) barriers are installed to prevent the public from using the surfaces when 

construction activities are occurring, and 3) all trackout is cleaned up before the public is allowed to 

use the surface. For example, lanes are frequently barricaded and closed at night or over a weekend and 

reopened to accommodate rush hour traffic during roadwork. The definition further qualifies access for 

public by the phrase "public travel primarily for purposes unrelated to the dust-generating operation." 

When evaluating stationary source permits under the procedures and provisions of Regulation II, the 

terms, definitions, and provisions contained in those rules will apply to the review of stationary source 

applications. The determination of "ambient air" in relation to any stationary source permit application 

will continue to be made on a case-by-case basis given the specific site configurations and 

circumstances of each applicant. The MCAQD does not agree with the suggested fix because changing 

the terminology from "area accessible to the public" to "public parking/travel area" is less clear when 

applied to these circumstances. The Department has replaced the phrase “is accessible to” in the 

description of the definition with the phrase “can be approached, entered, or used for”. 

Comment #13: 

A number of comments addressed the definition of “bulk materials”. Several comments requested that 

items listed in "bulk material" be defined. Other comments requested that manure or animal waste be 

added while another comment felt that several terms were duplicative and other terms restricted to 

materials less than 2 inches in diameter. 

Response #13: 

The definition of bulk material is consistent with the definitions currently in the State Implementation 

Plan and other MCAQD air quality rules and matches that included in Rule 316. The dust-generating 

operations delineated under Section 203 represent an illustrative, not exhaustive, list of possible 

materials. The test methods listed in the rule further refines what materials are regulated by the rule. 

The definition of manure is self-evident. In addition, animal waste in general is regulated under Rule 

310.01. No further definition refinement is required. 

Comment #14: 

"Piling" and "moving" are vague and redundant of more specific terms transporting, unloading, and 

stacking. 

Response #14: 

The MCAQD has opted to be more inclusive as the terms “piling” and “moving” are used by affected 

sources in the field. The definition of “bulk material handling, storage, and/or transporting operation” 

76 
is consistent with the definitions currently in the State Implementation Plan and other MCAQD air 

quality rules; therefore, the MCAQD is not changing the definition at this time. 

Comment #15: 

Rather than list specific control measures, reference Section 305. 

Response #15: 

The list of possible control measures was added in response to EPA comments and is part of the State 

Implementation Plan; therefore, MCAQD is not changing the definition at this time. 

Comment #16: 

"Control Measure" - Sand and gravel mining operations require watering DURING operations, not just 

pre-watering. 

Response #16: 

Rule 310, Section 205 defines the term "control measure" and lists several control measures. Prewatering is just one example of a control measure that may be required to reduce PM10. Specifically, to 

pre-water the site to depth of cuts and to allow time for penetration is one of two control measure 

options before disturbed surface areas are created. However, while disturbed surface areas are being 

created, the source must apply water or other suitable dust suppressant other than water, apply water as 

necessary to maintain a minimum of 12% soil moisture content, or implement a control measure 

described in Rule 310, Section 305.11(b)(1) or Section 305.11(b)(2) and construct fences or three-foot 

to five-foot high wind barriers with 50% or less porosity adjacent to roadways or urban areas to reduce 

the amount of windblown material leaving a site. 

Comment #17: 

Dust Control Plan - Specify that an approved Dust Control Plan must be available before operations 

begin under the new or revised permit. 

Response #17: 

Rule 310, Section 302.1 requires an approved Dust Control Plan prior to commencing a dustgenerating operation. The purpose of Rule 310, Section 402 is to define the nature of a dust control 

plan. Sections 402.1 and 402.2 both state that a dust control plan must be submitted before any dustgenerating activities occur when a permit is required. Also, Section 405 states that a Dust Control 

permit application or revision must be approved or denied by the MCAQD within 14 days of receipt. 

This would include any approval action taken on the Dust Control Plan that would be a required part of 

the Dust Control permit application or revision. The MCAQD believes 14 days is a reasonable and 

prudent amount of time to approve or deny a permit and its associated documents, including the Dust 

Control Plan. 

Comment #18: 

Clearly define what the specific activities in "Dust-Generating Operation" includes. For example what 

types of activities are included in “construction activities”? Clark County [NV] has a list of 16 types of 

"construction activities". 

77 
Response #18: 

Rule 310, Section 209 broadly defines a dust-generating activity with the beginning phrase "Any 

activity capable of generating fugitive dust...", therefore a specific listing of sub-activities (like types 

of construction activities) is not necessary as all construction activities that generate fugitive dust are 

subject to this definition. 

Comment #19: 

Several comments express concern that the proposed definition of dust-generating operation is too 

broad and would have unintended consequences. The definition is not specific to activities that actually 

generate dust. Under the proposed definition, for example, any activity involving the "operation of any 

outdoor equipment" or the "operation of motorized machinery" at Title V sources would require a Dust 

Control Plan, even if the operation of such equipment or machinery is nowhere near an area in which 

fugitive dust could be generated. See Sections 209.9, 209.10 and 302.3. As another example, any 

"property owner" who "operates . . . a dust-generating operation" (which is defined to include things 

such as construction, operating outdoor equipment, and operating motorized machinery) is required to 

obtain a permit, regardless of where the activity occurs or whether dust is actually generated. Other 

examples where dust permits would be required include: Installation of a sprinkler system on a 

residential property if mechanized equipment is used to dig the necessary "trenches"; Operation of a 

lawnmower or weed trimmer; and Utilization of a playground with a sand-based floor. These types of 

activities (and many others) should not be regulated under Rule 310, and the definition of "Dust 

Generation Operation" should be modified accordingly. As currently written, there is nothing in the 

Section 209 definition of "Dust-Generating Operation," or in the requirements set forth in Section 302, 

that restrict the obligation to obtain a permit to persons who actually generate dust. The language is far 

too broad and should be expressly limited to activities that actually generate dust. We understand that 

the intent of this rule is to focus on those activities that are of primary concern with regards to the 

particulate matter non-attainment issues occurring in the county. We therefore encourage the MCAQD 

to restrict the requirements of Rule 310 to activities that actually generate dust. In addition, certain 

other minor activities should be encompassed within Rule 310.01, which does not require an air quality 

permit or dust control plan, but does require the use of control measures to reduce fugitive dust 

emissions. Definition should be limited to anthropomorphic sources. 209.3 through 209.8 are already 

in earthmoving definition, so inclusion here is redundant. 209.9 should be revised as follows: "209.9 

Operation of any outdoor equipment haul trucks or other motorized machinery in conjunction with or 

for the purposes of conducting activities listed in subsections 209.1 and 209.2." 209.10 through 209.14 

should be deleted, because unrelated to the purposes for which a permit is obtained and do not meet the 

definition of "source" and "building, structure, facility, or installation". For example, as crafted, 

operating motorized machinery is a dust-generating operation. Dust-generating operations that disturb 

more than 0.1 acre require a permit. Accordingly, a permit would be necessary to operate a vehicle on 

a county road under this proposal. 

78 
Response #19: 

Rule 310, Section 209 states that a dust-generating activity must first be “capable of generating 

fugitive dust” for the definition to be applicable to the list of example sources included in the 

definition. If the machinery the commenter mentions is “nowhere near an area in which fugitive dust 

could be generated”, then that machinery is not capable of generating fugitive dust and would not be 

considered a dust-generating operation; and thus not be subject to the provisions of Rule 310. 

Additionally, Rule 310 does not require permits for specific pieces of equipment, but rather for the 

control of fugitive dust generated by that equipment. This is an important distinction, and explains why 

construction equipment does not have permits, but rather only when construction equipment is used to 

disturb surface areas are the requirements for a permit and the Rule in general triggered. It is important 

to remember that Section 302 of Rule 310 provides the applicability of which sources need a permit for 

dust-generating activities. The example given by the commenter (installation of residential sprinkler 

system) while technically dust-generating activities would almost never approach the permit threshold 

of disturbing a surface area larger than 0.10 acres as described in Section 302.1. If those activities do 

disturb areas larger than 0.10 acres, then the MCAQD believes it is prudent and necessary for those 

activities to require a permit. Other examples given by the comments (operation of a lawn mower or 

weed trimmer, utilization of a playground with sand-based floor, and the public driving on a county 

unpaved road) are exempted under Sections 103.2, 103.5, and 103.6. The MCAQD is not changing the 

definition at this time. 

Comment #20: 

Dust-Generating Operation - Include reclamation in this category. If any of the operations listed are 

part of sand and gravel mining, then fugitive dust from these operations should be calculated for each 

permit; especially for the excavation operation. This is a big loophole that needs to be taken into 

account. 

Response #20: 

The calculations of fugitive and process emissions that determine the potential to emit (PTE) for a 

source required to obtain a Title V, Non-Title V, or General permit is regulated by the provisions 

contained in Regulation II. The inclusion of reclamation in this definition would have no effect on 

calculation of PTE. 

Comment #21: 

Define "motorized machinery" and "outdoor equipment". 

Response #21: 

Categories were added to clarify the intent of the section. The dust-generating operations delineated 

under Section 209 represent an illustrative, not exhaustive, list of possible activities. No further 

definition refinement is required. 

Comment #22: 

Earthmoving operations - Include reclamation in this category. 

79 
Response #22: 

Categories were added to clarify the intent of the section. The earthmoving operations delineated under 

Section 211 represent an illustrative, not exhaustive, list of possible activities. No further definition 

refinement is required. 

Comment #23: 

The MCAQD should include the emergency repair of transportation systems to this definition. 

Transportation systems are critical infrastructure and fall into the same category of care as power 

systems, drinking water, waste water and other utilities. 

Response #23: 

Transportation system repairs are routinely covered under a block permit. It has been the Department’s 

experience that traffic can be directed to a detour leading to personal inconvenience until the repair can 

be completed. In contrast the loss of the systems covered in Rule 310, Section 213 can be life 

threatening conditions. 

Comment #24: 

Discriminatory definition, should not exclude private sector. Phrase "technology-based emission 

limitation under a permit" should be replaced with "limitation in this rule". 

Response #24: 

The purpose of Section 213 is to provide an exemption only to essential public utilities which are 

critical to public health and welfare. If the private sector operates and manages an essential public 

utility, then this defined emergency activity would be covered by this exemption. MCAQD agrees with 

the comment regarding the phrase "technology-based emission limitation under a permit" and has 

replaced the phrase in Section 212 definition of “emergency” with “limitation in this rule”. 

Comment #25:

Several comments suggest that the MCAQD provide a better definition of "end of work day". As 

currently defined, it is ambiguous as to what is considered to be the end of the work day except that it 

must not be later than 8 pm. 

Response #25: 

The MCAQD will amend this definition to read, “The end of a working period that may include one or 

more shifts. If working 24 hours a day, the end of a working period shall be considered no later than 8 

pm.” 

Comment #26: 

Add after "capture", "a control system"; if airborne dust is controlled by a spray bar system, for 

example, is it still fugitive dust? Definition must exclude natural sources, including wind. Otherwise, 

wind would meet definition of a dust-generating operation for which a permit is required. Also, 

concrete and tile cutting should be explicitly excluded. 

Response #26: 

80 
MCAQD used the definition found in EPA reference documents. The definition in this section remains 

unchanged from the existing rule adopted by EPA. 

Comment #27: 

Insert "pad" after "Minimum" in last sentence. 

Response #27: 

The MCAQD is not changing the definition as the proposed modification does not add clarity to the 

definition. 

Comment #28: 

Several comments recommend that the proposed additional language for this definition be moved to 

Section 306, as this language pertains to operating requirements for the gravel pad. 

Response #28: 

Rule 310, Section 306 requires the installation and utilization of trackout control devices and does not 

address each possible type of device individually. The only reference to a gravel pad occurs in the 

definition of trackout control device in Section 228, thus this definition for gravel pad is clarifying 

another definition. This additional language is necessary to define when the layer of gravel will qualify 

as a trackout control device. 

Comment #29: 

Several comments state that the dimensions listed may be problematic in certain situations such as for 

single lane entrance/exits. They suggest revising the definition to "width of the outgoing travel lane" or 

"If practicable, a gravel pad should Minimum dimensions must be 30 feet wide by 3 inches deep, and, 

at minimum, 50 feet long or the length of the longest haul truck, whichever is greater." 

Response #29: 

A gravel pad is only one option that can be selected as a trackout control device. A permittee has the 

option of selecting another device to fit their site specific circumstances or applying for approval the 

gravel pad with smaller dimensions as an alternative control measure under Rule 310, Section 

402.3(c)(3). The Department will add “Section 306.1(b)” to Section 402.3(c)(3) to be consistent with 

the provision the existing rule. 

Comment #30: 

MCAQD should consider adding language to Rule 310, Section 222-Definition of Off-Road Vehicle to 

emphasize the recreational nature of the listed examples. A road scraper or bulldozer could be included 

in this definition as it is currently written and clearly from the listed examples, neither are recreational 

vehicles. 

Response #30: 

The term “off-road vehicle” is used in Rule 310, Section 205-Definition of Control Measure. The 

MCAQD will take the suggestion under advisement. Rule 310, Section 222-Definition of Off-Road 

Vehicle is a carry-over from the existing rule and is not a change or addition to Rule 310. The 

MCAQD is not addressing previously approved rule language in this rulemaking. 

81 
Comment #31: 

In the definition of "open storage pile," it is assumed the silt content of the storage pile is greater than 5 

percent unless testing is conducted to show that it is less than 5 percent. It is unclear how often testing 

would be required to demonstrate that an open storage pile has a silt content of less than 5 percent. For 

example, if there is a storage pile of washed gravel at a site, which inherently has extremely minimal 

silt content, how often would it need to be tested? Furthermore, in this example, it is clearly not 

necessary to test to confirm that the silt content is less than 5 percent; this can be determined through 

visual observation alone. Another comment requested that the definition should include exclusion for 

washed materials, which would not have 5% silt content and should not require testing. 

Response #31: 

The MCAQD recognizes the results of the laboratory tests that document the specifications of washed 

products. A pile of washed materials can become contaminated depending upon site activities, so total 

exclusion is not necessarily appropriate. However, inspectors perform visual checks of piles. Based on 

the frequency of activity, a permittee may also choose to use visual checks to ascertain if the pile of 

washed materials has become contaminated. 

Comment #32: 

The MCAQD should clearly identify where the primary responsibility for obtaining a dust control 

permit resides. A property owner may not have direct supervisory or operational control over the dustgenerating activity caused by a hired contractor or operator. Is MCAQD intending for property owners 

to obtain the relevant dust control permits before any dust-generating activity caused by a contractor or 

operator hired by the property owner? Or alternatively, does MCAQD intend the contractor or operator 

of the dust-generating activity to possess the primary responsibility to obtain the dust control permit? 

Response #32: 

See the response to comment #4. 

Comment #33: 

Is a "person" in this definition identical to the "Owner and/or Operator" identified in a previous 

definition? 

Response #34: 

Rule 100, Section 200.78 contains the current definition of "person" and includes “owner/operator”. 

Comment #35: 

Definition in Section 226 is unnecessary and unenforceable in the field. 

Response #35: 

This definition clarifies a standard in a rule. Further, permit applicants are required to include a site 

plan with project boundaries with the application and Dust Control Plan. 

Comment #36: 

The MCAQD should consider establishing a threshold value (0.10 acre) for an unpaved parking lot. As 

this definition is drafted, a parking lot could be one square foot or less. A permit threshold area as 

82 
established in Rule 200 Section? 302.1 would clarify this definition. Another comment states that no 

change necessary to current definition concerning area limitation. As proposed, one car idling onsite 

would render that spot an unpaved parking lot. 

Response #36: 

The MCAQD’s intent is to be consistent with Senate Bill 1552. The definition does not establish 

permit thresholds. A single idling vehicle does not provide much information to an inspector on what’s 

happening onsite. Typically, the MCAQD looks for parked vehicles and supplies to indicate where 

unpaved parking is occurring. The MCAQD does not agree that a reasonable person automatically 

assumes an idling car renders the spot an unpaved parking lot. The MCAQD consults the approved 

Dust Control Plan when questions arise. 

Comment #37: 

Are "Visible emissions" as identified by this definition an opacity standard evaluation? If so then what 

method is to be used to determine compliance? If not, then what evidence is sufficient to establish 

evidence of visible emissions? 

Response #37: 

“Visible emissions" in this definition simply refer to any level of dust in the atmosphere that is 

observable by the naked eye. 

Comment #38: 

"Wind Event" - This needs to be redefined. Wind events as low as 10 mph can cause excessive PM10

pollution. Re-evaluate this criterion based on real time data from the monitoring network. 

Response #38: 

The intent of this definition is to point out those wind events that are certain to generate large PM10

emissions and overwhelm best available control measures (BACM). While lower speed winds can also 

generate PM10 emissions, those wind speeds do not overwhelm BACM. For purposes of Rule 310, the 

MCAQD believes the current definition in Section 236 meets this criterion. 

Rule 310, Section 300:

Comment #39: 

In the proposed amendment to Rule 310 there is a new General Practices provision that Maricopa 

County claims summarizes the general conditions that are citable offenses under section 301. Our 

understanding is this listing is meant only to clarify the rule’s requirements and to make it easier to 

understand. The County should clarify these General Provisions so as not to cause double jeopardy to 

the permitted source when issuing a NOV. For example, XYZ Company is issued a NOV for Track-out 

under the work practice section, and then issued a similar second NOV under 301 for failure to comply 

with the General Provisions of the Rule and Dust Control Permit / Plan. We need a clear interpretation 

or guidance when new inspectors are hired years [sic] as to intent and consistency of inspections. 

Another comment recommends that it would make more sense to provide a guidance document that 

clarifies what constitutes a violation of the rule. This section could then be removed. 

83 
Response #39: 

The purpose of the change was to summarize general requirements for dust-generating operations, not 

to increase the possible number of violations cited by MCAQD. The explanation section in the Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking and in the Notice of Final Rulemaking indicates that the MCAQD intends the 

General Requirements Section to be a list that summarizes and reminds owners of all the various 

requirements contained in Rule 310. Following Clark County’s example, the MCAQD is including a 

similar list in the rule itself, as guidance documents that accompanied this rule in the past have not 

necessarily been widely read. The MCAQD confirms yet again that the Department will not reference 

Section 301 when issuing a Notice to Comply or Notice of Violation. 

Comment #40: 

Specify what type of permit is needed. If this is not mining, say so. 

Response #40: 

Rule 200 indicates the specific types of permits needed depending on the type of source. 

Comment #41: 

Several comments recommend revising this section to refer specifically to Dust Control Permits and 

Dust Control Permit revisions only, rather than generic references to "permits" or "permit revisions. 

Response #41: 

The MCAQD has designed the scope of the rules to covers all permits. 

Comment #42: 

Rule 310, Section 302.2 is unnecessary and incapable of consistent enforcement in the field. How will 

inspector know whether one site is under common control with another? 

Response #42: 

The MCAQD inspectors do have access to a dust control permit database that allows for discovery of 

sites under common control. Further, this section is necessary to ensure that thresholds for applicable 

requirements and Dust Control Permit requirements are not circumvented by artificially subdividing 

area under common control. 

Comment #43: 

Rule 310, Section 302.3 is identical to Section 402.1(a) and could lead to multiple violations for the 

same action. For this reason, we request that Section 402.1(a) be deleted. Also, as written this 

condition requires that a source that performs routine dust generation operation at a site that has 

obtained a Title V, Non-Title V, or General Permit must obtain a Dust Control Plan. This is 

problematic because routine is defined as "any dust-generating operation which occurs more than four 

times per year or lasts 30 cumulative days or more per year". It is possible that the temporary storage 

piles at our Service Centers that have a general permit for gasoline storage would have to get a dust 

control plan for routine dust-generating activities at the facility when the dust-generating activity 

(storage piles) is less than one tenth of an acre. It is our position that a Service Center that has 

temporary storage piles created more than 4 times a year and that is less than one tenth of an acre 

84 
should not be required to obtain a dust control plan merely because it has a gasoline storage general 

permit. APS and SRP request clarification on this matter and that this condition be modified to 

accommodate the example mentioned above. 

Response #43: 

The MCAQD will revise Rule 310, Section 302.3 to be consistent with Section 402.1. Section 302.3 

will now read, “No person shall commence any routine dust-generating operation that disturbs a 

surface area of 0.10 acres or greater at a site that has obtained or must obtain a Title V, Non-Title V, or 

General permit under Regulation II-Permits and Fees of these rules without first submitting to the 

Control Officer a Dust Control Plan.” 

Comment #44: 

This requirement is consistently violated in Non-Title V permits. At least 60 days is allowed before the 

Dust Control Plan is due. Change permits to conform. 

Response #44: 

This requirement exists in the current rule. It is the MCAQD’s intent to enforce this section with 

regards to all permit holders. It is important to note that because the MCAQD has a unitary permit 

program, often Non-Title V permits may be issued before a source is built, and thus before the source 

can commence any dust-generating operations that would require a Dust Control Plan. The MCAQD 

will review its standard permit conditions and revise as necessary to ensure that the Dust Control Plan 

is submitted and approved prior to commencement of dust-generating operations. 

Comment #45: 

The MCAQD should clearly identify where the primary responsibility resides for obtaining and 

maintaining compliance with a dust control permit. A property owner may not have direct supervisory 

or operational control over the dust-generating activity caused by a hired contractor or operator. Is 

MCAQD intending for property owners to obtain the relevant dust control permits before any dustgenerating activity caused by a contractor or operator hired by the property owner? Or alternatively, 

does MCAQD intend the contractor or operator of the dust-generating activity to possess the primary 

responsibility to obtain the dust control permit? Another comment states that it is unclear who is 

responsible for obtaining the permit under this section. This is particularly true where, for example, 

there is an owner, a contractor, and a supervisor for a project. Is it the MCAQD's intent to require that 

each of these persons obtain a dust permit (i.e., three separate permits)? Is it the MCAQD's intent that 

only one of these persons must obtain the permit? If so, who? And who is liable under that permit? If 

the owner obtains a permit, and the contractor violates that permit, who is liable? MCAQD must 

clarify these important issues. We suggest that the party who actually performs the work be required to 

obtain the permit and have liability under that permit. It would be inequitable to impose liability on a 

party who has no control over a project. This section is also confusing due to the integrated definition 

of "Owner and/or Operator". The comment requests that the integrated definition of "Owner and/or 

Operator" be removed, and that MCAQD instead use the term itself in the section so that it reads as 

85 
follows: "The property owner, lessee, developer, responsible official, Dust Control permit applicant 

(who may also be the responsible party contracting to do the work), general contractor, prime 

contractor, supervisor, management company, or any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or 

supervises a dust generating operation subject to the requirements of this rule owner and/or operator

shall be responsible for obtaining a permit or permit revision, pursuant to section 400 of this rule, from 

the Control Officer." 

Response #45: 

See the response to comment #4. 

Comment #46: 

APS and SRP recommend revising this section to refer specifically to Dust Control Permits, Dust 

Control Permit applications, and Dust Control Permit revisions, rather than generic references to 

"permits," "permit applications", or "permit revisions.? 

Response #46: 

See response to comment #41. 

Comment #47: 

Rule 310, Section 302.5 does not contain the qualifiers found in Rule 200, Sections 309.1, 309.2, and 

309.3. No rule would be necessary if the Control Officer had the authority to impose whatever 

condition he deemed necessary to assure compliance with 20% opacity standard. 

Response #47: 

Rule 310, Section 400 includes existing language found in Rule 200, Section 308. Section 309 

qualifies additional monitoring and sampling not specified by rule and would still apply even if not 

specifically listed in Rule 310. However, the testing procedures for dust-generating operations are 

specified by rule, not by the permit under Rule 200. 

Comment #48: 

Rule 310, Section 302.7 is unnecessary and problematic. What if Rule 310 preempted in the future by 

state or federal law? 

Response #48: 

State and County rules govern stationary sources at all times. This language is standard in air quality 

permitting rules to ensure that owner/operators understand their statutory obligations. Actions at the 

state and federal may impose a duty on the County to revise its rules in the future as it has been 

obligated to do in the past. Nothing in this rule changes that obligation. 

Comment #49: 

Is the visible fugitive dust emissions property line limitation in Rule 310, Section 303.1(b) a presence 

or absence limitation (i.e. instantaneous) or must the 20% opacity limit in Rule 310, Section 303.1(a) 

be exceeded first? If Rule 310, Section 303.1(b) is an instantaneous limit, what opacity observation 

method will be used? Another comment requested an exception to the "zero opacity on property line" 

86 
for work that occurs exactly on the property line, such as building a block wall or maintaining an 

unpaved road shoulder. 

Response #49: 

The property line standard in Rule 310, Section 303.1 is a presence or absence limitation. To clarify 

that the Department will not be enforcing on a single puff of dust, the following text, “Visible 

emissions shall be determined by a standard of no visible emissions exceeding 30 seconds in duration 

in any six minute period as determined using EPA Reference Method 22.” has been added to Section 

303.1(b). The MCAQD has added a new subsection to Rule 310, Section 501.1 to determine 

compliance with the property line standard by conducting observations in accordance with EPA 

Reference Method 22. To address other feasibility concerns identified in the comments, the MCAQD 

is adding an exemption from the property line standard when an owner and/or operator conducts dustgenerating activities within 25 feet of the property line. Further, the MCAQD also intends to issue a 

Notice To Comply for the first violation at sites that are applying controls and have obtained the 

appropriate permits. The MCAQD will modify its enforcement policy to address this new requirement. 

Comment #50: 

If Farm Cultural Practices are not exempt in Rule 303, please note that there are not classes offered to 

agricultural producers or livestock owners to become qualified in EPA Reference Method 9 which 

includes determining 20% opacity. 

Response #50: 

At least two training providers in Maricopa County offer EPA Method 9 Visible Emissions 

Observation Certification Training to anyone required to complete periodic visible emissions 

observations. While the MCAQD does not make recommendations, training is available through: The 

ASU Environmental Technology Management (ETM) program offers EPA Method 9 Certification 

training. Information on the ETM training can be found at 

http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/compliance/smoke.html or by calling (480) 727-1322. In addition, 

Arizona Smoke School offers Method 9 training. Information on Arizona Smoke School can be found 

at http://www.arizonasmokeschool.com/ or by calling (480) 226-0945. Additionally, normal farm 

cultural practices are exempt from Rule 310 as stated in Section 103.1. 

Comment #51: 

Require that this paragraph be enforced at night as well as during the day. Also, periodic monitoring is 

not sufficient to enforce this requirement. 

Response #51: 

Rule 310, Section 303.1 does apply to all times of the day, and is not limited to daylight hours. 

Monitoring and recordkeeping requirements for visible emissions are explained in Section 500 of the 

Rule. 

Comment #52: 

87 
Several comment express significant concerns regarding this [prohibiting visible emissions at property 

line] condition. They support the Chamber of Commerce's September 10, 2007 comment that this 

condition, which prohibits visible emissions from crossing the property boundary line, is 

unconstitutional. We agree with the Chamber of Commerce that this condition should be removed. As 

written, this requirement would be impossible to comply with in many instances. Even if a source is 

implementing the best available control measures as required in other portions of this rule, the potential 

exists for visible emissions to cross the property line if a dust-generating operation is occurring near 

the property line and there is a gust of wind. A source could violate this requirement for reasons 

beyond its control and regardless of its best faith efforts to comply with the rule including compliance 

with every requirement to limit dust in the rule. In addition, there is no indication that this requirement 

will result in any reduction in particulate matter emissions, since there is no credible link between 

opacity and particulate matter emissions. EPA itself has conceded that a "reliable and direct correlation 

between opacity and PM emissions cannot be established without significant site-specific simultaneous 

testing of both PM emissions and opacity . . ." See 72 Fed. Reg. 18428, 18429 (April 12, 2007). 

MCAQD has indicated that the changes proposed in this rule are necessary to reduce particulate matter 

emissions in accordance with the particulate matter non-attainment area State Implementation Plan. 

However, it is clear that this condition will not achieve any creditable reductions. At a minimum, the 

MCAQD should answer the following questions related to this proposed condition: How will the 

MCAQD determine what point marks the property line? It would be impossible for inspectors to know 

where that location is, without a fence to mark the property line. Only a survey can determine 

conclusively where the property line is located. How will the MCAQD inspectors document the exact 

location where visible emissions were observed crossing the "property line," so that a source can refute 

the alleged violation if the visible emissions were not at the actual property line? How will the 

MCAQD address this issue for line-type properties, such as unpaved roads? As written now, there is no 

flexibility afforded to these sources even if they are implementing the control measures required by 

this rule. Commenters request that this provision be removed. If the MCAQD continues to believe the 

provision must be included, comments submit that, at a minimum, the provision should be reworded. 

In addition to the issues described above, it is inappropriate for this section to refer to "particulate 

matter, including fugitive dust". Any requirements contained in this rule should only pertain to fugitive 

dust, which is in keeping with the title and purpose of this rule. APS and SRP suggest the following 

revision: "The owner and/or operator of a dust-generating operation shall not cause, suffer, or allow 

visible emissions of particulate matter, including fugitive dust, beyond the property line within which 

the emissions are generated. The owner and/or operator shall be exempt from this requirement if it can 

demonstrate that it is implementing best available control measures, as defined by section 304 through 

306 of this rule, and the source is in compliance with the opacity requirement in Section 303.1(a) of 

this rule." Comment recommends 5%-10% opacity at property boundary which is less than half of the 

current standard. 

88 
Response #52: 

The EPA has refined the national ambient air quality standard for particulate matter in 1987 to 

inhalable particulate matter 10 microns or less in aerometric diameter since both court decisions. 

Unlike the two jurisdictions cited in the comment, the Phoenix PM10 Nonattainment Area failed to 

meet the 24 hour PM10 standard by December 31, 2006. As a result, residents still have the potential to 

be exposed to unhealthy levels of PM10. Exceedances are recorded under both stagnant and elevated 

wind conditions. Secondary aerosols are not significant contributors to the exceedances recorded in 

Maricopa County. Geologic material (e.g. dust) remains the dominant constituent of PM10. Locally 

generated PM10 significantly contributes to recorded exceedances of the PM10 standard and can be 

released from dust generating activities or any unstabilized surface, exposing residents to unhealthy 

levels of particulates. The property line standard can serve as a simple visual technique to monitor the 

dust released by the operation. To address the feasibility concerns expressed, the County is clarifying 

the property line standard. First, the text, “Visible emissions shall be determined by a standard of no 

visible emissions exceeding 30 seconds in duration in any six minute period as determined using EPA 

Reference Method 22.” has been added to Rule 310, Section 303.1(b). Next, the Department has added 

text to allow an owner or operator to claim an affirmative defense during high winds. The MCAQD is 

also adding an exemption from the property line standard when an owner and/or operator conducts 

dust generating activities within 25 feet of the property line to Rule 310, Section 303 to address 

concerns regarding work performed at the property line. The Department has added updated Rule 310, 

Section 500 to include EPA Reference Method 22. Further, the MCAQD also intends to issue a Notice 

to Comply for the first violation of the property line standard at sites that are applying controls and 

have obtained the appropriate permits. The MCAQD will modify its enforcement policy to address this 

new requirement. The MCAQD will develop a policy/guideline and train compliance staff to ensure 

consistent enforcement of the property line standard. The MCAQD disagrees that there is no credible 

link between opacity and particulate matter emissions. In fact the next sentence in the EPA notice cited 

by the comment states, “Nonetheless, because there is at least an indirect relationship between opacity 

and PM emissions, including the use of opacity to track the effectiveness of PM control equipment 

operation ...” The MCAQD’s goal with this change is to improve the monitoring of dust control 

measures by providing a simple visual tool that can be applied by employees as well as by the 

MCAQD to evaluate the effectiveness of the dust control measure. Even though the MCAQD can not 

derive a quantitative correlation between opacity and PM emissions for a general rule, improving the 

consistency of compliance will reduce emissions and reduce the concentrations measured at the 

monitors. Owners and/or operators are required to provide a site plan and legal description of their 

permitted site with their permit application. The MCAQD inspectors carry GPS units and would be 

able to use those devices if necessary. However, the inspector only has to determine that emissions 

coming from the permitted site are present at a point that is beyond the property line. Once the 

inspector determines that the visible emission is generated from the permitted site and visible emission 

89 
reaches a point clearly beyond the property line (e.g. a nearby public road), described and documented 

by the inspector, then the exact location of the property line is moot. As noted above, an exemption 

from the property line standard has been added for dust generating activities taking place within 25 feet 

of the property line. These activities will continue to be subject to the 20% opacity standard, the 

requirement to implement control measures including contingency measures, the requirement to obtain 

a permit, etc. Since visible emissions can contain other particles deposited on the site surface as well as 

dust, the Department does not believe that the property line standard should be limited to fugitive dust. 

Comment #53: 

The referenced provision reads: “The owner and/or operator of a dust generating operation shall not 

cause or allow visible fugitive dust emissions to remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property 

line.” At least two other jurisdictions have concluded that absolute prohibitions against visible 

emissions crossing a property line are unconstitutional. In Ross Neely Exp. v. ADE, the Alabama 

Supreme Court held that a state rule prohibiting visible emissions from crossing a property line: "is 

clearly overbroad, encompassing every situation in which visible fugitive dust emissions move across a 

lot line, without regard to damage, injury, or inconvenience caused, reasonable attempts at control, etc. 

This invades the area of protected freedom, severely restricting the use of property, and creases [sic] a 

situation where discriminatory enforcement is almost inevitable." Ref: 437 So.2d 82, 85 (Ala. 1983); 

see also CF & U v. CAPCC, 640 P.2d 238 (Colo. App. 1981) (holding that property boundary standard 

“contravenes fundamental due process rights”). The Chamber respectfully requests this subsection be 

removed from the draft rule. 

Response #53: 

See the response to comment #52. 

Comment #54: 

A blanket prohibition is unlawful. See, e.g., Ross Neely Express, Inc. v. Alabama Dept Envl. Mgmt., 

437 So.2d 82 (Ala. 1983); CF&I Steel Corp. v. Colorado Air Pollution, 640 P.2d 238, 241 (Colo. App. 

1981). While some jurisdictions may have some sort of property boundary limitation on the books, that 

is only because they do not impose blanket prohibitions or have not been challenged. Pima County 

does not impose a blanket prohibition. Pima County's rule states: "No person shall [allow] visible 

emissions...beyond the property boundary line within which the emissions become airborne, without 

taking reasonable necessary and feasible precautions..." [Emphasis added.] Under Pima County's 

rule, so long as reasonably necessary and feasible precautions are taken, emissions can cross the 

property line. Pima County also provides an exception for wind events, which this proposal does not 

do. Note, this is an example of a measure where due process for the industry would be beneficial, 

which Pima County does as well, because there is no test method for this measure. 

Response #54: 

See the response to comment #52. 

Comment #55: 

90 
The direction and reflection of the sun determines opacity, so make clear to use EPA Method 9. Now 

the rule says "no visible emissions"(?) Many controls have to be implemented at property lines such as: 

street sweepers and facility entrances. 

Response #55: 

The property line standard in Rule 310, Section 303.1(b) is a presence or absence limitation. To clarify 

that the Department will not be enforcing on a single puff of dust, the following text, “Visible 

emissions shall be determined by a standard of no visible emissions exceeding 30 seconds in duration 

in any six minute period as determined using EPA Reference Method 22.” has been added to Rule 310, 

Section 303.1(b). The Department has added a new subsection to Rule 310, Section 501.1 in to 

determine compliance with the property line standard by conducting observations in accordance with 

EPA Reference Method 22. 

Comment #56: 

APS and SRP suggest that MCAQD extend the affirmative defense option to the opacity limit 

described in Rule 310, Section 303.1(b), as well as the 20% opacity limitation. Also, MCAQD should 

clarify that a source is not required to submit an excess emissions report or permit deviation 

notification every time there is a wind event, if fugitive dust emissions exceed 20 percent opacity or if 

there are visible emissions across the property line. Such a notification would be impossible if the site 

is inactive during a wind event and no one is on site to make the proper assessment that such a 

submittal should be made. 

Response #56: 

As noted in the response to comment #52, MCAQD has added the property line standard to the high 

wind affirmative defense provision. Stationary sources are not required to submit an excess emission 

report or permit deviation notification for situations that they do not observe. However, the owner 

and/or operator is responsible for results of the periodic assessment of the routine dust generating 

operations covered by their permit. 

Comment #57: 

Where will this meteorological wind speed data be obtained from to allow an owner/operator to 

comply with this provision? 

Response #57: 

Wind data will be obtained through Maricopa County's meteorological network of monitoring stations. 

Comment #58: 

Will MCAQD accept manufacturer provided porosity data - sufficient to meet this requirement? 

Response #58: 

Yes, manufacturer's data is sufficient to determine compliance with this porosity requirement. 

Comment #59: 

Wind fences should stand alone as an alternative or be removed, as it currently adds nothing to the 

rule. 

91 
Response #59: 

Rule 310, Section 303.2(a)(1)(a)(iv) provides four different options. The MCAQD maintains that the 

use of wind barriers is a legitimate option and is included to enhance the flexibility of sites subject to 

Rule 310. 

Comment #60: 

Is it MCAQD’s intention to require additional application of water in the case of any evidence of wind 

blown dust or can an alternative water based dust suppressant be applied in lieu of water? Does 

MCAQD intend an instantaneous opacity standard of any observation to trigger additional action or 

can a physical assessment based upon silt loading be applied? 

Response #60: 

This section only allows the use of water, however Rule 310, Section 303.2(1)(b)(i) does allow for the 

use of other dust suppressant. All opacity determinations for this rule are governed by Rule 310, 

Section 501.1. 

Comment #61: 

Several comments suggest that MCAQD revise this requirement so that it extends the affirmative 

defense option to the opacity limit described in Section 303.1 - as well as the 20 percent opacity 

limitation. 

Response #61: 

The Department has revised the section to allow an owner or operator to claim an affirmative defense 

during high winds for exceedances of the property line standard as well as the 20% opacity standard. 

Comment #62: 

Replace with "Emergency Maintenance of Utilities”. Revise to the following: Section 303.2(b)-The 

opacity limit described in Section 303.1(a) of this rule shall not apply to emergency activities 

associated with utilities, including the emergency maintenance of flood control channels and water 

retention basins." 

Response #62: 

MCAQD cannot add this text as it would constitute a relaxation of the Rule. However, exemptions for 

emergency activities for essential public utilities are addressed in Section 103.3. 

Comment #63: 

Unpaved parking lot. By what test methods will MCAQD conduct compliance determinations? 

Response #63: 

Rule 310, Section 501.1(b) details the methods used to determine opacity for this section and Rule 310, 

Section 501.2(a) details the methods used to determine the silt loading or silt content. 

Comment #64: 

Reference to opacity standard should be stricken as redundant. Opacity covered under Section 303. 

Response #64: 

92 
The reference to opacity is not new and is in the SIP. This reference occurs under Section 304.1 

because compliance with the opacity standard is required in conjunction with either the silt content or 

silt loading standard. The clarity of its application in this instance would be lost if the reference was 

stricken from the section. A responsible party may be found in violation if the vehicular activity on the 

lot violates the opacity standard. If the Department is unable to conduct an opacity observation than a 

site may be found in violation if it fails both the silt content and silt loading tests. 

Comment #65: 

Unpaved Haul/Access Road. By what test methods will MCAQD conduct compliance determinations? 

Is this paragraph applicable to haul roads around agricultural fields and farm operations (nonlivestock)? 

Response #65: 

The test methods for the stabilization requirements of Section 304.2 are listed in Section 501.2(b) of 

Rule 310. If a haul/access road is part of normal farm cultural practices this section does not apply, as 

exempted under Section 103.1. 

Comment #66: 

Reference to opacity standard should be stricken as redundant. Opacity covered under Section 303. 

Response #66: 

The opacity standard is not new to Rule 310, Section 304.2 - unpaved haul/access road - nor is it new 

to Rule 310, Section 303 - visible emissions requirements for dust generating operations. It is part of 

the federally approved rule in the SIP. 

Comment #67: 

Unpaved Haul/Access Road – It doesn’t appear that this rule is enforced. 

Response #67: 

It is the intent of the MCAQD to enforce and ensure compliance with all sections of Rule 310. The 

Department has issued Notices of Violation for this standard. 

Comment #68: 

APS and SRP believe it is important that this section account for the possibility of trespassers on 

unpaved haul and access roads. The limit on vehicle trips and vehicle speeds should be for authorized 

traffic. It is critical that the owner/operator not be penalized for illegal trespassing that occurs on its 

site. 

Response #68: 

A blanket exemption for trespassing is not appropriate and relaxes the rule. The department has no way 

to distinguish the vehicles of trespassers from those driven by legitimate employees. The 

owner/operator is ultimately responsible for conditions and emissions coming from their properties. 

The owner/operator will need to investigate why illegal activity is occurring, take steps to minimize the 

activity and mitigate the effects of that activity. The owner/operator can present information regarding 

93 
the circumstances leading to a Notice of Violation should the situation escalate to the enforcement 

stage. 

Comment #69: 

Disturbed Surface Area. Does MCAQD have a definition of "temporarily or permanently inactive"? 

MCAQD should clearly identify where the primary responsibility resides for obtaining and 

maintaining compliance with a dust control requirement. A property owner may not have direct 

supervisory or operational control over the dust generating activity caused by a hired contractor or 

operator. At what point does MCAQD expect the property owner to exert control over the property 

once a contractor has left? Are there other environmental programs/regulations where such a hand off 

occurs? 

Response #69: 

The purpose/intent of Rule 310, Section 304.3 is to describe control measures to stabilize disturbed 

surface areas on a work site that is under construction when there is no activity occurring at a work site 

(i.e., when the construction at the work site is temporarily or permanently inactive). Neither owner nor 

operator nor responsible official can circumvent dust control requirements by claiming it is the sole 

responsibility of one particular party to obtain the required dust control permit and comply with 

applicable requirements. The Department has no ability to intervene in contractual issues. 

Comment #70: 

APS and SRP are concerned that MCAQD proposes to change the name of this section from "Open 

Area and Vacant Lot" to "Disturbed Surface Area" because the terms have significantly different 

meanings. MCAQD indicated during stakeholder meetings that this change was a result of a request 

from stakeholders to add more clarity. Unless more accurate terminology is used to provide additional 

clarity, MCAQD should revert to the previous terms (i.e., open area and vacant lot) and provide a 

definition of open area and vacant lot that is consistent with Rules 310, 310.01, and 200. 

Response #70: 

The title of this section and the text describing the standard are inconsistent. The text appropriately 

describes the surfaces at sources subject to Rule 310 so a revision to the title was necessary. Further, 

Rule 310 does not apply to non-traditional sources of fugitive dust that are located at sources that do 

not require any permit under these rules. One such non-traditional source of fugitive dust is open areas 

and vacant lots. Non-traditional sources of fugitive dust (e.g. open areas and vacant lots) are subject to 

the standards and/or requirements described in Rule 310.01. 

Comment #71: 

As written, there is confusion between Section 304.3 and Section 305.11, because the stabilization 

requirements of 304.3 are not consistent with the control measures of 305.11. Section 304.3 allows a 

source to water the disturbed surface area on which no activity is occurring in order to form a soil crust 

in accordance with Appendix C. Once a soil crust is form and maintained, the source is in compliance 

with Section 304.3 of this rule. The control requirements of Section 305.11 require that, after the 

94 
activity that caused the disturbed surface area is complete for a period of 30 days or longer, the source 

must implement one of the listed control measures within ten days. Creating a soil crust is not an 

identified control measure. Comments request that "maintain a soil crust" be added to Section 305.11.c 

as a control measure. 

Response #71: 

The purpose/intent of Rule 310, Section 304.3 is to describe the stabilization standards that must be 

met and maintained for disturbed surface areas on a work site when there is no activity occurring at a 

work site. The purpose/intent of Rule 310, Section 305.11 is to describe specific controls measures to 

control fugitive dust on a work site before, during, and after conducting operations/activities that 

disturb the work site’s surface areas. Several of these specific control measures will result in a soil 

crust that will meet the stabilization requirements described in Section 304.3. The MCAQD does not 

believe the sections are inconsistent. 

Comment #72: 

It is not clear these sections would apply to projects on our ROW. If yes, then it would [be] difficult to 

maintain a soil crust or maintain a flat vegetative cover or standing vegetative cover. The ROW is to be 

kept free of deep rooted vegetation and is periodically driven over by motor vehicles for maintenance 

activities. It would also be difficult to restrict vehicle access to the area. 

Response #72: 

Rule 310 only applies to your permitted site, usually the pumping station. The rights-of-way along the 

pipelines are not permitted and thus are addressed in Rule 310.01. 

Comment #73: 

The new phrase "visibly distinguishable stabilization characteristics" is redundant and vague, will lead 

to inconsistent enforcement, and should be stricken. Change from "visible crust" to "soil crust" is 

vague and should be stricken. 

Response #73: 

The stabilization standards and corresponding test methods apply to specific types of surfaces and do 

not provide meaningful information when applied to other types of surfaces. For example, performing 

a test to verify that sufficient vegetation is present always indicates failure when the surface lacks 

vegetation. Rule 310, Section 304.3 explains that the owner and/or operator must test separately each 

type of surface that can be visibly distinguished. These surfaces may be characterized by different 

soils, the presence or absence of vegetation, gravel, or control method. The owner/operator is required 

to verify compliance with a stabilization standard appropriate for each identified surface. The phrase 

“visibly distinguishable” is used so that the owner and/or operator does not have to conduct more tests 

than necessary (e.g. perform a standing vegetation test when the application of water to maintain a soil 

crust is the chosen control method). The phrase “visible crust” was changed to “soil crust” to match 

changes in Appendix C. 

Comment #74: 

95 
Current rule imposes different requirements for hauling offsite, hauling within a site, and crossing a 

public road. See tables 13 and 15. No change should be made. This proposal creates confusion as to 

applicability of Section 305.1 vs. 305.2 vs. 305.3. Subsection (c) is redundant and is covered under 

trackout provisions. Subsection (a)(2) is infeasible. It is impossible to load haul trucks so that load is 

completely level or lower in the center than it is on the sides. Loading the trucks in this manner will 

require the bulk material in haul truck cargo container area to be leveled before the truck moves. Such 

a requirement could be costly and could require a worker within the cargo box with a shovel or rake to 

move the material around to meet this requirement. Such activity could be hazardous. This section 

should be revised as follows: "Load all haul trucks such that at no time shall the highest point of the 

bulk material be higher than the highest point at which the bulk material contacts the sides, front, and 

back of a top of the cargo container area;" 

Response #74: 

The purpose/intent of Rule 310, Section 305.1 is to combine the provisions of existing Sections 308.1 

and 308.2 with existing Tables 13-15. To minimize confusion the MCAQD revised the title to Section 

305.1 from “Off-Site Hauling” to “Bulk Material Hauling Off-Site Onto Paved Areas Accessible To 

The Public”. This title structure now parallels the titles of Sections 305.2 and 305.3 and matches the 

original title of existing Section 308.1. All the required control measures under Section 305.1 through 

305.3 match the existing rule except the new requirement in Sections 305.1(a)(2) and 305.3(b) 

addressing the height of the load to better prevent spillage from the top of the hauling vehicle. The 

MCAQD concurs the with stakeholders’ concerns regarding flat loads and revised the requirement to 

read, "Load all haul trucks such that at no time shall the highest point of the bulk material be higher 

than the top of the sides, front, and back of a cargo container area;" 

Comment #75: 

Does this rule apply to non-traditional sources of fugitive dust? If this rule does apply to livestock 

owners, who are hauling or transporting feed for livestock, they cannot perform control measures b, 

and c. It is not feasible to apply water to feed, or cover feed with tarps when dispensing to livestock. 

Response #75: 

Rule 310, Section 103.2 states that non-traditional sources of fugitive dust are not subject to the 

provisions of Rule 310, including Section 305.2 of Rule 310. Non-traditional sources of fugitive dust 

does include livestock activities as part of its definition, therefore livestock activities are exempt from 

Rule 310. It should be noted that livestock activities and other non-traditional sources of fugitive dust 

are subject to the applicable provisions of Rule 310.01. 

Comment #76: 

Rule 310, Section 305.3(b) is infeasible. Section 305.3(d) is redundant and should be removed to 

prevent confusion and possible duplicative enforcement. 

Response #76: 

See response to comment #74. Rule 310, Section 305.3(b) has been revised. 

96 
Comment #77: 

What does the phrase "as necessary" mean? As necessary to comply with opacity standard? If so, this 

section is not necessary, because opacity is already a rule requirement. 

Response #77: 

Rule 310, Section 305.4 describes the appropriate control measure. “As necessary” is included here to 

recognize situations where moisture is already present, such as rainfall. Opacity and the new property 

line standard simply provide a method of determining if sufficient moisture is present. 

Comment #78: 

Wind fences should stand alone as an alternative or be removed, as it currently adds nothing to the 

rule. 

Response #78: 

A few permittees have chosen to the wind fence combination under Rule 310, Section 305.5(b). The 

MCAQD will continue to provide permittees with that flexibility in meeting this control measure. 

Comment #79: 

Insert "similar" before "material". 

Response #79: 

The word "similar" does not add any clarity to the existing section. 

Comment #80: 

Definitions must be added. Storage areas should be stricken as covered under storage piles. Current 

rule for parking lots allows water to be applied to meet silt loading requirements. Proposal to require 

visible moisture is wasteful of limited resource. 

Response #80: 

Storage areas contain supplies and equipment to support the permitted operation and are not covered 

by the open storage pile provisions. A description for storage can be found in a dictionary. The control 

measures address vehicle use and parking on sites that require a permit and match Clark County's 

Section 94-Permitting and Dust Control for Construction Activities. If an owner/operator feels the 

application of water is wasteful, then this section lists several other options that can be used instead. 

Comment #81: 

APS and SRP believe it is important that this section account for the possibility of trespassers on 

unpaved staging areas, parking areas, material storage areas, and access routes. The limit on vehicle 

trips and vehicle speeds should be for authorized traffic only and the rule should clearly state this. It is 

critical that the owner/operator not be penalized for illegal trespassing occurring on their site. 

Response #81: 

A blanket exemption for trespassing is not appropriate and relaxes the rule. The MCAQD has no way 

to distinguish the vehicles of trespassers from those driven by legitimate employees. The 

owner/operator is ultimately responsible for conditions and emissions coming from their properties. 

The owner/operator will need to investigate why illegal activity is occurring, take steps to minimize the 

97 
activity and mitigate the effects of that activity. The owner/operator can present information regarding 

the circumstances leading to a Notice of Violation should the situation escalate to the enforcement 

stage. 

Comment #82: 

Several comments are concerned about fugitive dust regulations covered by rules other than Rule 310. 

For example, Rule 312-Abrasive Blasting regulates particulate matter emission from abrasive blasting 

and includes an opacity limit with more stringent control measures than Rule 310. A source subject to 

Rule 312 should not have to meet the opacity conditions and control measures set forth in Rule 310. 

However, since blasting is included under the definition of earthmoving operation in Rule 310, the 

source would be regulated under Rule 310 in addition to Rule 312. This could result in multiple 

violations for the same non-compliant action. APS and SRP recommend that the MCAQD include a 

provision exempting from Rule 310 those activities that are subject to fugitive dust requirements under 

other rules. 

Response #82: 

The "blasting operations" referred to in Rule 310 apply to explosive blasting practices, such as rock 

removal or structural concrete removal. Rule 310 does not apply to abrasive blasting operations that 

are subject to more stringent requirement under Rule 312. Rule 310, Section 103.6 clarifies that the 

abrasive blasting process is covered by Rule 312. However, vehicles hauling the equipment into the 

site or re-stabilizing any soil surfaces surrounding the structure being blasted will be subject to Rule 

310. 

Comment #83: 

There is no definition for "demolition activities." This term should be defined. 

Response #83: 

Demolition means the wrecking or taking out of any load-supporting structural member of a facility 

together with any related handling operations. This is the same definition that the MCAQD uses in its 

asbestos regulations. 

Comment #84: 

Wind fences and restricting vehicle access should stand alone as an alternative or be removed, as it 

currently adds nothing to the rule. Subsection (b)(1) should clarify that water need only be applied to 

comply with opacity standard. As crafted, it could be interpreted to require application of water at all 

times. Current rule allows 8 months before permanent stabilization and allows use of water. We have 

not seen an analysis of emission reductions associated with the changes. Trespass by definition cannot 

be prevented. Reasonable precautions can be taken and so Section 305.11(c)(4) should be re-written as 

follows: "Take reasonable precautions to prevent access such as fences, ditches, vegetation, berms, or 

other barrier approved by the Control Officer." MAG did not support any changes to current 

stabilization measures and none are warranted. Home Builders estimate this measure will cost 

$2,000/unit. 

98 
Response #84: 

During the activity that disturbs a surface, a wind fence does not minimize the opacity generated by the 

activity. A wind fence only shields an area three times the height of the fence from a perpendicular 

wind and does not reduce the amount of dust generated by the activity. In Section 305.11(b) when dust 

generating activity is occurring, a wind fence may provide a useful, supplemental control when 

operating near sensitive receptors. Removing this option from the rule only limits the flexibility of 

permit holders to meet the control measure requirements. The MCAQD has revised Section 

305.11(b)(1) as follows: “Apply water or other suitable dust suppressant, as necessary.” This change 

will make this section consistent with the over subsections in Section 305 that allow for the application 

of water while recognizing that continuous application of water may not be necessary such as 

following a rainstorm. As pointed out in comment #77, the opacity standard is already a rule 

requirement. The MCAQD has not changed the language of Section 305.11(c)(4) with regards to 

barriers to prevent trespass. The EPA has long held that the use of the term “reasonable precautions” is 

vague and must be replaced with specific language in order to be considered RACM. Unstabilized 

disturbed areas can contribute to large PM10 emissions through vehicle travel on such surfaces and 

through windblown dust generated from such surfaces. On May 23, 2007, MAG recommended adding 

barriers to the stabilization requirements as part of the Five Percent Plan. These new stabilization 

methods are necessary in order to achieve the required PM10 emission reductions of the Five Percent 

Plan. The new requirements are in place in Clark County. 

Comment #85: 

As currently worded, this requirement does not make sense. It appears that MCAQD is trying to cover 

two separate incidents: full completion of the dust generating operation and "temporary pauses" (an 

undefined term) in dust generating operations that extend beyond 30 days. These are two very different 

situations and should be treated separately within the rule. The types of control measures that should 

be allowed when stabilizing an area upon completion are different from those control measures that 

would be required during a "temporary pause", due to the extent of time that the area needs to remain 

controlled. 

Response #85: 

The owner/operator must address the stabilization requirements under both situations described in Rule 

310, Section 305.11(c). The MCAQD believes that the section offers sufficient flexibility by providing 

five different options to cover the range of circumstances that fall under the two situations. 

Comment #86: 

Several comments also request that the timeframe to implement the control measure be extended to 40 

days due to time delays resulting from specific city ordinances and city approval for the control 

measures listed. 

Response #86: 

99 
The total time allowed under Rule 310, Section 305.11(c) is actually 40 days, when the 30 days after 

finishing a dust generating operation is combined with the ten days allowed to implement the listed 

control measures. 

Comment #87: 

In addition, as written, confusion exists between Section 304.3 and Section 305.11, because the 

stabilization requirements of 304.3 are not consistent with the control measures of 305.11. Section 

304.3 allows a source to water the disturbed surface area on which no activity is occurring, in order to 

form a soil crust in accordance with Appendix C. Once a soil crust is formed and maintained, the 

source is in compliance with Section 304.3 of this rule. The control requirements of Section 305.1 1 

require that, after the activity that caused the disturbed surface area is complete for a period of 30 days 

or longer, the source must implement one of the listed control measures within ten days. Creating a soil 

crust is not an identified control measure listed. APS and SRP request that "maintain a soil crust" be 

added to Section 305.11(c) as a control measure. 

Response #87: 

See the response to comment #71. 

Comment #88: 

It is not clear if these sections would apply to projects on our ROW. If yes, then it would [be] difficult 

to maintain a soil crust or maintain a flat vegetative cover or standing vegetative cover requirements. 

The ROW is to be kept free of deep rooted vegetation and is periodically driven over by motor vehicles 

for maintenance activities. It would also be difficult to restrict vehicle access to the area. 

Response #88: 

Dust generating operations regarding rights–of-way (ROW) are subject to Rule 310.01, not 310, unless 

the site in question already has a General, Non-Title V, or Title V permit, in which case Section 305.12 

of Rule 310 applies. 

Comment #89: 

For fairness, rule should require easement holders to identify in their control plans the number of 

vehicles trips and provide a description of how speeds will be limited. 

Response #89: 

Right-of-ways and easements commonly provide access to operate and maintain infrastructure across 

someone else’s property. These forms of access are not manned. The MCAQD notes the comment and 

will further research right-of-ways and easements, if they are present on permitted sites that are 

required to submit a dust control plan, and address this issue the next time Rule 310 is opened. 

Currently, Rule 310, Section 305.12 applies to sources that have a Title V permit, a Non-Title V 

permit, and/or a General permit. If such sources engage in dust generating operations, then such 

sources must submit a Dust Control Plan. If such sources use the easements and right-of-way as a haul 

or access road onsite, then the requirements that apply to onsite haul/access roads are more stringent 

100 
and will apply. At a minimum, the Dust Control Plan must meet the Dust Control Plan requirements in 

Rule 310, Section 402. 

Comment #90: 

All track out should be totally prevented and if it occurs, you have failed to prevent it. This is the only 

way to satisfy provisions of the 5% plan. 

Response #90: 

The purpose of this Rule 310, Section 306 is to "prevent and control" trackout, not eliminate it. While 

it is not feasible to totally eliminate trackout for all dust generating activities, trackout builds up over 

time, and needs to be cleaned up when it does occur. The MCAQD believes that the presence of 

trackout is an indication that maintenance or modification of the trackout control device is necessary. 

In this Section 306, the MCAQD has reduced the length of trackout to be consistent with a provision 

adopted in 2005 in Rule 316 originally adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 

Re-entrained road dust is one of the largest sources of PM10 in the region. This measure will contribute 

to a reduction in PM10 emissions as outlined in the 5% plan. 

Comment #91: 

Provision 306.1(a) should be limited to exits designated in a Dust Control Plan. 

Response #91: 

This comment would make the rule less stringent. The owner/operator is responsible for ensuring 

contractors/employees only use designated exits. 

Comment #92: 

Trackout Control Device. Why was "100 cubic yards" selected as a threshold of applicability? 

Response #92: 

The 100 cubic yards is equal to the load capacity of 10 three-axle truck trips hauling material off site 

e.g. 100 cubic yards of material. In 2004 EPA states in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for 

their approval of San Joaquin Valley's 2003 PM-10 Plan, that sites with little hauling activity have less 

propensity for trackout and believe that the threshold is acceptable as BACM in light of the 

requirements to mitigate trackout should it occur. 

Comment #93: 

MCAQD needs to clarify the scope of this requirement. This can be accomplished by rewording this 

section as follows: "For those work sites identified in Section 306.1.a, prevent trackout, carryout, 

spillage, and/or erosion by implementing one of the following control measures:" 

Response #93: 

The requirement to control and prevent trackout is required of all sites regardless of whether section 

306.1a is applicable to a site. For those sites that are less than two acres or where less than 100 cubic 

yards of material are hauled off-site, the control measures of section 306.1b still apply. 

Comment #94: 

101 
Large construction sites need more stringent trackout controls with a wheel wash or grizzly in addition 

to a gravel pad at sites 5 acres or larger. This should be mandatory and if trackout occurs, then the 

measure selected is not effective and should be fixed. 

Response #94: 

This suggestion would result in a substantive change to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that the 

MCAQD is unable to consider at this time - in this rulemaking. The MCAQD believes that the 

presence of trackout is an indication that maintenance or modification of the trackout control device is 

necessary. The rule already requires that contingency measures be implemented when the primary 

measure proves ineffective. 

Comment #95: 

Provisions in Rule 310, Section 306.1(b) are unnecessary. Definition of trackout control device 

identifies options, which also includes grizzlies. Additionally, please provide documentation 

concerning the emission reductions associated with paving an area 100 feet in length and 20 feet in 

width to reduce trackout. A reference to other rules without this supporting documentation is unhelpful 

and does not demonstrate how the proposal will reduce emissions, which is a required element of the 

5% plan. 

Response #95: 

A definition is not a standard. Further, Section 306.1(b) contains other specifications not found in the 

definition of trackout control device. The control measure option of paving an area 100 feet in length 

and 20 feet in width to reduce trackout is not new and can be found in Table 17 in the current version 

of Rule 310. No additional reductions were assumed for that control option in the 5% plan. 

Comment #96: 

Clean Up of Trackout. Does MCAQD have an objective measure of sufficient trackout cleanliness? 

Response #96: 

In general, trackout is considered "cleaned-up" or "removed" when bulk materials are no longer 

adhering to nor agglomerating on the surface of a paved area accessible to the public. The inspector 

makes this determination by visually inspecting the paved surface. 

Comment #97: 

This requirement also needs to be enforced across all air permits (Not just 310 & 316), including NonTitle V and Title V permit holders (their permits state they must follow Rule 310 as well), as well as 

Rule 310.01 sources, if the County is going to successfully achieve the PM-10 reductions than all 

sources of track-out throughout the County need to be held to the same standard. Construction sites 

might agree to this standard during hauling operations but at all other times the standard should remain 

at 50 feet as this is already pretty stringent. 

Response #97: 

Rules 310, 310.01 and 316 all contain the 25 foot cumulative limit for trackout. MCAQD maintains 

that practically all sources of trackout are subject to one of these three rules. Non-Title V and Title V 

102 
permit holders are not exempted from these rules if they contain sources at their facilities that are 

subject to these rules (i.e., unpaved parking lot, unpaved alley, sand and gravel operations, etc.). 

Additionally it should be noted that the goal of the control measures in the above three rules is to 

reduce emissions from re-entrained road dust. 

Comment #98: 

Trackout requirements should remain 50 feet. MAG estimated costs originally at $2,500,000/ton 

emissions reduced. Home Builders estimates that this measure will increase per unit costs approaching 

$5,000. References to curbs, gutters, and sidewalks should be removed as inconsistent with the 

definition of area accessible to the public. "Immediately" should be defined and tied to knowledge of 

individual who can take action to address. Subsection (b) is unnecessary, unclear, and could lead to 

duplicative enforcement. 

Response #98: 

MAG’s original estimates overstated the costs associated with this measure as their consultant did not 

assume that any maintenance or modification would be performed on the trackout control device and 

site setup. The MCAQD believes that the presence of trackout is an indication that maintenance or 

modification of the trackout control device is necessary. Appropriate attention directed to site trackout 

control will minimize the amount of cleanup necessary. The Dust Control Coordinators now required 

under Senate Bill 1552 and Rule 310 will be able to provide more effective site dust control. The 

MCAQD believes the $5000/unit still overstates the cost as that number continues to assume 8 hours of 

manual clean up per day, when, in fact, there is no rule requirement to station someone full time as a 

trackout cleanup person. Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks are integral parts of paved areas accessible to 

the public. Further, these areas are frequently overlooked during cleanup efforts, and continue to result 

in re-entrainment of dust from the wake effects of errant drivers. The problem of a grace period 

described above for “immediately” will exist with what ever time period is specified. In the 

Department’s experience, trackout builds up over time and the individual who can take action has a 

duty to monitor it and should be aware cleanup will soon be needed. To condition cleanup based on 

knowledge removes an incentive to monitor trackout and would make the rule less stringent. Section 

(b) is existing rule text moved from Table 16 as the MCAQD has attempted to streamline the rule 

improving clarity. The MCAQD is required to list appropriate control measures so that industry will 

know what types of control measures implement the technology requirements contained in the rule in 

case a permittee chooses to apply for alternative equivalent in effect to the existing measures described 

in the rule. 

Comment #99: 

Manual sweeping to clean up track out is a safety hazard. Recommend that "edges and curbs" be 

removed from the text in this section. 

Response #99: 

103 
Manually sweeping-up of trackout is one of two options for removing trackout and has been selected in 

dust control plans. Trackout must be removed from paved areas accessible to the public, which 

includes curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. See the response to comment #98 regarding curbs, gutters and 

sidewalks. 

Comment #100: 

The proposed revisions include a 50 percent reduction in the amount of trackout allowed at a site. As 

such, the MCAQD should provide a more reasonable amount of time to clean up trackout, carry-out, or 

spillage. In some cases, it is impossible to clean up an area immediately after the cumulative trackout 

extends more than 25 linear feet due to safety issues, particularly if the trackout is on roads accessible 

to the public. It may not be possible to divert traffic while the trackout is being cleaned up. If traffic 

cannot be diverted, employees who are trying to clean up are at significant risk. Furthermore, it was 

communicated in stakeholder meetings that the enforcement of the current trackout requirement is 

dependent on the inspector. Some inspectors provide a reasonable amount of time for cleanup, and 

some provide no leeway based on the requirement that it be cleaned up "immediately." In order to 

ensure fair and equitable treatment of all sources, MCAQD should provide a specific amount of time in 

the rule for cleanup that is more reasonable than "immediately." 

Response #100: 

The MCAQD trains its inspectors on trackout enforcement to ensure fair and equitable treatment. In 

the MCAQD’s experience, trackout builds up over time and the individual who can take action has a 

duty to monitor it and should be aware cleanup will soon be needed. The MCAQD inspectors place 

more importance on taking action to initiate cleanup of trackout than they do on counting minutes. The 

MCAQD does not believe the differences between inspectors are as significant as portrayed based on 

the reports prepared when Notices of Violations are referred for escalated enforcement. If a permittee 

believes that they have been treated unfairly, they may contact a supervisor or other department 

management. 

Comment #101: 

Suggest adding "by wind" after "dislodged". Soil maintained in sufficiently damp condition to control 

dust may have loose grains of soil dislodged by vehicle movement and yet the material moved would 

not be sufficiently friable to generate fugitive dust. Another comment suggested the provision is 

redundant and out of place given other rule revisions and therefore could lead to duplicative 

enforcement. Control measures are defined in Section 305. This could be interpreted to require the 

continuous application of water even if not necessary to meet opacity, stabilization, or control measure 

requirements. As a result, it is both vague and overboard. 

Response #101: 

"Because Maricopa County is a serious area nonattainment area for PM10, the Maricopa County 

Environmental Services Department (MCESD) helped develop a PM10 serious area nonattainment plan 

for the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). The EPA approved the plan in April 2002 contingent 

104 
on the completion of three commitments by Maricopa County (See 65 Fed. Reg. 19964 (2000) and 67 

Fed. Reg. 48717 (2002)). To complete commitment #2, Maricopa County was to "research, develop, 

and incorporate additional requirements for dust suppression practices/equipment for construction 

activities into Dust Control Plans and/or Rule 310" (65 Fed. Reg. 19964, 19980). The intent of this 

section, adopted by the Board in 2004, is to ensure that a water application system is present on site 

when water is the chosen control measure. This section has not been revised and does not require 

continuous operation of a water system. It was simply re-numbered in the re-organization of the rule. 

The comment’s suggestion substantively changes this section. The Department will make note of the 

comment and consider the request the next time Rule 310 is re-opened. 

Comment 102: 

Suggest including "Dust Control permit-Block permit" in earlier listing of air quality permits issued by 

the MCAQD. Suggest signage requirements be included with all permit requirements regardless of 

disturbed area size. 

Response #102: 

Block permits are a subset of the Dust Control permits described in Rule 200. The threshold for 

signage has not been changed in this revision and would represent a substantive change if implemented 

at this time - in this rulemaking. The MCAQD notes the comment and will consider the change next 

time Rule 310 is re-opened/revised. 

Comment #103: 

First, for fairness, block permit holders should be held to same requirement. After all, the MCAQD has 

stated that it has difficulty identifying block permit holder permit violations. By imposing sign 

requirement, county could determine whether a block permit holder is responsible for any violation 

associated with open trenches. Second, original language concerning public readability is superior to 

revised language. It may be impossible for sites that have limited public access points to install a sign 

that the public can view and read "at all times". This revision is unnecessary. 

Response #103: 

The routine activities allowed to be covered under a Block permit do not last very long and in many 

instances are completed in less than one day. Signage for Block permit holders would be gone once 

their work was completed. The specific information required to be on the project information sign 

matches requirements in Clark County's Construction Activities Dust Control Handbook adopted on 

March 18, 2003. 

Comment #104: 

Increase frequency of dust control training for Dust Coordinator to annually. It is only required every 3 

years in the block permits. Also let Dust coordinators who complete the training, train employees of 

the same permit holder. 

Response #104: 

105 
Requirements for dust control training classes are being added to Rule 310 to comply with Senate Bill 

1552. The MCAQD will consider increasing the training frequency for Dust Control Coordinators after 

we gain experience through implementation of the training program this year. We will have a better 

sense of the time, number and workload involved. SB1552 allows the Control Officer to approve 

training developed and provided by a third party for both basic and comprehensive training. If a Dust 

Control Coordinator passes the MCAQD Train the Trainer course and either used the curriculum the 

MCAQD supplies or submits their own for approval, then the coordinator may train employees of the 

same permit holder. 

Comment #105: 

These provisions need to be completely consistent with SB 1552. Latest draft does not include A.R.S. 

§49-474.05(H). 

Response #105: 

A.R.S. §49-474.05(H) reads: "Subsections C and D do not apply when on-site dust generating 

operations are conducted by a permittee who is required to obtain a single permit for multiple noncontiguous sites that is issued by a Control Officer and that requires control of PM10 emissions." Rule 

310 has been written to be consistent with Senate Bill 1552. 

Comment #106: 

Re-look at the number of individuals that are required to take the Certified Dust Coordinator training. 

Limit the certification to one class. Provide an internet training program. Add Method 9 certification or 

training to the training curricula. 

Response #106: 

Requirements for dust control training classes are being added to Rule 310 to comply with Senate Bill 

1552. The Basic Dust Control Training Class can be conducted or approved by the Control Officer. 

The Comprehensive Dust Control Training Class can be conducted or approved by the Control Officer. 

The training classes will include implementation of control measures and discussion of what opacity is. 

However, formal opacity certification training will not be part of the training class. Opacity 

certification can only be done by the EPA-approved or the ADEQ-approved trainers. The Control 

Officer is requiring that an individual certified to conduct comprehensive training must show proof of 

opacity certification before the Control Officer will approve the third party trainer. 

Comment #107: 

This section is a duplicate requirement to Section 309.2(a) and should be removed. 

Response #107: 

The requirement in this section is identical to Section 309.2(a) but included to make clear the required 

training regiment (Section 309.2(a)) and also the requirements for a Dust Control Coordinator (Section 

310.4). Rule 310 has been written to be consistent with Senate Bill 1552. 

Rule 310 Section 400

Comment #108: 

106 
MCAQD should clearly identify where the primary responsibility resides for obtaining and 

maintaining compliance with a dust control permit. A property owner may not have direct supervisory 

or operational control over the dust generating activity caused by a hired contractor or operator. More 

succinctly, the operator or contractor would be the proximate cause of any dust emissions and thusly is 

responsible for dust control efforts. Is MCAQD intending for property owners to obtain the relevant 

dust control permits before any dust generating activity caused by a contractor or operator hired by the 

property owner? Or alternatively, does MCAQD intend the contractor or operator of the dust 

generating activity to possess the primary responsibility to obtain the dust control permit? 

Response #108: 

See the response to comment #4. 

 Comment #109: 

Provision in Section 401.1 as crafted raises incorporation by reference concerns because the Dust 

Control Permit Application is not included in the rule. Rather than add more to the rule, we 

recommend that you simply note that application shall include applicant information, project 

information, and a Dust Control Plan. 

Response #109: 

Section 401.1 reads as follows: "To apply for a Dust Control permit, an applicant shall complete a 

permit application in the manner and form prescribed by the Control Officer. At a minimum, such 

application shall contain the following information." 

Comment #110: 

If no activities are occurring, what permit conditions would apply? 

Response #110: 

The conditions in the permit will be enforced once the first on-site activity commences. At other 

periods of inactivity, the stabilization requirements will apply. Note that Section 401.2(a) requires 

compliance with all provisions of the regulations. 

Comment #111: 

The wording of this section creates uncertainty regarding what conditions are required to be included 

in an approvable Dust Control Plan. As it is written, it is possible to meet Sections 401.2(a), (b), (c), 

and (d) but still not receive approval for a Dust Control Plan. APS and SRP request that the language 

"but not limited to" be removed since it implies that there are requirements other than those in the rule. 

Response #111: 

There are requirements other than those in Rule 310 that may become part-of a Dust Control permit 

such as compliance with the asbestos NESHAPS. This reality does not necessarily mean that a Dust 

Control Plan will be disapproved. 

Comment #112: 

Permittee cannot ensure all persons, including trespassers and other unrelated third parties, comply 

with the permit. 

107 
Response #112: 

Rule 310 contains specific requirements that must be followed to prevent fugitive dust emissions. The 

MCAQD has no way to distinguish the vehicles of trespassers from those driven by legitimate 

employees. The owner/operator is ultimately responsible for conditions and emissions coming from 

their properties. The owner/operator will need to investigate why illegal activity is occurring, take 

steps to minimize the activity, and mitigate the effects of that activity. The owner/operator can present 

information regarding the circumstances leading to a Notice of Violation should the situation escalate 

to the enforcement stage. 

Comment #113: 

Supplying Dust Control Plan and permit to all contractors and subcontractors, regardless of whether 

they conduct dust generating operations, is infeasible. A better approach would be for the 

subcontractor registration program to require that subcontractors be familiar with the dust control plans 

on the sites at which they operate. 

Response #113: 

Rule 310 contains specific requirements that must be followed to prevent fugitive dust emissions. A 

permit holder is responsible for persons on-site who violate the rule. Since dust control plans are sitespecific, the permit holder needs to ensure that all individuals involved in dust-generating operations 

are aware of dust control plan specifics for that site. The subcontractor registration program, delineated 

in Rule 200, is consistent with Senate Bill 1552. 

Comment #114: 

Provision is not consistent with SB 1552. 

Response #114: 

The training requirements in Rule 310 are with Senate Bill 1552. 

Comment #115: 

What is the purpose of this provision 401.3? It seems like it has the potential to add duplicative 

penalties. 

Response #115: 

The intent of Rule 310, Section 401.3 is to describe that the signature of the permittee is required on a 

Dust Control permit application and that such signature represents the permittee’s agreement to accept 

responsibility for meeting the conditions of the permit. A permittee’s signature and such agreement are 

required for all permits that the MCAQD issues. 

Comment #116: 

Some sites do not have linear dimensions. 

Response #116: 

The majority of sites do have linear dimensions. This requirement is designed to measure the surface 

area that will be disturbed and not the volume of dirt moved. The MCAQD accepts appropriate 

calculations of surface area when sites boundaries are not straight lines. The MCAQD uses a project 

108 
site drawing to delineate boundaries for a reference. The project site drawing should be as accurate as 

possible.

Comment #117: 

In Section 402.3(c)(3) reference should be to Sections 303 and 304 - not Section 301. 

Response #117: 

A control measure that is not listed in Rule 310, Section 305 but is chosen for/in the Dust Control Plan 

must meet the general requirements for dust-generating operations and have an effect similar the 

BACM/MSM control measures specifically listed in the rule. 

Comment #118: 

Provision in Section 402.3(c)(4) is redundant. Either remove here or remove reference in other 

locations in the rule. 

Response #118: 

Earlier provisions provided control measure requirements. This requirement lists the contents of an 

application and Dust Control Plan. The repetition here adds clarity. 

Comment #119: 

"And/or" should be deleted from Section 402.3(e) so that phrase reads "where unpaved and/or access 

points..." 

Response #119: 

The MCAQD inadvertently left out the word roads. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking, Section 

402.3(e) reads “where unpaved roads and/or access points...” 

Comment #120: 

Provision in Section 402.4 is redundant, because Dust Control Plan should reflect rule's requirements. 

As drafted, this could lead to duplicative enforcement. 

Response #120: 

A Dust Control Plan is a legally binding document just as is the Dust Control permit. As such, the 

procedures to approve or disapprove a Dust Control Plan are the same as the procedures to approve or 

disapprove a Dust Control permit application. There is no redundancy nor will it lead to duplicative 

enforcement. 

Comment #121: 

Does the MCAQD have a listing of primary control measures or secondary control measures? 

Response #121: 

The Dust Control permit application identifies primary control measures and contingency control 

measures. 

Comment #122: 

Rule 310, Section 402.6 is a duplicate requirement to Section 402.3(c)(2) and should be removed. 

Response #122: 

109 
Rule 310, Section 402.3 describes the elements required to be in a Dust Control Plan and Rule 310, 

Section 402.6 describes the requirements of the Dust Control Plan. To avoid overlap, the MCAQD 

modified the two sections by retaining the first sentence in Section 402.3(c)(2) and retaining the rest of 

the paragraph in Section 402.6. 

Comment #123: 

Suggest language be included in Rule 310, Section 403.1 to ensure that the written notice will include 

the standard exceeded and to what extent. 

Response #123: 

This comment confuses a notice to revise the dust control plan with a Notice of Violation (NOV). The 

section already requires that the Control Officer explain why the Dust Control Plan needs to be 

revised. For NOVs, the Dust Compliance Division follows the MCAQD’s policies and procedures to 

document air quality violations and to notify alleged violators to ensure that all compliance actions are 

addressed in a timely and appropriate manner. 

Comment #124: 

During the process of Dust Control Plan revision, will the previous Dust Control Plan be the operant 

plan until the revised plan is in place, or will the permittee be expected to abide by potential revisions 

until the plan is approved. 

Response #124: 

It is important to note that the permit holder must still comply with all the provisions of Rule 310 even 

if a previous or existing Dust Control Plan is deficient. The previous approved Dust Control Plan 

remains in effect until the proposed Dust Control Plan revisions are approved by the MCAQD. 

However, the permittee will be allowed to operate under the proposed Dust Control Plan revisions 

provided they stay in compliance with the standards in Rule 310. 

Comment #125: 

The owner/operator should apply new dust control methods if the Dust Control Plan has been 

followed, yet fugitive dust emissions still exceed the standards of the rule. It may be difficult to submit 

a revised plan within three working days of receipt of a written notice. The time period should be 

increased to within five or seven working days. The owner/operator should implement the inspector's 

recommendations, but be allowed additional time for a written response. 

Response #125: 

The MCAQD believes three working days is an adequate amount of time to complete revisions of a 

Dust Control Plan. If additional time is needed for special circumstances, Rule 310, Section 403.1(b) 

allows the Control Officer to extend the time frame for good cause. 

Comment #126: 

Does the MCAQD expect the permittee to file Dust Control Plan revisions for decreases in acreages? 

The header of this paragraph suggests this is an optional requirement. 

Response #126: 

110 
A permittee is allowed to make changes to an approved Dust Control permit and Dust Control Plan. A 

permittee might have to change a Dust Control Plan if more acreage will be disturbed than included in 

the original application and Dust Control Plan. A permittee may also choose to adjust project acreage 

to indicate completion of a project phase. In order to change a Dust Control permit and/or Dust Control 

Plan for any other reason, the MCAQD accepts the following permit modification forms: permit 

acreage change request, permit cancellation request, permit name change, permit plan change, and 

parcel sale notification. 

Comment #127: 

Revision should not be necessary if Dust Control Plan requirements are not changed due to the change 

in acreage. 

Response #127: 

While a revision is optional for a decrease in acreage, a revision must be filed for an increase in 

acreage identifying what will happen on the additional acreage. A Dust Control Plan is specific to the 

layout and identified dust-generating activities on a site. A change of acreage can trigger many 

different requirements on an existing Dust Control Plan (e.g., additional control measures); therefore, 

the MCAQD believes it is necessary to revise a Dust Control Plan whenever an acreage change occurs. 

Comment #128: 

For what kind of permit holder "change" does the MCAQD expect the permittee to file a Dust Control 

Plan revision? The header of this paragraph suggests this is an optional requirement. 

Response #128: 

Rule 310, Section 403.2(b) refers to a change in the owner of the permit. Such a change is substantial 

and requires a revision to the Dust Control Plan. Revisions of this nature are not optional. The 

language in the section is meant to convey that the reason for the revision is an action initiated by the 

permittee (e.g., change in permit ownership). 

Comment #129: 

The changes in administrative contact information and responsibility require a revision in the Dust 

Control Plan. The header of this paragraph suggests such revisions are optional and at the request of 

the permit holder. Will such a review be subject to generally practiced MCAQD administrative review 

timelines? 

Response #129: 

Revisions of the nature as listed in Rule 310, Section 403.2(c) are not optional. The language in the 

section is meant to convey that the reason for the revision is an action initiated by the permittee (e.g., 

administrative change). Rule 310, Section 405 sets the MCAQD timelines for review and approval of 

revised plans. 

Comment #130: 

Multiple parties are responsible for dust generating operations at various times. The phrase "and 

responsible for the dust generating operation change" should be deleted. 

111 
Response #130: 

Rule 310, Section 403.2(c) remains unchanged. As described in the response to comment #4 regarding 

whose responsibility it is to obtain a Dust Control Permit, there is shared responsibility by the owner, 

operator, or responsible official in ensuring that dust-generating operations comply with all rule and 

permit requirements. Neither owner nor operator nor responsible official can circumvent dust control 

requirements by claiming it is the sole responsibility of one particular party to comply. The MCAQD 

has no ability to intervene in contractual issues. The owner/operator remains responsible for providing 

accurate information regarding the responsible official on a work site. 

Comment #131: 

Suggest that "materially" be inserted before "change" in Rule 310, Section 403.2(d). 

Response #131: 

The term "materially" would not add to or clarify the meaning; it would simply lead to more 

ambiguity. If activities on a work site change and the changes affect the Dust Control permit or Dust 

Control Plan, then the permittee must notify the Control Officer. For example, if a permittee hits a 

substrate that requires blasting but has not included blasting in the original application, the permittee 

must notify the MCAQD and file a revision to the Dust Control Plan identifying control measures for 

blasting. 

Comment #132: 

Suggest MCAQD add "upon written notice by MCAQD" after "respectively" in Rule 310, Section 

403.3(b). 

Response #132: 

Since Arizona State Statutes require the MCAQD to publicize rule revisions, such requirement is not 

included in Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations. 

Comment #133: 

Rule 310, Section 404 discriminates against private entities. All entities who meet the standards should 

be able to obtain a block permit. 

Response #133: 

Rule 310, Section 404-Dust Control Permit-Block Permit Requirements does not discriminate against 

private entities. Both public and private utilities that meet the requirements may apply for a block 

permit. Rule 310, Section 404.4 addresses private entities under contract to Block Permit holders. 

Comment #134: 

Suggest that "Dust Control permit-Block permit" be included and defined earlier in these rules. 

Response #134: 

Given the multiple aspects that define a block permit, a single definition in Rule 310, Section 200 

would be awkward. 

Comment #135: 

112 
El Paso may replace a valve, a ten foot pipeline section, or other section of pipe. It is not clear as to the 

definition of "new construction" since a Block Permit may include maintenance, expansion and 

extension of utilities under 404.1(b) and 404.1(c)? For routine operation and maintenance projects 

which may include installing sections of new pipe to an existing pipeline, it would be burdensome to 

obtain an individual Dust Control permit for each project. Please consider removing the sentence "New 

construction shall obtain a separate dust control permit”, since it is confusing. 

Response #135: 

The term "new construction", in Rule 310, Section 404.1 indicates a project that has no connection to 

an issued block permit. The examples given by the commenter would fall under Rule 310, Sections 

404.1(a) through 404.1(c) as either routine operations, maintenance operations, or expansion 

operations. However the creation of a new pipeline or pumping station not associated with existing 

infrastructure would be considered new construction and would not be covered under an existing block 

permit. 

Comment #136: 

The reference to "canal road grading" should be revised to "canal bank grading," as this term more 

accurately describes the activity. 

Response #136: 

The MCAQD revised Rule 310, Sections 404.1(a) and 404.1(b) to read “canal road and bank grading” 

instead of just “canal road grading”. 

Comment #137: 

Consider revising Rule 310, Section 404.2 since it is difficult to provide a drawing to meet Section 

402.3(b) requirements, an exact project location, and an exact project size for ROW locations which 

traverse Maricopa County. 

Response #137: 

Current wording in Rule 310, Section 404.2 does not require a drawing, rather simply a list of all sites 

that includes location and size. Typically, applicants provide a map or description of the location and 

describe linear length and average width of the right-of-way. 

Comment #138: 

The purpose of this requirement is unclear. A block permit is only valid for a period of 12 months. 

Therefore, if an activity does not commence within the 12 months after issuance of the block permit, 

the source would be required to obtain a block permit renewal, at which time this proposed activity 

could be reviewed. 

Response #138: 

The MCAQD agrees and has deleted Rule 310, Section 404.3. While Rule 310, Section 404-Dust 

Control Permit-Block Permit Requirements may seem redundant with Rule 310, Section 406-Terms 

for Permits for Dust-Generating Operations, the purpose of Section 406 is to make clear to 

113 
stakeholders that a block permit will not be granted if the dust-generating operation does not 

commence within one year of issuance. 

Comment #139: 

Suggest MCAQD insert "maintenance and construction" before "crews"; insert "other governmental 

entities" after "municipalities". Revise last sentence to read "However while municipalities, other 

governmental agencies and/or utilities may contract for services, it remains the dust generating 

contractor’s responsibility for compliance with dust control regulations on the project." 

Response #139: 

The MCAQD inserted “governmental agencies,” after the word “municipalities” in Rule 310, Sections 

404.1(a) and 404.1(b). However, the MCAQD maintains the current language regarding responsibility 

for compliance best conveys the intent of this section. Overall responsibility for work under a block 

permit resides with the permit holder. 

Comment #140: 

Commenters are unclear as to the intent of this condition. We request clarification on why this 

requirement only applies to block permit holders. All individuals with dust control permits should be 

required to retain overall authority for dust control on their project, not just block permittees. 

Response #140: 

The intent of Rule 310, Section 404.3 is to make clear that overall responsibility for work under a 

block permit resides with the permit holder. This is similar to the subcontractor-contractor relationship 

with non-block dust-generating operations permits. While this requirement may seem redundant, the 

MCAQD’s intent is to acknowledge the desire of stakeholders that all requirements placed upon a 

permit holder be spelled out in applicable sections in Rule 310, even if that same requirement is 

mentioned in other sections in Rule 310. 

Comment #141: 

The emphasis is on the filing of a complete application. Rather than either approval or denial, will 

MCAQD notify the applicant of an incomplete application and allow correction or addition within a 

reasonable timeframe? 

Response #141: 

When an application is incomplete, the MCAQD does notify applicants within 14 days though the 

notice usually occurs earlier. If an applicant fails to provide the requested information, the Control 

Officer may deny the application. After a complete application is received, the MCAQD follows the 

permit requirements in Rule 200, in order to take final action, either approving or disapproving a 

permit, within 14 days. 

Comment #142: 

Rule 310, Sections 405 and 406 apply to Dust Control permits only. This Rule does not exclude sand 

and gravel mining permits so it is inconsistent to only discuss Dust Control permits. 

Response #142: 

114 
Rule 316 specifically regulates sand and gravel mining operations. When there exists a source-specific 

rule like Rule 316, it is not necessary to include a specific exemption for that source in all other rules, 

including an exemption in Rule 310. Therefore, the purpose of Rule 310, Sections 405 and 406 are 

intentionally limited to sources that are subject to Rule 310. 

Comment #143: 

Provisions should make clear that permits are administratively continued when a timely renewal 

application has been submitted. 

Response #143: 

The MCAQD treats timely renewal applications for Dust Control permits the same way as all other 

permits. Rule 200 still applies to Dust Control permits and contains general requirements for 

administrative continuation of a permit when a timely application for renewal has been filed. 

Comment #144: 

We request this section be revised to state that posting is required only during active operations. If a 

site is not actively being worked, there may not be a location that is suitable to post a copy of the 

permit or dust control plan. Another comment requests that requirements for permit posting should be 

revised as follows: "be kept available on-site at all times during permitted activities" to eliminate 

potential for confusion. 

Response #144: 

The posting requirement in Rule 310, Section 409 matches posting requirements for other permits and 

is also consistent with state statutes. The section recognizes that the permit and Dust Control Plan may 

be kept in on-site equipment or in an on-site vehicle. Like other air quality permits where the permit is 

not available to the MCAQD when the business is not open, the permit and Dust Control Plan won’t be 

available to the MCAQD when there is no activity occurring on site. No change is necessary. 

Comment #145: 

The language of Rule 310, Section 410 suggests these rules are immediately effective upon adoption. 

Such an implementation schedule may be burdensome for some. Will the MCAQD have an 

implementation schedule? Other comments respectfully request that the MCAQD allow for a 

reasonable amount of time between the adoption date of this rule and the effectiveness date of this rule, 

such as 6 months. Another comment requests that given the breadth of new requirements, effective 

date should be June 30, 2008. 

Response #145: 

Rule 310 has been in effect since 1994. Many sources should be familiar with the required control 

measures and work practices and should already be implementing them. The training requirements, 

which are new requirements in Rule 310, have a compliance schedule. 

Comment #146: 

What is the definition of "primary dust generating operations"? By implication, can one have 

secondary dust generating operations? 

115 
Response #146: 

The training requirements in Rule 310 have been written to be consistent with SB 1552. The intent of 

Rule 310, Section 309 is to make clear that for those sites that require a Dust Control Coordinator that 

individual must be on-site when dust-generating operations are taking place for which the permit was 

applied. The example provided during discussions regarding SB 1552 described the delivery of 

supplies and materials in the middle of the night as a secondary dust-generating activity. 

Comment #147: 

Rule 310, Section 410.2-Compliance Schedule-Dust Control Coordinator as drafted is not consistent 

with SB 1552, which does not contain "common control" language. 

Response #147: 

The training requirements in Rule 310, Section 309 have been written to be consistent with SB 1552 

and have been combined with the permit requirements in Rule 310, Section 302.2. 

Rule 310 Section 500

Comment #148: 

Areas that have not been disturbed by the permittee should not be subject to permit requirements for 

stabilization. 

Response #148: 

The owner and/or operator of a dust-generating operation that involves disturbed surface areas must 

implement control measures for all areas covered by the permit as described in the application and site 

plan. Properties that are not covered by a Dust Control permit will be subject to the stabilization 

requirements contained in Rule 310.01. 

Comment #149: 

Suggest that MCAQD require record keeping to be more clearly related to Dust Control permit 

requirements and not simply to the existence of Dust Control Plan. 

Response #149: 

The requirements in this rule apply to sites that have air quality operating permits as well as sites that 

have Dust Control permits. The Dust Control Plans contain the specific identification site layout, types 

of dust-generating operations to be performed and the selected control measures for each type of dustgenerating activity. Recordkeeping requirements are tied to the Dust Control Plan because Dust 

Control Plans vary based on the dust-generating operation being performed. This allows the permit 

holder to keep accurate records of all activities that apply specifically to the site, while showing 

compliance with their approved Dust Control Plan. Additionally, Rule 310, Section 502.2 provides the 

recordkeeping requirements placed upon dust-generating activities that do not require a Dust Control 

Plan. 

Comment #150: 

Comments are concerned with the recordkeeping requirements in Rule 310, Section 502.1. The 

language proposed in this section has been altered dramatically from the existing rule and requires the 

116 
regulated community to invest a large amount of resources with only minimal environmental benefit. 

The recordkeeping section of the current rule requires that inspections be performed and records be 

maintained when control measures are implemented. Examples of this would include control measures 

such as applying water, building three sided enclosures to control wind blown particulate, and covering 

dirt piles. However, the proposed language of Section 502.1 requires that self inspections be performed 

and records be maintained for each day dust generating operations are conducted. This presents a 

problem because the definition of dust generating operations is very broad (includes operation of any 

outdoor equipment and motorized machinery, as well as the use of staging areas, unpaved access roads, 

and parking areas). The proposed changes would require commenters to perform daily inspections of 

over 300 substations for dust generating activities that have unchanging control measures (e.g., 15 mile 

per hour speed limit sign). It is APS and SRP's position that self inspections and recordkeeping should 

only be required when dust control measures are being implemented. Therefore, we recommend that 

MCAQD revise Section 502.1 to read as follows: "Any person who conducts dust generating 

operations that require a Dust Control Plan shall keep a written record of self-inspection on each day 

control measures for dust generating operations are implemented/conducted. Self -inspection records 

shall include daily inspections for crusted or damp soil, trackout conditions and clean-up measures, 

daily water usage and dust suppressant application. Such written record shall also include the 

following information:..." 

Response #150: 

The language as written in Rule 310, Section 502.1 requires daily self-inspection any time dustgenerating activities occur. To keep in compliance with this rule, every time a dust-generating activity 

occurs some sort of control measure is/should be implemented. While these control measures may be 

the same every time (such as lower speed limits) it is important to record their implementation. 

Conditions may change at various sites (i.e., increased traffic may require more frequent watering) and 

new control measures may be required; therefore daily records are a necessary step in showing 

compliance with Rule 310 along with improving the compliance rates of subject sites. 

Comment #151: 

Comment requests that the current rule language in Rule 310, Section 502.1 be retained. Additionally, 

Rule 310, Sections 502.1(g) and (h) are inconsistent with SB 1552. 

Response #151: 

The revisions to the existing recordkeeping requirements in Rule 310, Section 502.1 were modeled 

after the Clark County rule and more clearly describe what actions are necessary in order to record the 

daily application of dust control measures. Based on the rule effectiveness study, many sites failed to 

record the implementation of control measures and were not performing the test methods required in 

the rule. The MCAQD believes the language in Section 502.1 better clarifies the recordkeeping 

requirements. Sections 502.1(g) and (h) document the implementation of the new programs required 

117 
by SB 1552. SB 1552 authorized these programs, but did not address all aspects of these programs or 

their interface with existing dust control programs. 

Comment #152: 

Define "intensity". What is information is MCAQD attempting to capture here? 

Response #152: 

For the purpose of Rule 310, Section 502.1(a), “intensity” refers to magnitude of a quantity per unit of 

measurement (area, mass, or time), such as the mixing ratio (concentration) of a dust suppressant with 

water. 

Comment #153: 

Keeping a list of subcontractors' names and registration numbers updated when changes are made and 

the name of the employee(s) who successful complete dust control training classes should be removed 

from the Recordkeeping section. It is not clear as to which subcontractor's names are required-only 

those that pertain to dust generating operations? What registration numbers are required? The 

requirement for Dust Control training is for only certain projects thresholds. The requirement to keep a 

copy of the certificate should also be for only certain project thresholds. 

Response #153: 

These sections will only apply if subcontractors engage in dust-generating operations. All 

subcontractors that engage in dust-generating activities would be required to be listed in the selfinspection along with their registration numbers issued by the MCAQD under the new Section 306 

added to Rule 200. If training is not required at a site subject to permit, then the permittee only needs 

to provide documentation sufficient to verify that training is not required. 

Comment #154: 

This paragraph is confusing as to its intent. Under what circumstances would a person not be required 

to submit a Dust Control Plan? The records retention requirement appears to be more stringent than 

Section 503 in that no records retention language is provided. 

Response #154: 

Rule 310, Section 401 describes when a Dust Control Plan is required. There are situations that exist 

(typically at Non-Title V or Title V permit sites) where a source may be subject to Rule 310 and not be 

required to submit a Dust Control Plan. In these situations, the recordkeeping requirements of Section 

502.2 apply. The text in Section 502.2 is unchanged from the existing text approved in the SIP. 

Increasing the recordkeeping retention requirement in Section 503 to two years was a recommendation 

made by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Comment #155: 

Comment requests that the current language be retained. Record retention length should be tied to 

permit term. If the MCAQD wishes to issue permits for two years, then two year record retention 

would be appropriate. Additionally, as crafted, anyone who drives on a permitted site, including 

inspectors, would be required to maintain records. 

118 
Response #155: 

Record retention beyond the life of a permit is necessary both for the benefit of the permittee and the 

MCAQD in showing compliance with Rule 310 provisions over the life of the permit. Recordkeeping 

requirements are tied to the permit holder required to have a Dust Control Plan or to sources that are 

subject to provisions of Rule 310. 

Comment #156: 

Test Methods - The opacity measuring Method 203B from the EPA has been left out. There is no 

method listed. List the EPA method. 

Response #156: 

The methods used for determining opacity are listed in Rule 310, Section 501. Currently, Appendix C 

is the test method used to determine opacity at sites subject to Rule 310 requirements, not EPA Method 

203B. The opacity methods approved in Appendix C were modified specifically to address the plumes 

generated by moving equipment and are more appropriate for evaluating dust plumes generated on 

construction sites than Method 203B. 

General Comments:

Comment #157: 

Consider the use of advanced dust control methods since water is at a premium here in the desert. 

Response #157: 

The use of dust palliatives or paving or other non-water stabilization and control methods are all viable 

options under Rule 310 and are available to permit holders under the selective stabilization options and 

control measures of Rule 310, Sections 304, 305, and 306 and of Rule 310.01. 

Comment #158: 

Why isn’t PM2.5 considered? 

Response #158: 

Fugitive dust PM2.5 is a subset of fugitive dust PM10. Control measures that reduce PM10 will also 

reduce fugitive dust PM2.5. Therefore, a specific rule regulating the emissions of PM2.5 from fugitive 

dust sources is not necessary at this time. 

Comment #159: 

Maricopa County is proposing a requirement that permit holders must conduct sieve testing and other 

stabilization testing as part of their daily recordkeeping requirements. Industry understands this is a 

requirement under the current Rule 310. If permit holders out of good faith conduct these tests and 

through recordkeeping prove they are effective in addressing stabilization, the County should only 

verify the tests are being done. There should be no issuing of NOV’s even if they have failing results 

from time to time and can demonstrate revisions to the plan were made to address test failures. 

Response #159: 

The requirements for stabilization observations are stated in Rule 310, Section 501.2. This section 

states that when a test method shows an exceedance of the stabilization limits, then that exceedance 

119 
constitutes a violation of the rule and proves that stabilization methods are ineffective at the site. 

However, as noted by the comment, the documentation of routine testing and corrective actions can be 

beneficial to the permittee, if an NOV is issued and referred to enforcement. 

Comment #160: 

In the proposed rules, County-owned unpaved roads have fewer and less strict dust control 

requirements than do business-owned unpaved roads. This disparity is illustrated in a table in the 

comment letter submitted by the commenter. If the MCAQD intends to impose increased obligations 

on the business sector, including requirements for business-owned unpaved roads that are more 

stringent than the requirements for County-owned unpaved roads, then the MCAQD should clearly 

justify that disparity and explain and support with facts its assertions summarized above and any others 

on this subject. Given the significant amount of the PM10 problem attributed to fugitive dust from 

unpaved roads and shoulders - regardless of who owns them - the MCAQD should provide the public 

with a detailed explanation for its position that its unpaved roads should be subject to less stringent 

controls than business-owned unpaved roads. In the absence of a convincing demonstration, common 

sense and fairness should compel the County to adopt comparable regulations for County-owned 

sources and business-owned sources of dust emissions. The Chamber requests MCAQD to provide the 

public with a detailed explanation of its position, including supporting legal and cost analysis, if 

MCAQD continues to advocate less stringent controls for unpaved roads owned by the County than for 

unpaved roads owned by businesses. 

Response #160: 

County operations such as landfills, flood control maintenance and rehabilitation, road maintenance 

and construction activities, equipment yards, service centers, jails, as well as all associated parking lots 

and access roads are subject to Rule 310 and subject to the same requirements for unpaved roads as 

business-owned roads. There is no disparity in the application of these provisions between government 

conducting business that generates emissions and business conducting business that generates 

emissions. This comment confuses roads associated with conducting business, which operates 

equipment and/or activities generating emissions, whether private or governmental, with roads 

managed and operated by government on behalf of the general public to provide access to multiple 

properties where the public generates the emissions. A number of complicating circumstances apply to 

public unpaved roads. One example is the situation where the County network road is associated with a 

patchwork of dedications of which only the newer dedications are specifically to Maricopa County. All 

other easements must be acquired subject to private property rights and due process. Second, not all 

unpaved roads used by the public are public highways owned by government. A significant number of 

roads have a patchwork of ownership, in which the county may not own any of the road or only owns a 

segment or half of a segment. Third, the County as a government agency uses a variety of funding 

sources and the federal monies require that an environmental impact analysis be prepared and 

approved. Fourth, road right-of-ways frequently include utility easements. The location/re-location and 

120 
access to utilities must be considered in any road improvement project. Finally, there is a substantial 

body of case law associated with roads that directly impacts any road improvement. Maricopa County 

has maintained an active program for paving unpaved roads since 1987 that has paved over 500 miles 

of roads. The funding for this program competes with other transportation priorities such as 

intersection improvements, capacity enhancements, bridges and signal synchronization that, in some 

instances, may help keep traffic off of unpaved roads. The cost of paving includes the acquisition of 

right-of-way, engineering to address traffic safety issues and structural deficits, utility relocation, and 

actually improving the road surface. Recent estimates from MCDOT indicate that the average cost for 

paving a mile of unpaved road is approximately $465,000. Approximately 1⁄3 to 1⁄2 of the total cost is 

spent on paving or applying a surface treatment. The remainder is spent on right-of-way acquisition, 

design, and engineering. MCDOT’s lifecycle cost analysis indicates that road paving is more cost 

effective than applying dust suppressants. The formation of new unpaved roads through lot splits, 

wildcat subdivisions, or businesses exempt from planning and zoning requirements result in ever 

changing impacts increasing traffic on outlying roads in the existing public highway network. 

Comment #161: 

They would like to develop an on-line dust prevention training program and coordinate with the 

County Dust training class. 

Response #161: 

MCAQD recommends that the commenter contact the MCAQD’s Dust Compliance Division to 

discuss the approval process for curriculums and the certification of trainers. 

Comments #162: 

Roofing company requests exemption for tile cutting on residential rooftops which creates dust. OSHA 

safety concerns prohibit water being used on tile rooftops to prevent dust. Pre-watering as a control 

measure is also an OSHA safety concern on rooftops. 

Response #162: 

Tile cutting that is occurring on a site with a Dust Control permit is subject to the Dust Control Plan 

and provisions of Rule 310. Tile-cutters are not limited to water as a control measure. Sections 205, 

305, and 402 of this rule allows flexibility in choice of control measure for this activity. 

Comment #163: 

Roofing company requests a clearer definition of when an operation is a non-permit activity or is 

required to obtain a permit subject to a Title V, non-title V or General Permit. 

Response #163: 

If tile cutting occurs on a site that already has a dust control permit or is part of a stationary source 

(e.g. tile manufacturing facility), than that operation falls underneath the jurisdiction of that permit. If 

tile cutting is the only activity or occurs on an unpermitted site (re-roofing project), masonry cutting is 

on a list of insignificant activities that do not require a permit in Rule 200 Appendix D. However, Rule 

200 Section 303.3.c states, “... any source that is exempt from obtaining a Non-Title V permit 

121 
according to this section shall still comply with all other applicable requirements of these rules.” Other 

applicable requirements include the visible emission limitations. Tile cutting activities are the source of 

a number of complaints MCAQD receives each year. MCAQD inspectors have documented dust 

plumes from tile cutting that violate the visible emission standards, recording some 6 minute averages 

as high as 60%. 

Comment #164: 

Two legal references concerning responsibility of government regulation to be clear: 

1. A.R.S. § 41-1001 et seq. See G.D. Ltd. Travel v. City of Lake Oswego, 436 F.3d 1064, 1084 (9th 

Cir. 2006) (holding that a government regulation is vague if it “fail[s] to give persons of ordinary 

intelligence adequate notice of what conduct is proscribed.”) 

2. Federal Administrative Procedure Act, “[a] rule may [] be invalidated . . . if an agency fails to 

explain the rule adequately.” Alvarado Comm’y Hosp. v. Shalala, 155 F.3d 1115, 1122 (9th Cir. 1998) 

Response #164: 

MCAQD notes the cited legal statues and case law and thanks the commenter for their submission. 

Comment #165: 

The MCAQD feels that there should be no warnings issued, thus allowing a homebuilder a chance to 

correct a possible violation. In every other aspect of our industry, inspectors come out and give 

warning notices so we can have a chance to correct deficiencies. Why can't we have a similar process 

in regards to dust control? 

Response #165: 

Nothing in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or in the Notice of Final Rulemaking affects the 

County’s enforcement policy or administrative due process. 

Comment #166: 

What I have trouble understanding is why would Maricopa County continue to consider adopting 

costly and unnecessary regulations on the home building community when the measures have yet to 

demonstrate that they reduce dust nor are they necessary for the 5% plan. 

Response #166: 

Construction activities constitute a large percentage of PM10 pollution in the nonattainment area 

(approximately 38% of the 2005 periodic emissions inventory). Reducing PM10 emissions from this 

major contributor is a necessary component to achieving the required 5% reduction in PM10 emissions 

as specified by an approvable 5% plan. 

Comment #167: 

Here are just a few of the proposed changes that seem to cause an undue hardship on the home 

building industry, yet it is not clearly demonstrated that they have any positive effect on reducing dust: 

only allowing a 25 foot trackout area, increased recordkeeping requirements, zero visible emissions at 

the property line, holding home builders responsible for trespassers such as ATVs and dirt bikes, and 

immediate clean-up of trackout areas. 

122 
Response #167: 

The 5% plan as currently prepared by MAG does show emissions reductions from the rule 310 

requirements listed in this comment. Chapter III and IV of Appendix C, Exhibit 1, of the 5% Plan 

provide a detailed accounting of PM10 emission reductions achieved through these rule 310 

requirements 

Comment #168: 

If we have already achieved significant and serious reductions through the training/coordinator 

program, met the tonnage required for the 5% plan, why are we adopting costly measures on the home 

building industry during these difficult economic times that do not reduce dust? 

Response #168: 

The 5% plan also has to demonstrate attainment at violating monitors. The microscale inventory 

developed for the Higley monitor estimated that 80% of PM10 affecting that monitor comes from 

construction on the design day. All of the new rule 310 requirements (including training programs) 

contribute to the reduction of PM10 emissions and are necessary to achieve the attainment at the 

monitors and the mandatory 5% reduction as required by the 5% Plan. 

Comment #169: 

The proposal does not comply with A.R.S. §49-112. Before imposing requirements more stringent than 

found elsewhere in the state, the MCAQD must make the finding required by A.R.S. §49-112. The 

conclusory paragraphs on page 37 of the preamble do not meet this burden. In particular, the 

discussion does not explain why the regulation is necessary to achieve attainment. The discussion does 

not identify what credible evidence exists to show that the rule revisions are necessary to prevent a 

significant threat to public health or the environment. The discussion does not identify what credible 

evidence exists to demonstrate that the proposed rule revisions are technically and economically 

feasible. The discussion does not identify what credible evidence exists that these particular measures 

are required under federal statute or regulation. Section 189(d) simply requires the development of a 

plan showing 5% annual reductions. It does not specify what measures are required to be included 

within that plan. Fundamentally, the MCAQD cannot meet its burden at this time. Imposing additional 

measures in Rule 310 is unauthorized under A.R.S. §49-112 because the MCAQD has not 

demonstrated that emission reductions are associated with these various rule revision proposals and has 

not demonstrated that rule revisions are necessary to comply with the Five Percent Plan. 

Response #169: 

Maricopa County has met its burden of demonstrating compliance with A.R.S. §49-112. Item #6 in the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking laid out the peculiar local condition in Maricopa County not found 

elsewhere in the state that result from the ongoing failure to meet the health-based federal PM10

standard and all associated requirements under the Clean Air Act. It included the appropriate legal 

citations. The explanation also laid out the legal requirements for the Five Percent Plan. The preamble 

to this Notice of Final Rulemaking includes a substantial amount of information in various other 

123 
sections that supplement the discussion in Item #6. Item #5 in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

contained the explanation for initiating the rulemaking. It included a background summary and 

discusses the current revisions. It noted that under CAA requirements, the MCAQD rules were 

required to address significant contributors by imposing BACM/MSM. The explanation in this section 

notes that a low compliance rate was identified through a formal rule effectiveness study. It noted that 

the current rules are not working as effectively as predicted and more reductions are needed. Further 

discussion described a review of measures from western areas that met the PM10 attainment date to 

identify what else could be done. As noted, the County looked at measures that are already adopted 

and implemented. The Preamble also included Item #7 that provided a list of references to any studies 

relevant to this rulemaking that included several references to feasibility studies. Item #9 provided the 

preliminary summary of the economic, small business, and consumer impact. 

Comment #170: 

Rather than add new rule requirements that will increase the potential for noncompliance, the MCAQD 

should focus its efforts on ways to increase compliance with the current rule. Assuming that the 

MCAQD's 51% compliance rate is accurate, the HBACA asserts that it would be more appropriate to 

focus on ways to improve compliance rather than add new control measures to Rule 310. That is why 

the HBACA supported the training provisions in SB 1552, which will reduce emissions by several 

thousand tons per year. The HBACA requests an explanation as to how each of the proposed rule 

changes will increase compliance with the current rule, rather than raise the potential for reduced 

compliance in the future. The HBACA renews its request that the MCAQD focus on measures to 

improve compliance, not adopt new requirements that threaten to decrease compliance. 

Response #170: 

Rule effectiveness is a product of control effectiveness and the associated compliance rate. Three main 

factors associated with any rule contribute to a rule’s effectiveness. These factors are clear, 

understandable requirements implementing effective controls, a regulated source’s knowledge of 

what’s required, and consistent enforcement of rule provisions. Given the magnitude of reductions that 

are necessary to attain the standard and demonstrate 5% per year reductions, Maricopa County’s 

commitments for the 5% Plan address all three factors. To illustrate the magnitude of the challenge in 

this plan and to this rulemaking, approximately 80% of the PM10 emissions contributing to 

exceedances of PM10 standard at the Higley monitor came from construction. The MCAQD does not 

agree that the additional control measures threaten to reduce the compliance rate in the future. Several 

of the revisions are specifically designed to improve on-site management of dust control efforts adding 

motivation to effective training and education. Some measures, such as the property line standard and 

25 feet trackout, are included to make these rules consistent and uniform with other MCAQD rules. 

Under the Salt River Monitor SIP, these measures were identified as BACM/MSM in Rule 316 for 

another fugitive dust source category after the last revisions were made to this rule. These measures 

also provide visual clues to on-site personnel that their control measures aren’t working as designed 

124 
and corrective actions are necessary. The revisions also reorganize and streamline the rule improving 

clarity. A summary list of all rule requirements is included to remind sources of rule requirements. 

Also, the recordkeeping section clarifies what’s necessary to document control measure 

implementation. 

Comment #171: 

Government entities, utilities, and the private sector should be subject to the same requirements. 

According to the MCAQD's own estimates, the residential single family construction industry 

contributes 4% of the emissions in the Maricopa County nonattainment area. The contributions of 

unpaved roads, unpermitted sources, and other construction sources are all higher. Yet, the MCAQD 

continues to impose greater burdens on the single family residential homebuilding community than any 

other group. Rule 310 contains a hierarchy of requirements. Unpermitted sources are subject to none. 

Government and utilities are subject to some. Permitted sources are subject to many. And largeacreage projects, of which residential developments are the most common, are subject to the most 

requirements and the largest number of inspections compared to any other activity (even though the 

MCAQD's own emissions inventory states that home building contributes less dust per acre than 

commercial or road building). The dichotomy between permitted and unpermitted sources under Rule 

310 and 310.01 is even more pronounced. The HBACA incorporates the comments of the Arizona 

Chamber of Commerce to this point (attachment to original comment letter not reproduced here). 

There is no justification for imposing more requirements on one of the smallest contributors. The 

single family residential community is not asking for fewer requirements. We just want everyone else 

to meet the same requirements we already do. Adding new requirements on our industry will only 

make the current unfairness more pronounced. This rule would impose steep financial burdens on our 

members, the individuals who are employed by our members, the businesses who transact with our 

members, and our eventual home buyers. This proposal is an unnecessary roadblock on the path to the 

recovery for our industry. We believe the only way to move Maricopa County towards attainment is to 

raise the compliance efforts at far more significant sources, such as unpermitted sources and unpaved 

roads, to levels similar to those already found in the single family residential home building 

community. 

Response #171: 

The MCAQD disagrees that residential homebuilding is one of the smallest sources. The 4% 

contribution mentioned above fails to include major site preparation and infrastructure installation 

performed before a homebuilder conducts local streets and houses installation. The number also fails to 

recognize that residential homebuilding, as with other types of construction, is a significant contributor 

to dust accumulation on paved roads, which increases estimates of re-entrained paved road emissions 

in the inventory. Further, PM10 concentrations are significantly influenced by nearby sources. While a 

source category may not contribute as much to a regional inventory, the magnitude of the dust 

emissions from a construction site near a monitor can be much more significant. In the Five Percent 

125 
Plan attainment demonstration for the Higley monitor, construction contributed 80% of the PM10

emissions on the design day and residential construction was responsible for 13.8% of PM10 emissions. 

To demonstrate attainment at the monitors, significant reductions in construction emissions whether 

from residential or other types of construction all of which are regulated by the same rule, are 

necessary; hence, the revisions to these rules. As stated earlier, government entities, utilities, and the 

private sector are subject to the same requirements. See the responses to comments #8, #24, #133, and 

#160. Unpermitted sources do have applicable requirements consistent with legal authority and 

feasibility analyses. See response to comment #6. 

Comment #172: 

Identify the emission reductions associated with each proposed change. To claim reductions in the Five 

Percent Plan and to comply with ARS §49-112 and 41-1055, the MCAQD must identify the emission 

reductions associated with each specific proposed measure, before this rule is adopted. The HBACA 

has been supportive of measures that increase compliancy and reduce dust. The reason we do not 

support the proposed revisions to Rule 310 is that we have yet to see the amount of dust reduced by 

these very costly measures. For example, what are the emission reductions associated with the 

following: changing the trackout length from 50 feet to 25 feet, changing the definition of unpaved 

parking lot to eliminate size threshold, adding new Section 302.2, imposing a property boundary 

standard that contains no exemptions for wind events or other causes that are beyond the control of a 

source; and imposing new recordkeeping requirements. 

Response #172: 

Neither A.R.S. § 49-112 nor § 41-1055 specifically requires quantification of emission reductions by 

these rule changes. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking does include Section 9 that contains the 

preliminary summary of the economic, small business, and consumer impact required by A.R.S. § 41-

1055. Further, the notice does provide a qualitative statement indicating that the measures are designed 

to improve compliance, thereby reducing emissions. The 5% Plan was released for public comment 

and finalized after the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was prepared. In the 5% Plan, MAG has made 

extensive efforts to show how all the adopted measures of the 5% Plan result in PM10 emission 

reductions. In particular, the actual emission reduction calculations for all adopted measures (including 

the impact of Rule 310 changes) can be found in the technical support document of the 5% Plan 

document. The MCAQD added the quantification included in the final 5% Plan in the Notice of Final 

Rulemaking for Board consideration. The response to comment #170 discusses the compliance rate 

and the rule revisions. As a note, however, the elimination of the unpaved parking lot size threshold 

was necessary to make the rule consistent with the new requirements for unpaved parking lots under 

SB 1552. This change implements that statute, and is therefore not subject to A.R.S. § 49-112. 

Comment #173: 

The HBACA is extremely concerned about the economic consequences to adopting these costly 

measures when the MCAQD has failed to quantify whether we will come into attainment or actual 

126 
reduction of dust benefited by the rules changes (other than the dust coordinator and training). We 

have estimated that, on average, these measures will cost $11,740 per residential unit. These are 

significant costs that WILL have an economic impact on the home building community while there is 

no proof that these additional costly measures are necessary for the 5% plan. We would like the 

County to identify one other sector of the regulated community that is in agreement on these types of 

large reductions in our mutual goal of compliance with the CAA? It is the other additional costly 

measures that the HBACA strongly believes are unnecessary to reach compliance with the 5% plan. 

Response #173: 

The analysis included with the comment overstates the costs associated the rule revisions. Generally, 

the calculations include avoided compliance costs, include costs for rule provisions that have been 

modified as a result of comments, do not analyze all control measure options available, and overstate 

the cost of control measures (e.g. frequency of application or consultant versus Dust Control 

Coordinator responsibility). The analysis also fails to consider any benefits from the rule changes from 

more effective application of controls such as avoiding the application of too much water leading to 

trackout. However, some of the costs are appropriate and are included in the economic analysis for this 

rulemaking. To illustrate the points above, training on-site personnel and monitoring on-site dust 

control does not require additional watering. The appropriate costs are the training costs and time spent 

by the designated Dust Control Coordinator. If additional watering is necessary, then the site must not 

be fully implementing existing controls. Avoided compliance costs for existing requirements should 

not be included in the current analysis. Second, as noted in the response to comment #52, the property 

line standard has been modified. Third, trackout does not instantaneously become a problem, it builds 

up over time. The revision of the trackout cleanup trigger will require that the trackout control device 

and on-site set up be evaluated sooner. Corrective action should minimize the number of sweeps or 

amount of manual cleanup that will be necessary. However, constant sweeping and the weekly trackout 

control device maintenance frequency listed in the comment calculations overstate new incremental 

costs and continue to add-in avoided compliance costs with existing rule provisions. Fourth, the 

analysis of stabilization does not include an analysis of the barriers and watering option. Finally, Rule 

310 already requires owner/operators to conduct the compliance tests. The recordkeeping revision 

explains what the owner/operator should be doing to document the implementation of control 

measures. The provision requires the types and results of test methods conducted. This provision does 

not preclude the use of surrogates developed by the Dust Control Coordinator to evaluate control 

measure implementation daily (e.g. scuffing soil surface with boot). Many industries use simple 

surrogates to evaluate compliance in place of the more formal test methods. Further, since the rule and 

SB 1552 already require that a Dust Control Coordinator be present on-site at all times, that individual 

should be capable of performing any testing required. Adding consultant costs in addition to the Dust 

Control Coordinator cost overstates the cost. 

Comment #174: 

127 
Administrative due process is needed. While enforcement actions gain headlines and income for 

Maricopa County, they can also foster deep resentment and mistrust in the regulated community. The 

MCAQD believes: The apparent motivation for the desire to have an appeals board seems to be based 

on the assumption that such a board would dismiss or reduce penalties for NOVs more easily than the 

Enforcement Division does already. [MCAQD responses to the "Issues To Address In Rule 310"] The 

HBACA is disappointed that the MCAQD appears to have such a negative view of our industry. The 

MCAQD has acknowledged that its inspectors are not "fact finders". All the regulated community 

requests is an opportunity to be heard before a neutral arbiter before being subjected to their "choice" 

of either paying a fine determined by the MCAQD or being sued. The due process rights that the 

HBACA seeks are fundamental ones, and we believe that all should be supportive of this long-standing 

American tradition. As part of the Five Percent Plan development, Maricopa County has committed to 

hire dozens of new inspectors. With new inspectors comes the increased potential for inconsistent 

enforcement. Due process is needed to ensure that all inspectors enforce the laws equitably and 

consistently. As you are probably aware, this is a process that exists in Clark County and Pima County, 

two areas that are currently meeting the PM10 standards. We believe this is not an anomaly. Providing 

due process increases industry's belief in the fairness of the process and ultimately will increase 

compliance. 

Response #174: 

Nothing in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or in the Notice of Final Rulemaking affects the 

County’s enforcement policy or administrative due process. 

Comment #175: 

Subcontractors must be clearly identified. SB 1552 also included an important subcontractor 

registration program. Successful implementation depends on a clear identification system. First, the 

identification number issued to a contractor needs to be regulated just like the fonts on a dust control 

sign (e.g., 4" min. height, black block letters over a white background). Additionally, the MCAQD 

needs to mandate the placement of the ID numbers on contractor's vehicles and equipment. For 

example, pickup trucks-ID number is to be placed on the back-of each side of the truck bed just below 

the top of the bed; water trucks-ID number is to be placed on the top back corner of each door; 

earthmoving equipment-ID number is to be placed on each side in a conspicuous location. Rental 

equipment will need to be identified as well. Magnetic stickers will have to be used with the 

contractor's ID number. The contractor will have to install and remove the magnets as equipment is 

delivered and removed from job sites. Finally, the MCAQD needs to notify all registered contractors of 

the new process and the time frame to get registered and vehicles identified with their designated ID 

number. If a contractor is not registered a violation should be issued to the contractor not the permit 

holder. 

Response #175: 

128 
A.R.S. § 49-474.06 states, “The subcontractor shall have its registration number readily accessible on 

site while conducting any dust-generating operations.” The display of the registration number on a 

subcontractor’s vehicle is only one way of satisfying the requirement to have the number readily 

accessible. Rule 200, Section 306.2 describes three ways a subcontractor can satisfy the requirement to 

have the subcontractor registration number readily accessible. The MCAQD believes that restricting 

the display of the subcontractor’s registration number to a single method results in an overly restrictive 

interpretation of “readily available”. No change was made to the rule. The MCAQD agrees that all 

contractors need to be notified of the new subcontractor registration program and what’s required 

under that program. The MCAQD plans to notify subcontractors and will work with stakeholders to 

develop an outreach strategy and appropriate materials. The MCAQD intends to issue a Notice To 

Comply (NTC) to subcontractors for first-time violations of non-registration and to require 

subcontractors to register within 30 days of the NTC issuance. 

Comment #176: 

Changes during the stakeholder process should be identified. It appears that this rule proposal was 

predetermined, as there have been very few changes made during the stakeholder process. To address 

this concern, please identify all substantive changes from the MCAQD's original stakeholder draft and 

the rule as proposed on August 29, 2007. 

Response #176: 

The MCAQD provided a side-by-side comparison of changes during the informal workshop process 

and identified rule changes in each draft rule via crossed-out and underlined text. The side-by-side 

comparison of changes and draft rules were available electronically in Word. As this rulemaking was 

initiated to address measures needed for a required SIP revision, the requirements for 5% per year 

reductions and to attain as expeditiously as practicable must be addressed. The Notice of Final 

Rulemaking contains a list of changes from the existing rule to the proposed rule in the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. Further, the Notice of Final Rulemaking always contains a section that 

discusses the changes between proposal and final action. 

Comment #177: 

Account for employee turnover – there should be a 90 day grace period for new employee hires to 

attend dust control training class. 

Response #177: 

Rule 310 has been written to be consistent with Senate Bill 1552 for dust control training. 

Rule 310.01, Section 100:

Comment #178: 

Unlike Rule 310, Rule 310.01 does not have any exemption for wind events. Since wind erosion may 

occur as a result of sustained high winds, even with good stabilizations, it seems that the same 

acknowledgement of wind events would be appropriate. 

Response #178: 

129 
Rule 310 does not contain an exemption from the stabilization standards for wind events. The limited 

affirmative defense for wind events applies only to the opacity standard. 

Comment #179: 

The term "any open area" is overly general without area threshold definition established. Conceivably, 

one foot square or less could be considered an open area. One reasonable suggestion may be to use 

0.10 acre as open area threshold before regulation. 

Response #179: 

"Open area" is defined in Rule 310.01, Section 221. The definition matches the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) definition used in the Federal Implementation Plan. 

Comment #180: 

Suggest the term "ceased" be used instead of "completed". 

Response #180: 

Rule 310.01, Section 103.4 was originally in the definition of "disturbed surface area". Rule 310.01, 

Section 103.4 is a new section intended to make it clear which activities are exempt from Rule 310.01. 

No change were made to the final rule. 

Comment #181: 

What is the scope of the term "commercial"? Does this include government owned property? 

Response #181: 

Commercial property refers to property used for the purposes of generating revenue or business 

transactions and does not include government owned property. 

Comment #182: 

Comments suggest that Rule 310, Section 103.7 be revised to accommodate the potential for 

trespassers, as follows: "An unpaved roadway (including alleys) is not a horse trail, hiking path, 

bicycle path, or other similar path for which the designated use is used exclusively for purposes other 

than travel by motor vehicles." This change is necessary, as the owner/operator of the trail or path 

should not be held accountable for illegal activity beyond its control. 

Response #182: 

This exemption was originally part of the definition unpaved roadway and is already in the SIP. The 

MCAQD maintains that the current language of the exemption is necessary to make it clear that if an 

unpaved roadway is used in any way by motor vehicles (intentionally or unintentionally), the unpaved 

roadway is subject to the provisions of Rule 310. A blanket exemption for trespassing is not 

appropriate and relaxes the rule. The MCAQD has no way to distinguish the vehicles of trespassers 

from those driven for legitimate uses. The owner/operator is ultimately responsible for conditions and 

emissions coming from their properties. The owner/operator will need to investigate why illegal 

activity is occurring, take steps to minimize the activity and mitigate the effects of that activity. The 

owner/operator can present information regarding the circumstances leading to a Notice of Violation 

should the situation escalate to the enforcement stage. 

130 
Comment #183: 

Rule 310.01, Section 104 should be removed from the Table of Contents since it does not exist in this 

rule revision. 

Response #183: 

The MCAQD will make the requested change. 

Rule 310.01, Section 200

Comment #184: 

A clear definition of utilities should be added to the definitions. Throughout the regulations, whenever 

"utilities" are referenced a parenthetical definition follows. For consistency and clarity, all definitions 

should be contained in a Definitions section. An oil pipeline is not typically considered a "utility". 

Utilities should include interstate gas transmission and interstate gas transmission in addition to local 

gas distribution. Consider the definition of Utilities - Transmission or distribution of electricity, natural 

gas, oil and other petroleum products, water, gasoline including interstate natural gas transmission and 

intrastate natural gas transmission. 

Response #184: 

MCAQD maintains that the parenthetical definitions of utilities described in this rule best reflect the 

intended applicability of the Rule. 

Comment #185: 

The same comment provided under Rule 310, Section 202 “area accessible to the public applies here to 

Section 203 as well. 

Response #185: 

See the response to comment #12. 

Comment #186: 

There are circumstances where a roadway may be primarily used by a utility for routine access to 

facilities but must be kept open (i.e. not gated) for use by emergency vehicles. Despite adequate 

signage, members of the public may use this roadway without authorization. The regulations should 

recognize this and provide indemnification for the owner/operator of the roadway against misuse of the 

road. 

Response #186: 

A blanket exemption for trespassing is not appropriate and relaxes the rule. The MCAQD has no way 

to distinguish the vehicles of trespassers from those driven for legitimate uses. The owner/operator is 

ultimately responsible for conditions and emissions coming from their properties. The owner/operator 

will need to investigate why illegal activity is occurring, take steps to minimize the activity and 

mitigate the effects of that activity. The owner/operator can present information regarding the 

circumstances leading to a Notice of Violation should the situation escalate to the enforcement stage. 

Comment #187: 

131 
Suggest including “animal waste” in the listing of bulk material. Animal waste is often transported in 

large quantities. Animal waste when dried often can create fugitive dust. 

Response #187: 

While animal waste is not specifically listed in this definition, it is included in Section 302.8 that 

regulates the hauling of animal waste from livestock activities. 

Comment #188: 

Farmers must obtain a dust control permit if they leave a field fallow for economic consideration, or if 

they are hired to control weeds on another owner's small field. It is impractical and cost prohibitive for 

a farmer to obtain and meet all conditions of a dust control permit as stated in Section 403 Rule 310. If 

an owner/operator does not perform weed control the weeds become a fire hazard and, in some cities, 

can fall under nuisance ordinances. 

Response #188: 

A fallow field that is part of normal farm crop rotation schedule is exempted from Rule 310 under 

Section 103.1. However, if a field or portion of a previously designated agricultural land has been sold 

or designated for use as a commercial or residential property, the applicable provisions of Rule 310 

and Rule 310.01 do apply. 

Comment #189: 

How does “earthmoving” in Rule 310.01 differ from” earthmoving” in Rule 310? 

Response #189: 

There is no difference in definition of "earthmoving" between Rule 310.01 and Rule 310. 

Comment #190: 

Perhaps define palliative or strike the term in favor of "other approved dust control material". 

Response #190: 

For purposes of this rule, a palliative means a substance that treats or moderates the intensity of the 

process of dust creation. The dictionary definition will be adequate. 

Comment #191: 

Suggest including "nor controlled" after "capture". In either case the goal is met by preventing further 

transport of dust into the atmosphere or beyond property boundaries. 

Response #191: 

MCAQD used the definition found in EPA reference documents. The definition in this section remains 

unchanged from the existing rule adopted by EPA. 

Comment #192: 

The proposed language related to gravel pad design requirements (i.e., the last two sentences) should 

be moved to a more appropriate section of the draft rule, such as Section 302.6, as this language 

pertains to the requirements for trackout control. 

Response #192: 

132 
Section 306 requires the installation and utilization of trackout control devices and does not address 

each possible type of device individually. The only reference to a gravel pad occurs in the definition of 

trackout control device in section 228, thus this definition for gravel pad is clarifying another 

definition. This additional language is necessary to define when the layer of gravel will qualify as a 

trackout control device. 

Comment #193: 

A "tract of land" needs to be clearly defined. There are many "tracts of land" that are adjoining to, and 

are considered an integral part of exempt farm cultural practices, and non-traditional sources of 

fugitive dust. 

Response #193: 

For purposes of this rule, the MCAQD recognizes tracts or lots of lands as identified through the 

Maricopa County Assessor’s Office. 

Comment #194: 

Rule 310.01: The old rule governing dust suppression “livestock areas”; the new rule reads “livestock 

activities”. I am concerned this will affect trail riding where an equestrian activity might generate dust. 

Please refer back to old statement. 

Response #194: 

Rule 310.01 does not apply to activities on horse trails, as exempted in Rule 310.01, Section 231-

Definition of Unpaved Roadway (Including Alleys). However, horse arenas are subject to the 

provisions of Rule 310.01 that apply to livestock activities. 

Comment #195: 

Suggest the MCAQD move this definition into the first paragraph of Rule 310.01. It appears the key 

distinction between Rules 310 and 310.01 is the expectation that Rule 310.01 and only Rule 310.01 

area sources will not require permits. 

Response #195: 

Rule 310.01, Section 101 describes the purpose of Rule 310.01: To minimize the amount of fugitive 

dust entrained in the ambient air from non-traditional sources of fugitive dust by requiring measures to 

prevent, reduce, or mitigate fugitive dust emissions. The term “non-traditional source of fugitive dust” 

is defined in Rule 310.01, Section 218. It would be redundant to add the definition of the term “nontraditional source of fugitive dust” to Rule 310.01, Section 101. 

Comment #196: 

Suggest MCAQD further refine this definition to emphasize the recreational nature of examples of list. 

Transportation system designed for non-road travel could fit into this list and are hardly recreational in 

nature. 

Response #196: 

The MCAQD will make note of the comment, but the definition of “off-road vehicle” is not being 

revised in this rulemaking. 

133 
Comment #197: 

Clarification is needed on the definition for an unpaved parking lot. There are unpaved areas associated 

with the agricultural industry, or exempt farm cultural practices and non-traditional sources of fugitive 

dust. Farm yards, plant nurseries, large alleyways (essential for fire control) between hay sheds, grain 

or feed storage facilities, chemical and fertilizer storage areas, animal pens, stalls and barns, animal 

staging areas, arenas and livestock showing areas are some examples of unpaved parking or unpaved 

work areas that are part of a farming operation. The rule should clarify that these are part of the 

agricultural operation. 

Response #197: 

Rule 310.01 exempts all activities that fall under normal farm cultural practices from Rule 310.01 

provisions including the vehicular parking and maneuvering areas associated with them. Therefore, 

there is no need to specifically exempt normal farm cultural practices within the definitions of open 

areas and vacant lots (Section 221) or unpaved parking lot (Section 230) or unpaved roadway (Section 

231). Further, Rule 310.01, Section 302.8 addresses unpaved areas associated with livestock activities. 

Comment #198: 

Suggest MCAQD insert "non-traditional" after "a" and before "fugitive" 

Response #198: 

The definition of “owner and/or operator” is not being revised in this rulemaking. 

Comment #199: 

There are circumstances where a roadway may by primarily used by a utility for routine access to 

facilities but must be kept open (i.e. not gated) for use by emergency vehicles. Despite adequate 

signage, members of the public may use this roadway without authorization. The regulations should 

recognize this and provide indemnification for the owner/operator of the roadway against misuse of the 

road. 

Response #199: 

See the response to comment #186. 

Comment #200: 

Suggest that area threshold be established; 0.10 acre has been used within these draft rules as 

regulatory triggers. Such a threshold would clarify requirements. As this clause is written, one square 

foot could fall within this definition. 

Response #200: 

The MCAQD’s intent is to be consistent with Senate Bill 1552 in the definition. 

Comment #201: 

Please further define "open trail system" with a few examples. Other comments request that the 

MCAQD provide better clarification in the rule with regards to what is encompassed in "designated or 

opened trail systems and service roads". As written, it is not clear what exactly would be considered an 

unpaved road under this definition. 

134 
Response #201: 

In response to stakeholder’s questions, the MCAQD clarified where designated and open trails fall. 

After a review of state statutes, the Code of Federal Regulations, the Maricopa County Zoning 

Ordinance, and meeting with a group of public and trust Land Managers, the following language was 

determined: Designated or Opened Trail System: Roads or routes that are part of a system of trails and 

that are designated or opened by a government land management agency by order, sign, and/or map 

approved by such agency. 

Comment #202: 

Commenters believe that all private and semi-private roads are sufficiently regulated under Maricopa 

County Rule 310. Therefore, we recommend that the term "Quasi-governmental" be removed from the 

definition of "Unpaved Roadway (Including Alleys)." 

Response #202: 

MCAQD acknowledges the comment and will consider the suggestion the next time Rule 310.01 is 

reopened. 

Comment #203: 

As this paragraph, 301.2(b) is written, MCAQD could, without involvement of the judiciary, enter and 

conduct governmental action. Is this the authority MCAQD is asking for? What is the measure of 

appropriateness? Is there any opportunity for land owner to take action prior to MCAQD action? There 

is no discussion of possible emergency conditions which could prompt such governmental action. Is 

this what we want here? 

Response #203: 

A.R.S. § 49-474.01(11) enacted in SB 1552 requires Maricopa County to adopt rule provisions 

regarding the stabilization of disturbed surfaces of vacant lots by March 31, 2008. Rule 310.01, 

Section 301.2 contains the provisions to implement that statute. The land owner does have an 

opportunity to take action prior to County action. Under A.R.S. § 49-474.01(11), the County must give 

notice containing the information listed in the statute to the property owner that the disturbed surface is 

required to be stabilized. If the lot has not been stabilized by the day set for compliance, the statute 

authorizes the County to enter the property to stabilize the disturbed surfaces at the expense of the 

owner. 

Comment #204: 

State in the rule language a timeframe between issuing the owner/operator a notice of violation (NOV), 

and compliance enforcement from Maricopa County. 

Response #204: 

This request is more appropriate for the enforcement policy. The back of the current NOV provides the 

owner/operator with information regarding the enforcement process, appeals and timeframes. At the 

request of stakeholders, the MCAQD is in the process of designing a supplemental insert to be 

provided with the NOV to be more readily available to the owner/operator. 

135 
Comment #205: 

Including this section 302.3 in the rule allows a source to receive multiple violations for what is 

actually (and legally) a single violation. For example, if a source does not implement the appropriate 

control measures for an unpaved parking lot, that source could be cited as violating Sections 302.6(b) 

and 302.3. MCAQD indicated in stakeholder meetings that this requirement was added to provide 

clarification regarding what actions would constitute a violation. If this is indeed the reasoning, it 

would make more sense to provide a guidance document that clarifies what constitutes a violation of 

the rule. This section of the rule could then be removed. 

Response #205: 

The purpose of the changes in Rule 310.01, Sections 302.1—302.3 is to summarize general 

requirements for non-traditional sources of fugitive, not to increase the possible number of violations 

cited by the MCAQD. The explanation section in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and in the 

Notice of Final Rulemaking indicates that these requirements are intended to summarize and remind 

owners of all the various requirements contained in Rule 310.01. Following Clark County’s example, 

the MCAQD included a similar list in the rule itself as guidance documents that accompanied this rule 

in the past have not been widely read. The MCAQD confirms yet again that the Department will not 

reference Sections 302.1—302.3 when issuing a Notice to Comply or Notice of Violation. 

Comment #206: 

It is understood that an owner/operator is responsible for the actions of contractor, maintenance crews, 

and themselves, but Rule 310.01, Section 302.4 will make the owner/operator responsible for anyone 

trespassing on the property in question, even if adequate signage is present. It seems unjust to force an 

owner/operator to incur the expense of fencing off areas due to the criminal activities of the 

trespassers. It would be completely impractical to fence miles of ROW and it could be specifically 

forbidden in the contract granting for the ROW. The public in general would likely not tolerate miles 

of fencing running throughout Maricopa County if all users of ROWs suddenly began installing visible 

fencing everywhere. 

Response #206: 

See response to comment #186 regarding trespass. The MCAQD notes that ROWs are subject to Rule 

310.01, Section 302.10 not Section 302.4. 

Comment #207: 

The following comments apply to Rule 310.01, Sections 302.4(a), 302.5(a), and 302.6(a)(1). The 

referenced provision reads: “The owner and/or operator of a dust generating operation shall not cause 

or allow visible fugitive dust emissions to remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line.” 

At least two other jurisdictions have concluded that absolute prohibitions against visible emissions 

crossing a property line are unconstitutional. In Ross Neely Exp. v. ADE, the Alabama Supreme Court 

held that a state rule prohibiting visible emissions from crossing a property line: "is clearly overbroad, 

encompassing every situation in which visible fugitive dust emissions move across a lot line, without 

136 
regard to damage, injury, or inconvenience caused, reasonable attempts at control, etc. This invades the 

area of protected freedom, severely restricting the use of property, and creases [sic] a situation where 

discriminatory enforcement is almost inevitable." Ref: 437 So.2d 82, 85 (Ala. 1983); see also CF & U 

v. CAPCC, 640 P.2d 238 (Colo. App. 1981) (holding that property boundary standard “contravenes 

fundamental due process rights”). The Chamber respectfully requests this subsection be removed from 

the draft rule. Another commenter states that even if MCAQD can provide satisfactory answers to 

those questions, the provision should be reworded. In addition, it is inappropriate for this section to 

refer to "particulate matter, including fugitive dust". Any requirements contained in this rule should 

only pertain to fugitive dust, which is in keeping with the title and purpose of this rule. APS and SRP 

suggest the following revision: “The owner and/or operator of a non-traditional source of fugitive dust 

that involves vehicle use in open areas and vacant lots shall not cause or allow visible emissions of 

particulate matter, including fugitive dust beyond the property line within which the emissions are 

generated. The owner and/or operator shall be exempt from this requirement if it can demonstrate that 

it is implementing best available control measures, as defined by Section 302.4.b of this rule. “ 

Another comment requests that the rule language should state a time limit for visible fugitive dust 

emissions to remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line. 

Response #207: 

The EPA refined the national ambient air quality standard for particulate matter in 1987 to inhalable 

particulate matter 10 microns or less in aerometric diameter, since both court decisions. Unlike the two 

jurisdictions cited in the comment, the Phoenix PM10 Nonattainment Area failed to meet the 24 hour 

PM10 standard by December 31, 2006. As a result, residents still have the potential to be exposed to 

unhealthy levels of PM10. Exceedances are recorded under both stagnant and elevated wind conditions. 

Secondary aerosols are not significant contributors to the exceedances recorded in Maricopa County. 

Geologic material (e.g. dust) remains the dominant constituent of PM10. Locally generated PM10

significantly contributes to recorded exceedances of the PM10 standard and can be released from dust 

generating activities or any unstabilized surface exposing residents to unhealthy levels of particulates. 

The property line standard can serve as a simple visual technique to monitor the dust released by the 

non-traditional fugitive dust source. The MCAQD intends to issue a Notice to Comply for the first 

violation of the property line standard at sites that are applying controls. The MCAQD will modify its 

enforcement policy to address this new requirement. The MCAQD will develop a policy/guideline and 

train compliance staff to ensure consistent enforcement of the property line standard. The MCAQD 

disagrees that there is no credible link between opacity and particulate matter emissions. In fact the 

next sentence in the EPA notice cited by the comment states, “Nonetheless, because there is at least an 

indirect relationship between opacity and PM emissions, including the use of opacity to track the 

effectiveness of PM control equipment operation ...” The MCAQD’s goal with this change is to 

improve the monitoring of dust control measures by providing a simple visual tool that can be applied 

by employees as well as by the MCAQD to evaluate the effectiveness of the dust control measure. 

137 
Even though the MCAQD cannot derive a quantitative correlation between opacity and PM emissions 

for a general rule, improving the consistency of compliance will reduce emissions and reduce the 

concentrations measured at the monitors. The MCAQD has access the Assessor’s database and the 

inspectors carry GPS units and would be able to use those devices if necessary. However, the inspector 

only has to determine that emissions coming from the permitted site are present at a point that is 

beyond the property line. Once the inspector determines that the visible emission is generated from the 

permitted site and the visible emission reaches a point clearly beyond the property line (e.g. a nearby 

public road), described and documented by the inspector, then the exact location of the property line is 

moot. The MCAQD disagrees with the comment to restrict the property line standard to just fugitive 

dust, as fugitive dust can contain other particles deposited on the site surface as well as dust. 

Comment #208: 

What is a "virtual posting"? If this item refers to the internet website, perhaps a mention of a web 

address or URL should be included here. 

Response #208: 

Virtual posting refers to the maps displayed online by a government, typically with large land 

holdings, that indicate designated travel routes. For example, federal agencies such as BLM and the 

Forest Service are required to develop transportation management plans that specifically designate 

open travel routes where vehicles can operate. Further, vehicle operators accessing those lands on the 

designated travel routes are responsible for knowing where they are allowed to drive. Currently, each 

agency maintains its own website. 

Comment #209: 

The opening paragraph of this section should be reworded as follows: “Prevent motor vehicle and/or 

off-road vehicle trespassing, parking, and/or access by posting that consists of one of the following:” 

Furthermore, APS and SRP request further clarification on how the items specified in paragraphs b, c, 

and d of this section would be used to prevent trespassing, parking, and access to restricted areas. 

Response #209: 

Rule 310.01, Sections 302.4(b)(2)(b), (c), and (d) provide the vehicle operator several options to 

become informed of land use. The vehicle operator can look for a sign on the property posting the land 

open. The vehicle operator can look for an order, map, or virtual posting from a government land 

management agency or can obtain written permission from a private land owner. The vehicle operator 

will also have access to a forthcoming website about land availability for vehicle use. The 

responsibility for this website, data sharing, access and maintenance requirements still need to be 

defined. 

Comment #210: 

Suggest MCAQD adopt the following language. "Notify motor vehicle and/or off-road vehicle 

operators of trespassing, parking and/or access requirements by posting that consists of one of the 

following:". Signs merely notify; only physical actions can prevent access. 

138 
Response #210: 

Knowledge of permission or lack of permission provides information the vehicle operator may use to 

make an informed decision regarding where to operate the vehicle and may prevent vehicular access. 

Comment #211: 

APS and SRP recommend that this requirement be removed because this activity is already exempted 

under Section 103.5 of this rule. 

Response #211: 

This provision is not new and is not being revised in this rulemaking. Rule 310.01, Section 302.4(c)(6) 

is more specific than Rule 310.01, Section 103.5 and clarifies the application of that exemption to 

vehicle use in open areas and vacant lots. 

Comment #212: 

Suggest the time interval for the land owner and/or operator be triggered from the point of notification 

by MCAQD rather than discovery. Such a change would be in keeping with other regulatory 

notification practices adopted throughout the state. 

Response #212: 

The time interval in these provisions is already in the SIP and is not being revised in this rulemaking. 

Comment #213: 

Must the approval and subsequent implementation of an alternative control measure require both the 

Control Officer and the Administrator? Surely MCAQD could evaluate such a request. 

Response #213: 

Without Administrator approval, the section would grant the Control Officer discretion. The Control 

Officer’s discretion is grounds for disapproval by EPA. 

Comment #214: 

Comments recommend that the wording of this section be revised because it implies that a source must 

meet all the requirements of Sections 302.5(b) of this rule. The following revision is suggested: "The 

owner and/or operator of a non-traditional source of fugitive dust that involves open areas and vacant 

lots shall be subject to the visible emissions requirements described in Section 302.5(a) of this rule 

and, unless otherwise specified and/or required, shall comply with at least one of the control measures 

described in Section 302.5(b) of this rule and the additional requirements described in Section 302.5(c) 

of this rule." 

Response #214: 

The MCAQD has revised the provision. 

Comment #215: 

It is unclear if Easements and Rights-of-Way would be considered an Open Area. If yes, it would be 

difficult to establish vegetative ground cover on all disturbed surface areas. The ROW is periodically 

driven via motor vehicles for maintenance activities. 

Response #215: 

139 
Easements and right-of-ways are not and have not been considered open areas and vacant lots. These 

accesses are specifically identified as subject to Section 302.10 that is titled, “Easements, Rights-ofWay, and Access Roads for Utilities (Transmission of Electricity, Natural Gas, Oil, Eater, and Gas)”. 

Comment #216: 

Is there a definition of "unoccupied"? As mentioned in above paragraphs, suggest the land 

owner/operator schedule for corrective actions be triggered from the point of written notification by 

MCAQD and not from the point of initial discovery in the field. 

Response #216: 

The dictionary definition will be applied. See the response to comment #212. 

Comment #217: 

Will compliance determinations conducted by the land owner/operator in accordance with Section 501 

be acceptable to MCAQD or will compliance determinations be the sole provenance of MCAQD? 

Response #217: 

As with any other rule, the MCAQD evaluates compliance at the time of inspection. The due diligence 

efforts to maintain compliance by a land owner/operator may be presented to the MCAQD, but do not 

supersede an inspector’s findings at the time of inspection. 

Comment #218: 

Suggest "prevent" be replaced with "minimizes" in Rule 310.01, Section 302.6(b)(2). It will be 

physically impossible to prevent trackout in total; there will always be some dust on the road. The term 

prevention implies there will be absolutely no trackout on the road and is thus an unreasonable 

condition. 

Response #218: 

Rule 310.01, Section 302.6(b)(2) requires the elimination of trackout. The MCAQD requires that every 

effort be made to prevent as much trackout as possible. The MCAQD has not changed the provision. 

Comment #219: 

This language in Section 302.6(b)(3) appears to be duplicative. Maintenance of the trackout device is 

called out in 302.6(b)(2) 

Response #219: 

Surface gravel listed in this section is not the same thing as a gravel pad, which would be a type of 

trackout control device. Surface gravel referred to here implies the use of gravel as a material used to 

cover all disturbed areas of an unpaved parking lot. In this way, this section is a unique control 

measure from the others listed in section 302.6(b). 

Comment #220: 

This language in Section 302.6(b)(4) appears to be duplicative of 302.6(b)(2) 

Response #220: 

140 
This section concerns the combined use of water and a trackout control device, whereas Section 

302.6(b)(2) considers the combined use of a dust suppressant other than water with a trackout control 

device. 

Comment #221: 

The same comment provided under Rule 310, Section 306.2(a)(1) applies here. The proposed revisions 

include a 50 percent reduction in the amount of trackout allowed at a site. As such, MCAQD should 

provide a more reasonable amount of time to clean up trackout, carry-out, or spillage. In some cases, it 

is impossible to clean up an area immediately after the cumulative trackout extends more than 25 linear 

feet due to safety issues, particularly if the trackout is on roads accessible to the public. It may not be 

possible to divert traffic while the trackout is being cleaned up. If traffic cannot be diverted, employees 

who are trying to clean up are at significant risk. Furthermore, it was communicated in stakeholder 

meetings that the enforcement of the current trackout requirement is dependent on the inspector. Some 

inspectors provide a reasonable amount of time for cleanup, and some provide no leeway based on the 

requirement that it be cleaned up "immediately." In order to ensure fair and equitable treatment of all 

sources, MCAQD should provide a specific amount of time in the rule for cleanup that is more 

reasonable than "immediately." 

Response #221: 

The MCAQD trains its inspectors on trackout enforcement to ensure fair and equitable treatment. In 

the MCAQD’s experience, trackout builds up over time and the individual who can take action has a 

duty to monitor it and should be aware cleanup will soon be needed. The MCAQD inspectors place 

more importance on taking action to initiate cleanup of trackout than they do on counting minutes. No 

matter what time is selected, the MCAQD and owner/operators would still discuss grace periods. 

MCAQD does not believe the differences between inspectors are as significant as portrayed based on 

the reports prepared when Notices of Violations are referred for escalated enforcement. If a permittee 

believes that they have been treated unfairly, they may contact a supervisor or other department 

management. 

Comment #222: 

Suggest "developments" be replaced with "construction sites" in Section 302.6(c)(4). Suggest that 

"dustproof" be stricken. 

Response #222: 

Rule 310.01 does not apply to construction sites. The test in Section 302.6(c)(4) is consistent with 

SB1552. 

Comment #223: 

Why was 3,000 square feet selected in Section 302.6(c)(5)? Why not use 0.10 acre as a threshold? 

Why is the "county" explicitly mentioned here? Could a Dust Control permit similar to a block permit 

be implemented here? 

Response #223: 

141 
This section was created to be consistent with language passed in SB 1552. Rule 310.01 does not apply 

to permitted sources. 

Comment #224 

With respect to the 150 vehicle trips/day threshold, is it MCAQD’s expectation that the land 

owner/operator would be responsible for developing a traffic count plan for all roads that fall within 

this requirement? Suggest here there be an implementation schedule for this type of traffic analysis and 

control measure implementation. 

Response #224: 

The owner/operator of a unpaved roadway has always been responsible for determining when 

provisions of this rule section apply to them, including traffic counts. The revisions to this section 

clarify who is responsible for conducting the traffic counts. 

Comment #225: 

Rule 310.01, Section 302.7(a) appears to have a mislaid dependent clause. 

Response #225:

The MCAQD has removed the words “a non-traditional sources of fugitive dust that involves” from 

the first sentence in Rule 310.01, Section 302.7(a). 

Comment #226: 

Comments believe it is important that Rule 310.01, Section 302.7 account for the possibility of 

trespassers on unpaved haul and access roads. The limit on vehicle trips and vehicle speeds should be 

for authorized traffic. It is critical that the owner/operator not be penalized for illegal trespassing that 

occurs on its site. In addition, comments seek clarification on the terminology used in Section 

302.7(c)(2). This section requires that the "average vehicle counts/traffic counts on the highest 

trafficked days" be recorded and reported to the Control Officer. How is a company to choose which 

days would be the "highest trafficked days" and what are the repercussions if a day is found to have 

more traffic than what was recorded and reported? Furthermore, please fix the section reference in 

Section 302.7(c)(3)(a) so that it is "Section 501" rather than "Section 302.8(a)". 

Response #226: 

See the response to comment #186 for a discussion of trespass. The term “highest trafficked days” was 

chosen in recognition of the fact that unpaved roads defined in Rule 310.01, Section 231 connect 

multiple properties and may have different use patterns depending on the destinations along a 

particular road. For example, a road providing access to recreational areas will bear more traffic on 

weekends and holidays. Other roads providing access to residential, industrial, or commercial 

destinations usually bear more traffic on weekdays. The owner/operator should base the selection of an 

appropriate time period on the traffic patterns on the particular road in question. The owner/operator 

also has a responsibility to be aware of when traffic patterns change on the unpaved road. Usually this 

change accompanies additional development nearby. The reference in Section 302.7(c)(3)(a) has been 

corrected. 

142 
Comment #227: 

MCAQD’s proposed Rule 310.01 would relax the regulation of fugitive dust emissions from Countyowned unpaved roads, compared to the current air quality requirements for County-owned unpaved 

roads (Rule 310.01, Section 304) that have been in effect for several years and already are part of the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This unusual proposal to reduce the existing level of fugitive dust 

regulation for County-owned property stands in contrast to MCAQD’s efforts to increase the 

regulation of almost every other type of activity that emits fugitive dust within Maricopa County. The 

proposed rule provisions that relax the SIP provisions that apply to County-owned unpaved roads are 

summarized in the following table. [NOTE: See reference table in original letter.] The change in the 

proposed rule would be an impermissible relaxation of the SIP. Moreover, the concept of decreasing 

regulation of County-owned sources of fugitive dust while increasing the regulation of so many other 

categories of emitters is inequitable and illogical. 

Response #227: 

As noted earlier, the commenter confuses roads associated with conducting business that generates 

emissions and business conducting business that generates emissions the conduct of business that 

operates equipment and/or activities generating emissions, whether private or governmental, with 

roads managed and operated by government on behalf of the general public to provide access to 

multiple properties where the public generates the emissions. This provision does increase regulation 

of the public unpaved roads. It specifies a minimum number of miles to be paved each year. The 

legislature has not provided counties and municipalities lacking home rule with the authority to prevent 

the formation of some new unpaved roads. The formation of new unpaved roads through lot splits, 

wildcat subdivisions, or businesses exempt from planning and zoning requirements result in ever 

changing impacts that increase traffic on outlying roads in the existing public highway network. As a 

result traffic increases and additional unpaved roads are identified, evaluated and placed in 

transportation improvement plans. The legal authority governing public highways differs between 

government conducting business that generates emissions and business conducting business that 

generates emissions. This comment confuses roads associated with conducting business, which 

operates equipment and/or activities generating emissions, whether private or governmental, with 

roads managed and operated by government on behalf of the general public to provide access to 

multiple properties where the public generates the emissions. 

Comment #228: 

This language suggests that water cannot be applied as a dust suppressant; given certain soil types, 

water application alone can yield very effective dust control. To eliminate water in favor of another 

dust suppression techniques without determining whether it works seems questionable. Restriction of 

travel, speed limit enforcement, and rerouting traffic and be other control measures that could be 

included in this list. 

Response #228: 

143 
The roadways subject to this provision are not temporary. MCAQD maintains that unpaved roadways 

that are subject to this provision cannot be adequately controlled with water alone, and another control 

measure is necessary to ensure stabilization occurs over the repeated and consistent vehicle traffic on 

these roads. The control measures listed in the section are consistent with the control measures for 

unpaved roads in the federal implementation plan EPA promulgated for the Maricopa County PM10

Nonattainment Area. The list of control measures is not being revised at this time. 

Comment #229: 

Suggest the design, implementation of traffic studies be conducted upon notification by MCAQD for 

reasons mentioned above. Rule 310.01, Section 302.7(c)(2) could be split into two sub-paragraphs for 

ease of readability. 

Response #229: 

See the response to comment #224. The MCAQD maintains that it is the responsibility of the 

owner/operator of all unpaved roadways to determine traffic counts upon that roadway 

Comment #230: 

Comment does not believe that separate traffic counts should be required, as the cost is double that of 

doing one 48 hour count. We understand the purpose of averaging to avoid a single event skewing the 

results. We recommend either of the following 2 alternatives in lieu of the existing language: 

1. The language from this portion of Rule 242: “a. Each traffic count shall measure vehicular traffic 

over a 48-hour period, which may consist of two non-consecutive 24-hour periods. Vehicular traffic 

shall be measured continuously during each 24-hour period. b. The two distinct 24-hour traffic counts 

shall be conducted on two non-holiday weekdays - adding the phrase “and may include one or two 

weekend days at the request of the Control Officer.” 

2. Alternatively: “A person, who owns and/or is responsible for an unpaved road (including an alley) 

believed to carry 150 or more vehicle trips per day in the PM10 nonattainment area, shall be responsible 

for conducting vehicle counts to determine if 150 or more vehicle trips per day occur on said unpaved 

roadway (including an alley). At least 48 hours of traffic shall be counted. At the Control Officer’s 

request, some or all of the count may be required on weekend days. The average vehicle counts on the 

highest trafficked continuous 24 hour periods shall be recorded and provided to the Control Officer in 

writing 60 days of verbal or written request by the Control Officer.” 

Response #230: 

To address the commenter’s concerns, Rule 310.01, Section 302.7(c)(2) has been revised to read, " A 

person, who allows 150 vehicle trips or more per day on an unpaved roadway (including an alley) in 

the PM10 nonattainment area, shall be responsible for conducting vehicle counts/traffic counts to 

determine if 150 vehicle trips or more per day occur on an unpaved roadway (including an alley). A 

traffic count shall measure vehicular traffic over a 48-hour period, which may consist of two nonconsecutive 24-hour periods. Vehicular traffic shall be measured continuously during each 24-hour 

period. The average vehicle counts/traffic counts on the highest trafficked days shall be recorded and 

144 
provided to the Control Officer in writing within 60 days of verbal or written request by the Control 

Officer.” 

Comment #231: 

Similar comments regarding the prohibition of water use in favor of other dust suppressants. Water 

should be shown as ineffective before a potentially more expensive dust control technology is 

implemented. 

Response #231: 

The MCAQD lists a variety of control measures in this section to give the site flexibility in controlling 

visible emissions. For some of the control measures in this section, water is shown to have limited 

effectiveness. This section also allows the site to make their own cost/benefit decisions regarding 

which control measures to implement. 

Comment #232: 

Livestock owners currently perform control measure 'c' when hauling animal waste. Livestock owners 

cannot perform control measure 'c' when hauling or transporting bulk feed for livestock; it is not 

feasible to cover feed with tarps when dispensing to livestock. 

Response #232: 

The intent of this control measure is to prohibit bulk feed or animal waste from exiting haul trucks onto 

areas accessible to the public. If the haul truck will not cross an area accessible to the public (as is 

often the case when feeding animals) then tarping is not required. However, if the haul truck does cross 

onto an area accessible to the public, the MCAQD maintains that tarping is a reasonable and prudent 

measure. 

Comment #233: 

Suggest that "leave" be substituted for "traverse". 

Response #233: 

MCAQD maintains the current language of this section best describes the intent of the section as it 

includes crossing a paved area accessible to the public. 

Comment #234: 

It is impractical and cost prohibitive for the owner and/or operator of a feedlot and/or livestock area, to 

implement any one of the control measures described in Section 309.2 (Section 302.8(b), as 309.2 does 

not exist) of this rule. The control measures in this rule should be replaced with affordable and 

practical measures that the owner/operator could feasible do without being a detriment to the operation 

of the animals. 

Response #234: 

Most of the measures listed are found in the existing rule. The MCAQD did research conservation best 

management practices applied to similar livestock activities in California and added several additional 

options to provide additional flexibility. The MCAQD believes the control measures in this section are 

necessary, prudent, and feasible. The MCAQD understands that there may be costs associated with 

145 
these measures, but given the severity of the PM10 pollution problem, the control measures are a 

integral part of reducing PM10 emissions from significant sources. 

Comment #235: 

It is not a feasible measure to apply surface gravel to a feedlot and/or livestock areas (302.8(b)(1)—

(2)). Manure, once removed from animal operations, is often used as a field crop additive and nutrient. 

Manure containing gravel cannot be used as a field nutrient. Manure from feedlots and/or livestock 

areas, can be converted to a green energy in anaerobic digesters, (currently being implemented in 

Maricopa County). Manure containing gravel cannot be used in this technology. In addition, gravel is 

uncomfortable and possibly dangerous for hoofed animals to stand on for extended periods of time. 

Response #235: 

The application of gravel is only one option and is intended for those areas that do not come in 

frequent contact with livestock (unpaved roads and lanes). The provisions of Sections 302.8(b)(1) and 

302.8(b)(2) are not intended for areas such as corrals, pens or arenas where manure would accumulate 

and where livestock chiefly inhabit. 

Comment #236: 

If water is used as a dust suppressant at a feedlot and/or livestock area, it can cause a health concern for 

both the animals and residents who live nearby. A moist environment in feedlots and/or livestock area 

creates a fly and mosquito habitat. A damp environment can also harbor bacteria and mold. Wet 

manure also causes an odor concern to the local community. Manure has very little odor when dry. 

Many feedlots and/or livestock areas are very large and occasionally built on leased land. It becomes 

impractical and cost-prohibitive to install enough trees, and shrubs to surround the animals on the 

property. Many dairies in Maricopa County are surrounded by fields (corn, alfalfa) which could be 

considered an existing control measure to reduce dust. 

Response #236: 

It is not uncommon for the owner/operator of a roping arena to choose water as a control measure. To 

address the commenter’s concern regarding the limited number of control measures, the MCAQD is 

adding three additional control measure options for corrals, pens or arenas to Rule 310.01, Section 

302.8(b)(4). The first control measure is frequent scraping and/or manure removal. The second 

measure is adding a fibrous layer in working areas. The third measure is applying and maintaining an 

alternative control measure approved in writing by the Control Officer and the Administrator. This 

allows a permit holder some flexibility in choosing which option is best for their facility. 

Comment #237: 

 Suggest that "activity" be inserted after "dust" in Rule 310.01, Section 302.9. 

Response #237: 

Adding the word “activity” to Rule 310.01, Section 302.9, pertaining to water and wind erosion from 

property, does not add clarity. 

Comment #238: 

146 
Suggest that "discovery and" be substituted for "identification or". 

Response #238: 

The MCAQD maintains the current language of this section best describes the intent of the section. 

Comment #239: 

Why were 130 vehicle trips selected instead of 150 vehicle trips identified in other areas of this rule? 

Other commenters request that the MCAQD revise this section so that it is consistent with the 

requirements for unpaved roadways (i.e., 150 vehicle trips or more per day in the PM10 nonattainment 

area). It is unclear why easements, rights-of-way, and access roads should have different requirements. 

By keeping the qualifiers consistent between unpaved roadways and easements, rights-of-way, and 

access roads, it will add clarity and eliminate confusion for sources affected by both sections. 

Response #239: 

The MCAQD will revise Section 302.10 to leave the 150 vehicle trips or more per day in the PM10

nonattainment area in place. 

Comment #240: 

Commenters believe it is important that this section 302.10 account for the possibility of trespassers on 

easements, right-of-ways, and access roads for utilities. The limit on vehicle trips and vehicle speeds 

should be for authorized traffic. It is critical that the owner/operator not be penalized for illegal 

trespassing that occurs on its site. 

Response #240: 

See response to comment #186. 

Comment #241: 

The rule should also clarify, who determines if a non-traditional source of fugitive dust, has met the 

opacity limitation requirement. 

Response #241: 

The owner/operator of a non-traditional source of fugitive dust should ensure that the opacity standard 

has been met; however, the MCAQD evaluates compliance at the time of inspection. The due-diligence 

efforts to maintain compliance by an owner/operator may be presented to the MCAQD but do not 

supersede an inspector’s findings at the time of inspection. 

Comment #242: 

APS and SRP agree with the concerns regarding the legality of this change to the existing rule as stated 

in a letter from Mr. Roger Ferland, on behalf of the Business Coalition, to Mr. Robert Kard dated 

August 10, 2007. A copy of this letter has been attached for your convenience. “Under Method 9, the 

opacity is determined as the average of 24 consecutive observations recorded at 15-second intervals. 

As such, the opacity determination is based on a 6-minute average of 24 observations. In Method 

203B, the number of observations above the applicable standard are counted and multiplied by 0.25 to 

determine the number of minutes a source is above the opacity standard. In essence, the Method 203B 

calculation methodology eliminates the averaging effect of readings below the standard...Obviously a 

147 
data reduction method that results in noncompliance is more stringent than one that does not. This 

increased stringency of the opacity limit rule is multiplied by the fact that your department has 

proposed to expand the applicability of Appendix C to include determining compliance with opacity 

limits applicable to point source emissions...” “Under the provisions of A.R.S. §49-112(A), the County 

may only adopt rules that are more stringent than those adopted by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) if all conditions of [A.R.S. §49-112(A)] are met...The ADEQ 

regulations pertaining to the measurement of visible emissions from nonpoint sources (A.A.C R18-2-

614) and point sources (A.A.C. R18-2-702(B)) rely solely upon EPA Test Method 9 and not Method 

203B to determine compliance with opacity limits. Thus, the MCAQD’s proposal to substitute Method 

203B for Method 9 is subject to the requirements of A.R.S. §49-112(A)...” “To date we have seen 

nothing to suggest the MCAQD intends to provide the evidence or can provide the evidence necessary 

to meet the statutory requirements.” It has been suggested that since the change in opacity test methods 

was bundled with a proposal for more stringent PM10 regulations that the “peculiar local condition” 

referred to in the statute was somehow connected to PM10. However, this cannot be the case. Visible 

emissions limits are intended to indicate the proper operation of particulate control technologies such 

as baghouses or dust suppression technologies. They are not intended to measure and cannot measure 

PM10 emissions or the emissions of any other pollutant. For this reason, source category specific rules 

typically specify both an opacity limit and an emission limit...” “Since there is no coincidence 

between PM10 emissions and opacity, there is no reason to believe that a more stringent opacity limit, 

particularly one of the kind at issue here, would result in lower PM10 (or any other) emissions...” 

“Either the MCAQD must make the showings and provide the evidence required by statute (which we 

judge to be unlikely) or the proposal should be immediately withdrawn...” 

Response #242: 

The revision to the data reduction methodology associated with Maricopa County's general 20% 

opacity standard to EPA Method 203B is intended to further efforts to increase compliance. This form 

of data reduction for the 20% opacity standard limits the number of excursions over the 20% level of 

the standard resulting in more consistent compliance with the existing standard. A rule effectiveness 

study conducted 2006 through 2007 by MCAQD found that compliance with the existing rules is lower 

than anticipated. The commenter also states that the revision to the data reduction methodology makes 

the 20% opacity standard substantially more stringent that the current rule. The MCAQD disagrees and 

believes that the comment overstates the stringency of Method 203B. Throughout the informal and 

formal rulemaking process, the MCAQD repeatedly asked for examples of changes or modifications 

that would be necessary to comply with the Method 203B data reduction methodology but did not 

receive any additional information. Further, a 1983 study of opacity regulations by the EPA found that 

20 states, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and 5 local agencies had time aggregating form of opacity 

regulation with the most frequent opacity limit noted as 20% opacity with a 3 minute/hour time 

exceedence. Further, if Method 203B was substantially more stringent than Method 9, then the 

148 
MCAQD would have been required to include the measure in the most stringent measure 

demonstration contained in the MAG Serious Area PM10 Nonattainment Area Plan and Attainment 

Date Extension Request. The technical analysis associated with the Salt River Area PM10 SIP revision 

submitted in 2005 determined that stationary sources contribute significantly to exceedances of the 24-

hour PM10 standard that occur under stagnant conditions. That analysis characterized the specific types, 

number, and size of sources present in the modeling domain; land use; the topography of the area; and 

the design day specific meteorological conditions present at the monitor recording the exceedance. 

Attainment demonstrations for nonattainment areas required under the Clean Air Act must to the 

greatest extent practical depict the actual conditions present that cause exceedances in the 

nonattainment area. Therefore, the nonattainment area plans for the Phoenix Nonattainment Area for 

PM10 are required under the Clean Air Act, in effect, to address actual local conditions that are unique 

to a geographical area. Further, EPA’s latest particulate matter implementation rule, Clean Air Fine 

Particle Implementation Rule (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007), identifies “revised opacity standard” in a 

list of possible stationary sources measures. The rule also lists improved monitoring as a control 

measure. EPA notes that improved monitoring control measures would require facilities to pay more 

attention to the operations of add-on air pollution control devices, work practices, and other control 

measure activities. The additional attention will reduce periods during which control devices and other 

control measures do no operate as intended or required. The result would be increased emissions 

reductions from implementing existing and new rules. The MCAQD disagrees that there is no 

coincidence between PM10 emissions and opacity. Within an individual source, a change in opacity 

indicates a change in PM emissions. It is not necessary to demonstrate a correlation between mass 

emissions and opacity across all source categories, when a goal of the standard is to demonstrate 

compliance with BACT, BACM, and MSM levels of control. Opacity has also long been used as an 

indicator of visible particulate pollution. In the discussion on improved monitoring control measures in 

the proposal for the fine particle implementation rule referenced above, EPA states, “...visible 

emissions and the opacity of visible emissions are indicators of a change in PM emissions levels...” In 

EPA’s fact sheet on the rule finalizing Methods 203A, B, and C, EPA states, “Evaluating the opacity 

of emissions serves as a surrogate for particulate emissions. Numerous state and federal regulations 

require that opacity of emissions be measured or monitored.” In EPA’s Response to Comments on the 

Portland Cement Manufacturing NESHAP (page 227), EPA states, “An opacity limit was established 

to ensure effective PM control, but opacity is a separately enforced pollutant ...” In other NESHAPs, 

where EPA uses PM as a surrogate for HAPs, EPA consistently states that opacity limits are separately 

enforceable emissions limits which represent and demonstrate continuous compliance with the MACT 

floor of particulate HAP control. 

Comment #243: 

Suggest the term "Fugitive Dust from Open Area Sources" be substituted instead of "Fugitive Dust 

from Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive Dust". 

149 
Response #243: 

MCAQD does not believe that suggestion includes all sources that listed under non-traditional sources 

of Fugitive dust. 

Comment #244: 

Define the term "immediately". This term needs a reasonable timeframe and consistency in Draft Rule 

300, 310, and 310.01. 

Response #244: 

See the response to comment #221 

Comment #245: 

Please advise if agricultural farmers are included in dust control rules. 

Response #245: 

Normal farm cultural practices are not regulated by this rule. However livestock activities are regulated 

by Rule 310.01. 

Comment #246: 

I have been on 5-150 horse trail rides and they don't stir up any dust, ATV ATV's, dirt bikes and quads 

stir up significantly more dust than horses on trails. Please don't change Rule 310.01. Why not enforce 

what we have instead of more rules. Why target us? Focus penalty on vehicles rather than horse 

activities. 

Response #246: 

Rule 310.01 does not apply to activities on horse trails, as exempted in Rule 310.01, Section 103.8. 

However, horse arenas are subject to the provisions of Rule 310.01 that apply to livestock activities. 

Comment #247: 

Since the results of using EPA Reference Method 203B and the Appendix C method for assessing 

opacity can be quite different, explain why the less stringent Appendix C method is used at all. The 

County cannot have requirements that are less stringent than those of the EPA. Take out and replace all 

references to Appendix C. 

Response #247: 

The opacity methods approved in Appendix C were modified specifically to address the listed 

activities and are more appropriate for evaluating those dust plumes than Method 203B. Neither EPA 

Reference Method 203B nor Appendix C methods are less stringent than the other. 

Comment #248 

There are not classes offered to agricultural producers or livestock owners to become qualified in EPA 

Reference Method 9, which includes determining black and white smoke opacity. Therefore producers 

should not be required to comply with a standard for which no training is available. For example a 

Maricopa County 4-H member (age 9-18) who is raising goats or a community member who keeps 

horses would be totally unfamiliar with this standard. 

Response #248: 

150 
At least two training providers in Maricopa County offer EPA Method 9 Visible Emissions 

Observation Certification Training to anyone required to complete periodic visible emissions 

observations: The ASU Environmental Technology Management (ETM) program offers EPA Method 

9 Certification training. Information on the ETM training can be found at 

http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/compliance/smoke.html or by calling (480) 727-1322. In addition, 

Arizona Smoke School offers Method 9 training. Information on Arizona Smoke School can be found 

at http://www.arizonasmokeschool.com/ or by calling (480) 226-0945. 

Comment #249: 

The last time we sent comments for a hearing with the Board of Supervisors; our comments were 

glossed over and not taken seriously. We hope that will not be the case this time. 

Response #249: 

The most recent time that the MCAQD responded to formal comments regarding fugitive dust was 

during the rulemaking process for Rule 316-Nonmetallic Mineral Processing. All formal comments 

received during such rulemaking were responded to in the Notice of Final Rulemaking (11 A.A.R. 

2799, July 29, 2005), which was distributed via email to all stakeholders, was posted on the MCAQD's 

webpage, and was distributed to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors for their review and 

consideration prior to adoption. 

Comment #250: 

If the EPA wants BACM and MSM implemented in this Plan, why do non-title V Permits only address 

BACT, if at all? 

Response #250: 

To address the BACM and MSM requirements, existing rules were revised and a new source specific 

rule adopted for specific source categories such as Rules 316 and 325. The Non-Title V permits for 

those types of sources must incorporate those BACM and MSM rule provisions in their permits and 

dust control plans as specified by the respective rule. Permitting BACT analyses are only performed 

for new and modified sources, but rule provisions apply to the specified sources including both new 

and existing sources. 

14. Any other matters prescribed by the statute that are applicable to the specific department or to 

any specific rule or class of rules:

No 

15. Incorporation by reference and their location in the rules:

Incorporation By Reference Location 

ASTM Method C136-06 Rule 310, Section 223 

Rule 310, Section 504.1 

ASTM Method D2216-05 Rule 310, Section 303.2(a)(1)(a)(iii) 

151 
Rule 310, Section 305.5(b)(2) 

Rule 310, Section 305.11(b)(2) 

Rule 310, Section 504.2 

ASTM Method D1557-02e1 Rule 310, Section 303.2(a)(1)(a)(iii) 

Rule 310, Section 305.5(b)(2) 

Rule 310, Section 305.11(b)(2) 

Rule 310, Section 504.3 

Appendix C-Fugitive Dust Test Methods Rule 310, Section 303.2(c) 

Rule 310, Section 304.3 

Rule 310, Section 304.4 

Rule 310, Section 501.1 

Rule 310, Section 501.2 

Rule 310.01, Section 501.1(b) 

Rule 310.01, Section 501.2 

Rule 310.01, Section 501.3 

EPA Reference Method 203B Rule 310.01, Section 501.1(a) 

16. Was this rule previously an emergency rule?

No 

17. The full text of the rules follows:

REGULATION II - PERMITS AND FEES 

RULE 200 

PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 

INDEX 

SECTION 100 – GENERAL 

101 PURPOSE 

SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS (NOT APPLICABLE) 

SECTION 300 – STANDARDS

301 PERMITS REQUIRED 

302 TITLE V PERMIT 

303 NON-TITLE V PERMIT 

304 GENERAL PERMIT 

305 EARTH MOVING DUST CONTROL PERMIT 

306 SUBCONTRACTOR REGISTRATION

306307 PERMIT TO BURN 

307308 EXEMPTIONS 

308309 STANDARDS FOR APPLICATIONS 

309310 PERMIT CONDITIONS 

310311 PROHIBITION – PERMIT MODIFICATION 

311312 PERMIT POSTING REQUIRED 

312313 TRANSITION FROM INSTALLATION AND OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAM TO 

UNITARY PERMIT PROGRAM 

313314 ACCELERATED PERMITTING 

152 
SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

401 APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF PERMIT OR PERMIT REVISION 

402 PERMIT REOPENINGS; REVOCATION AND REISSUANCE; TERMINATION 

403 PERMIT RENEWAL AND EXPIRATION 

404 PERMIT TRANSFERS 

405 PERMITS CONTAINING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF FEDERAL 

DELAYED COMPLIANCE ORDERS (DCO) OR CONSENT DECREES 

406 APPEAL 

407 AIR QUALITY IMPACT MODELS 

408 TESTING PROCEDURES 

409 PERMIT FEES 

410 PORTABLE SOURCES 

411 PUBLIC RECORDS; CONFIDENTIALITY 

SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS (NOPT APPLICABLE) 

153 
Revised 07/13/88 

Repealed and Adopted 11/15/93 

Revised 02/15/95 

Revised 06/19/96 

Revised 05/20/98 

Revised 08/22/01 

 Revised 03/26/08 

MARICOPA COUNTY 

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS 

REGULATION II – PERMITS AND FEES 

RULE 200 

PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 

SECTION 100 – GENERAL 

101 PURPOSE: To provide an orderly procedure for the review of new sources of air pollution and 

for the modification and operation of existing sources through the issuance of permits. 

SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS (NOT APPLICABLE) 

See Rule 100 (General Provisions and Definitions) of these rules for definitions of terms that are 

used but not specifically defined in this rule. 

SECTION 300 – STANDARDS 

301 PERMITS REQUIRED: Except as otherwise provided in these rules, no person shall commence 

construction of, operate, or make a modification to any source subject to regulation under this rule

these rules, without first obtaining a permit or permit revision from the Control Officer. The 

Maricopa County Air Quality Department issues the following permits: Title V permits, Non-Title 

V permits, General permits, Dust Control permits, and Permits To Burn. The standards and/or 

requirements for these permits are described in Section 302 thru Section 305 and Section 307 of 

this rule. Additional standards, administrative requirements, and monitoring and records 

requirements for some of these permits are described in individual rules of these rules, as 

applicable/as specified in Section 302 thru Section 305 and Section 307 of this rule.

302 TITLE V PERMIT: A Title V permit or, in the case of an existing permitted source, a permit 

revision shall be required for a person to commence construction of, to operate, or to modify any 

of the following: 

302.1 Any major source as defined in Rule 100 of these rules. 

302.2 Any solid waste incineration unit required to obtain a permit pursuant to Section 129(e) 

of the Act. 

302.3 Any affected source as defined in Rule 100 of these rules. 

302.4 Any source in a source category designated by the Administrator pursuant to 40 CFR 

70.3 and adopted by the Board of Supervisors by rule. 

303 NON-TITLE V PERMIT: Unless a Title V permit or a permit revision is required, a Non-Title V 

permit or permit revision shall be required for: 

303.1 A person to make a modification to a source which would cause it to emit or to have the 

potential to emit quantities of regulated air pollutants greater than those specified in 

subsections 303.2 and 303.3(c) of this rule. 

154 
303.2 A person to commence construction of or to modify either of the following after rules 

adopted pursuant to A.R.S. § 49-480.04 are effective: 

a. A source that emits or has the potential to emit with controls ten tons per year or 

more of a hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of 

hazardous air pollutants designated by the Director pursuant to Rule 372 (Maricopa 

County Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) Program) of these rules and not listed in 

Section 112(b) of the Act. 

b. A source that is within a category designated by the Director pursuant to Rule 372 

(Maricopa County Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) Program) of these rules and that 

emits or has the potential to emit with controls at least one ton, but less than ten tons 

per year of a hazardous air pollutant or at least 2.5 tons, but less than 25 tons per year 

of any combination of hazardous air pollutants. 

303.3 A person to commence construction of, to operate, or to modify any of the following: 

a. Any source other than a major source, including an area source, subject to a standard, 

limitation, or other requirement under Section 111 of the Act. 

b. Any source other than a major source, including an area source, subject to a standard 

or other requirement pursuant to Section 112 of the Act. However, a source is not 

required to obtain a permit solely because it is subject to regulation or requirements 

pursuant to Section 112(r) of the Act. 

c. Any source that emits or has the potential to emit, without control, regulated air 

pollutants, except the following sources to the extent which the described limits are 

not exceeded. However, any source that is exempt from obtaining a Non-Title V 

permit according to this section shall still comply with all other applicable 

requirements of these rules. 

(1) General Combustion Equipment: 

(a) Any source with an aggregated input capacity of less than 2,000,000 BTU 

per hour calculated by adding only those pieces of equipment over 300,000 

BTU per hour with respect to fuel burning equipment fired with natural gas 

or liquefied petroleum gas. 

(b) Any oil fueled heating equipment with a maximum rated input capacity or 

an aggregated input capacity of less than 500,000 BTU (527,200 kilojoules) 

per hour. 

(2) Liquid Storage Tanks: 

(a) Stationary storage tanks with a capacity of 250 gallons (946 liters) or less 

used for storing organic liquids. 

(b) Stationary storage tanks used for storing organic liquids with a true vapor 

pressure of 1.5 psia (77.5 mm Hg) or less. 

(c) Pressure tanks and pressurized vessels used exclusively for the storage of 

liquefied gases. 

(3) Surface Coating and Printing Equipment: 

155 
(a) The aggregate of all surface coating operations of a source in which no 

coated product is heat cured and a combined total of one gallon per day or 

less of all coating materials and solvents are used. 

(b) Application equipment for architectural surface coatings is used for 

commercial and residential applications. 

(c) Any coating operation, which employs only hand-held aerosol cans, where 

VOC emissions do not exceed three pounds on any single day. 

(d) Any printing operation which employs a combination of printing presses 

with a maximum of 500 square inches (3226 cm2

) of impression area and a 

maximum of two units per printing press. For the purposes of this rule, 

"units" means the number of printing surfaces. 

(4) Solvent Cleaning Equipment: Unheated, non-conveyorized, cleaning or 

coating equipment that does not include control enclosures: 

(a) With an open surface area of one square meter (10.8 square feet) or less and 

an internal volume of 350 liters (92.5 gallons) or less, having an organic 

solvent loss of three gallons per day or less, or 

(b) Using only organic solvents with an initial boiling point of 302°F (150°C) 

or greater and having an organic solvent loss of three gallons per day or 

less, or 

(c) Using materials with a VOC content of two percent or less by volume (20 

cubic centimeters per liter). 

(5) Internal Combustion Equipment: 

(a) Internal combustion engines with a manufacturer's maximum continuous 

rating of 50 horsepower or less or a maximum accumulative rating of 250 

horsepower or less for engines used in the same process at one source. 

(b) Internal combustion engines used solely as a source of unlimited standby 

power or emergency purposes and operated at or below 500 hours per year 

for routine testing and emergency standby operation for each internal 

combustion engine and provided such source demonstrates that the potential 

emissions at 500 hours of operation each of all internal combustion engines 

do not exceed 4,000 pounds of nitrogen oxides or carbon monoxide per year 

as evidenced by an installed hour meter or written usage records maintained 

by the operator; and 

(i) Are only used for power when normal power line service fails; or 

(ii) Are only used for the emergency pumping of water. 

(iii) This exemption does not apply to internal combustion engines used as 

standby power due to a voluntary reduction in power by the power 

company. 

(c) Engines used to propel motorized vehicles. 

156 
(d) Gas turbines with a maximum heat input at IS0 Standard Day Conditions of 

less than 3,000,000 BTU (3,162,000 kilojoules) per hour fired exclusively 

with natural gas and/or liquefied petroleum gas. 

(e) Portable internal combustion engines used on a temporary basis of no more 

than 30 days per calendar year at any one facility. 

(6) Food Equipment: 

(a) Equipment, excluding boilers, used in eating establishments or other retail 

establishments for the purpose of preparing food for human consumption. 

(b) Bakeries: 

(i) Mixers and blenders used in bakeries where the products are edible and 

intended for human consumption. 

(ii) Ovens at bakeries whose total production is less than 10,000 pounds 

(4,535 kg) per operating day. 

(7) Miscellaneous: 

(a) Diesel contaminated soil remediation projects, where no heat is applied. 

(b) Self-contained, enclosed blast and shot peen equipment where the total 

internal volume of the blast section is 50 cubic feet or less and where any 

venting is done via pollution control equipment. 

(c) Those laboratory acids which have both a pH above 1.5 and an aggregate 

daily emission to ambient air of vapor/mists from all such acids not 

exceeding three pounds on any single day. 

(d) Brazing or welding equipment. 

(e) Hand soldering equipment. 

(f) A source whose aggregate of all wood working equipment totals 50 

horsepower or less. 

(g) Equipment used for buffing, carving, cutting, drilling, surface grinding, 

machining, planing, routing, sanding, sawing, shredding, or turning of 

ceramic artwork, precision parts, leather, metals, plastics, rubber, 

fiberboard, masonry, carbon, graphite or glass. 

(h) Refrigerant recovery equipment. 

(i) Normal landscaping, building Building maintenance or janitorial activities. 

(j) A source whose aggregate of all miscellaneous equipment, processes or 

production lines not otherwise identified in this section has total 

uncontrolled emissions of less than three pounds (1.4 kg) VOC or PM10

during any day and less than 5.5 pounds (2.5 kg) of any other regulated air 

pollutant during any day. 

157 
(k) A person to begin actual construction of a source subject to Rule 372 

(Maricopa County Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) Program) of these 

rules. 

(l) A person to make a modification to a source subject to Rule 372 (Maricopa 

County Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) Program) of these rules. 

304 GENERAL PERMIT: A General permit shall be required for a person to commence construction 

of, to operate, or to modify a source that is a member of a facility class for which a General permit 

has been developed pursuant to Rule 230 of these rules. The provisions of Rule 230 of these rules 

shall apply to General permits, except as otherwise provided in Rule 230 of these rules. 

305 EARTH MOVING PERMIT DUST CONTROL PERMIT: No person shall cause, commence, 

suffer, allow, or engage in any earth moving operation that disturbs a total surface area of 0.10 

acre or more. without first obtaining a permit from the Control Officer. This requirement for a 

permit shall apply to all such activities conducted for commercial, industrial, or institutional 

purposes or conducted by any governmental entity. The property owner, lessee, developer, or 

general/prime contractor will be responsible for acquiring the permit. Permits shall not be required 

for earth moving operations for emergency repair of utilities, paved roads, unpaved roads, 

shoulders, and/or alleys. A Dust Control permit shall be required before a person, including but 

not limited to, the property owner, lessee, developer, responsible official, Dust Control permit 

applicant (who may also be the responsible party contracting to do the work), general contractor, 

prime contractor, supervisor, management company, or any person who owns, leases, operates, 

controls, or supervises a dust generating operation subject to the requirements of Rule 310 of these 

rules, causes, commences, suffers, allows, or engages in any dust generating operation that 

disturbs a total surface area of 0.10 acre (4,356 square feet) or more. The provisions of Rule 310 

of these rules shall apply to Dust Control permits, except as otherwise provided in Rule 310 of 

these rules.

305.1 Application: The applicant shall file an application, which includes an 81⁄2" x 11" site map 

showing all linear dimensions, and shall submit a control plan as described in Rule 310 of 

these rules.

305.2 Annual Block Permit: Any person responsible for more than one earth moving operation 

consisting of routine operation, maintenance, and expansion or extension of utilities, 

paved roads, unpaved roads, road shoulders and/or alleys, and public right of ways at 

non-contiguous sites may submit one permit application covering multiple sites at which 

construction will commence within 12 months of permit issuance provided that: 

a. The control plan as described in Rule 310 of these rules applies to all sites; and

b. The applicant submits a list of all sites, including the location and size of each site, 

with the application; and

c. For any project not listed in the application, the applicant notifies the Control Officer 

in writing at least three working days prior to commencing the earth moving 

operation. The notice shall include the site location, size, type of activity, and start 

date.

305.3 Action On Permit Application: The Control Officer shall take final action on an earth 

moving permit application within 14 calendar days of the filing of the completed 

application. The Control Officer shall notify the applicant in writing of his approval or 

denial.

305.4 Permit Term: Earth Moving permits issued pursuant to this rule shall be issued for a 

period of one year from the date of issuance.

158 
305.5 Permit Renewal: Earth Moving permits shall be renewed annually should the project last 

longer than one year from the date the permit was issued. Applications for permit renewal 

shall be submitted to the Control Officer at least 14 calendar days prior to the expiration 

date of the original permit.

306 SUBCONTRACTOR REGISTRATION:

306.1 A subcontractor who is engaged in dust generating operations at a site that is subject to a 

permit that is issued by a Control Officer and that requires control of PM10 emissions 

from dust generating operations shall register with the Control Officer by submitting 

information in the manner prescribed by the Control Officer. The Control Officer shall 

issue a registration number after payment of the fee. The Control Officer may establish 

and assess a fee for the registration based on the total cost of processing the registration 

and issuance of a registration number.

306.2 The subcontractor shall have its registration number readily accessible on-site while 

conducting any dust generating operations. The subcontractor’s registration number must 

be visible and readable by the public without having to be asked by the public (e.g., 

included/posted in a sign that is visible on the subcontractor’s vehicle or equipment, 

included/posted on a sign that is visible in the window of the subcontractor’s vehicle or 

equipment, or included/posted on a sign where the subcontractor is working on the site).

306307 PERMIT TO BURN: A permit is required for any open outdoor fire authorized under the 

exceptions in A.R.S. 49–501 or Rule 314 of these rules. 

307308 EXEMPTIONS: Notwithstanding Sections 301, 302, and 303 of this rule, the following sources 

shall not require a permit, unless the source is a major source, or unless operation without a permit 

would result in a violation of the Act: 

307.1308.1 Sources subject to 40 CFR 60, Subpart AAA, Standards of Performance for New 

Residential Wood Heaters. 

307.2308.2 Sources and source categories that would be required to obtain a permit solely because 

they are subject to 40 CFR 61.145. 

307.3308.3 Agricultural equipment used in normal farm operations. Agricultural equipment used in 

normal farm operations, for the purposes of this rule, does not include equipment that 

would be classified as a source that would require a permit under Title V of the Act, or 

would be subject to a standard under 40 CFR parts 60 or 61. 

308309 STANDARDS FOR APPLICATIONS: All permit applications shall be filed in the manner and 

form prescribed by the Control Officer. The application shall contain all the information necessary 

to enable the Control Officer to make the determination to grant or to deny a permit or permit 

revision, which shall contain such terms and conditions as the Control Officer deems necessary to 

assure a source's compliance with the requirements of these rules. The issuance of any permit or 

permit revision shall not relieve the owner or operator from compliance with any Federal laws, 

Arizona laws, or these rules, nor does any other law, regulation or permit relieve the owner or 

operator from obtaining a permit or permit revision required under these rules. 

308.1309.1 Insignificant Activities: 

a. Rather than supplying detailed information, a Title V source may, in its permit 

application, list and generally group insignificant activities, which are defined in 

Rule 100-General Provisions and Definitions of these rules and which are listed in 

Appendix D-List of Insignificant Activities of these rules. 

159 
b. A Non-Title V source is not required to list nor to describe, in a permit application, 

insignificant activities, which are defined in Rule 100-General Provisions and 

Definitions of these rules and which are listed in Appendix D-List of Insignificant 

Activities of these rules. If a Non-Title V source’s emissions are approaching an 

applicable requirement, including but not limited to best available control technology 

(BACT) requirements or major source status, then such Non-Title V source may be 

required by Maricopa County to include, in a permit application, a description of its 

insignificant activities and emissions calculations for such insignificant activities. 

c. An activity, process, or emissions unit that is not included in Appendix D-List of 

Insignificant Activities of these rules may be considered an insignificant activity if it 

meets the definition of insignificant activity in Rule 100-General Provisions and 

Definitions of these rules and is approved by the Control Officer and the 

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A source may request 

approval for the classification of an activity as insignificant by including such a 

request in its permit application, along with justification that such activity meets the 

definition of insignificant activity in Rule 100-General Provisions and Definitions of 

these rules. 

d. An application may not omit information regarding insignificant activities that is 

needed to determine: (1) the applicability of or to impose any applicable 

requirement; (2) whether the source is in compliance with applicable requirements; 

or (3) the fee amount required under these rules. In such cases, emissions 

calculations or other necessary information shall be included in the application. 

308.2309.2 Trivial Activities:

a. A Title V source is not required, in a permit application, to list trivial activities, to 

describe trivial activities, nor to include the emissions from trivial activities, which 

are defined in Rule 100-General Provisions and Definitions of these rules and which 

are listed in Appendix E-List of Trivial Activities of these rules. 

b. A Non-Title V source is not required, in a permit application, to list trivial activities, 

to describe trivial activities, nor to include the emissions from trivial activities, 

which are defined in Rule 100-General Provisions and Definitions of these rules and 

which are listed in Appendix E-List of Trivial Activities of these rules. 

c. An activity that is not included in Appendix E-List of Trivial Activities of these rules 

may be considered a trivial activity, if such activity meets the definition of trivial 

activity in Rule 100-General Provisions and Definitions of these rules. 

309310 PERMIT CONDITIONS: The Control Officer may impose any permit conditions that are 

necessary to ensure compliance with Federal laws, Arizona laws, or these rules. 

309.1310.1 The Control Officer may require, as specified in subsection 309.2 and subsection 309.3

Section 310.2 and Section 310.3 of this rule, any source of regulated air pollutants to 

monitor, sample, or perform other studies to quantify emissions of regulated air pollutants 

or levels of air pollution that may reasonably be attributable to that source, if the Control 

Officer: 

a. Determines that monitoring, sampling, or other studies are necessary to determine 

the effects of the source on levels of air pollution; or 

b. Has reasonable cause to believe a violation of this rule, rules adopted pursuant to this 

rule, or a permit issued pursuant to this rule has been committed; or 

160 
c. Determines that those studies or data are necessary to accomplish the purposes of 

this rule and that the monitoring, sampling, or other studies by the source are 

necessary in order to assess the impact of the source on the emission of regulated air 

contaminants. 

309.2310.2 The Control Officer may require a source of air contaminants, by permit or order, to 

perform monitoring, sampling, or other quantification of its emissions or air pollution that 

may reasonably be attributed to such a source. Before requiring such monitoring, 

sampling, or other quantification by permit or order, the Control Officer shall consider 

the relative cost and accuracy of any alternatives which may be reasonable under the 

circumstances such as emission factors, modeling, mass balance analyses, or emissions 

projections. The Control Officer may require such monitoring, sampling, or other 

quantification by permit or order if the Control Officer determines in writing that all of 

the following conditions are met: 

a. The actual or potential emissions of air pollution may adversely affect public health 

or the environment. 

b. An adequate scientific basis for the monitoring, sampling, or quantification method 

exists. 

c. The monitoring, sampling, or quantification method is technically feasible for the 

subject contaminant and the source. 

d. The monitoring, sampling, or quantification method is reasonably accurate. 

e. The cost of the method is reasonable in light of the use to be made of the data. 

309.3310.3 Orders issued or permit conditions imposed pursuant to this rule shall be appealable to 

the hearing board in the same manner as that prescribed for orders of abatement in A.R.S. 

§ 49-489 and A.R.S. § 49-490 and for permit conditions in A.R.S. § 49-482. 

310311 PROHIBITION – PERMIT MODIFICATION: A person shall not willfully deface, alter, forge, 

counterfeit, or falsify any permit issued under the provisions of these rules. 

311312 PERMIT POSTING REQUIRED: Any person who has been granted a permit shall keep a 

complete permit clearly visible and accessible on the site where the equipment is installed. All 

equipment covered by the permit shall be listed in the permit by a serial number or other 

equipment identification symbol and shall be identified on a plant diagram. 

312313 TRANSITION FROM INSTALLATION AND OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAM TO 

UNITARY PERMIT PROGRAM: 

312.1313.1 Sources With A Valid Installation, Operating, or Conditional Permit: A valid 

installation permit or operating permit issued by the Control Officer or a valid conditional 

permit issued by the hearing board before September 1, 1993, and the authority to operate 

as provided in Laws 1992, Chapter 299, Section 65, continue in effect until any of the 

following occurs: 

a. The Control Officer revokes an installation permit. 

b. The Control Officer issues or denies a Title V permit or a Non-Title V permit to the 

source. 

161 
c. The hearing board revokes or modifies a conditional permit or the conditional permit 

expires. A source operating under a valid conditional permit may continue to operate 

in accordance with the terms and conditions of such permit after the expiration of the 

conditional permit if, at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the conditional 

permit, the source submits an application to the Control Officer for a Title V permit 

as described in Section 312.2 Section 313.2 of this rule or for a Non-Title V permit 

as described in Section 312.3 Section 313.3 of this rule. 

312.2313.2 Title V Sources With An Installation, Operating, or Conditional Permit: Following 

November 29, 1996, the effective date of the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA’s) final interim approval of Maricopa County’s Title V permit program, a source 

becomes subject to the requirements of the Title V permit program, when the source 

meets the applicability requirements as provided in this rule. Sources which hold a valid 

installation, operating, or conditional permit and require a Title V permit shall comply 

with the following provisions: 

a. The owner or operator of the source shall submit a permit application within 180 

days of receipt of written notice from the Control Officer that an application is 

required or 12 months after the source becomes subject to the requirements of Title 

V of the Act and the permit requirements of these rules, whichever is earlier. 

b. Any source, which has not yet submitted a Title V permit application, that wishes to 

make any source change not requiring a permit, an administrative permit revision, a 

minor permit revision, or a significant permit revision shall comply with the 

applicable provisions of Rule 210 of these rules. 

312.3313.3 Non-Title V Sources With An Installation, Operating, or Conditional Permit: 

Sources requiring a Non-Title V permit in existence on the date these rules become 

effective which hold a valid installation, operating, or conditional permit shall comply 

with the following provisions: 

a. All sources shall submit a permit application to the Control Officer within 90 days of 

receipt of written notice from the Control Officer that an application is required. 

b. Any source that wishes to make any source change not requiring a permit, an 

administrative permit revision, a minor permit revision, or a non-minor permit 

revision shall comply with the applicable provisions of Rule 220 of these rules. 

312.4313.4 Written Notice: For purposes of this subsection, written notice shall include, but not be 

limited to, a written warning, notice of violation, or order issued by the Control Officer 

for constructing or operating an emission source without a permit. Such a source shall be 

considered to be in violation of these rules on each day of operation or each day during 

which construction continues, until a permit is granted. 

312.5313.5 Sources Not Under Permit: 

a. All sources not in existence prior to the effective date of these rules shall first submit 

to the Control Officer an air quality permit application for the entire source and shall 

have been issued an air quality permit before commencing construction of such 

source. 

b All sources in existence on the date these rules become effective and not holding a 

valid installation permit and/or a valid operating permit issued by the Control 

Officer, which have not applied for a Non-Title V permit pursuant to these rules, 

shall submit to the Control Officer a permit application for the entire source. 

162 
c. All sources in existence on the date these rules become effective and not holding a 

valid installation permit and/or a valid operating permit issued by the Control 

Officer, which have not applied for a Title V permit pursuant to these rules, shall 

submit to the Control Officer a Title V permit application no more than 12 months 

after becoming subject to Title V permit requirements. 

312.6313.6 Sources Which Currently Have An Installation or Operating Permit: 

a. For sources in existence on the date these rules become effective holding a valid 

installation permit and/or a valid operating permit issued by the Control Officer, the 

Control Officer may establish a phased schedule for acting on permit applications 

received within the first full year after the source becomes subject to obtaining a 

Title V or a Non-Title V permit under these rules. The schedule shall assure that at 

least one-third of such applications will be acted on annually over a period not to 

exceed three years after such effective date. Based on this schedule, the Control 

Officer shall review a completed application in accordance with the provisions of 

these rules and shall issue or deny the applicable permit within 18 months after the 

receipt of the completed application. 

b. Any application for an installation permit or an operating permit that is determined to 

be complete prior to the effective date of these rules but for which no permit has 

been issued shall be considered complete for the purposes of this section. In issuing a 

permit pursuant to such an application, the Control Officer shall include in the permit 

all elements addressed in the application and a schedule of compliance for 

submitting an application for a permit revision to address the elements required to be 

in the permit that were not included in the operating permit application or in the 

installation permit application. No later than six months after the effective date of 

these rules, the Control Officer shall take final action on an operating permit 

application or on an installation permit application determined to be complete prior 

to the effective date of these rules. 

313314 ACCELERATED PERMITTING: 

313.1314.1 Notwithstanding any other provisions of these rules, the following qualify a source for a 

request-submittal for accelerated processing: an application for a Title V permit or for a 

Non-Title V permit; any permit revision; and any coverage under a general permit. Such 

a request-submittal shall be submitted in writing to the Control Officer at least 30 days in 

advance of filing the application and shall be accompanied by fees as described in Rule 

280 of these rules. 

313.2314.2 When an applicant has requested accelerated permit processing, the Control Officer may, 

to the extent practicable, undertake to process the permit or permit revision in accordance 

with the following schedule: 

a. For applications for initial Title V and Non-Title V permits under Rules 210 and 220 

of these rules, for significant permit revisions under Rule 210 of these rules, or for 

non-minor permit revisions under Rule 220 of these rules, final action on the permit 

or on the permit revision shall be taken within 90 days or after the Control Officer 

determines that the application is complete for a Non-Title V source and within 120 

days after the Control Officer determines that the application is complete for a Title 

V source. Except for a new major source or a major modification subject to the 

requirements of Rule 240 of these rules, an application for a new permit, a 

significant permit revision, or a permit renewal shall be deemed to be complete 

unless the Control Officer notifies the applicant by certified mail within 30 days of 

receipt of the application that the application is not complete. 

163 
b. For applications for coverage under a general permit under Rule 230 of these rules, 

final action shall be taken within 30 days after receipt of the application. 

c. For minor permit revisions governed by Rule 210 of these rules and Rule 220 of 

these rules, the permit revision shall be issued within 60 days after receipt of the 

application. 

313.3314.3 Before issuing a permit or permit revision pursuant to this section, the applicant shall pay 

to the Control Officer all fees due as described in Rule 280 of these rules. Nothing in this 

section shall affect the public participation requirements of Rules 210 or 220 of these 

rules, or EPA and affected state review as required under Rule 210 of these rules. 

SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS 

401 APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF PERMIT OR PERMIT REVISION: 

401.1 The Control Officer shall deny a permit or revision if the applicant does not demonstrate 

that every such source for which a permit or permit revision is sought is so designed, 

controlled, or equipped with such air pollution control equipment that the source may be 

expected to operate without emitting or without causing to be emitted air contaminants in 

violation of the provisions of these rules. 

401.2 Prior to acting on an application for a permit, the Control Officer may require the 

applicant to provide and to maintain such devices and procedures as are necessary for 

sampling and for testing purposes in order to secure information that will disclose the 

nature, extent, quantity, or degree of air contaminants discharged into the atmosphere 

from the source described in the application. In the event of such a requirement, the 

Control Officer shall notify the applicant in writing of the type and characteristics of such 

devices and procedures. 

401.3 In acting upon an application for a permit renewal, if the Control Officer finds that such 

source has not been constructed in accordance with any prior permit or revision issued 

pursuant to A.R.S. § 49-480.01, the Control Officer shall require the permittee to obtain a 

permit revision or shall deny the permit renewal. The Control Officer shall not accept any 

further application for a permit for such source so constructed until the Control Officer 

finds that such source has been reconstructed in accordance with a prior permit or a 

revision, or until a revision to the permit has been obtained. The Control Officer may 

issue a permit with a compliance schedule for a source that is not in compliance with all 

applicable requirements at the time of permit issuance. 

401.4 After a decision on a permit or on a permit revision, the Control Officer shall notify the 

applicant and any person who filed a comment on the permit pursuant to A.R.S. § 49-480 

or on the permit revision pursuant to A.R.S. § 49-480.01 in writing of the decision, and if 

the permit is denied, the reasons for such denial. Service of this notification may be made 

in person or by first class mail. The Control Officer shall not accept a further application 

unless the applicant has corrected the circumstances giving rise to the objections as 

specified by the Control Officer as reasons for such denial. 

402 PERMIT REOPENINGS; REVOCATION AND REISSUANCE; TERMINATION: 

402.1 Reopening for Cause: 

a. Each issued permit shall include provisions specifying the conditions under which 

the permit will be reopened prior to the expiration of the permit. A permit shall be 

reopened and revised under any of the following circumstances: 

164 
(1) Additional applicable requirements under the Act become applicable to a major 

source with a remaining permit term of three or more years. Such a reopening 

shall be completed not later than 18 months after promulgation of the applicable 

requirement. No such reopening is required if the effective date of the requirement is later than the date on which the permit is due to expire, unless the 

original permit or any of its terms and conditions has been extended pursuant to 

Section 403.2 of this rule. Any permit revision required pursuant to this rule 

shall comply with Section 403 of this rule for a permit renewal and shall reset 

the five year permit term. 

(2) Additional requirements, including excess emissions requirements, become 

applicable to an affected source under the acid rain program. Upon approval by 

the Administrator, excess emissions offset plans shall be deemed to be 

incorporated into the Title V permit. 

(3) The Control Officer or the Administrator determines that the permit contains a 

material mistake or that inaccurate statements were made in establishing the 

emissions standards or other terms or conditions of the permit. 

(4) The Control Officer or the Administrator determines that the permit must be 

revised or revoked to assure compliance with the applicable requirements. 

b. Proceedings to reopen and issue a permit, including appeal of any final action 

relating to a permit reopening, shall follow the same procedures as apply to initial 

permit issuance and shall, except for reopenings under Section 402.1a(1) of this rule, 

affect only those parts of the permit for which cause to reopen exists. Such reopening 

shall be made as expeditiously as is practicable. 

c. Action to reopen a permit under this section shall not be initiated before a notice of 

such intent is provided to the source by the Control Officer at least 30 days in 

advance of the date that the permit is to be reopened, except that the Control Officer 

may provide a shorter time period in the case of an emergency. 

d. When a permit is reopened and revised pursuant to this rule, the Control Officer may 

make appropriate revisions to the permit shield established pursuant to Rule 210 of 

these rules. 

402.2 Reopening for Cause By The Administrator: 

a. If the Administrator finds that cause exists to terminate, modify, or revoke and 

reissue a permit pursuant to Section 402.1 of this rule, the Administrator may notify 

the Control Officer and the permittee of such finding in writing. Within ten days of 

receipt of notice from the Administrator that cause exists to reopen a Title V permit, 

the Control Officer shall notify the source. 

b. Within 90 days of receipt of notice from the Administrator that cause exists to 

reopen a permit, the Control Officer shall forward to the Administrator a proposed 

determination of termination, modification, or revocation and reissuance of the 

permit. The Control Officer may request a 90 day extension of this limit if it is 

necessary to request a new or revised permit application or additional information 

from the applicant for, or holder of, a Title V permit. 

c. The Control Officer shall have 90 days from receipt of an objection by the 

Administrator to attempt to resolve the objection. 

403 PERMIT RENEWAL AND EXPIRATION: 

165 
403.1 Prior to renewing a permit issued under these rules, the Control Officer shall provide 

notice in the same manner and form as provided in Rule 210 of these rules. 

403.2 The Control Officer shall not renew a permit issued under these rules unless the permittee 

applies for a permit renewal prior to the expiration of a permit in the manner required by 

Rule 210 of these rules. If a timely and complete application for a permit renewal is 

submitted, but the Control Officer has failed to issue or deny the renewal permit before 

the end of the term of the previous permit, then the permit shall not expire until the 

renewal permit has been issued or denied. Any testing that is required for a renewal shall 

be completed before the proposed permit renewal is issued by the Control Officer. 

403.3 The Control Officer shall publish notice of a permit renewal decision in the same manner 

as that provided in Rule 210 of these rules for a Title V permit and as that provided in 

Rule 220 of these rules for a Non-Title V permit. 

404 PERMIT TRANSFERS: 

404.1 Except as provided in A.R.S. § 49-429 and Section 404.2 of this rule, a Title V permit, a 

Non-Title V permit, or a General permit may be transferred to another person. Before the 

proposed transfer, the person who holds a valid Non-Title V permit or a valid General 

permit shall comply with the administrative permit revision procedures pursuant to Rule 

220, Section 405.1 of these rules. At least 30 days before the proposed transfer, the 

person who holds a valid Title V permit shall give notice to the Control Officer in writing 

and shall comply with the administrative permit amendment procedures pursuant to Rule 

210, Section 404 of these rules. Permit transfer notice shall contain the following: 

a. The permit number and expiration date. 

b. The name, address and telephone number of the current permit holder. 

c. The name, address and telephone number of the person to receive the permit. 

d. The name and title of the individual within the organization who is accepting 

responsibility for the permit along with a signed statement by that person indicating 

such acceptance. 

e. A description of the equipment to be transferred. 

f. A written agreement containing a specific date for transfer of permit responsibility, 

coverage, and liability between the current and new permittee. 

g. Provisions for the payment of any fees pursuant to Rule 280 of these rules that will 

be due and payable before the effective date of transfer. 

h. Sufficient information about the source's technical and financial capabilities of 

operating the source to allow the Control Officer to make the decision in Section 

404.2 of this rule including: 

(1) The qualifications of each person principally responsible for the operation of the 

source. 

(2) A statement by the chief financial officer of the new permittee that it is 

financially capable of operating the source in compliance with the law, and the 

information that provides the basis for that statement. 

166 
(3) A brief description of any action for the enforcement of any federal or state law, 

rule or regulation, or any county, city or local government ordinance relating to 

the protection of the environment, instituted against any person employed by the 

new permittee and principally responsible for operating the source during the 

five years preceding the date of application. In lieu of this description, the new 

permittee may submit a copy of the certificate of disclosure or 10-K form 

required under A.R.S. § 49-109, or a statement that this information has been 

filed in compliance with A.R.S. § 49-109. 

404.2 The Control Officer shall deny the transfer if the Control Officer determines that the 

organization receiving the permit is not capable of operating the source in compliance 

with Article 3, Chapter 3, Title 49, Arizona Revised Statutes, the provisions of these 

rules, or the provisions of the permit. Notice of the denial stating the reason for the denial 

shall be sent to the original permit holder by certified mail stating the reason for the 

denial within ten working days of the Control Officer's receipt of the application. If the 

transfer is not denied within ten working days after receipt of the notice, the Control 

Officer shall approve such permit transfer. 

404.3 To appeal the transfer denial: 

a. Both the transferor and transferee shall petition the hearing board in writing for a 

public hearing; and 

b. The appeal process for a permit shall be followed. 

405 PERMITS CONTAINING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF FEDERAL DELAYED 

COMPLIANCE ORDERS (DCO) OR CONSENT DECREES: 

405.1 The terms and conditions of either a DCO or consent decree shall be incorporated into a 

permit through a permit revision. In the event the permit expires prior to the expiration of 

the DCO or consent decree, the DCO or consent decree shall be incorporated into any 

permit renewal. 

405.2 The owner or operator of a source subject to a DCO or consent decree shall submit to the 

Control Officer a quarterly report of the status of the source and construction progress 

and copies of any reports to the Administrator required under the order or decree. The 

Control Officer may require additional reporting requirements and conditions in permits 

issued under this rule. 

405.3 For the purpose of this rule, sources subject to a consent decree issued by a federal court 

shall meet the same requirements as those subject to a DCO. 

406 APPEAL: Denial or revocation of a permit shall be stayed by the permittee's written petition for a 

hearing, filed in accordance with Rule 400 of these rules. 

407 AIR QUALITY IMPACT MODELS: 

407.1 Where the Control Officer requires a person to perform air quality impact modeling, the 

modeling shall be performed in a manner consistent with 40 CFR 51, Appendix W, 

“Guideline On Air quality Models”, as of July 1, 2004 (and no future amendments or 

additions), which shall be referred to hereinafter as "Guideline", and is adopted by 

reference. 

407.2 Model Substitution: Where the person can demonstrate that an air quality impact model 

specified in the guideline is inappropriate, the model may be modified or another model 

167 
substituted. However, before such modification or substitution can occur, the Control 

Officer must make a written finding that: 

a. No model in the guideline is appropriate; or 

b. The data base required for the appropriate model in the guideline is not available; 

and 

c. A model proposed as a substitute or modification is likely to produce results equal or 

superior to those obtained by models in the guideline. 

408 TESTING PROCEDURES: Except as otherwise specified, the applicable testing procedures 

contained in the Arizona Testing Manual for Air Pollutant Emissions shall be used to determine 

compliance with standards or permit conditions established pursuant to these rules. 

409 PERMIT FEES: A fee shall be charged for each facility. No permit is valid until the applicable 

permit fee has been received and until the permit is issued by the Control Officer. 

410 PORTABLE SOURCES: 

410.1 An owner or operator of a portable source which will operate for the duration of its 

permit solely in Maricopa County shall obtain a permit from the Control Officer for 

Maricopa County and is subject to Sections 410.2, 410.3, and 410.4 of this rule. A 

portable source with a current State of Arizona permit need not obtain a Maricopa County 

permit but is subject to Sections 410.3, 410.4, and 410.5 of this rule. Any permit for a 

portable source shall contain conditions that will assure compliance with all applicable 

requirements at all authorized locations. 

410.2 An owner or operator of a portable source, which has a Maricopa County permit but 

proposes to operate outside of Maricopa County, shall obtain a permit from the Director. 

Upon issuance of a permit by the Director, the Control Officer shall terminate the 

Maricopa County permit for that source. If the owner or operator relocates the portable 

source in Maricopa County, the owner or operator shall notify the Control Officer as 

required by Section 410.4 of this rule of the relocation of the portable source. Whenever 

the owner or operator of a portable source operates a portable source in Maricopa 

County, such owner or operator shall comply with all regulatory requirements in these 

rules. 

410.3 An owner of a portable source, which requires a permit under this rule, shall obtain the 

permit prior to renting or leasing said portable source. This permit shall be provided by 

the owner to the renter or lessee, and the renter or lessee shall be bound by the permit 

provisions. In the event a copy of the permit is not provided to the renter or lessee, both 

the owner and the renter or lessee shall be responsible for the operation of the portable 

source in compliance with the permit conditions and any violations thereof. 

410.4 A portable source may be transported from one location to another within or across 

Maricopa County boundaries provided the owner or operator of such portable source 

notifies the Director and any Control Officer who has jurisdiction over the geographic 

area that includes the new location of the portable source by certified mail at least ten 

working days before the portable source is transported to the new location. The 

notification required under this rule shall include: 

a. A description of the portable source to be transported including the Maricopa County 

permit number or the State of Arizona permit number for such portable source; 

b. A description of the present location; 

168 
c. A description of the location to which the portable source is to be transported, 

including the availability of all utilities, such as water and electricity, necessary for 

the proper operation of all control equipment; 

d. The date on which the portable source is to be moved; 

e. The date on which operation of the portable source will begin at the new location; 

and 

f. The duration of operation at the new location. 

410.5 An owner or operator of a portable source with a current State of Arizona permit that 

moves such portable source into Maricopa County shall notify the Control Officer that 

such portable source is being transported to a new location and shall include in such 

notification a copy of the State of Arizona permit and a copy of any conditions imposed 

by the State of Arizona permit. The source shall be subject to all regulatory requirements 

of these rules. 

411 PUBLIC RECORDS; CONFIDENTIALITY: 

411.1 The Control Officer shall make all permits, including all elements required to be in the 

permit pursuant to Rule 210 of these rules and Rule 220 of these rules available to the 

public. 

411.2 A notice of confidentiality pursuant to A.R.S. § 49-487(c) shall: 

a. Precisely identify the information in the application documents, which is considered 

confidential. 

b. Contain sufficient supporting information to allow the Control Officer to evaluate 

whether such information satisfies the requirements related to trade secrets or, if 

applicable, how the information, if disclosed, could cause substantial harm to the 

person's competitive position. 

411.3 Within 30 days of receipt of a notice of confidentiality that complies with Section 411.2 

of this rule, the Control Officer shall make a determination as to whether the information 

satisfies the requirements for trade secret or competitive position pursuant to A.R.S. § 49-

487(C)(1) and so notify the applicant in writing. If the Control Officer agrees with the 

applicant that the information covered by the notice of confidentiality satisfies the 

statutory requirements, the Control Officer shall include a notice in the administrative 

record of the permit application that certain information has been considered confidential. 

SECTION 500 - MONITORING AND RECORDS (NOT APPLICABLE) 

169 
REGULATION III - CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS 

RULE 310 

FUGITIVE DUST FROM DUST GENERATING OPERATIONS

INDEX

SECTION 100 - GENERAL 

101 PURPOSE 

102 APPLICABILITY 

103 EXEMPTIONS 

SECTION 200 - DEFINITIONS 

201 AREA A

201202 AREA ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC 

202203 BULK MATERIAL 

203204 BULK MATERIAL HANDLING, STORAGE, AND/OR TRANSPORTING 

OPERATION 

204205 CONTROL MEASURE 

205206 DISTURBED SURFACE AREA 

206207 DUST CONTROL IMPLEMENT 

207208 DUST CONTROL PLAN 

208209 DUST GENERATING OPERATION 

209210 DUST SUPPRESSANT 

210211 EARTHMOVING OPERATION 

212 EMERGENCY

213 EMERGENCY ACTIVITY

214 END OF WORK DAY

211215 FREEBOARD 

212216 FUGITIVE DUST 

213217 GRAVEL PAD 

214218 GRIZZLY 

215219 HAUL TRUCK 

216220 MOTOR VEHICLE 

217221 NORMAL FARM CULTURAL PRACTICE 

218222 OFF-ROAD VEHICLE 

219 OPEN AREAS AND VACANT LOTS

223 OPEN STORAGE PILE

220224 OWNER AND/OR OPERATOR 

221225 PAVE 

226 PROPERTY LINE

222227 PUBLIC ROADWAYS 

223228 ROUTINE 

224229 SILT 

225230 TRACKOUT/CARRYOUT 

226231 TRACKOUT CONTROL DEVICE 

227232 UNPAVED HAUL/ACCESS ROAD 

228233 UNPAVED PARKING LOT 

229234 UNPAVED ROAD 

230 URBAN OR SUBURBAN OPEN AREA

231 VACANT LOT

232 VACANT PARCEL

233235 WIND-BLOWN DUST 

234236 WIND EVENT 

235237 WORK SITE 

SECTION 300 - STANDARDS 

301 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DUST GENERATING OPERATIONS

301302 OPACITY LIMITATION FOR DUST GENERATING OPERATIONS PERMIT 

REQUIREMENTS FOR DUST GENERATING OPERATIONS

170 
302303 STABILIZATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DUST GENERATING OPERATIONS

VISIBLE EMISSIONS REQUIREMENTS FOR DUST GENERATING OPERATIONS

303304 DUST CONTROL PLAN REQUIRED STABILIZATION REQUIREMENTS FOR 

DUST GENERATING OPERATIONS

304305 ELEMENTS OF A DUST CONTROL PLAN CONTROL MEASURES FOR DUST 

GENERATING OPERATIONS

305306 DUST CONTROL PLAN REVISIONS TRACKOUT, CARRY-OUT, SPILLAGE, 

AND/OR EROSION

306307 CONTROL MEASURES SOIL MOISTURE

307308 PROJECT INFORMATION SIGN PROJECT INFORMATION SIGN FOR DUST 

GENERATING OPERATIONS

308309 WORK PRACTICES DUST CONTROL TRAINING CLASSES FOR DUST 

GENERATING OPERATIONS

310 DUST CONTROL COORDINATOR FOR DUST GENERATING OPERATIONS

SECTION 400 - ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS 

401 DUST CONTROL PLAN POSTING DUST CONTROL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

402 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE DUST CONTROL PLAN REQUIREMENTS

403 DUST CONTROL PLAN REVISIONS

404 DUST CONTROL PERMIT-BLOCK PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

405 APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR DUST GENERATING 

OPERATIONS

406 TERMS FOR PERMITS FOR DUST GENERATING OPERATIONS

407 DEFACING, ALTERING, FORGING, COUNTERFEITING, OR FALSIFYING 

PERMITS FOR DUST GENERATING OPERATIONS

408 FEES FOR PERMITS FOR DUST GENERATING OPERATIONS

409 POSTING OF PERMITS FOR DUST GENERATING OPERATIONS

410 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE

SECTION 500 - MONITORING AND RECORDS 

501 COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION 

502 RECORDKEEPING 

503 RECORDS RETENTION 

504 TEST METHODS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE 

TABLE 1

TABLE 2

TABLE 3

TABLE 4

TABLE 5

TABLE 6

TABLE 7

TABLE 8

TABLE 9

TABLE 10

TABLE 11

TABLE 12

TABLE 13

TABLE 14

TABLE 15

TABLE 16

TABLE 17

TABLE 18

TABLE 19

TABLE 20

TABLE 21

171 
Revised 07/13/88 

Revised 07/06/93 

Revised 09/20/94 

Revised 06/16/99 

Revised 02/16/00 

Revised 04/07/04 

Revised 03/26/08 

MARICOPA COUNTY 

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS 

REGULATION III - CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS 

RULE 310 

FUGITIVE DUST FROM DUST GENERATING OPERATIONS

SECTION 100 - GENERAL 

101 PURPOSE: To limit particulate matter (PM10) emissions into the ambient air from any property, 

operation or activity that may serve as a fugitive dust source. The effect of this rule shall be to 

minimize the amount of PM10 entrained into the ambient air as a result of the impact of human 

activities by requiring measures to prevent, reduce, or mitigate particulate matter emissions. 

102 APPLICABILITY: The provisions of this rule shall apply to all dust generating operations 

except for those dust generating operations listed in Section 103 of this rule. 

103 EXEMPTIONS: The following are exempt from the requirements of this rule: normal farm 

cultural practices under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 49-457 and § 49-504.4, and open 

areas, vacant lots, unpaved parking lots, and unpaved roadways that are not located at sources that 

require any permit under these rules. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to the following 

activities:

103.1 The provisions of this rule shall not apply to normal farm cultural practices according to 

Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 49-457 and A.R.S. § 49-504.4.

103.2 The provisions of this rule shall not apply to the following non-traditional sources of 

fugitive dust that are located at sources that do not require any permit under these rules. 

These non-traditional sources of fugitive dust are subject to the standards and/or 

requirements described in Rule 310.01-Fugitive Dust from Non-Traditional Sources of

Fugitive Dust of these rules.

a. Vehicle use in open areas and vacant lots

b. Open areas and vacant lots

c. Unpaved parking lots

d. Unpaved roadways (including alleys)

e. Livestock activities

f. Erosion-caused deposition of bulk materials onto paved surfaces

g. Easements, rights-of-way, and access roads for utilities (transmission of electricity, 

natural gas, oil, water, and gas)

172 
103.3 The provisions of this rule shall not apply to emergency activities that may disturb the 

soil conducted by any utility or government agency in order to prevent public injury or to 

restore critical utilities to functional status.

103.4 An area is considered to be a disturbed surface area until the activity that caused the 

disturbance has been completed and the disturbed surface area meets the standards 

described in Section 304 of this rule.

103.5 Establishing initial landscapes without the use of mechanized equipment, conducting 

landscape maintenance without the use of mechanized equipment, and playing on or 

maintaining a field used for non-motorized sports shall not be considered a dust 

generating operation. However, establishing initial landscapes without the use of 

mechanized equipment and conducting landscape maintenance without the use of 

mechanized equipment shall not include grading, or trenching performed to establish 

initial landscapes or to redesign existing landscapes.

103.6 Fugitive dust does not include particulate matter emitted directly from the exhaust of 

motor vehicles and other internal combustion engines, from portable brazing, soldering, 

or welding equipment, and from piledrivers, and does not include emissions from process 

and combustion sources that are subject to other rules in Regulation III-Control of Air 

Contaminants of these rules.

SECTION 200 - DEFINITIONS: For the purpose of this rule, the following definitions shall apply. See 

Rule 100-General Provisions and Definitions of these rules for definitions of terms that are used but not 

specifically defined in this rule. 

201 AREA A - As defined in A.R.S. § 49-541(1), the area in Maricopa County delineated as follows:

Township 8 North, Range 2 East and Range 3 East

Township 7 North, Range 2 West through Range 5 East

Township 6 North, Range 5 West through Range 6 East

Township 5 North, Range 5 West through Range 7 East

Township 4 North, Range 5 West through Range 8 East

Township 3 North, Range 5 West through Range 8 East

Township 2 North, Range 5 West through Range 8 East

Township 1 North, Range 5 West through Range 7 East

Township 1 South, Range 5 West through Range 7 East

Township 2 South, Range 5 West through Range 7 East

Township 3 South, Range 5 West through Range 1 East

Township 4 South, Range 5 West through Range 1 East

201202 AREA ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC – Any retail parking lot or public roadway that is open 

to can be approached, entered, or used for public travel primarily for purposes unrelated to the dust 

generating operation. 

202203 BULK MATERIAL - Any material, including, but not limited to, the following materials earth, 

rock, silt, sediment, sand, gravel, soil, fill, aggregate less than 2 inches in length or diameter (i.e., 

aggregate base course (ABC)), earth, soil, dirt, mud, demolition debris, cotton, trash, cinders, 

pumice, rock, saw dust, feeds, grains, fertilizers, fluff (from shredders), and dry concrete, that are 

capable of producing fugitive dust.:

203.1 Earth

203.2 Rock

203.3 Silt

203.4 Sediment

203.5 Sand

203.6 Gravel

203.7 Soil

173 
203.8 Fill

203.9 Aggregate less than 2 inches in length or diameter (i.e., aggregate base course [ABC])

203.10 Dirt

203.11 Mud

203.12 Demolition debris

203.13 Cotton

203.14 Trash

203.15 Cinders

203.16 Pumice

203.17 Saw dust

203.18 Feeds

203.19 Grains

203.20 Fertilizers

203.21 Fluff from shredders

203.22 Dry concrete

203204 BULK MATERIAL HANDLING, STORAGE, AND/OR TRANSPORTING OPERATION - 

The use of equipment, haul trucks, and/or motor vehicles, including, but not limited to, for the 

following activities the loading, unloading, conveying, transporting, piling, stacking, screening, 

grading, or moving of bulk materials, that are capable of producing fugitive dust.:

204.1 Loading

204.2 Unloading

204.3 Conveying

204.4 Transporting

204.5 Piling

204.6 Stacking

204.7 Screening

204.8 Grading

204.9 Moving bulk materials

204205 CONTROL MEASURE - A technique, practice, or procedure used to prevent or minimize the 

generation, emission, entrainment, suspension, and/or airborne transport of fugitive dust. Control 

measures include, but are not limited to: 

204.1205.1 Curbing; 

204.2205.2 Paving; 

204.3205.3 Pre-wetting Pre-watering; 

204.4205.4 Applying dust suppressants; 

204.5205.5 Physically stabilizing with vegetation, gravel, recrushed/recycled asphalt or other forms 

of physical stabilization; 

204.6205.6 Limiting, restricting, phasing and/or rerouting motor vehicle access; 

204.7205.7 Reducing vehicle speeds and/or number of vehicle trips; 

204.8205.8 Limiting use of off-road vehicles on open areas and vacant lots; 

204.9205.9 Utilizing work practices and/or structural provisions to prevent wind and water erosion 

onto paved areas accessible to the public; 

204.10205.10 Appropriately using dust control implements; 

204.11205.11 Installing one or more grizzlies, gravel pads, and/or wash down pads adjacent to the 

entrance of a paved area accessible to the public to control carry-out and trackout; 

204.12205.12 Keeping open-bodied haul trucks in good repair, so that spillage may not occur from 

beds, sidewalls, and tailgates; and 

204.13205.13 Covering the cargo beds of haul trucks to minimize wind-blown dust emissions and 

spillage. 

205206 DISTURBED SURFACE AREA – A portion of the earth's surface (or material placed

thereupon) which or material placed on the earth’s surface that has been physically moved, 

uncovered, destabilized, or otherwise modified from its undisturbed native condition, thereby 

increasing the potential for the emission of fugitive dust. if the potential for the emission of 

174 
fugitive dust is increased by the movement, destabilization, or modification. For the purpose of 

this rule, an area is considered to be a disturbed surface area until the activity that caused the 

disturbance has been completed and the disturbed surface area meets the standards described in 

Section 301 and Section 302 of this rule.

206207 DUST CONTROL IMPLEMENT – A tool, machine, equipment, accessory, structure, 

enclosure, cover, material or supply, including an adequate readily available supply of water and 

its associated distribution/delivery system, used to control fugitive dust emissions. 

207208 DUST CONTROL PLAN - A written plan describing all fugitive dust control measures to be 

implemented and maintained in order to prevent or minimize the generation, emission, 

entrainment, suspension, and/or airborne transport of fugitive dust.

208209 DUST GENERATING OPERATION - Any activity capable of generating fugitive dust, 

including but not limited to, the following activities: land clearing, earthmoving, weed abatement 

by discing or blading, excavating, construction, demolition, bulk material handling, storage and/or 

transporting operations, vehicle use and movement, the operation of any outdoor equipment, or 

unpaved parking lots. For the purpose of this rule, landscape maintenance and playing on or 

maintaining a field used for non-motorized sports shall not be considered a dust generating 

operation. However, landscape maintenance shall not include grading, trenching, or any other 

mechanized surface disturbing activities performed to establish initial landscapes or to redesign 

existing landscapes.

208.1209.1 Land clearing, maintenance, and land cleanup using mechanized equipment

208.2209.2 Earthmoving

208.3209.3 Weed abatement by discing or blading

208.4209.4 Excavating

208.5209.5 Construction

208.6209.6 Demolition

208.7209.7 Bulk material handling (e.g., bulk material hauling and/or transporting, bulk material 

stacking, loading, and unloading operations)

208.8209.8 Storage and/or transporting operations (e.g., open storage piles, bulk material hauling 

and/or transporting, bulk material stacking, loading, and unloading operations)

208.9209.9 Operation of any outdoor equipment

208.10209.10 Operation of motorized machinery

208.11209.11 Establishing and/or using staging areas, parking areas, material storage areas, or access 

routes to and from a site

208.12209.12 Establishing and/or using unpaved haul/access roads to, from, and within a site

208.13209.13 Disturbed surface areas associated with a site

208.14209.14 Installing initial landscapes using mechanized equipment

209210 DUST SUPPRESSANT – Water, hygroscopic material, solution of water and chemical 

surfactant, foam, non-toxic chemical stabilizer or any other dust palliative, which is not prohibited 

for ground surface application by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) or any applicable law, rule, or regulation, as a 

treatment material for reducing fugitive dust emissions. 

210211 EARTHMOVING OPERATION – The use of any equipment for an activity which may 

generate fugitive dust, such as but not limited to, the following activities: cutting and filling, 

grading, leveling, excavating, trenching, loading or unloading of bulk materials, demolishing, 

blasting, drilling, adding to or removing bulk materials from open storage piles, back filling, soil 

mulching, landfill operations, or weed abatement by discing or blading.

211.1 Cutting and filling

211.2 Grading

211.3 Leveling

211.4 Excavating

175 
211.5 Trenching

211.6 Loading or unloading of bulk materials

211.7 Demolishing

211.8 Blasting

211.9 Drilling

211.10 Adding bulk materials to or removing bulk materials from open storage piles

211.11 Back filling

211.12 Soil mulching

211.13 Landfill operations

211.14 Weed abatement by discing or blading

212 EMERGENCY - A situation arising from sudden and reasonably unforeseeable events beyond 

the control of the source, including acts of God, which situation requires immediate corrective 

action to restore normal operation, and that causes the source to exceed a limitation in this rule, 

due to unavoidable increases in emissions attributable to the emergency. An emergency shall not 

include any noncompliance due to improperly designed equipment, lack of preventative 

maintenance, careless or improper operation, or operator error. 

213 EMERGENCY ACTIVITY - Repairs that are a result of an emergency which prevents or 

hinders the provision of electricity, the distribution/collection of water, and the availability of 

other utilities due to unforeseen circumstances that are beyond the routine maintenance and repair 

due to normal wear conducted by a utility or municipality.

214 END OF WORK DAY - The end of a working period that may include one or more work shifts. 

If working 24 hours a day, the end of a working period shall be considered no later than 8 pm.

211215 FREEBOARD – The vertical distance between the top edge of a cargo container area and the 

highest point at which the bulk material contacts the sides, front, and back of a cargo container 

area. 

212216 FUGITIVE DUST - The particulate matter not collected by a capture system, that is entrained in 

the ambient air, and is caused from human and/or natural activities, such as, but not limited to, the 

movement of soil, vehicles, equipment, blasting, and wind. For the purpose of this rule, fugitive 

dust does not include particulate matter emitted directly from the exhaust of motor vehicles and 

other internal combustion engines, from portable brazing, soldering, or welding equipment, and 

from piledrivers, and does not include emissions from process and combustion sources that are 

subject to other rules in Regulation III-Control Of Air Contaminants of these rules.

213217 GRAVEL PAD – A layer of washed gravel, rock, or crushed rock that is at least one inch or 

larger in diameter, that is maintained at the point of intersection of a paved area accessible to the 

public and a work site entrance to dislodge mud, dirt, and/or debris from the tires of motor 

vehicles and/or haul trucks, prior to leaving the work site. A gravel pad shall consist of one inch to 

3 inches rough diameter, clean, well-graded gravel or crushed rock. Minimum dimensions must be 

30 feet wide by 3 inches deep, and, at minimum, 50 feet long or the length of the longest haul 

truck, whichever is greater.

214218 GRIZZLY – A device (i.e., rails, pipes, or grates) used to dislodge mud, dirt, and/or debris from 

the tires and undercarriage of motor vehicles and/or haul trucks prior to leaving the work site. 

215219 HAUL TRUCK - Any fully or partially open-bodied self-propelled vehicle including any nonmotorized attachments, such as, but not limited to, trailers or other conveyances that are connected 

to or propelled by the actual motorized portion of the vehicle used for transporting bulk materials. 

216220 MOTOR VEHICLE – A self-propelled vehicle for use on the public roads and highways of the 

State of Arizona and required to be registered under the Arizona State Uniform Motor Vehicle 

176 
Act, including any non-motorized attachments, such as but not limited to, trailers or other 

conveyances which are connected to or propelled by the actual motorized portion of the vehicle. 

217221 NORMAL FARM CULTURAL PRACTICE – All activities by the owner, lessee, agent, 

independent contractor, and/or supplier conducted on any facility for the production of crops 

and/or nursery plants. Disturbances of the field surface caused by turning under stalks, tilling, 

leveling, planting, fertilizing, or harvesting are included in this definition. 

218222 OFF-ROAD VEHICLE – Any self-propelled conveyance specifically designed for off-road use, 

including, but not limited to, off-road or all-terrain equipment, trucks, cars, motorcycles, 

motorbikes, or motorbuggies. 

219 OPEN AREAS AND VACANT LOTS - Any of the following described in Section 219.1 through 

Section 219.4 of this rule. For the purpose of this rule, vacant portions of residential or 

commercial lots that are immediately adjacent and owned and/or operated by the same individual 

or entity are considered one open area or vacant lot.

219.1 An unsubdivided or undeveloped tract of land adjoining a developed or partially 

developed residential, industrial, institutional, governmental, or commercial area.

219.2 A subdivided residential, industrial, institutional, governmental, or commercial lot that 

contains no approved or permitted buildings or structures of a temporary or permanent 

nature.

219.3 A partially developed residential, industrial, institutional, governmental, or commercial 

lot.

219.4 A tract of land, in the nonattainment area, adjoining agricultural property.

223 OPEN STORAGE PILE - Any accumulation of bulk material with a 5% or greater silt content 

that has a total surface area of 150 square feet or more and that at any one point attains a height of 

three feet. Silt content shall be assumed to be 5% or greater unless a person can show, by testing in 

accordance with ASTM Method C136-06 or other equivalent method approved in writing by the 

Control Officer and the Administrator that the silt content is less than 5%.

220224 OWNER AND/OR OPERATOR – The person responsible for obtaining an earthmoving permit 

under Rule 200, Section 305, including, but not limited to, the property owner, lessee, developer, 

responsible official, Dust Control permit applicant (who may also be the responsible party 

contracting to do the work), general contractor, prime contractor, supervisor, management 

company, or any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises a dust generating 

operation subject to the requirements of this rule. 

221225 PAVE – To apply and maintain asphalt, concrete, or other similar material to a roadway surface 

(i.e., asphaltic concrete, concrete pavement, chip seal, or rubberized asphalt). 

226 PROPERTY LINE - The boundaries of an area in which either a person causing the emission or 

a person allowing the emission has the legal use or possession of the property. Where such 

property is divided into one or more sub-tenancies, the property line(s) shall refer to the 

boundaries dividing the areas of all sub-tenancies.

222227 PUBLIC ROADWAYS – Any roadways that are open to public travel. 

223228 ROUTINE – Any dust generating operation which occurs more than 4 times per year or lasts 30 

cumulative days or more per year. 

177 
224229 SILT– Any aggregate material with a particle size less than 75 micrometers in diameter, which 

passes through a No. 200 Sieve. 

225230 TRACKOUT/CARRYOUT – Any and all bulk materials that adhere to and agglomerate on the 

surfaces of motor vehicles, haul trucks, and/or equipment (including tires) and that have fallen or 

been deposited onto a paved area accessible to the public. 

226231 TRACKOUT CONTROL DEVICE - A gravel pad, grizzly, wheel wash system, or a paved area, 

located at the point of intersection of an unpaved area and a paved area accessible to the public 

that controls or prevents vehicular trackout. 

227232 UNPAVED HAUL/ACCESS ROAD – Any on-site unpaved road used by commercial, 

industrial, institutional, and/or governmental traffic. 

228233 UNPAVED PARKING LOT – Any area larger than 5,000 square feet that is not paved and that 

is used for parking, maneuvering, material handling, or storing motor vehicles and equipment. An 

unpaved parking lot includes, but is not limited to, automobile impound yards, wrecking yards, 

automobile dismantling yards, salvage yards, material handling yards, and storage yards. For the 

purpose of this definition, maneuvering shall not include military maneuvers or exercises 

conducted on federal facilities.

229234 UNPAVED ROAD – Any road or equipment path that is not paved. For the purpose of this rule, 

an unpaved road is not a horse trail, hiking path, bicycle path, or other similar path used 

exclusively for purposes other than travel by motor vehicles. 

230 URBAN OR SUBURBAN OPEN AREA – The definition of urban or suburban open area is 

included in Section 219-Definition Of Open Areas And Vacant Lots of this rule.

231 VACANT LOT – The definition of vacant lot is included in Section 219-Definition Of Open 

Areas And Vacant Lots of this rule.

232 VACANT PARCEL – The definition of vacant parcel is included in Section 219-Definition Of 

Open Areas And Vacant Lots of this rule.

233235 WIND-BLOWN DUST - Visible emissions, from any disturbed surface area, that are generated 

by wind action alone. 

234236 WIND EVENT – When the 60-minute average wind speed is greater than 25 miles per hour. 

235237 WORK SITE – Any property upon which any dust generating operations and/or earthmoving 

operations occur. 

SECTION 300 – STANDARDS 

301 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DUST GENERATING OPERATIONS: Any person 

engaged in a dust generating operation subject to this rule shall be subject to the standards and/or 

requirements of this rule before, after, and while conducting such dust generating operation, 

including during weekends, after work hours, and on holidays. Failure to comply with any one of 

the following requirements shall constitute a violation.

301.1 Visible emissions requirements from dust generating operations described in Section 303 

of this rule.

301.2 Stabilization requirements described in Section 304 of this rule.

301.3 Control measures described in Section 305 of this rule.

178 
301.4 Trackout, carry-out, spillage, and/or erosion requirements described in Section 306 of this 

rule.

301.5 Soil moisture requirements described in Section 307 of this rule.

301.6 Dust control training class requirements described in Section 309 of this rule.

301.7 Dust control permit requirements described in Section 401 of this rule.

301.8 Dust Control Plan requirements described in Section 402 of this rule.

301.9 Monitoring and recordkeeping requirements described in Section 500 of this rule.

301.10 Any other requirements of this rule.

302 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR DUST GENERATING OPERATIONS:

302.1 No person shall commence construction of, operate, or make a modification to any dust 

generating operation when such dust generating operations disturb a total surface area of 

0.10 acre (4,356 square feet) or more without first obtaining a permit or permit revision 

from the Control Officer.

302.2 No person shall commence construction of, operate, or make a modification to any dust 

generating operation that disturbs a total surface area of less than 0.10 acre (4,356 square 

feet) under common control that are either contiguous or separated only by a public or 

private roadway and that cumulatively equal or exceed 0.10 acre (4,356 square feet) in 

area without first obtaining a permit or permit revision from the Control Officer.

302.3 No person shall commence any routine dust generating operation that disturbs a surface 

area of 0.10 acre or greater at a site that has obtained or must obtain a Title V, Non-Title 

V, or General permit under Regulation II-Permits and Fees of these rules without first 

submitting to the Control Officer a Dust Control Plan.

302.4 The property owner, lessee, developer, responsible official, Dust Control permit applicant 

(who may also be the responsible party contracting to do the work), general contractor, 

prime contractor, supervisor, management company, or any person who owns, leases, 

operates, controls, or supervises a dust generating operation subject to the requirements 

of this rule shall be responsible for obtaining a permit or permit revision from the Control 

Officer.

302.5 All permit applications shall be filed in the manner and form prescribed by the Control 

Officer. The application shall contain all the information necessary to enable the Control 

Officer to make the determination to grant or to deny a permit or permit revision, which 

shall contain such terms and conditions as the Control Officer deems necessary to assure 

a source's compliance with the requirements of this rule.

302.6 The issuance of any permit or permit revision shall not relieve any person subject to the 

requirements of this rule from compliance with any Federal laws, Arizona laws, or these 

rules.

302.7 Any other law, regulation or permit shall not relieve any person from obtaining a permit 

or permit revision required under this rule.

179 
301303 VISIBLE EMISSIONS REQUIREMENTS FOR DUST GENERATING OPERATIONS:

The owner and/or operator of a dust generating operation shall not allow visible fugitive dust 

emissions to exceed 20% opacity as tested by methods described in Appendix C of these rules.

303.1 Dust Generating Operation Opacity Limitation Requirement: The owner and/or 

operator of a dust generating operation shall not allow visible fugitive dust emissions to 

exceed the limits listed in either one of the following:

a. The owner and/or operator of a dust generating operation shall not cause or allow 

visible fugitive dust emissions to exceed 20% opacity.

b. The owner and/or operator of a dust generating operation shall not cause, suffer, or 

allow visible emissions of particulate matter, including fugitive dust, beyond the 

property line within which the emissions are generated. Visible emissions shall be 

determined by a standard of no visible emissions exceeding 30 seconds in duration in 

any six minute period as determined by using EPA Reference Method 22.

303.2 Exemptions from Dust Generating Operation Opacity Limitation Requirement:

301.1a. Wind Event: Exceedances of the opacity limit described in Section 303.1 of this 

rule that occur due to a wind event shall constitute a violation of the opacity limit. 

However, it shall be an affirmative defense in an enforcement action if the owner 

and/or operator demonstrates all of the following conditions: 

(1) All control measures required were followed and 1 one or more of the following

control measures in Tables 20 & 21 was were applied and maintained;:

(a) For dust generating operations:

(i) Cease dust generating operations for the duration of the 

condition/situation/event when the 60-minute average wind speed is 

greater than 25 miles per hour and if dust generating operations are 

ceased for the remainder of the work day, stabilize the area;

(ii) Apply water or other suitable dust suppressant at least twice per hour to 

dust generating operations in the PM10 nonattainment area and at least 

once per hour to dust generating operations outside the PM10

nonattainment area;

(iii) Apply water as necessary to maintain a soil moisture content at a 

minimum of 12%, as determined by ASTM Method D2216-05 or other 

equivalent method as approved by the Control Officer and the Administrator. For areas that have an optimum moisture content for compaction of less than 12%, as determined by ASTM Method D1557-02e1 or 

other equivalent method approved by the Control Officer and the 

Administrator, maintain at least 70% of the optimum soil moisture 

content; or

(iv) Implement Section 303.2(a)(1)(a)(ii) or Section 303.2(a)(1)(a)(iii) of 

this rule and construct fences or three-foot to five-foot high wind 

barriers with 50% or less porosity adjacent to roadways or urban areas 

to reduce the amount of wind-blown material leaving a site.

(b) For temporary disturbed surface areas, including but not limited to, after 

work hours, weekends, and holidays:

180 
(i) Uniformly apply and maintain surface gravel or dust suppressants;

(ii) Apply water to all disturbed surface areas three times per day. If there 

is any evidence of wind-blown dust, increase watering frequency to a 

minimum of four times per day;

(iii) Apply water on open storage piles at least twice per hour to temporary 

disturbed surface areas in the PM10 nonattainment area and at least once 

per hour to temporary disturbed surface areas outside the PM10

nonattainment area; or

(iv) Cover open storage piles with tarps, plastic, or other material such that 

wind will not remove the covering(s).

(2) The 20% opacity exceedance Exceedances of the opacity limit described in 

Section 303.1 of this rule could not have been prevented by better application, 

implementation, operation, or maintenance of control measures; 

(3) The owner and/or operator compiled and retained records, in accordance with 

Section 502-Recordkeeping of this rule; and 

(4) The occurrence of a wind event on the day(s) in question is documented by 

records. The occurrence of a wind event must be determined by the nearest 

Maricopa County Environmental Services Department Air Quality Division

Maricopa County Air Quality Department monitoring station, from any other 

certified meteorological station, or by a wind instrument that is calibrated 

according to manufacturer’s standards and that is located at the site being 

checked. 

301.2b. Emergency Maintenance of Flood Control Channels and Water Retention 

Basins: No opacity limitation shall The opacity limit described in Section 303.1 of 

this rule shall not apply to emergency maintenance of flood control channels and 

water retention basins, provided that control measures are implemented. 

301.3c. Vehicle Test and Development Facilities and Operations: No opacity limitation 

shall The opacity limit described in Section 303.1(a) of this rule shall not apply to 

vehicle test and development facilities and operations when dust is required to test 

and validate design integrity, product quality, and/or commercial acceptance, if such 

testing is not feasible within enclosed facilities. However, all areas used to test and 

validate design integrity, product quality, and/or commercial acceptance shall be 

stabilized after such testing, in compliance with Appendix C-Fugitive Dust Test 

Methods of these rules. All areas not used to test and validate design integrity, 

product quality, and/or commercial acceptance shall be stabilized, in compliance 

with Appendix C-Fugitive Dust Test Methods of these rules. In addition, vehicle test 

and development facilities may require a Dust Control permit in accordance with 

Section 302 of this rule.

d. Activities Near The Property Line: The opacity limit described in Section 303.1(b) 

of this rule shall not apply to dust generating operations conducted within 25 feet of 

the property line.

302304 STABILIZATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DUST GENERATING OPERATIONS: 

302.1304.1 Unpaved Parking Lot: The owner and/or operator of any unpaved parking lot shall not 

allow visible fugitive dust emissions to exceed 20% opacity and either Section 304.1(a) 

or Section 304.1(b) of this rule: 

181 
a. Shall not allow silt loading equal to or greater than 0.33 oz/ft2

, or 

b. Shall not allow the silt content to exceed 8%. 

302.2304.2 Unpaved Haul/Access Road: 

a. The owner and/or operator of any unpaved haul/access road (whether including at a 

work site that is under construction or at a work site that is temporarily or 

permanently inactive) shall not allow visible fugitive dust emissions to exceed 20% 

opacity and either Section 304.2(a)(1) or Section 304.2(a)(2) of this rule: 

(1) Shall not allow silt loading equal to or greater than 0.33 oz/ft2

; or 

(2) Shall not allow the silt content to exceed 6%. 

b. The owner and/or operator of any unpaved haul/access road (including at a work site 

that is under construction or a work site that is temporarily or permanently inactive) 

shall, as an alternative to meeting the stabilization requirements for an unpaved 

haul/access road in Section 304.2(a) of this rule, limit vehicle trips to no more than 

20 per day per road and limit vehicle speeds to no more than 15 miles per hour. If 

complying with this subsection section of this rule, the owner and/or operator must 

include, in a Dust Control Plan, the maximum number of vehicle trips on the 

unpaved haul/access roads each day (including number of employee vehicles, 

earthmoving equipment, haul trucks, and water trucks) and a description of how 

vehicle speeds will be restricted to no more than 15 miles per hour. 

302.3304.3 Open Area And Vacant Lot Or Disturbed Surface Area: The owner and/or operator 

of an open area and/or vacant lot or any disturbed surface area on which no activity is 

occurring (including at a work site that is under construction or a work site that is 

temporarily or permanently inactive) shall meet at least 1 one of the standards described 

in Sections 302.3(a) through 302.3(g) Sections 304.3(a) through 304.3(g) below, as 

applicable. Should a disturbed open area and/or vacant lot or any disturbed surface area 

on which no activity is occurring contain more than one type of disturbance visibly 

distinguishable stabilization characteristics, soil, vegetation, or other characteristics, 

which are visibly distinguishable, the owner and/or operator shall test each representative 

surface separately for stability, in an area that represents a random portion of the overall 

disturbed conditions of the site, according to the appropriate test methods in Appendix C 

of these rules, and include or eliminate it from the total size assessment of disturbed 

surface area(s) depending upon test method results in accordance with the appropriate test 

methods described in Section 501.2(c) of this rule and in Appendix C-Fugitive Dust Test 

Methods of these rules. The owner and/or operator of such inactive disturbed surface area

disturbed surface area on which no activity is occurring shall be considered in violation 

of this rule if the area is not maintained in a manner that meets at least 1 one of the 

standards listed below, as applicable. 

a. Maintain a visible soil crust; 

b. Maintain a threshold friction velocity (TFV) for disturbed surface areas corrected for 

non-erodible elements of 100 cm/second or higher; 

c. Maintain a flat vegetative cover (i.e., attached (rooted) vegetation or unattached 

vegetative debris lying on the surface with a predominant horizontal orientation that 

is not subject to movement by wind) that is equal to at least 50%; 

182 
d. Maintain a standing vegetative cover (i.e., vegetation that is attached (rooted) with a 

predominant vertical orientation) that is equal to or greater than 30%; 

e. Maintain a standing vegetative cover (i.e., vegetation that is attached (rooted) with a 

predominant vertical orientation) that is equal to or greater than 10% and where the 

threshold friction velocity is equal to or greater than 43 cm/second when corrected 

for non-erodible elements; 

f. Maintain a percent cover that is equal to or greater than 10% for non-erodible 

elements; or 

g. Comply with a standard of an alternative test method, upon obtaining the written 

approval from the Control Officer and the Administrator. of the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA).

302.4304.4 Vehicle Test and Development Facilities and Operations: No stabilization requirement 

shall apply to vehicle test and development facilities and operations when dust is required 

to test and validate design integrity, product quality, and/or commercial acceptance, if 

such testing is not feasible within enclosed facilities. However, all areas used to test and 

validate design integrity, product quality, and/or commercial acceptance shall be 

stabilized after such testing, in compliance with Appendix C-Fugitive Dust Test Methods 

of these rules. All areas not used to test and validate design integrity, product quality, 

and/or commercial acceptance shall be stabilized, in compliance with Appendix CFugitive Dust Test Methods of these rules. In addition, vehicle test and development 

facilities may require a Dust Control permit in accordance with Section 302 of this rule.

305 CONTROL MEASURES FOR DUST GENERATING OPERATIONS: When engaged in a 

dust generating operation, the owner and/or operator shall install, maintain, and use control 

measures, as applicable. The owner and/or operator of a dust generating operation shall implement 

control measures before, after, and while conducting dust generating operations, including during 

weekends, after work hours, and on holidays. At least one primary control measure and one 

contingency control measure must be identified in the Dust Control Plan for all dust generating 

sources. Control measures for specific dust generating operations are described in Section 305.1 

through Section 305.12 of this rule.

305.1 Off-Site Hauling Onto Paved Areas Accessible To The Public: The owner and/or 

operator of a dust generating operation that involves off-site hauling shall implement the 

following control measures:

a. When cargo compartment is loaded:

(1) Load all haul trucks such that the freeboard is not less than three inches;

(2) Load all haul trucks such that at no time shall the highest point of the bulk 

material be higher than the sides, front, and back of a cargo container area;

(3) Prevent spillage or loss of bulk material from holes or other openings in the 

cargo compartment’s floor, sides, and/or tailgate(s); and

(4) Cover cargo compartment with a tarp or other suitable closure.

b. When cargo compartment is empty:

(1) Clean the interior of the cargo compartment; or

(2) Cover the cargo compartment with a tarp or other suitable closure.

183 
c. When off-site hauling, install, maintain, and use a suitable trackout control device 

that controls and prevents trackout and/or removes particulate matter from tires and 

the exterior surfaces of haul trucks and/or motor vehicles that traverse the site.

305.2 Bulk Material Hauling/Transporting When On-Site Hauling/Transporting Within 

The Boundaries of The Work Site But Not Crossing A Paved Area Accessible To 

The Public: The owner and/or operator of a dust generating operation that involves bulk 

material hauling/transporting when on-site hauling/transporting within the boundaries of 

the work site but not crossing a paved area accessible to the public shall implement one 

of the following control measures:

a. Limit vehicle speed to 15 miles per hour or less while traveling on the work site;

b. Apply water to the top of the load; or

c. Cover haul trucks with a tarp or other suitable closure.

305.3 Bulk Material Hauling/Transporting When On-Site Hauling/Transporting Within 

The Boundaries of The Work Site and Crossing and/or Accessing A Paved Area 

Accessible To The Public: The owner and/or operator of a dust generating operation that 

involves bulk material hauling/transporting when on-site hauling/transporting within the 

boundaries of the work site and crossing and/or accessing a paved area accessible to the 

public shall implement all of the following control measures:

a. Load all haul trucks such that the freeboard is not less than three inches;

b. Load all haul trucks such that at no time shall the highest point of the bulk material 

be higher than the sides, front, and back of a cargo container area;

c. Prevent spillage or loss of bulk material from holes or other openings in the cargo 

compartment’s floor, sides, and/or tailgate(s); and

d. When crossing and/or accessing a paved area accessible to the public, install, 

maintain, and use a suitable trackout control device that controls and prevents 

trackout and/or removes particulate matter from tires and the exterior surfaces of 

haul trucks and/or motor vehicles that traverse the site.

305.4 Bulk Material Stacking, Loading, and Unloading Operations: The owner and/or 

operator of a dust generating operation that involves bulk material stacking, loading, and 

unloading operations shall implement at least one of the following control measures:

a. Spray material with water, as necessary, prior to stacking, loading, and unloading 

and/or while stacking, loading, and unloading; or

b. Spray material with a dust suppressant other than water, as necessary, prior to 

stacking, loading, and unloading and/or while stacking, loading, and unloading.

305.5 Open Storage Piles: The owner and/or operator of a dust generating operation that 

involves an open storage pile shall implement the following control measures, as 

applicable:

a. Prior to and/or while conducting stacking, loading, and unloading operations, 

implement one of the following control measures:

(1) Spray material with water, as necessary; or

184 
(2) Spray material with a dust suppressant other than water, as necessary.

b. When not conducting stacking, loading, and unloading operations, implement one of 

the following control measures:

(1) Cover all open storage piles with a tarp, plastic, or other material to prevent 

wind from removing the covering(s)/such that the covering(s) will not be 

dislodged by wind; or

(2) Apply water to maintain a soil moisture content at a minimum of 12%, as 

determined by ASTM Method D2216-05 or other equivalent methods approved 

by the Control Officer and the Administrator. For areas that have an optimum 

moisture content for compaction of less than 12%, as determined by ASTM 

Method D1557-02e1 or other equivalent methods approved by the Control 

Officer and the Administrator, maintain at least 70% of the optimum soil 

moisture content.

(3) Maintain a soil crust; or

(4) Implement the control measure described in Section 305.5(b)(2) or in Section 

305.5(b)(3) of this rule and construct and maintain wind barriers, storage silos, 

or a three-sided enclosure with walls, whose length is no less than equal to the 

length of the pile, whose distance from the pile is no more than twice the height 

of the pile, whose height is equal to the pile height, and whose porosity is no 

more than 50%.

305.6 Unpaved Staging Areas, Unpaved Parking Areas, and Unpaved Material Storage 

Areas: The owner and/or operator of a dust generating operation that involves unpaved 

staging areas, unpaved parking areas, and unpaved material storage areas shall implement 

one or more of the following control measures:

a. Apply water so that the surface is visibly moist;

b. Pave;

c. Apply and maintain gravel, recycled asphalt, or other suitable material;

d. Apply and maintain a suitable dust suppressant other than water; or

e. Limit vehicle trips to no more than 20 per day per road and limit vehicle speeds to no 

more than 15 miles per hour. If complying with this section, the owner and/or 

operator shall provide to the Control Officer the maximum number of vehicle trips 

on the staging areas, parking areas, and/or material storage areas each day (including 

number of employee vehicles, earthmoving equipment, haul trucks, and water trucks) 

and a description of how vehicle speeds will be restricted to no more than 15 miles 

per hour.

305.7 Unpaved Haul/Access Roads: The owner and/or operator of a dust generating operation 

that involves unpaved haul/access roads shall implement one or more of the following 

control measures:

a. Apply water so that the surface is visibly moist;

b. Pave;

185 
c. Apply and maintain gravel, recycled asphalt, or other suitable material;

d. Apply and maintain a suitable dust suppressant other than water; or

e. Limit vehicle trips to no more than 20 per day per road and limit vehicle speeds to no 

more than 15 miles per hour. If complying with this section of this rule, the owner 

and/or operator shall provide to the Control Officer the maximum number of vehicle 

trips on the unpaved haul/access roads each day (including number of employee 

vehicles, earthmoving equipment, haul trucks, and water trucks) and a description of 

how vehicle speeds will be restricted to no more than 15 miles per hour.

305.8 Weed Abatement By Discing or Blading: The owner and/or operator of a dust 

generating operation that involves weed abatement by discing or blading shall comply 

with all of the following control measures:

a. Before weed abatement by discing or blading occurs, apply water;

b. While weed abatement by discing or blading is occurring, apply water; and

c. After weed abatement by discing or blading occurs, pave, apply gravel, apply water, 

apply a suitable dust suppressant other than water, or establish vegetative ground 

cover.

305.9 Blasting Operations: The owner and/or operator of a dust generating operation that 

involves blasting operations shall implement all of the following control measures:

a. In wind gusts above 25 miles per hour, discontinue/cease blasting; and

b. Pre-water and maintain surface soils in a stabilized condition where support 

equipment and vehicles will operate.

305.10 Demolition Activities: The owner and/or operator of a dust generating operation that 

involves demolition activities shall implement all of the following control measures:

a. Apply water to demolition debris immediately following demolition activity; and

b. Apply water to all disturbed soils surfaces to establish a crust and to prevent wind 

erosion.

305.11 Disturbed Surface Areas: The owner and/or operator of a dust generating operation that 

involves disturbed surface areas shall implement the following control measures, as 

applicable:

a. Before disturbed surface areas are created, implement one of the following control 

measures:

(1) Pre-water site to depth of cuts, allowing time for penetration; or

(2) Phase work to reduce the amount of disturbed surface areas at any one time.

b. While disturbed surface areas are being created, implement one of the following 

control measures:

(1) Apply water or other suitable dust suppressant other than water, as necessary;

186 
(2) Apply water as necessary to maintain a soil moisture content at a minimum of 

12%, as determined by ASTM Method D2216-05 or other equivalent method as 

approved by the Control Officer and the Administrator. For areas that have an 

optimum moisture content for compaction of less than 12%, as determined by 

ASTM Method D1557-02e1 or other equivalent method approved by the 

Control Officer and the Administrator, maintain at least 70% of the optimum 

soil moisture content; or

(3) Implement control measure described in Section 305.11(b)(1) or Section 

305.11(b)(2) of this rule and construct fences or three-foot to five-foot high 

wind barriers with 50% or less porosity adjacent to roadways or urban areas to 

reduce the amount of windblown material leaving a site.

c. When the dust generating operation is finished for a period of 30 days or longer - for 

longer than temporary pauses that occur during a dust generating operation, the 

owner and/or operator shall implement one or more of the following control 

measures within ten days following the completion of such dust generating 

operation:

(1) Pave, apply gravel, or apply a suitable dust suppressant other than water;

(2) Establish vegetative ground cover in sufficient quantity;

(3) Implement control measures described in Section 305.11(c)(1) or Section 

305.11(c)(2) of this rule and restrict vehicle access to the area;

(4) Apply water and prevent access by fences, ditches, vegetation, berms, or other 

suitable barrier or means sufficient to prevent trespass as approved by the 

Control Officer; or

(5) Restore area such that the vegetative ground cover and soil characteristics are 

similar to adjacent or nearby undisturbed native conditions.

305.12 Easements, Rights-of-Way, and Access Roads for Utilities (Transmission of

Electricity, Natural Gas, Oil, Water, and Gas) Associated With Sources That Have 

A Non-Title V Permit, A Title V Permit, and/or A General Permit Under These 

Rules: The owner and/or operator of a dust generating operation that involves an 

easement, right-of-way, and access road for utilities (transmission of electricity, natural 

gas, oil, water, and gas ) associated with sources that have a Title V permit, a Non-Title 

V permit, and/or a General permit under these rules shall implement at least one of the 

following control measures: 

a. Inside Area A, limit vehicle speed to 15 miles per hour or less and vehicle trips to no 

more than 20 per day per road;

b. Outside Area A, limit vehicle trips to no more than 20 per day per road; or

c. Implement control measures described in Section 305.7 of this rule.

306 TRACKOUT, CARRY-OUT, SPILLAGE, AND/OR EROSION: The owner and/or operator 

of a dust generating operation shall prevent and control trackout, carry-out, spillage, and/or 

erosion.

306.1 Trackout Control Device:

187 
a. Criterion for Trackout Control Device: Install, maintain and use a suitable 

trackout control device that prevents and controls trackout and/or removes 

particulate matter from tires and the exterior surfaces of haul trucks and/or motor 

vehicles that traverse the site at all exits onto paved areas accessible to the public 

from both of the following:

(1) All work sites with a disturbed surface area of two acres or larger, and

(2) All work sites where 100 cubic yards of bulk materials are hauled on-site and/or 

off-site per day.

b. Control Measures: For those work sites identified in Section 306.1(a) of this rule, 

prevent trackout, carry-out, spillage, and/or erosion by implementing one of the 

following control measures:

(1) At all exits onto paved areas accessible to the public, install a wheel wash 

system;

(2) At all exits onto paved areas accessible to the public, install a gravel pad to 

comply with Section 217 of this rule;

(3) At all exits onto paved areas accessible to the public, install a grizzly or rumble 

grate that consists of raised dividers (rails, pipes, or grates) a minimum of three 

inches tall, six inches apart, and 20 feet long, to allow a vibration to be produced 

such that dust is shaken off the wheels of a vehicle as the entire circumference 

of each wheel of the vehicle passes over the grizzly or rumble grate; or

(4) Pave starting from the point of intersection with a paved area accessible to the 

public and extending for a centerline distance of at least 100 feet and a width of 

at least 20 feet.

306.2 Clean Up of Trackout:

a. Criterion for Clean Up of Trackout: Clean up, trackout, carry-out, spillage, and/or 

erosion from paved areas accessible to the public including curbs, gutters, and 

sidewalks, on the following time-schedule:

(1) Immediately, when trackout, carry-out, or spillage extends a cumulative distance 

of 25 linear feet or more; and

(2) At the end of the workday, for all other trackout, carry-out, spillage, and/or 

erosion.

b. Control Measures:

(1) Operate a street sweeper or wet broom with sufficient water, including but not 

limited to kick broom, steel bristle broom, Teflon broom, vacuum, at the speed 

recommended by the manufacturer and at the frequency(ies) described in this 

section of this rule; or

(2) Manually sweep-up deposits to comply with this section of this rule.

307 SOIL MOISTURE: If water is the chosen control measure in an approved Dust Control Plan, the 

owner and/or operator of a dust generating operation shall operate a water application system onsite (e.g., water truck, water hose) while conducting any earthmoving operations on disturbed 

188 
surface areas 1 acre or larger, unless a soil crust is maintained or the soil is sufficiently damp to 

prevent loose grains of soil from becoming dislodged.

308 PROJECT INFORMATION SIGN FOR DUST GENERATING OPERATIONS: For all sites 

with a Dust Control permit that are five acres or larger, except for routine maintenance and repair 

done under a Dust Control permit-Block permit, the owner and/or operator shall erect and 

maintain a project information sign at the main entrance such that members of the public can 

easily view and read the sign at all times. Such sign shall have a white background, have black 

block lettering that is at least four inches high, and shall contain at least all of the following 

information:

308.1 Project name and permittee’s name;

308.2 Current Dust Control permit number and expiration date;

308.3 Name and local phone number of person(s) responsible for dust control matters;

308.4 Text stating: “Dust complaints? Call Maricopa County Air Quality Department - (Insert 

the accurate Maricopa County Air Quality Department complaint line telephone 

number).”

309 DUST CONTROL TRAINING CLASSES FOR DUST GENERATING OPERATIONS:

309.1 Basic Dust Control Training Class:

a. At least once every three years, the site superintendent or other designated on-site 

representative of the permit holder, if present at a site that has more than one acre of 

disturbed surface area that is subject to a permit issued by the Control Officer 

requiring control of PM10 emissions from dust generating operation, shall 

successfully complete a Basic Dust Control Training Class conducted or approved by 

the Control Officer.

b. At least once every three years, water truck and water-pull drivers shall successfully 

complete a Basic Dust Control Training Class conducted or approved by the Control 

Officer.

c. All persons having successfully completed training during the 2006 and 2007 

calendar years shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirement to successfully 

complete the Basic Dust Control Training Class, if the training that was completed 

was conducted or approved by the Control Officer. Completion of the 

Comprehensive Dust Control Training Class, as required in Section 309.2 of this 

rule, shall satisfy the requirement of this section of this rule.

309.2 Comprehensive Dust Control Training Class: 

a. At least once every three years, the Dust Control Coordinator, who meets the 

requirements of Section 310 of this rule, shall successfully complete the 

Comprehensive Dust Control Training Class conducted or approved by the Control 

Officer.

b. All persons having successfully completed training during the 2006 and 2007 

calendar years shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirement to successfully 

complete the Comprehensive Dust Control Training Class, if the training that was 

completed was conducted or approved by the Control Officer.

189 
310 DUST CONTROL COORDINATOR FOR DUST GENERATING OPERATIONS:

310.1 The permittee for any site of five acres or more of disturbed surface area subject to a 

permit issued by the Control Officer requiring control of PM10 emissions from dust 

generating operations shall have on-site at least one Dust Control Coordinator trained in 

accordance with Section 309.2 of this rule at all times during primary dust generating 

operations related to the purposes for which the Dust Control permit was obtained.

310.2 The Dust Control Coordinator shall have full authority to ensure that dust control 

measures are implemented on-site, including conducting inspections, deployment of dust 

suppression resources, and modifications or shut-down of activities as needed to control 

dust.

310.3 The Dust Control Coordinator shall be responsible for managing dust prevention and dust 

control on the site.

310.4 At least once every three years, the Dust Control Coordinator shall successfully complete 

a Comprehensive Dust Control Training Class conducted or approved by the Control 

Officer.

310.5 The Dust Control Coordinator shall have a valid dust training certification identification 

card readily accessible on-site while acting as a Dust Control Coordinator.

310.6 The requirement for a Dust Control Coordinator shall lapse when all of the following 

actions/events/procedures occur:

a. The area of disturbed surface area becomes less than five acres;

b. The previously disturbed surface areas have been stabilized in accordance with/in 

compliance with the standards and/or requirements of this rule; and

c. The Dust Control permit holder provides notice to the Control Officer of acreage 

stabilization.

310.7 The permittee, who is required to obtain a single permit for multiple non-contiguous sites 

in accordance with Section 404 of this rule, shall have on sites with greater than one acre 

of disturbed surface area at least one individual who is designated by the permittee as a 

Dust Control Coordinator trained in accordance with Section 309.1-Basic Dust Control 

Training Class of this rule. The Dust Control Coordinator shall be present on-site at all 

times during primary dust generating activities that are related to the purposes for which 

the permit was obtained.

303 DUST CONTROL PLAN REQUIRED:

303.1 The owner and/or operator of a dust generating operation shall submit to the Control 

Officer a Dust Control Plan with any permit applications that involve earthmoving 

operations with a disturbed surface area that equals or exceeds 0.10 acre, including both 

of the following situations:

a. When submitting an application for an earthmoving permit involving earthmoving 

operations that would equal or exceed 0.10 acre, and

b. Before commencing any routine dust generating operation at a site that has obtained 

or must obtain a Title V, Non-Title V, or general permit under Regulation II-Permits 

And Fees of these rules.

190 
Compliance with this section does not affect an owner and/or operator’s responsibility to 

comply with the other standards of this rule. The Dust Control Plan shall describe all 

control measures to be implemented before, after, and while conducting any dust 

generating operation, including during weekends, after work hours, and on holidays.

303.2 A Dust Control Plan shall, at a minimum, contain all the information described in Section 

304 of this rule. The Control Officer shall approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve 

the Dust Control Plan, in accordance with the criteria used to approve, disapprove or 

conditionally approve a permit. Failure to comply with the provisions of an approved 

Dust Control Plan is deemed to be a violation of this rule. Regardless of whether an 

approved Dust Control Plan is in place or not, the owner and/or operator of a dust 

generating operation is still subject to all requirements of this rule at all times. In 

addition, the owner and/or operator of a source with an approved Dust Control Plan is 

still subject to all of the requirements of this rule, even if such owner and/or operator is 

complying with the approved Dust Control Plan.

303.3 At least one primary control measure and one contingency control measure must be 

identified in the Dust Control Plan for all fugitive dust sources. Should any primary 

control measure(s) prove ineffective, the owner and/or operator shall immediately 

implement the contingency control measure(s). If the identified contingency control 

measure is effective to comply with all of the requirements of this rule, the owner and/or 

operator need not revise the Dust Control Plan under Section 305 of this rule.

303.4 A Dust Control Plan shall not be required for any of the following activities:

a. To play on or maintain a field used for non-motorized sports;

b. For landscape maintenance, which, for the purpose of this rule, does not include 

grading, trenching, nor or any other mechanized surface disturbing activities; and

c. To establish initial landscapes or to redesign existing landscapes of legallydesignated public parks and recreational areas, including national parks, national 

monuments, national forests, state parks, city parks, county regional parks, ballfields, 

camp sites, and playgrounds at camp sites; hiking paths, horse trails, and bicycle 

paths that are used exclusively for purposes other than travel by motor vehicles; (for 

the purpose of this rule, establishing initial landscapes or redesigning existing 

landscapes does not include grading, trenching, or any other mechanized surface 

disturbing activities).

304 ELEMENTS OF A DUST CONTROL PLAN: A Dust Control Plan shall contain, at a minimum, 

all of the following information:

304.1 Name(s), address(es), and phone numbers of person(s) responsible for the submittal and 

implementation of the Dust Control Plan and responsible for the dust generating 

operation.

304.2 A drawing, on 81⁄2” x 11” paper, that shows: 

a. Entire project site/facility boundaries,

b. Acres to be disturbed with linear dimensions,

c. Nearest public roads,

d. North arrow, and 

191 
e. Planned exit locations onto paved areas accessible to the public.

304.3 Control measures, or a combination thereof, to be applied to all actual and potential dust 

generating operations, before, after, and while conducting any dust generating operation, 

including during weekends, after work hours, and on holidays. 

a. All required control measures from Tables 1-21 and at least one contingency control 

measure must be identified, for all dust generating operations. Should any primary 

control measure(s) prove ineffective, the owner and/or operator shall immediately 

implement the contingency control measure(s). If the identified contingency control 

measure(s) is effective to comply with all of the requirements of this rule, the owner 

and/or operator need not revise the Dust Control Plan under Section 305 of this rule. 

b. Alternatively, a control measure(s) that is not listed in Tables 1-21 of this rule may 

be chosen, provided that such control measure(s) is implemented to comply with the 

standard(s) described in Section 301 and Section 302 of this rule, as determined by 

the corresponding test method(s), as applicable, and meets other applicable 

standard(s) set forth in this rule.

c. If complying with Section 302.2(b)-Stabilization Requirements For Fugitive Dust 

Sources-Unpaved Haul/Access Road of this rule, the Dust Control Plan must include 

the maximum number of vehicle trips on the unpaved haul/access roads each day 

(including number of employee vehicles, earthmoving equipment, haul trucks, and 

water trucks).

304.4 Dust suppressants to be applied, including all of the following product specifications or 

label instructions for approved usage:

a. Method, frequency, and intensity of application;

b. Type, number, and capacity of application equipment; and

c. Information on environmental impacts and approvals or certifications related to 

appropriate and safe use for ground application.

304.5 Specific surface treatment(s) and/or control measures utilized to control material trackout 

and sedimentation where unpaved and/or access point join paved areas accessible to the 

public.

304.6 For construction projects one acre or larger, except for routine maintenance and repair 

done under a block permit, a statement disclosing which of the four designated texture(s) 

of soil described in Appendix F of these rules is naturally present at or will be imported 

to the dust generating operation. The measured soil content at a particular site shall take 

precedence over any mapped soil types, and whenever soils have been tested at a 

particular site, the test results should be relied on rather than the map in Appendix F.

305 DUST CONTROL PLAN REVISIONS: 

305.1 If the Control Officer determines that an approved Dust Control Plan has been followed, 

yet fugitive dust emissions from any dust generating operation still exceed standards in 

Section 301 and Section 302 of this rule, then the Control Officer shall issue a written 

notice to the owner and/or operator of the dust generating operation explaining such 

determination. 

192 
305.2 The owner and/or operator of a dust generating operation shall make written revisions to 

the Dust Control Plan and shall submit such revised Dust Control Plan to the Control 

Officer within three working days of receipt of the Control Officer’s written notice, 

unless such time period is extended by the Control Officer, upon request, for good cause. 

During the time that such owner and/or operator is preparing revisions to the approved 

Dust Control Plan, such owner and/or operator must still comply with all requirements of 

this rule. 

306 CONTROL MEASURES:

306.1 The owner and/or operator of a dust generating operation shall implement control 

measures before, after, and while conducting operations, including during weekends, 

after work hours, and on holidays, in accordance with Section 304.3 and Tables 1-21 of 

this rule.

306.2 For the purpose of this rule, any control measure that is implemented must achieve the 

applicable standard(s) described in Sections 301 and 302 of this rule, as determined by 

the corresponding test method(s), as applicable, and must achieve other applicable 

standard(s) set forth in this rule.

306.3 Failure to comply with the provisions of Section 308 (Work Practices) of this rule, as 

applicable, and/or of an approved Dust Control Plan, is deemed a violation of this rule.

306.4 Regardless of whether a dust generating operation is in compliance with an approved 

Dust Control Plan, or there is no approved dust control plan, the owner and/or operator of 

a dust generating operation is still subject to all requirements of this rule at all times.

307 PROJECT INFORMATION SIGN: For all sites with an earthmoving permit that are five acres or 

larger, except for routine maintenance and repair done under a block permit, the owner and/or 

operator shall erect and maintain a project information sign at the main entrance, that is readable 

by the public. Such sign shall have a white background, have black block lettering that is at least 

four inches high, and shall contain at least all of the following information:

307.1 Project name and permit holder,

307.2 Earthmoving Permit number,

307.3 Name and phone number of person(s) responsible for conducting the project, and

307.4 Text stating: “Dust Complaints? Call Maricopa County Environmental Services 

Department (insert the current/accurate phone number for the complaint phone line).”

308 WORK PRACTICES: When engaged in the following specific activities, the owner and/or 

operator of a dust generating operation shall comply with the following work practices in addition 

to implementing, as applicable, the control measures described in Tables 1-21 of this rule.

308.1 Bulk Material Hauling Off-Site Onto Paved Areas Accessible to the Public: 

Notwithstanding other sections of this rule, the owner and/or operator of a dust 

generating operation and the owner and/or operator of a haul truck shall do all of the 

following:

a. Load all haul trucks such that the freeboard is not less than three inches;

b. Prevent spillage or loss of bulk material from holes or other openings in the cargo 

compartment’s floor, sides, and/or tailgate(s);

193 
c. Cover all haul trucks with a tarp or other suitable closure; and

d. Before the empty haul truck leaves the site, clean the interior of the cargo 

compartment or cover the cargo compartment.

308.2 Bulk Material Hauling On-Site Within the Boundaries of The Work Site: When crossing 

a paved area accessible to the public while construction is underway, the owner and/or 

operator of a dust generating operation shall do all of the following:

a. Load all haul trucks such that the freeboard is not less than three inches;

b. Prevent spillage or loss of bulk material from holes or other openings in the cargo 

compartment’s floor, sides, and/or tailgate(s); and

c. Install a suitable trackout control device that controls and prevents trackout and/or 

removes particulate matter from tires and the exterior surfaces of haul trucks and/or 

motor vehicles that traverse such work site. Examples of trackout control devices are 

described in Table 17 of this rule.

308.3 Trackout, Carry-Out, Spillage, and/or Erosion: The owner and/or operator of a dust 

generating operation shall do all of the following:

a. Install, maintain and use a suitable trackout control device (examples of trackout 

control devices are described in Table 17–Trackout Control of this rule) that controls 

and prevents trackout and/or removes particulate matter from tires and the exterior 

surfaces of haul trucks and/or motor vehicles that traverse such operation at all exits 

onto paved areas accessible to the public from both of the following:

(1) All work sites with a disturbed surface area of two acres or larger, and

(2) All work sites where 100 cubic yards of bulk materials are hauled on-site and/or 

off-site per day.

b. Clean up, trackout, carry-out, spillage, and/or erosion, on the following timeschedule:

(1) Immediately, when trackout, carry-out, or spillage extends a cumulative distance 

of 50 linear feet or more; and

(2) At the end of the workday, for all other trackout, carry-out, spillage, and/or 

erosion.

308.4 Unpaved Haul/Access Roads: The owner and/or operator of a dust generating operation 

shall implement one or more control measure(s) described in Table 3–Unpaved 

Haul/Access Roads of this rule, before using or maintaining unpaved haul/access roads.

308.5 Easements, Rights-Of-Way, and Access Roads for Utilities (Electricity, Natural Gas, Oil, 

Water, and Gas Transmission) Associated with Sources that have a Non-Title V Permit, a 

Title V Permit, and/or a General Permit under These Rules: The owner and/or operator of 

a dust generating operation shall do at least one of the following: 

a. Inside the PM10 nonattainment area, restrict vehicular speeds to 15 miles per hour 

and vehicular trips to no more than 20 per day per road;

b. Outside the PM10 nonattainment area, restrict vehicular trips to no more than 20 per 

day per road; or

194 
c. Implement control measures, as described in Table 3–Unpaved Haul/Access Roads 

of this rule.

308.6 Open Storage Piles: For the purpose of this rule, an open storage pile is any accumulation 

of bulk material with a 5% or greater silt content which in any one point attains a height 

of three feet and covers a total surface area of 150 square feet or more. Silt content shall 

be assumed to be 5% or greater unless a person can show, by testing in accordance with 

ASTM Method C136-96A or other equivalent method approved in writing by the Control 

Officer and the Administrator of EPA, that the silt content is less than 5%. The owner 

and/or operator of such dust generating operation shall comply with all of the following:

a. Prior to and/or while conducting stacking, loading, and unloading operations, comply 

with one of the following work practices:

(1) Spray material with water, as necessary; or

(2) Spray material with a dust suppressant other than water, as necessary.

b. When not conducting stacking, loading, and unloading operations, comply with one 

of the following work practices:

(1) Cover open storage piles with tarps, plastic, or other material to prevent wind 

from removing the coverings;

(2) Apply water to maintain a soil moisture content at a minimum of 12%, as 

determined by ASTM Method D2216-98, or other equivalent methods approved 

by the Control Officer and the Administrator of EPA. For areas that have an 

optimum moisture content for compaction of less than 12%, as determined by 

ASTM Method D1557-91 (1998) or other equivalent methods approved by the 

Control Officer and the Administrator of EPA, maintain at least 70% of the 

optimum soil moisture content;

(3) Meet one of the stabilization requirements described in Section 302.3 of this 

rule; or

(4) Construct and maintain wind barriers, storage silos, or a three-sided enclosure 

with walls, whose length is no less than equal to the length of the pile, whose 

distance from the pile is no more than twice the height of the pile, whose height 

is equal to the pile height, and whose porosity is no more than 50%. If 

implementing this subsection, the owner and/or operator must also implement 

either Section 308.6(b)(2) or Section 308.6(b)(3) above.

308.7 Soil Moisture: If water is the chosen control measure in an approved Dust Control Plan, 

the owner and/or operator of a dust generating operation shall operate a water application 

system on-site (e.g., water truck, water hose) while conducting any earthmoving 

operations on disturbed surface areas 1 acre or larger, unless a visible crust is maintained 

or the soil is sufficiently damp to prevent loose grains of soil from becoming dislodged.

308.8 Weed Abatement by Discing or Blading: The owner and/or operator of a dust generating 

operation shall comply with all of the following during weed abatement procedures by 

discing or blading:

a. Apply water before weed abatement by discing or blading occurs; and

b. Apply water while weed abatement by discing or blading is occurring; and 

195 
c. Either:

(1) Pave, apply gravel, apply water, or apply a suitable dust suppressant, in 

compliance with Section 302.3 of this rule, after weed abatement by discing or 

blading occurs; or

(2) Establish vegetative ground cover in sufficient quantity, in compliance with 

Section 302.3 of this rule, after weed abatement by discing or blading occurs.

SECTION 400 - ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS 

401 DUST CONTROL PLAN POSTING: The owner and/or operator of an earthmoving operation 

shall post a copy of the approved Dust Control Plan in a conspicuous location at the work site, 

within on-site equipment, or in an on-site vehicle, or shall otherwise keep a copy of the approved 

Dust Control Plan available on-site at all times. The owner and/or operator of a dust generating 

operation that has been issued a Block Permit shall not be required to keep a copy of the 81⁄2” by 

11” site drawing according to Section 304.2 of this rule. DUST CONTROL PERMIT 

REQUIREMENTS:

401.1 To apply for a Dust Control permit, an applicant shall complete a permit application in 

the manner and form prescribed by the Control Officer. At a minimum, such application 

shall contain the following information:

a. Applicant information;

b. Project information, which shall include a project site drawing and, if the site is one 

acre or larger, soil designations; and

c. Dust Control Plan, which shall meet the specifications described in Section 402 of 

this rule.

401.2 A Dust Control permit shall be granted subject to, but not limited to, the following 

conditions:

a. The permittee shall be responsible for ensuring that all persons abide by the 

conditions of the Dust Control permit and these regulations;

b. The permittee shall be responsible for supplying complete copies of the Dust Control 

permit including the Dust Control Plan, to all project contractors and subcontractors;

c. The permittee shall be responsible for all permit conditions, until a Permit 

Cancellation Request form has been submitted by the owner and/or operator and 

approved by the Control Officer;

d. The permittee shall be responsible for providing Dust Control Coordinator’s/

Coordinators’ name(s) and dust control training certification information/number(s) 

to the Control Officer and for keeping such information updated.

401.3 The signature of the permittee on the Dust Control permit application shall constitute 

agreement to accept responsibility for meeting the conditions of the Dust Control permit 

and for ensuring that control measures are implemented throughout the project site and 

during the duration of the project.

196 
402 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE: The requirements of this rule supercede any conflicting

requirements that may be found in existing Dust Control Plans. DUST CONTROL PLAN 

REQUIREMENTS:

402.1 For Earthmoving Permits: If any changes to a Dust Control Plan, associated with an 

Earthmoving Permit, are necessary as a result of the most recent revisions of this rule, 

such changes shall not be required until the Earthmoving Permit is required to be 

renewed. The owner and/or operator of a dust generating operation shall submit to the 

Control Officer a Dust Control Plan with any permit applications that involve dust 

generating operations with a disturbed surface area that equals or exceeds 0.10 acre 

(4,356 square feet) including both of the following situations:

a. When submitting an application for a Dust Control permit involving dust generating 

operations that would equal or exceed 0.10 acre (4,356 square feet), and

b. Before commencing any routine dust generating operation at a site that has obtained 

or must obtain a Title V, Non-Title V, or General permit under Regulation II-Permits 

and Fees of these rules.

402.2 For Non-Title V Permits And For Title V Permits: If any changes to a Dust Control Plan, 

associated with a Non-Title V Permit or with a Title V Permit, are necessary as a result of 

the most recent revisions of this rule, then the owner and/or operator shall submit a 

revised Dust Control Plan to the Control Officer, according to the minor permit revision 

procedures described in Rule 220 and Rule 210 of these rules respectively, no later than 6 

months after the effective date of the most recent revisions to this rule. The owner and/or 

operator of a dust generating operation shall submit to the Control Officer a Dust Control 

Plan with any application for a Dust Control permit. Applicants shall describe, in a Dust 

Control Plan, all control measures to be implemented before, after, and while conducting 

any dust generating operation, including during weekends, after work hours, and on 

holidays.

402.3 A Dust Control Plan shall, at a minimum, contain all of the following information:

a. Name(s), address(es), and phone numbers of person(s) responsible for the submittal 

and implementation of the Dust Control Plan and responsible for the dust generating 

operation.

b. A drawing, on 81⁄2” x 11” paper, that shows: 

(1) Entire project site/facility boundaries,

(2) Acres to be disturbed with linear dimensions,

(3) Nearest public roads,

(4) North arrow, and 

(5) Planned exit locations onto paved areas accessible to the public.

c. Appropriate control measures, or a combination thereof, as described in Section 305 

and Section 306 of this rule, for every actual and potential dust generating operation.

(1) Control measures must be implemented before, after, and while conducting any 

dust generating operation, including during weekends, after work hours, and on 

holidays. 

197 
(2) All required control measures and at least one contingency control measure must 

be identified for all dust generating operations.

(3) A control measure that is not listed in Section 305 or in Section 306 of this rule 

may be chosen provided that such control measure is implemented to comply 

with the requirements described in Section 301 of this rule.

(4) If complying with Section 305.7-Control Measures for Dust Generating 

Operations-Unpaved Haul/Access Roads of this rule, the Dust Control Plan must 

include the maximum number of vehicle trips on the unpaved haul/access roads 

each day (including number of employee vehicles, earthmoving equipment, haul 

trucks, and water trucks).

d. Dust suppressants to be applied, including all of the following product specifications 

or label instructions for approved usage:

(1) Method, frequency, and intensity of application;

(2) Type, number, and capacity of application equipment; and

(3) Information on environmental impacts and approvals or certifications related to 

appropriate and safe use for ground application.

e. Specific surface treatment(s) and/or control measures utilized to control material 

trackout and sedimentation where unpaved roads and/or access points join paved 

areas accessible to the public.

402.4 The Control Officer shall approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve the Dust Control 

Plan, in accordance with the criteria used to approve, disapprove or conditionally approve 

a permit, as described in Rule 200-Permit Requirements of these rules. Failure to comply 

with the provisions of an approved Dust Control Plan is deemed a violation of this rule.

402.5 For construction projects one acre or larger, except for routine maintenance and repair 

done under a Dust Control permit-Block permit, a statement disclosing which of the four 

designated texture(s) of soil described in Appendix F of these rules is naturally present at 

or will be imported to the dust generating operation. The measured soil content at a 

particular site shall take precedence over any mapped soil types, and whenever soils have 

been tested at a particular site, the test results should be relied on rather than the map in 

Appendix F of these rules.

402.6 Should any primary control measure(s) prove ineffective, the owner and/or operator shall 

immediately implement the contingency control measure(s). If the identified contingency 

control measure is effective to comply with all of the requirements of this rule, the owner 

and/or operator need not revise the Dust Control Plan.

403 DUST CONTROL PLAN REVISIONS:

403.1 If Required By The Control Officer:

a. If the Control Officer determines that an approved Dust Control Plan has been 

followed, yet fugitive dust emissions from any dust generating operation still exceed 

the standards of this rule, then the Control Officer shall issue a written notice to the 

owner and/or operator of the dust generating operation explaining such 

determination.

198 
b. The owner and/or operator of a dust generating operation shall make written 

revisions to the Dust Control Plan and shall submit such revised Dust Control Plan to 

the Control Officer within three working days of receipt of the Control Officer’s 

written notice, unless such time period is extended by the Control Officer, upon 

request, for good cause. During the time that such owner and/or operator is preparing 

revisions to the approved Dust Control Plan, such owner and/or operator must still 

comply with all requirements of this rule.

403.2 If Requested By The Permittee:

a. If the acreage of a project changes, the owner and/or operator shall request a Dust 

Control Plan revision. Such Dust Control Plan revision shall be filed in the manner 

and form prescribed by the Control Officer. 

b. If the permit holder changes, the owner and/or operator shall request a Dust Control 

Plan revision. Such Dust Control Plan revision shall be filed in the manner and form 

prescribed by the Control Officer.

c. If the name(s), address(es), or phone numbers of person(s) responsible for the 

submittal and implementation of the Dust Control Plan and responsible for the dust 

generating operation change, the owner and/or operator shall request a Dust Control 

Plan revision. Such Dust Control Plan revision shall be filed in the manner and form 

prescribed by the Control Officer.

d. If the activities related to the purposes for which the Dust Control permit was 

obtained change, the owner and/or operator shall request a Dust Control Plan 

revision. Such Dust Control Plan revision shall be filed in the manner and form 

prescribed by the Control Officer.

403.3 If Rule 310 Is Revised:

a. If any changes to a Dust Control Plan are necessary as a result of the most recent 

revisions of this rule, such changes to the Dust Control Plan shall not be required 

until the associated Dust Control permit is required to be renewed.

b. If any changes to a Dust Control Plan, associated with a Title V permit or with a 

Non-Title V permit, are necessary as a result of the most recent revisions of this rule, 

then the owner and/or operator shall submit a revised Dust Control Plan to the 

Control Officer, according to the minor permit revision procedures described in Rule 

210 or in Rule 220 of these rules respectively, no later than six months after the 

effective date of the most recent revisions to this rule.

404 DUST CONTROL PERMIT-BLOCK PERMIT REQUIREMENTS:

404.1 A Dust Control permit-Block permit application may be submitted to the Control Officer, 

if one or more of the activities listed in this section of this rule are conducted and if such 

activities occur at more than one site (i.e., projects that involve multiple small areas 

scattered throughout Maricopa County, including but not limited to, fiber optic cable 

installation and natural gas line extension). New construction shall obtain a separate Dust 

Control permit. 

a. Routine operation (i.e., municipalities, governmental agencies, and utilities that are 

responsible for the repeat maintenance of infrastructure, including but not limited to, 

weed control around a prison, canal bank and road grading, and road shoulder 

grading).

199 
b. Maintenance (i.e., municipalities, governmental agencies, and utilities that are 

responsible for the repeat maintenance of infrastructure, including but not limited to, 

weed control around a prison, canal bank and road grading, and road shoulder 

grading).

c. Expansion or extension of utilities, paved roads, unpaved roads, road shoulders, 

alleys, and public rights-of-way at non-contiguous sites by municipalities, 

governmental agencies, and utilities.

404.2 When completing and submitting a Dust Control permit-Block permit application, the 

owner and/or operator shall comply with the following requirements:

a. A Dust Control Plan that meets the criteria described in Section 402 of this rule and 

applies to all sites shall be submitted to the Control Officer with the Dust Control 

permit-Block permit application.

b. A list of all sites, including the location and size of each site, shall be submitted to 

the Control Officer with the Dust Control permit-Block permit application.

c. For any project not listed in the Dust Control permit-Block permit application, the 

applicant shall notify the Control Officer in writing at least three working days prior 

to commencing the dust generating operation. The notice shall include the site 

location, size, type of activity, and start date.

404.3 The Dust Control permit-Block permit will cover crews that work for the municipalities, 

governmental agencies, and utilities, including subcontractors. However, municipalities, 

governmental agencies, and utilities shall retain overall authority for dust control on the 

project.

405 APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR DUST-GENERATING 

OPERATIONS: The Control Officer shall take final action on a Dust Control permit application, 

a Dust Control permit revision, or a Dust Control permit-block permit within 14 calendar days of 

the filing of the complete application. The Control Officer shall notify the applicant in writing of 

his approval or denial.

406 TERMS FOR PERMITS FOR DUST-GENERATING OPERATIONS: A Dust Control 

permit issued according to this rule shall be issued for a period of one year from the date of 

issuance. Should the project last longer than one year from the date the permit was issued, the 

permittee shall re-apply for a Dust Control permit at least 14 calendar days prior to the expiration 

date of the original permit.

407 DEFACING, ALTERING, FORGING, COUNTERFEITING, OR FALSIFYING PERMITS 

FOR DUST-GENERATING OPERATIONS: A person shall not willfully deface, alter, forge, 

counterfeit, or falsify any Dust Control permit issued under the provisions of this rule.

408 FEES FOR PERMITS FOR DUST-GENERATING OPERATIONS: No Dust Control permit 

is valid until the applicable Dust Control permit fee has been received and until the Dust Control 

permit is issued by the Control Officer.

409 POSTING OF PERMITS FOR DUST-GENERATING OPERATIONS: A Dust Control 

permit and a Dust Control Plan, as approved by the Control Officer, shall be posted in a 

conspicuous location at the work site, within on-site equipment, or in an on-site vehicle, or shall 

otherwise be kept available on-site at all times.

410 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE: The newly amended provisions of this rule shall become 

effective upon adoption of this rule. An owner and/or operator of a dust generating operation 

200 
subject to this rule shall meet all applicable provisions of this rule upon adoption of the newly 

amended provisions of this rule and according to the following schedule:

410.1 Basic Dust Control Training Class: No later than December 31, 2008, a site 

superintendent or other designated on-site representative of the permit holder and water 

truck and water pull drivers for each site shall have successfully completed the Basic 

Dust Control Training Class, as described in Section 309.1 of this rule.

410.2 Dust Control Coordinator: No later than June 30, 2008, any site and/or any contiguous 

site under common control of five acres or more of disturbed surface area subject to a 

permit shall, at all times during primary dust generating operations related to the purposes 

for which the Dust Control permit was obtained, have on-site at least one individual 

designated by the permit holder as a Dust Control Coordinator, as described in Section 

310 of this rule.

SECTION 500 - MONITORING AND RECORDS 

501 COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION: To determine compliance with the visible emissions 

requirements in Section 303 of this rule and with the stabilization requirements in Section 304 of 

this rule, the following test methods shall be followed: 

501.1 Opacity Observations: 

a. Dust-Generating Operations: Opacity observations of a source engaging in of dust 

generating operations shall be conducted in accordance with Appendix C, Section 3-

Time Averaged Methods of Visual Opacity Determination of Emissions from DustGenerating Operations of these rules. 

b. Unpaved Parking Lot: Opacity observations of any unpaved parking lot shall be 

conducted in accordance with Appendix C, Section 2.1-Test Methods for 

Stabilization for Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots of these rules. 

c. Unpaved Haul/Access Road: Opacity observations of any unpaved haul/access road 

(whether at a work site that is under construction or at a work site that is temporarily 

or permanently inactive) shall be conducted in accordance with Appendix C, Section 

2.1-Test Methods for Stabilization for Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots of 

these rules. 

d. Visible Emissions Beyond The Property Line: Opacity observations of any visible 

emissions beyond the property line shall be conducted in accordance with EPA 

Reference Method 22.

501.2 Stabilization Observations: 

a. Unpaved Parking Lot: Stabilization observations for unpaved parking lots shall be 

conducted in accordance with Appendix C, Section 2.1-Test Methods for 

Stabilization-for Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots of these rules. When 

more than 1 one test method is permitted for a determination, an exceedance of the 

limits established in this rule determined by any of the applicable test methods 

constitutes shall constitute a violation of this rule. 

b. Unpaved Haul/Access Road: Stabilization observations for unpaved haul/access 

roads (whether at a work site that is under construction or at a work site that is 

temporarily or permanently inactive) shall be conducted in accordance with 

Appendix C, Section 2.1-Test Methods for Stabilization-for Unpaved Roads and 

Unpaved Parking Lots of these rule. When more than 1 one test method is permitted 

201 
for a determination, an exceedance of the limits established in this rule determined 

by any of the applicable test methods constitutes shall constitute a violation of this 

rule. 

c. Open Area And Vacant Lot Disturbed Surface Area: Stabilization observations for 

an open area and vacant lot or any disturbed surface area on which no activity is 

occurring (whether at a work site that is under construction, at a work site that is 

temporarily or permanently inactive) shall be conducted in accordance with at least 

one of the techniques described in subsection Section 501.2(c)(1) through subsection

Section 501.2(c)(7) below, as applicable. The owner and/or operator of such inactive 

disturbed surface area shall be considered in violation of this rule if such inactive 

disturbed surface area is not maintained in a manner that meets at least 1 one of the 

standards described in subsection 302.3 Section 304.3 of this rule, as applicable. 

(1) Appendix C, Section 2.3-Test Methods for Stabilization-Visible Soil Crust 

Determination-The Drop Ball/Steel Ball Test of these rules for a visible crust; or 

(2) Appendix C, Section 2.4-Test Methods for Stabilization-Determination of 

Threshold Friction Velocity (TFV)-Sieving Field Procedure of these rules for 

threshold friction velocity (TFV) corrected for non-erodible elements of 100 

cm/second or higher; or 

(3) Appendix C, Section 2.5-Test Methods for Stabilization-Determination of Flat 

Vegetative Cover of these rules for flat vegetation cover (i.e., attached (rooted) 

vegetation or unattached vegetative debris lying on the surface with a 

predominant horizontal orientation that is not subject to movement by wind) that 

is equal to at least 50%; or 

(4) Appendix C, Section 2.6-Test Methods for Stabilization-Determination of 

Standing Vegetative Cover of these rules for standing vegetation cover (i.e., 

vegetation that is attached (rooted) with a predominant vertical orientation) that 

is equal to or greater than 30%; or 

(5) Appendix C, Section 2.6-Test Methods for Stabilization-Determination of 

Standing Vegetative Cover of these rules for standing vegetation cover (i.e., 

vegetation that is attached (rooted) with a predominant vertical orientation) that 

is equal to or greater than 10% and where the threshold friction velocity is equal 

to or greater than 43 cm/second when corrected for non-erodible elements; or 

(6) Appendix C, Section 2.7-Test Methods for Stabilization-Rock Test Method of 

these rules for a percent cover that is equal to or greater than 10%, for nonerodible elements; or 

(7) An alternative and equivalent test method approved in writing by the Control 

Officer and the Administrator of the EPA. 

502 RECORDKEEPING: 

502.1 Any person who conducts dust generating operations that require a Dust Control Plan 

shall keep a daily written log a written record of self-inspection on each day dust 

generating operations are conducted. Self-inspection records shall include daily 

inspections for crusted or damp soil, trackout conditions and clean-up measures, daily 

water usage, and dust suppressant application. Such written record shall also include the 

actual application or implementation of the control measures delineated in the approved 

Dust Control Plan (including records on any street sweeping, water applications, and 

202 
maintenance of trackout control devices, gravel pads, fences, wind barriers, and tarps).

following information:

a. Method, frequency, and intensity of application or implementation of the control 

measures;

b. Method, frequency, and amount of water application to the site;

c. Street sweeping frequency;

d. Types of surface treatments applied to and maintenance of trackout control devices, 

gravel pads, fences, wind barriers, and tarps;

e. Types and results of test methods conducted;

f. If contingency control measures are implemented, actual application or implementation of contingency control measures and why contingency control measures 

were implemented;

g. List of subcontractors’ names and registration numbers updated when changes are 

made; and

h. Names of employee(s) who successfully completed dust control training class(es) 

required by Section 309 of this rule, date of the class(es) that such employee(s) 

successfully completed, and name of the agency/representative who conducted such 

class(es).

502.2 Any person who conducts dust generating operations that do not require a Dust Control 

Plan shall compile and retain records (including records on any street sweeping, water 

applications, and maintenance of trackout control devices, gravel pads, fences, wind 

barriers, and tarps) that provide evidence of control measure application, by indicating 

the type of treatment or control measure, extent of coverage, and date applied. 

502.3 Upon verbal or written request by the Control Officer, the log or the records and 

supporting documentation shall be provided within as soon as possible but no later than

48 hours, excluding weekends. If the Control Officer is at the site where requested 

records are kept, records shall be provided without delay. 

503 RECORDS RETENTION: Copies Any person who conducts dust generating operations that 

require a Dust Control Plan shall retain copies of approved Dust Control Plans, control measures 

implementation records, and all supporting documentation shall be retained for at least six months 

following the termination of the dust generating operation and for at least two years from the date 

such records were initiated. Copies of approved Dust Control Plans, control measures 

implementation records, and all supporting documentation shall be retained for at least 1 year from 

the date such records were initiated. If a person has obtained a Title V Permit and is subject to the 

requirements of this rule, then such person shall retain records required by this rule for at least 5

five years from the date such records are established. 

504 TEST METHODS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE: The test methods listed in this section are 

adopted by reference. These adoptions by reference include no future editions or amendments. 

Copies of the test methods listed in this section are available for review at the Maricopa County 

Environmental Services Department Maricopa County Air Quality Department, 1001 North 

Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ, 85004-1942. 

504.1 ASTM Method C136-96A C136-06 (“Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine 

and Coarse Aggregates”), 1996 2006 edition. 

203 
504.2 ASTM Method D2216-98 D2216-05 (“Standard Test Method for Laboratory 

Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock By Mass”), 1998 2005

edition. 

504.3 ASTM Method D1557-91(1998) D1557-02e1 (“Test Method for Laboratory Compaction 

Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000 ft-lbf/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/m3

)”), 1998

2002 edition. 

504.4 EPA Reference Method 22 (“Visual Determination of Fugitive Emissions from Material 

Sources and Smoke Emissions from Flares”), 2000 edition.

204 
Table 1

Vehicle Use In Open Areas And Vacant Lots

a. An owner and/or operator must implement one of the following control measures:

 1. Restrict trespass by installing signs; or

 2. Install physical barriers such as curbs, fences, gates, posts, signs, shrubs, and/or trees to prevent 

access to the area.

Table 2

Unpaved Parking Lots

a. An owner and/or operator must implement one of the following control measures:

 1. Pave;

 2. Apply and maintain gravel, recycled asphalt, or other suitable material, in compliance with Section 

302.1 of this rule; or

 3. Apply a suitable dust suppressant in compliance with Section 302.1 of this rule.

b. Suggested additional control measure for contingency plans:

 1. Limit vehicle speeds to 15 m.p.h. on the site.

Table 3

Unpaved Haul/Access Roads

a. An owner and/or operator must implement one of the following control measures:

 1. Limit vehicle speed to 15 m.p.h or less and limit vehicular trips to no more than 20 day;

 2. Apply water, so that the surface is visibly moist in compliance with Section 302.2 of this rule;

 3. Pave;

 4. Apply and maintain gravel, recycled asphalt, or other suitable material, in compliance with Section 

302.2 of this rule; or

 5. Apply a suitable dust suppressant, in compliance with Section 302.2 of this rule.

Table 4

Open Areas And Vacant Lots

a. An owner and/or operator must implement one of the following control measures to comply with 

Section 302.3 of this rule:

 1. Pave, apply gravel, or apply a suitable dust suppressant;

 2. Establish vegetative ground cover in sufficient quantity; or

 3. Restore area such that the vegetative ground cover and soil characteristics are similar to adjacent 

or nearby undisturbed native conditions.

Table 5

Disturbed Surface Areas – Pre-Activity Work Practices

a. Before activity begins, an owner and/or operator must implement one of the following control 

measures:

 1. Pre-water site to depth of cuts, allowing time for penetration; or

 2. Phase work to reduce the amount of disturbed surface areas at any one time.

Table 6

Disturbed Surface Areas – Work Practices During Operations

a. During operations, an owner and/or operator must implement one of the following control measures:

 1. Apply water or other suitable dust suppressant, in compliance with Section 301 of this rule;

 2. Apply water as necessary to maintain a soil moisture content at a minimum of 12%, as determined 

by ASTM Method D2216-98 or other equivalent method as approved by the Control Officer and 

the Administrator of EPA. For areas that have an optimum moisture content for compaction of less 

than 12%, as determined by ASTM Method D1557-91 (1998) or other equivalent method

approved by the Control Officer and the Administrator of EPA, maintain at least 70% of the 

optimum soil moisture content; or

205 
 3. Implement (a)(1) or (a)(2) above and construct fences or three-foot to five-foot high wind barriers 

with 50% or less porosity adjacent to roadways or urban areas to reduce the amount of windblown 

material leaving a site.

b. Suggested additional control measure for contingency plans:

 1. Limit vehicle speeds to 15 m.p.h on the work site.

Table 7

Disturbed Surface Areas – Temporary Stabilization (Up To 8 Months)

During Weekends, After Work Hours, And On Holidays

a. An owner and/or operator must implement one of the following control measures to comply with 

Section 302.3 of this rule:

 1. Pave, apply gravel, or apply a suitable dust suppressant;

 2. Establish vegetative ground cover in sufficient quantity; or

 3. Implement (a)(1) or (a)(2), above, and restrict vehicular access to the area.

Table 8

Disturbed Surface Areas – Permanent Stabilization

(Required Within 8 Months Of Ceasing Dust Generating Operations)

a. An owner and/or operator must implement one of the following control measures to comply with 

Section 302.3 of this rule:

 1. Pave, apply gravel, or apply a suitable dust suppressant;

 2. Establish vegetative ground cover in sufficient quantity; or

 3. Restore area such that the vegetative ground cover and soil characteristics are similar to adjacent 

or nearby undisturbed native conditions.

Table 9

Blasting Operations

a. An owner and/or operator must implement all of the following control measures:

 1. In wind gusts above 25 m.p.h., discontinue blasting; and

 2. Pre-water and maintain surface soils in a stabilized condition where support equipment and 

vehicles will operate.

Table 10

Demolition Activities

a. An owner and/or operator must implement all of the following control measures:

 1. Stabilize demolition debris. Apply water to debris immediately following demolition activity; and

 2. Stabilize surrounding area immediately following demolition activity. Water all disturbed soil 

surfaces to establish a crust and prevent wind erosion of soil.

b. Suggested additional control measure for contingency plans:

 1. Thoroughly clean blast debris from paved and other surfaces following demolition activity.

Table 11

Bulk Material Handling Operations

Work Practices For Stacking, Loading, And Unloading Operations

a. An owner and/or operator must implement one of the following control measures:

 1. Spray material with water, as necessary, prior to stacking, loading, and unloading, and/or while 

stacking, loading, and unloading;

 2. Spray material with a dust suppressant other than water, as necessary, prior to stacking, loading, 

and unloading, and/or while stacking, loading, and unloading.

b. Suggested additional control measures for contingency plans:

 1. Pre-water and maintain surface soils in a stabilized condition where support equipment and 

vehicles will operate.

 2. Remove material from the downwind side of the storage pile when safe to do so.

206 
 3. Empty loader bucket slowly and keep loader bucket close to the truck to minimize the drop height 

while dumping.

Table 12

Open Storage Piles

When Not Conducting Stacking, Loading, And Unloading Operations

a. An owner and/or operator must implement one of the following control measures:

 1. Cover open storage piles with tarps, plastic, or other material such that the coverings will not be 

dislodged by wind;

 2. Apply water to maintain a soil moisture content at a minimum of 12%, as determined by ASTM 

Method D2216-98, or other equivalent methods approved by the Control Officer and the 

Administrator of the EPA; or for areas that have an optimum moisture content for compaction of 

less than 12%, as determined by ASTM Method D1557-91 (1998) or other equivalent methods 

approved by the Control Officer and the Administrator of EPA, maintain at least 70% of the soil 

moisture content;

 3. Meet the stabilization requirements described in Section 302.3 of this rule; or

 4. Implement (a)(2) or (a)(3), above, and construct and maintain wind barriers, storage silos, or a 

three-sided enclosure with walls, whose length is no less than equal to the length of the pile, 

whose distance from the pile is no more than twice the height of the pile, whose height is equal to 

the pile height, and whose porosity is no more than 50%.

Table 13

Bulk Material Hauling/Transporting Within The Boundaries Of The Work Site

When Crossing A Paved Area Accessible To The Public 

While Construction Is Underway

a. An owner and/or operator must implement all of the following control measures:

 1. Load all haul trucks such that the freeboard is not less than 3 inches when crossing a paved area 

accessible to the public while construction is underway;

 2. Prevent spillage or loss of bulk material from holes or other openings in the cargo compartment’s 

floor, sides, and/or tailgate(s);

 3. Install a suitable trackout control device that controls and prevents trackout and/or removes 

particulate matter from tires and the exterior surfaces of haul trucks and/or motor vehicles that 

traverse such work site.

b. Suggested additional control measure for contingency plans:

 1. Limit vehicle speeds to 15 m.p.h. on the work site.

Table 14

Bulk Material Hauling/Transporting When On-Site Hauling/Transporting

Within The Boundaries Of The Work Site But Not Crossing

A Paved Area Accessible To The Public

a. An owner and/or operator must implement one of the following control measures:

 1. Limit vehicular speeds to 15 m.p.h. or less while traveling on the work site;

 2. Apply water to the top of the load in compliance with Section 301 of this rule; or

 3. Cover haul trucks with a tarp or other suitable closure.

Table 15

Bulk Material Hauling/Transporting Off-Site Hauling/Transporting

Onto Paved Areas Accessible To The Public

a. An owner and/or operator must implement all of the following control measures:

 1. Cover haul trucks with a tarp or other suitable closure;

 2. Load all haul trucks such that the freeboard is not less than 3 inches;

 3. Prevent spillage or loss of bulk material from holes or other openings in the cargo compartment’s 

floor, sides, and/or tailgate(s); and

 4. Before the empty haul truck leaves the site, clean the interior of the cargo compartment or cover 

the cargo compartment.

207 
Table 16

Clean Up Of Trackout, Carry Out, Spillage, And Erosion

a. An owner and/or operator must implement one of the following control measures:

 1. Operate a street sweeper or wet broom with sufficient water, at the speed recommended by the 

manufacturer and at the frequency(ies) described in Section 308.3 of this rule; or

 2. Manually sweep up deposits in compliance with Section 308.3 of this rule.

Table 17

Trackout Control

a. An owner and/or operator must implement all of the following control measures:

 1. Immediately clean up trackout that exceeds 50 feet. All other trackout must be cleaned up at the 

end of the workday; and

 2. In accordance with Section 308.3(a), prevent trackout by implementing one of the following 

control measures:

 i. At all access points, install a grizzly or wheel wash system.

 ii. At all access points, install a gravel pad at least 30 feet wide, 50 feet long, and 6 inches deep, 

in compliance with Section 213 of this rule.

 iii. Pave starting from the point of intersection with a paved area accessible to the public and 

extending for a centerline distance of at least 100 feet and a width of at least 20 feet.

b. Suggested additional control measures for contingency plans:

 1. Clearly establish and enforce traffic patterns to route traffic over selected trackout control devices.

 2. Limit site accessibility to routes with trackout control devices in place by installing effective 

barriers on unprotected routes.

 3. Pave construction activity roadways as soon as possible.

Table 18

Weed Abatement By Discing Or Blading

a. An owner and/or operator must implement all of the following control measures:

 1. Pre-water site;

 2. Apply water while weed abatement by discing or blading is occurring; and

 3. Stabilize area by implementing either one of the following:

 i. Pave, apply gravel, apply water, or apply a suitable dust suppressant, in compliance with 

Section 302.3 of this rule, after weed abatement by discing or blading occurs; or

 ii. Establish vegetative ground cover in sufficient quantity, in compliance with Section 302.3 of 

this rule, after weed abatement by discing or blading occurs.

b. Suggested additional control measures for contingency plans

 1. Limit vehicle speeds to 15 m.p.h. during discing and blading operations.

Table 19

Easements, Rights-Of-Way, And Access Roads For Utilities (Electricity, Natural Gas, Oil, Water, And Gas 

Transmission) Associated With Sources

That Have A Non-Title V Permit, A Title V Permit,

And/Or A General Permit Under These Rules

a. An owner and/or operator must implement one of the following control measures:

 1. Inside the PM10 nonattainment area, restrict vehicular speeds to 15 m.p.h. and vehicular trips to 

no more than 20 per day per road;

 2. Outside the PM10 nonattainment area, restrict vehicular trips to no more than 20 per day per road; 

or

 3. Implement control measures, as described in Table 3 (Unpaved Haul/Access Roads) of this rule.

Note: For Tables 20 & 21, control measures in [brackets] are to be applied only to dust generating 

operations outside the nonattainment area.

Table 20

208 
Wind Event Control Measures-Dust Generating Operations

a. An owner and/or operator must implement one of the following control measures:

 1. Cease dust generating operations for the duration of the condition/situation/event when the 60-

minute average wind speed is greater than 25 m.p.h. and if dust generating operations are ceased 

for the remainder of the work day, stabilize the area;

 2. Apply water or other suitable dust suppressant at least twice [once] per hour, in compliance with 

Section 301 of this rule;

 3. Apply water as necessary to maintain a soil moisture content at a minimum of 12%, as determined 

by ASTM Method D2216-98 or other equivalent method as approved by the Control Officer and 

the Administrator of EPA. For areas that have an optimum moisture content for compaction of less 

than 12%, as determined by ASTM Method D1557-91 (1998) or other equivalent method 

approved by the Control Officer and the Administrator of EPA, maintain at least 70% of the 

optimum soil moisture content; or

 4. Implement (a)(2) or (a)(3), above, and construct fences or three-foot to five-foot high wind 

barriers with 50% or less porosity adjacent to roadways or urban areas to reduce the amount of 

wind-blown material leaving a site.

Table 21

Wind Event Control Measures-Temporary Disturbed Surface Areas

(After Work Hours, Weekends, Holidays)

a. An owner and/or operator must implement one of the following control measures:

 1. Uniformly apply and maintain surface gravel or dust suppressants, in compliance with Section 

302.3 of this rule;

 2. Apply water to all disturbed surface areas 3 times per day. If there is any evidence of wind-blown 

dust, increase watering frequency to a minimum of 4 times per day;

 3. Apply water on open storage piles at least twice [once] per hour, in compliance with Section 302.3 

of this rule; or

 4. Cover open storage piles with tarps, plastic, or other material such that wind will not remove the 

covering(s).

b. Suggested additional control measures for contingency plans:

 1. Implement a combination of the control measures listed in (a)(1) through (a)(4), above.

REGULATION III - CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS 

RULE 310.01 

FUGITIVE DUST FROM 

OPEN AREAS, VACANT LOTS, UNPAVED PARKING LOTS, AND UNPAVED ROADWAYS

NON-TRADITIONAL SOURCES OF FUGITIVE DUST

INDEX 

SECTION 100 - GENERAL 

101 PURPOSE 

102 APPLICABILITY 

103 EXEMPTIONS

SECTION 200 - DEFINITIONS 

201 ANIMAL WASTE

202 AREA A

203 AREA ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC

201204 BULK MATERIAL 

202205 CHEMICAL/ORGANIC STABILIZER 

203206 CONTROL MEASURE 

204207 DISTURBED SURFACE AREA 

208 DUST GENERATING OPERATION

205209 DUST SUPPRESSANT 

210 EMERGENCY

209 
211 EMERGENCY ACTIVITY

212 FEED LANE ACCESS AREAS

206 FEEDLOTS AND/OR LIVESTOCK AREAS

207213 FUGITIVE DUST 

214 GRAVEL PAD

215 GRIZZLY

216 LIVESTOCK ACTIVITIES

208217 MOTOR VEHICLE 

218 NON-TRADITIONAL SOURCE OF FUGITIVE DUST

209219 NORMAL FARM CULTURAL PRACTICE 

210220 OFF-ROAD VEHICLE 

211221 OPEN AREAS AND VACANT LOTS 

212222 OWNER AND/OR OPERATOR 

213223 PAVE 

214224 PM10 NONATTAINMENT AREA 

225 PROPERTY LINE

215226 PUBLIC ROADWAYS 

227 TRACKOUT/CARRYOUT

228 TRACKOUT CONTROL DEVICE

229 UNPAVED ACCESS CONNECTIONS

216230 UNPAVED PARKING LOT 

217231 UNPAVED ROADWAY (INCLUDING ALLEYS) 

218232 VACANT LOT 

SECTION 300 – STANDARDS 

301 VEHICLE USE IN OPEN AREAS AND VACANT LOTS GENERAL 

REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-TRADITIONAL SOURCES OF FUGITIVE DUST

302 OPEN AREAS AND VACANT LOTS CONTROL MEASURES FOR NONTRADITIONAL SOURCES OF FUGITIVE DUST

303 UNPAVED PARKING LOTS 

304 UNPAVED ROADWAYS (INCLUDING ALLEYS)

305 FEEDLOTS AND/OR LIVESTOCK AREAS

306 EROSION-CAUSED DEPOSITION OF BULK MATERIALS ONTO PAVED 

SURFACES

307 EASEMENTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY, AND ACCESS ROADS FOR UTILITIES 

(ELECTRICITY, NATURAL GAS, OIL, WATER, AND GAS TRANSMISSION)

SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS (NOT APPLICABLE) 

SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS 

501 STABILIZATION OBSERVATIONS COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION

502 RECORDKEEPING 

503 RECORDS RETENTION 

210 
Adopted 06/16/99 

Revised 02/16/00 

Revised 02/17/05 

 Revised 03/26/08 

MARICOPA COUNTY 

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS 

REGULATION III – CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS 

RULE 310.01 

FUGITIVE DUST FROM 

OPEN AREAS, VACANT LOTS, UNPAVED PARKING LOTS, AND UNPAVED ROADWAYS

NON-TRADITIONAL SOURCES OF FUGITIVE DUST

SECTION 100 – GENERAL 

101 PURPOSE: To limit the emission of particulate matter into the ambient air from open areas, 

vacant lots, unpaved parking lots, and unpaved roadways which are not regulated by Rule 310-

Fugitive Dust of these rules, and which do not require a permit nor a Dust Control Plan. The effect 

of this rule shall be to fine particulate matter (PM10) entrained into the ambient air as a result of 

the impact of human activities by requiring measures to prevent, reduce, or mitigate particulate 

matter emissions. To minimize the amount of fugitive dust entrained into the ambient air from 

non-traditional sources of fugitive dust by requiring measures to prevent, reduce, or mitigate 

fugitive dust emissions. 

102 APPLICABILITY: The provisions of this rule shall apply to open areas, vacant lots, unpaved 

parking lots, and unpaved roadways which are not regulated by Rule 310-Fugitive Dust of these 

rules and which do not require a permit nor a Dust Control Plan. In addition, the provisions of this 

rule shall apply to any open area or vacant lot that is not defined as agricultural land and is not 

used for agricultural purposes according to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 42-12151 and 

A.R.S. § 42-12152. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to normal farm cultural practices 

according to A.R.S. § 49-457 and A.R.S. § 49-504.4.

102.1 The provisions of this rule shall apply to non-traditional sources of fugitive dust that are 

conducted in Maricopa County, except for those dust generating operations listed in 

Section 103 of this rule.

102.2 The provisions of this rule shall apply to any open area or vacant lot that is not defined as 

agricultural land and is not used for agricultural purposes according to Arizona Revised 

Statutes (A.R.S.) § 42-12151 and A.R.S. § 42-12152.

103 EXEMPTIONS:

103.1 The provisions of this rule shall not apply to normal farm cultural practices according to 

A.R.S. § 49-457 and A.R.S. § 49-504.4.

103.2 The provisions of this rule shall not apply to dust generating operations that are subject to 

the standards and/or requirements described in Rule 310-Fugitive Dust from Dust 

Generating Operations of these rules.

103.3 The provisions of this rule shall not apply to emergency activities that may disturb the 

soil conducted by any utility or government agency in order to prevent public injury or to 

restore critical utilities to functional status.

103.4 An area is considered to be a disturbed surface area until the activity that caused the 

disturbance has been completed and the disturbed surface area meets the standards 

described in this rule.

211 
103.5 Establishing initial landscapes without the use of mechanized equipment, conducting 

landscape maintenance without the use of mechanized equipment, and playing on or 

maintaining a field used for non-motorized sports shall not be considered a dust 

generating operation. However, establishing initial landscapes without the use of 

mechanized equipment and conducting landscape maintenance without the use of 

mechanized equipment shall not include grading, or trenching, performed to establish 

initial landscapes or to redesign existing landscapes.

103.6 Fugitive dust does not include particulate matter emitted directly from the exhaust of 

motor vehicles and other internal combustion engines, from portable brazing, soldering, 

or welding equipment, and from piledrivers, and does not include emissions from process 

and combustion sources that are subject to other rules in Regulation III (Control of Air 

Contaminants) of these rules.

SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS: See Rule 100-General Provisions and Definitions of these rules for 

definitions of terms that are used but not specifically defined in this rule. For the purpose of this 

rule, the following definitions shall apply: 

201 ANIMAL WASTE – Any animal excretions and mixtures containing animal excretions.

202 AREA A – As defined in A.R.S. § 49-541(1), the area in Maricopa County delineated as follows:

Township 8 North, Range 2 East and Range 3 East

Township 7 North, Range 2 West through Range 5 East

Township 6 North, Range 5 West through Range 6 East

Township 5 North, Range 5 West through Range 7 East

Township 4 North, Range 5 West through Range 8 East

Township 3 North, Range 5 West through Range 8 East

Township 2 North, Range 5 West through Range 8 East

Township 1 North, Range 5 West through Range 7 East

Township 1 South, Range 5 West through Range 7 East

Township 2 South, Range 5 West through Range 7 East

Township 3 South, Range 5 West through Range 1 East

Township 4 South, Range 5 West through Range 1 East

203 AREA ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC – Any parking lot or public roadway that can be 

approached, entered, or used for public travel primarily for purposes unrelated to the dust 

generating operation.

201204 BULK MATERIAL – Any material, including, but not limited to, the following materials earth, 

rock, silt, sediment, sand, gravel, soil, fill, aggregate less than 2 inches in length or diameter (i.e., 

aggregate base course (ABC)), earth, soil, dirt, mud, demolition debris, cotton, trash, cinders, 

pumice, rock, saw dust, feeds, grains, fertilizers, fluff (from shredders), and dry concrete, that are 

capable of producing fugitive dust.: 

204.1 Earth

204.2 Rock

204.3 Silt

204.4 Sediment

204.5 Sand

204.6 Gravel

204.7 Soil

204.8 Fill

204.9 Aggregate less than 2 inches in length or diameter (i.e., aggregate base course [ABC]

204.10 Dirt

204.11 Mud

204.12 Demolition debris

212 
204.13 Cotton

204.14 Trash

204.15 Cinders

204.16 Pumice

204.17 Saw dust

204.18 Feeds

204.19 Grains

204.20 Fertilizers

204.21 Fluff from shredders

204.22 Dry concrete

202205 CHEMICAL/ORGANIC STABILIZER – Any non-toxic chemical or organic dust suppressant, 

other than water, which meets any specifications, criteria, or tests required by any Federal, State, 

or local water agency and is not prohibited for use by any applicable law, rule, or regulation. 

203206 CONTROL MEASURE – A technique, practice, or procedure used to prevent or minimize the 

generation, emission, entrainment, suspension, and/or airborne transport of fugitive dust. 

204207 DISTURBED SURFACE AREA – A portion of the earth's surface (or material placed 

thereupon) which or material placed on the earth’s surface that has been physically moved, 

uncovered, destabilized, or otherwise modified from its undisturbed native condition, thereby 

increasing the potential for the emission of fugitive dust. if the potential for the emission of 

fugitive dust is increased by the movement, destabilization, or modification. For the purpose of 

this rule, an area is considered to be a disturbed surface area until the activity that caused the 

disturbance has been completed and the disturbed surface area meets the standards described in 

Section 300 of this rule.

208 DUST GENERATING OPERATION – Any activity capable of generating fugitive dust, 

including but not limited to, the following activities:

208.1 Land clearing, maintenance, and land cleanup using mechanized equipment

208.2 Earthmoving

208.3 Weed abatement by discing or blading

208.4 Excavating

208.5 Construction

208.6 Demolition

208.7 Bulk material handling (e.g., bulk material hauling and/or transporting, bulk material 

stacking, loading, and unloading operations)

208.8 Storage and/or transporting operations (e.g., open storage piles, bulk material hauling 

and/or transporting, bulk material stacking, loading, and unloading operations)

208.9 Operation of any outdoor equipment

208.10 Operation of motorized machinery

208.11 Establishing and/or using staging areas, parking areas, material storage areas, or access 

routes to and from a site

208.12 Establishing and/or using unpaved haul/access roads to, from, and within a site

208.13 Disturbed surface areas associated with a site

208.14 Installing initial landscapes using mechanized equipment

205209 DUST SUPPRESSANT – Water, hygroscopic material, solution of water and chemical 

surfactant, foam, non-toxic chemical stabilizer, or any other dust palliative, which is not prohibited 

for ground surface application by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), or any applicable law, rule, or regulation, as a 

treatment material for reducing fugitive dust emissions. 

210 EMERGENCY – A situation arising from sudden and reasonably unforeseeable events beyond 

the control of the source, including acts of God, which situation requires immediate corrective 

action to restore normal operation, and that causes the source to exceed a limitation in this rule, 

213 
due to unavoidable increases in emissions attributable to the emergency. An emergency shall not 

include any noncompliance due to improperly designed equipment, lack of preventative 

maintenance, careless or improper operation, or operator error.

211 EMERGENCY ACTIVITY – Repairs that are a result of an emergency which prevents or 

hinders the provision of electricity, the distribution/collection of water, and the availability of 

other utilities due to unforeseen circumstances that are beyond the routine maintenance and repair 

due to normal wear conducted by a utility or municipality.

212 FEED LANE ACCESS AREAS – Roads providing access from the feed preparation areas to and 

including feed lane areas at a livestock activity. These access roads are typically used to distribute 

feed from feed trucks to the animals.

206 FEEDLOTS AND/OR LIVESTOCK AREAS – Any area on which an operation directly related to 

feeding animals, displaying animals, racing animals, exercising animals, and/or for any other such 

activity exists.

207213 FUGITIVE DUST – The particulate matter not collected by a capture system, that is entrained in 

the ambient air and is caused from human and/or natural activities, such as, but not limited to, 

movement of soil, vehicles, equipment, blasting, and wind. For the purpose of this rule, fugitive 

dust does not include particulate matter emitted directly from the exhaust of motor vehicles and 

other internal combustion engines, from portable brazing, soldering, or welding equipment, and 

from piledrivers, and does not include emissions from process and combustion sources that are 

subject to other rules in Regulation III (Control Of Air Contaminants) of these rules.

214 GRAVEL PAD – A layer of washed gravel, rock, or crushed rock that is at least one inch or 

larger in diameter, that is maintained at the point of intersection of a paved area accessible to the 

public and a work site entrance to dislodge mud, dirt, and/or debris from the tires of motor 

vehicles and/or haul trucks, prior to leaving the work site. A gravel pad shall consist of one inch to 

3 inches rough diameter, clean, well-graded gravel or crushed rock. Minimum dimensions must be 

30 feet wide by 3 inches deep, and, at minimum, 50 feet long or the length of the longest haul 

truck, whichever is greater.

215 GRIZZLY – A device (i.e., rails, pipes, or grates) used to dislodge mud, dirt, and/or debris from 

the tires and undercarriage of motor vehicles and/or haul trucks prior to leaving the work site.

216 LIVESTOCK ACTIVITIES – Any activity directly related to feeding animals, displaying 

animals, racing animals, exercising animals, and/or for any other such activity, including but not 

limited to, livestock arenas, horse arenas, and feed lots. 

208217 MOTOR VEHICLE – A self-propelled vehicle for use on the public roads and highways of the 

State of Arizona and required to be registered under the Arizona State Uniform Motor Vehicle 

Act, including any non-motorized attachments, such as but not limited to, trailers or other 

conveyances which are connected to or propelled by the actual motorized portion of the vehicle. 

218 NON-TRADITIONAL SOURCE OF FUGITIVE DUST – A source of fugitive dust that is 

located at a source that does not require any permit under these rules. The following nontraditional sources of fugitive dust are subject to the standards and/or requirements described in 

Rule 310.01-Fugitive Dust from Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive Dust of these rules:

218.1 Vehicle use in open areas and vacant lots

218.2 Open areas and vacant lots

218.3 Unpaved parking lots

218.4 Unpaved roadways (including alleys)

218.5 Livestock activities

218.6 Erosion-caused deposition of bulk materials onto paved surfaces

214 
218.7 Easements, rights-of-way, and access roads for utilities (electricity, natural gas, oil, 

water, and gas transmission)

209219 NORMAL FARM CULTURAL PRACTICE – All activities by the owner, lessee, agent, 

independent contractor, and/or supplier conducted on any facility for the production of crops 

and/or nursery plants. Disturbances of the field surface caused by turning under stalks, tilling, 

leveling, planting, fertilizing, or harvesting are included in this definition. 

210220 OFF-ROAD VEHICLE – Any self-propelled conveyance specifically designed for off-road use, 

including, but not limited to, off-road or all-terrain equipment, trucks, cars, motorcycles, 

motorbikes, or motorbuggies. 

211221 OPEN AREAS AND VACANT LOTS – Any of the following described in Section 211.1

Section 221.1 through Section 211.4 Section 221.3 of this rule. For the purpose of this rule, vacant 

portions of residential or commercial lots that are immediately adjacent and owned and/or 

operated by the same individual or entity are considered one vacant open area or vacant lot. 

211.1221.1 An unsubdivided or undeveloped tract of land adjoining a developed or a partially 

developed residential, industrial, institutional, governmental, or commercial area. 

211.2221.2 A subdivided residential, industrial, institutional, governmental, or commercial lot that 

contains no approved or permitted buildings or structures of a temporary or permanent 

nature. 

211.3221.3 A partially developed residential, industrial, institutional, governmental, or commercial 

lot. 

211.4 A tract of land, in the PM10 nonattainment area, adjoining agricultural property.

212222 OWNER AND/OR OPERATOR – Any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or 

supervises a fugitive dust source subject to the requirements of this rule. 

213223 PAVE – To apply and maintain asphalt, concrete, or other similar material to a roadway surface 

(i.e., asphaltic concrete, concrete pavement, chip seal, or rubberized asphalt). 

214224 PM10 NONATTAINMENT AREA – An area designated by the EPA as exceeding national 

ambient air quality standards based upon data collected thru air quality monitoring. The 

geographical boundary of Maricopa County's PM10 nonattainment area is defined as the rectangle 

determined by and including the following townships and ranges: T6N, R3W; T6N, R7E; T2S, 

R3W; T2S, R7E; and T1N, R8E. Maricopa County's PM10 nonattainment area includes the 

following cities: Surprise, Peoria, Glendale, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, Mesa, Gilbert, Chandler, 

Avondale, Buckeye, and Goodyear. 

225 PROPERTY LINE – The boundaries of an area in which either a person causing the emission or 

a person allowing the emission has the legal use or possession of the property. Where such 

property is divided into one or more sub-tenancies, the property line(s) shall refer to the 

boundaries dividing the areas of all sub-tenancies.

215226 PUBLIC ROADWAYS – Any roadways that are open to public travel. 

227 TRACKOUT/CARRYOUT – Any and all bulk materials that adhere to and agglomerate on the 

surfaces of motor vehicles, haul trucks, and/or equipment (including tires) and that have fallen or 

been deposited onto a paved area accessible to the public.

228 TRACKOUT CONTROL DEVICE – A gravel pad, grizzly, wheel wash system, or a paved 

area, located at the point of intersection of an unpaved area and a paved area accessible to the 

public that controls or prevents vehicular trackout.

215 
229 UNPAVED ACCESS CONNECTIONS – Any unpaved road connection with a paved pubic 

road.

216230 UNPAVED PARKING LOT – Any area larger than 5,000 square feet that is not paved and that 

is used for parking, maneuvering, material handling, or storing motor vehicles and equipment. An 

unpaved parking lot includes, but is not limited to, automobile impound yards, wrecking yards, 

automobile dismantling yards, salvage yards, material handling yards, and storage yards. For the 

purpose of this definition, maneuvering shall not include military maneuvers or exercises 

conducted on federal facilities.

217231 UNPAVED ROADWAY (INCLUDING ALLEYS) – A road that is not paved and that is owned 

by Federal, State, county, municipal, or other governmental or quasi-governmental agencies. For 

the purpose of this rule, an unpaved roadway (including alleys) is not a horse trail, hiking path, 

bicycle path, or other similar path used exclusively for purposes other than travel by motor 

vehicles. An unpaved roadway (including alleys) includes designated or opened trail systems and 

service roads regardless of surface composition and any other property dedicated or otherwise 

reserved for public or private street uses, as evidenced by a recorded document, or having thereon 

a public easement for such use.

218232 VACANT LOT – The definition of vacant lot is included in Section 211 Section 221-Definition 

of Open Areas and Vacant Lots of this rule. 

SECTION 300 – STANDARDS 

301 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-TRADITIONAL SOURCES OF FUGITIVE 

DUST:

301.1 An owner and/or operator of a non-traditional source of fugitive dust shall be subject to 

the standards and/or requirements described in this rule. Failure to comply with any such 

standards and/or requirements is deemed a violation of this rule.

301.2 When an owner and/or operator of a non-traditional source of fugitive dust fails to 

stabilize disturbed surfaces of vacant lots as required in Section 302.4 and Section 302.5 

of this rule, the Control Officer shall commence enforcement of those rule provisions 

regarding the stabilization of disturbed surfaces of vacant lots that include the following:

a. Reasonable written notice to the owner or the owner’s authorized agent or the 

owner’s statutory agent that the unpaved disturbed surface of a vacant lot is required 

to be stabilized. The notice shall be given not less than 30 days before the day set for 

compliance and shall include a legal description of the property and the estimated 

cost to the county for the stabilization if the owner does not comply. The notice shall 

be either personally served or mailed by certified mail to the owner’s statutory agent, 

to the owner at the owner’s last known address or to the address to which the tax bill 

for the property was last mailed.

b. Authority to enter upon any said land/property where such non-traditional source of 

fugitive dust exists/where such disturbed surface area exists and to take remedial 

and/or corrective action as may be deemed appropriate to cope with and relieve, 

reduce, remedy, and/or stabilize such non-traditional source of fugitive dust/such 

disturbed surface area. Any cost incurred in connection with any such remedial or 

corrective action by the Maricopa County Air Quality Department or any person 

acting for the Maricopa County Air Quality Department shall be reimbursed by the 

owner and/or operator of such non-traditional source of fugitive dust.

302 CONTROL MEASURES FOR NON-TRADITIONAL SOURCES OF FUGITIVE DUST:

216 
302.1 When engaged in the activities described in Section 302.4 through Section 302.10 of this 

rule, the owner and/or operator of a non-traditional source of fugitive dust shall 

implement control measures as described in Section 302.4 through Section 302.10 of this 

rule, as applicable.

302.2 Control measures shall be implemented to achieve the visible emissions requirements, as 

required for each activity and the compliance determination in Section 501 of this rule.

302.3 Failure to implement control measures as required by this rule, as applicable, and/or 

failure to maintain stabilization of a non-traditional source of fugitive dust with adequate 

surface crusting to prevent wind erosion as measured by the requirements in this rule 

shall be deemed a violation of this rule.

302.4 Vehicle Use In Open Areas and Vacant Lots: The owner and/or operator of a nontraditional source of fugitive dust that involves vehicle use in open areas and vacant lots 

shall be subject to the visible emissions requirements described in Section 302.4(a) of this 

rule and, unless otherwise specified and/or required, shall comply with the control 

measures described in Section 302.4(b) of this rule and the additional requirements 

described in Section 302.4(c) of this rule.

a. Visible Emissions Requirements: The owner and/or operator of a non-traditional 

source of fugitive dust that involves vehicle use in open areas and vacant lots shall 

not cause, suffer, or allow visible emissions of particulate matter, including fugitive 

dust, beyond the property line within which the emissions are generated.

b. Control Measures:

(1) Prevent motor vehicle and/or off-road vehicle trespassing, parking, and/or 

access by installing barriers, curbs, fences, gates, posts, shrubs, trees, or other 

effective control measures;

(2) Prevent motor vehicle and/or off-road vehicle trespassing, parking, and/or 

access by posting that consists of one of the following:

(a) A sign written in compliance with ordinance(s) of local, County, State, or 

Federal sign standards.

(b) An order of a government land management agency.

(c) Most current maps approved by a government land management agency.

(d) Virtual posting a government land management agency.

(3) Uniformly apply and maintain surface gravel or chemical/organic stabilizers to 

all areas disturbed by motor vehicles and/or off-road vehicles; or

(4) Apply and maintain an alternative control measure approved in writing by the 

Control Officer and the Administrator.

c. Additional Requirements:

(1) If open areas and vacant lots are 0.10 acre (4,356 square feet) or larger and have 

a cumulative of 500 square feet or more that are disturbed by being driven over 

and/or used by motor vehicles, by off-road vehicles, or for material dumping, 

then the owner and/or operator shall implement one or more of the control 

measures described in Section 302.4(b) of this rule within 60 calendar days 

217 
following the initial discovery by the Control Officer of disturbance or vehicle 

use on open areas and vacant lots.

(2) Within 30 calendar days following the initial discovery by the Control Officer of 

disturbance or vehicle use on open areas and vacant lots, the owner and/or 

operator shall provide in writing to the Control Officer a description and date of 

the control measure(s) to be implemented to prevent such disturbance or vehicle 

use on open areas and vacant lots.

(3) The owner and/or operator shall implement all control measures necessary to 

limit the disturbance or vehicle use on open areas and vacant lots in accordance 

with the requirements of this rule. Control measure(s) shall be considered 

effectively implemented when the open areas and vacant lots achieve the 

compliance determinations described in Section 302.4(a) of this rule.

(4) Once a control measure in Section 302.4(b) of this rule has been effectively 

implemented, then such open area or vacant lot is subject to the requirements of 

Section 302.5-Open Areas and Vacant Lots of this rule.

(5) Use of or parking on open areas and vacant lots by the owner and/or operator of 

such open areas and vacant lots shall not be considered vehicle use in open areas 

and vacant lots and shall not be subject to the requirements of Section 302.4(b) 

and Section 302.4(c)(1) through Section 302.4(c)(4) of this rule. Such open 

areas and vacant lots shall still achieve the compliance determinations described 

in Section 501 of this rule.

(6) Establishing initial landscapes without the use of mechanized equipment or 

conducting landscape maintenance without the use of mechanized equipment 

shall not be considered vehicle use in open areas and vacant lots and shall not be 

subject to the requirements of Section 302.4(b) and Section 302.4(c)(1) through 

Section 302.4(c)(4) of this rule. Such open areas and vacant lots shall still 

achieve the compliance determinations described in Section 501 of this rule.

302.5 Open Areas and Vacant Lots: The owner and/or operator of a non-traditional source of 

fugitive dust that involves open areas and vacant lots shall be subject to the visible 

emissions requirements described in Section 302.5(a) of this rule and, unless otherwise 

specified and/or required, shall comply with the control measures described in Section 

302.5(b) of this rule and the additional requirements described in Section 302.5(c) of this 

rule.

a. Visible Emissions Requirements: The owner and/or operator of a non-traditional 

source of fugitive dust that involves open areas and vacant lots shall not cause, 

suffer, or allow visible emissions of particulate matter, including fugitive dust, 

beyond the property line within which the emissions are generated.

b. Control Measures:

(1) Establish vegetative ground cover on all disturbed surface areas. Such control 

measure(s) must be maintained and reapplied, if necessary. Stabilization shall be 

achieved, per this control measure, within eight months after the control 

measure has been implemented.

(2) Apply a dust suppressant to all disturbed surface areas.

(3) Restore all disturbed surface areas within 60 calendar days following the initial 

discovery by the Control Officer of the disturbance, such that the vegetative 

218 
ground cover and soil characteristics are similar to adjacent or nearby 

undisturbed native conditions. Such control measure(s) must be maintained and 

reapplied, if necessary. Stabilization shall be achieved, per such control 

measure, within eight months after such control measure has been implemented.

(4) Uniformly apply and maintain surface gravel.

(5) Apply and maintain an alternative control measure approved in writing by the 

Control Officer and the Administrator.

c. Additional Requirements:

(1) If open areas and vacant lots are 0.10 acre (4,356 square feet) or larger and have 

a cumulative of 500 square feet or more that are disturbed and if such disturbed 

area remains unoccupied, unused, vacant, or undeveloped for more than 15 days, 

then the owner and/or operator shall implement one or more of the control 

measures described in Section 302.5(b) of this rule within 60 calendar days 

following the initial discovery by the Control Officer of the disturbance on the 

open areas and vacant lots.

(2) Within 30 calendar days following the initial discovery by the Control Officer of 

the disturbance on the open areas and vacant lots, the owner and/or operator 

shall provide in writing to the Control Officer a description and date of the 

control measure(s) to be implemented.

(3) Control measure(s) shall be considered effectively implemented when the 

disturbance on the open areas and vacant lots achieves the compliance 

determinations described in Section 302.5(a) of this rule.

302.6 Unpaved Parking Lots: The owner and/or operator of a non-traditional source of 

fugitive dust that involves unpaved parking lots shall be subject to the requirements 

described in Section 302.6(a) of this rule and, unless otherwise specified and/or required, 

shall comply with one of the control measures described in Section 302.6(b) of this rule 

and the additional requirements described in Section 302.6(c) of this rule.

a. Visible Emissions Requirements and Stabilization Requirements:

(1) The owner and/or operator of a non-traditional source of fugitive dust that 

involves unpaved parking lots shall not cause, suffer, or allow visible emissions 

of particulate matter, including fugitive dust, beyond the property line within 

which the emissions are generated.

(2) The owner and/or operator of a non-traditional source of fugitive dust that 

involves unpaved parking lots shall not cause or allow visible fugitive dust 

emissions to exceed 20% opacity and either Section 302.6(a)(2)(a) or Section 

302.6(a)(2)(b) of this rule:

(a) Shall not allow silt loading equal to or greater than 0.33 oz/ft2

; or

(b) Shall not allow the silt content to exceed 8%.

b. Control Measures:

(1) Pave;

219 
(2) Apply dust suppressants other than water and install, maintain, and use a 

suitable trackout control device that controls and prevents trackout and/or 

removes particulate matter from tires and the exterior surfaces of motor vehicles 

that traverse the site;

(3) Uniformly apply and maintain surface gravel; or

(4) Apply water and install, maintain, and use a suitable trackout control device that 

controls and prevents trackout and/or removes particulate matter from tires and 

the exterior surfaces of motor vehicles that traverse the site.

c. Additional Requirements:

(1) The owner and/or operator of an unpaved parking lot shall implement one of the 

control measures described in Section 302.6(b) of this rule on any surface 

area(s) of the lot on which vehicles enter, park, and exit.

(a) If an unpaved parking lot is utilized for a period of 35 days or less during 

the calendar year, the owner and/or operator shall implement one or more of 

the control measures described in Section 302.6(b) of this rule during the 

period that the unpaved parking lot is utilized for vehicle parking and shall 

restrict vehicle access to only those areas upon which a control measure has 

been implemented.

(b) If an unpaved parking lot is utilized for more than 35 days during the 

calendar year, the owner and/or operator shall implement one or more of the 

control measures described in Section 302.6(b)(1) through Section 

302.6(b)(3) of this rule during the period that the unpaved parking lot is 

utilized for vehicle parking and shall restrict vehicle access to only those 

areas upon which a control measure has been implemented.

(2) Control measure(s) shall be considered effectively implemented when the 

unpaved parking lot achieves the compliance determinations described in 

Section 302.6(a) of this rule.

(3) If trackout occurs, the owner and/or operator shall repair and/or replace the 

control measure(s) and shall clean-up immediately such trackout from paved 

areas accessible to the public including curbs, gutters, and sidewalks when 

trackout extends a cumulative distance of 25 linear feet or more and at the end 

of the day for all other trackout.

(4) Parking, maneuvering, ingress, and egress areas at developments other than 

residential buildings with four or fewer units shall be maintained with one or 

more of the following dustproof paving methods:

(a) Asphaltic concrete.

(b) Cement concrete.

(c) Penetration treatment of bituminous material and seal coat of bituminous 

binder and a mineral aggregate.

(d) A stabilization method approved in writing by the Control Officer and the 

Administrator.

220 
(5) Parking, maneuvering, ingress, and egress areas 3,000 square feet or more in 

size at residential buildings with four or fewer units shall be maintained with a 

paving or stabilization method authorized by the county by code, ordinance, or 

permit.

302.7 Unpaved Roadways (Including Alleys): The owner and/or operator of unpaved 

roadways (including alleys) that are used by 150 vehicle trips or more per day in the 

PM10 nonattainment area shall be subject to the stabilization requirements described in 

Section 302.7(a) of this rule and, unless otherwise specified and/or required, shall comply 

with one of the control measures described in Section 302.7(b) of this rule and the 

additional requirements described in Section 302.7(c) of this rule.

a. Stabilization Requirements: The owner and/or operator of unpaved roadways 

(including alleys) shall not cause or allow visible fugitive dust emissions to exceed 

20% opacity and either Section 302.7(a)(1) or Section 302.7(a)(2) of this rule:

(1) Shall not allow silt loading equal to or greater than 0.33 oz/ft2

; or

(2) Shall not allow the silt content to exceed 6%.

b. Control Measures:

(1) Pave;

(2) Apply dust suppressants other than water; or

(3) Uniformly apply and maintain surface gravel.

c. Additional Requirements:

(1) If a person allows 150 vehicle trips or more per day on an unpaved roadway 

(including an alley) in the PM10 nonattainment area, then such person shall first 

implement one of the control measures described in Section 302.7(b) of this 

rule.

(2) A person, who allows 150 vehicle trips or more per day on an unpaved roadway 

(including an alley) in the PM10 nonattainment area, shall be responsible for 

conducting vehicle counts/traffic counts to determine if 150 vehicle trips or 

more per day occur on an unpaved roadway (including an alley). A traffic count 

shall measure vehicular traffic over a 48-hour period, which may consist of two 

non-consecutive 24-hour periods. Vehicular traffic shall be measured 

continuously during each 24-hour period. The average vehicle counts/traffic 

counts on the highest trafficked days shall be recorded and provided to the 

Control Officer in writing within 60 days of verbal or written request by the 

Control Officer.

(3) Control measure(s) shall be considered effectively implemented under the 

following conditions:

(a) When the unpaved roadway (including an alley) achieves the compliance 

determinations described in Section 302.7(a) of this rule.

(b) When one of the control measures described in Section 302.7(b) of this rule 

is implemented on 5 miles of unpaved roadways (including alleys) having 

vehicle traffic of 150 vehicle trips or more per day within one calendar year 

beginning in calendar year of 2008. If the control measure described in 

221 
Section 302.7(b)(2) of this rule is implemented, the unpaved roadways 

(including alleys) must be maintained so as to comply with Appendix C of 

these rules.

302.8 Livestock Activities: The owner and/or operator of a non-traditional source of fugitive 

dust that involves livestock activities shall be subject to the visible emissions requirements described in Section 302.8(a) of this rule and, unless otherwise specified and/or 

required, shall comply with the control measures described in Section 302.8(b) of this 

rule and the additional requirements described in Section 302.8(c) of this rule.

a. Visible Emissions Requirements:

(1) For unpaved access connections and unpaved feed lane access areas, the owner 

and/or operator shall not cause or allow visible fugitive dust emissions to exceed 

20% opacity.

(2) For corrals, pens, and arenas, the owner and/or operator shall not cause or allow 

visible fugitive dust emissions to exceed 20% opacity for a period aggregating 

more than three minutes in any 60-minute period.

(3) The owner and/or operator shall not cause, suffer, or allow visible emissions of 

particulate matter, including fugitive dust, beyond the property line within which 

the emissions are generated.

b. Control Measures:

(1) For unpaved access connections:

(a) Apply and maintain dust suppressants other than water; or

(b) Apply and maintain pavement, gravel (maintained to a depth of four 

inches), or asphaltic roadbase.

(2) For unpaved feed lane access areas:

(a) Apply and maintain dust suppressants other than water; or

(b) Apply and maintain pavement, gravel (maintained to a depth of four 

inches), or asphaltic roadbase.

(3) For bulk material hauling, including animal waste, off-site and crossing and/or 

accessing a paved area accessible to the public:

(a) Load all vehicles used to haul bulk material, including animal waste, such 

that the freeboard is not less than three inches;

(b) Prevent spillage or loss of bulk material, including animal waste, from holes 

or other openings in the cargo compartment’s floor, sides, and/or tailgate(s);

(c) Cover cargo compartment with a tarp or other suitable closure; and

(d) Install, maintain, and use a suitable trackout control device that controls and 

prevents trackout and/or removes particulate matter from tires and the 

exterior surfaces of motor vehicles that traverse the site.

(4) For corrals, pens, and arenas:

222 
(a) Apply water;

(b) Install shrubs and/or trees within 50 feet to 100 feet of corrals, pens, and 

arenas;

(c) Scrape and/or remove manure;

(d) Apply a fibrous layer (i.e., wood chips) in working areas; or

(e) Apply and maintain an alternative control measure approved in writing by 

the Control Officer and the Administrator.

c. Additional Requirements:

(1) The owner and/or operator of livestock activities shall implement one of the 

control measures described in Section 302.8(b)(1), Section 302.8(b)(2), Section 

302.8(b)(3), and Section 302.8(b)(4) of this rule, as applicable.

(2) Control measure(s) shall be considered effectively implemented when the 

livestock activities achieve the compliance determinations described in Section 

302.8(a) of this rule.

(3) If trackout occurs, the owner and/or operator shall repair and/or replace the 

control measure(s) and shall clean-up immediately such trackout from paved 

areas accessible to the public including curbs, gutters, and sidewalks when 

trackout extends a cumulative distance of 25 linear feet or more and at the end 

of the day for all other trackout.

302.9 Erosion-Caused Deposition of Bulk Materials Onto Paved Surfaces: The owner 

and/or operator of a non-traditional source of fugitive dust that involves erosion-caused 

deposition of bulk materials onto paved surfaces shall comply with the control measures 

described in Section 302.9(a) of this rule and the additional requirements described in 

Section 302.9(b) of this rule.

a. Control Measures:

(1) Remove any and all such deposits by utilizing the appropriate control measures 

within 24 hours of the deposits’ identification or prior to the resumption of 

traffic on pavement, where the pavement area has been closed to traffic; and

(2) Dispose of deposits in such a manner so as not to cause another source of 

fugitive dust.

b. Additional Requirements:

(1) In the event that erosion-caused deposition of bulk materials or other materials 

occurs on any adjacent paved roadway, paved parking lot, curb, gutter, or 

sidewalk, the owner and/or operator of the property from which the deposition 

eroded shall implement both of the control measures described in Section 

302.9(a) of this rule.

(2) Failure to comply with both of the control measures described in Section 

302.9(a) of this rule shall constitute a violation of this rule.

223 
302.10 Easements, Rights-of-Way, and Access Roads for Utilities (Transmission of

Electricity, Natural Gas, Oil, Water, and Gas): The owner and/or operator of a nontraditional source of fugitive dust that involves easements, rights-of-way, and access 

roads for utilities (transmission of electricity, natural gas, oil, water, and gas) that are 

used by 150 vehicle trips or more per day in the PM10 nonattainment area shall be subject 

to the stabilization requirements described in Section 302.10(a) of this rule and unless 

otherwise specified and/or required, comply with one of the control measures described 

in Section 302.10(b) of this rule and the additional requirements described in Section 

302.10(c) of this rule.

a. Stabilization Requirements: The owner and/or operator of a non-traditional source 

of fugitive dust that involves easements, rights-of-way, and access roads for utilities 

(transmission of electricity, natural gas, oil, water, and gas) shall not cause or allow 

visible fugitive dust emissions to exceed 20% opacity and either Section 

302.10(a)(1) or Section 302.10(a)(2) of this rule:

(1) Shall not allow silt loading equal to or greater than 0.33 oz/ft2; or

(2) Shall not allow the silt content to exceed 6%.

b. Control Measures:

(1) Pave;

(2) Apply dust suppressants other than water;

(3) Uniformly apply and maintain surface gravel; or

(4) Install locked gates at each entry point.

c. Additional Requirements:

(1) If an owner and/or operator allows 150 vehicle trips or more per day to use an 

easement, right-of-way, and access road for utilities (transmission of electricity, 

natural gas, oil, water, and gas) in the PM10 nonattainment area, then such owner 

and/or operator shall first implement one of the control measures described in 

Section 302.10(b) of this rule.

(2) A person, who allows 150 vehicle trips or more per day to use an easement, 

right-of-way, and access road for utilities (transmission of electricity, natural 

gas, oil, water, and gas) in the PM10 nonattainment area, shall be responsible for 

conducting vehicle counts/traffic counts to determine if 150 vehicle trips or 

more per day occur on an easement, right-of-way, and access road for utilities 

(transmission of electricity, natural gas, oil, water, and gas). Such person shall 

provide to the Control Officer written results of such vehicle counts/traffic 

counts within 60 days of verbal or written request by the Control Officer.

(3) Control measure(s) shall be considered effectively implemented when the 

easement, right-of-way, and access road for utilities (transmission of electricity, 

natural gas, oil, water, and gas) achieves the compliance determinations 

described in Section 302.10(a) of this rule.

301 VEHICLE USE IN OPEN AREAS AND VACANT LOTS: If open areas and vacant lots are 0.10 

acre or larger and have a cumulative of 500 square feet or more that are driven over and/or used by 

motor vehicles and/or off-road vehicles, then the owner and/or operator of such open areas and 

vacant lots shall implement one of the control measures described in Section 301.1 of this rule 

224 
within 60 calendar days following the initial discovery of vehicle use on open areas and vacant 

lots. Within 30 calendar days following the initial discovery by the Control Officer of vehicle use 

on open areas and vacant lots, the owner and/or operator of such open areas and vacant lots shall 

provide in writing to the Control Officer a description and date of the control measure(s) to be 

implemented to prevent such vehicle use on open areas and vacant lots. For the purpose of this 

rule, such control measure(s) shall be considered effectively implemented when the open areas and 

vacant lots meet one of the stabilization limitations described in Section 301.2 of this rule. Once a 

control measure in Section 301.1 of this rule has been effectively implemented, then such open 

area or vacant lot is subject to the requirements of Section 302 (Open Areas And Vacant Lots) of 

this rule. Use of or parking on open areas and vacant lots by the owner and/or operator of such 

open areas and vacant lots and/or landscape maintenance of such open areas and vacant lots shall 

not be considered vehicle use in open areas and vacant lots, although such open areas and vacant 

lots shall still meet the stabilization limitations described in Section 301.2 of this rule. For the 

purpose of this rule, landscape maintenance does not include grading, trenching, nor any other 

mechanized surface disturbing activities performed to establish initial landscapes or to redesign 

existing landscapes.

301.1 Control Measures:

a. Prevent motor vehicle and/or off-road vehicle trespassing, parking, and/or access, by 

installing barriers, curbs, fences, gates, posts, signs (written in English and Spanish 

and in compliance with ordinance(s) of local jurisdictions), shrubs, trees, or other 

effective control measures.

b. Uniformly apply and maintain surface gravel or chemical/organic stabilizers to all 

areas disturbed by motor vehicles and/or off-road vehicles in compliance with one of 

the stabilization limitations described in Section 301.2 of this rule.

c. Apply and maintain an alternative control measure approved in writing by the 

Control Officer and the Administrator of the EPA.

301.2 Stabilization Limitations:

a. A visible crust shall be implemented, as determined by Appendix C, Section 2.3 

(Test Methods For Stabilization-Visible Crust Determination) (The Drop Ball/Steel 

Ball Test) of these rules; or

b. A threshold friction velocity (TFV) corrected for non-erodible elements of 100 

cm/second or higher shall be implemented, as determined by Appendix C, Section 

2.4 (Test Methods For Stabilization-Determination Of Threshold Friction Velocity 

(TFV)) (Sieving Field Procedure) of these rules; or

c. Flat vegetative cover (i.e., attached (rooted) vegetation or unattached vegetative 

debris lying on the surface with a predominant horizontal orientation that is not 

subject to movement by wind) that is equal to at least 50% shall be implemented, as 

determined by Appendix C, Section 2.5 (Test Methods For StabilizationDetermination Of Flat Vegetative Cover) of these rules; or

d. Standing vegetative cover (i.e., vegetation that is attached (rooted) with a 

predominant vertical orientation) that is equal to or greater than 30% shall be 

implemented, as determined by Appendix C, Section 2.6 (Test Methods For 

Stabilization-Determination Of Standing Vegetative Cover) of these rules; or

e. Standing vegetative cover (i.e., vegetation that is attached (rooted) with a 

predominant vertical orientation) that is equal to or greater than 10% and where the 

threshold friction velocity is equal to or greater than 43 cm/second when corrected 

225 
for non-erodible elements shall be implemented, as determined by Appendix C, 

Section 2.6 (Test Methods For Stabilization-Determination Of Standing Vegetative 

Cover) of these rules; or

f. A percent cover that is equal to or greater than 10% for non-erodible elements shall 

be implemented, as determined by Appendix C, Section 2.7 (Test Methods For 

Stabilization-Rock Test Method) of these rules; or

g. An alternative test method approved in writing by the Control Officer and the 

Administrator of the EPA shall be implemented.

302 OPEN AREAS AND VACANT LOTS: If open areas and vacant lots have 0.5 acre or more of 

disturbed surface area and remain unoccupied, unused, vacant, or undeveloped for more than 15 

days, then the owner and/or operator of such open areas and vacant lots shall implement one of the 

control measures described in Section 302.1 of this rule within 60 calendar days following the 

initial discovery of the disturbance on the open areas and vacant lots. Within 30 calendar days 

following the initial discovery by the Control Officer of the disturbance on the open areas and 

vacant lots, the owner and/or operator of such open areas and vacant lots shall provide in writing 

to the Control Officer a description and date of the control measure(s) to be implemented. For the 

purpose of this rule, such control measure(s) shall be considered effectively implemented when the 

open areas and vacant lots meet one of the stabilization limitations described in Section 302.2 of 

this rule. Should an open area or vacant lot on which no activity is occurring contain more than 

one type of disturbance, soil, vegetation, or other characteristics that are visibly distinguishable, 

then each representative surface shall be tested separately for stability, in an area that represents a 

random portion of the overall disturbed conditions of the site, according to the appropriate test 

methods in Appendix C of these rules and included or eliminated from the total size assessment of 

disturbed surface area(s) depending on test method results.

302.1 Control Measures:

a. Establish vegetative ground cover on all disturbed surface areas within 60 calendar 

days following the initial discovery of the disturbance. Such control measure(s) must 

be maintained and reapplied, if necessary, until the disturbed surface areas are 

stabilized, in compliance with one of the stabilization limitations described in 

Section 302.2 of this rule. Stabilization shall be achieved, per this control measure, 

within eight months after the control measure has been implemented.

b. Apply a dust suppressant to all disturbed surface areas, in compliance with one of the 

stabilization limitations described in Section 302.2 of this rule.

c. Restore all disturbed surface areas within 60 calendar days following the initial 

discovery of the disturbance, such that the vegetative ground cover and soil 

characteristics are similar to adjacent or nearby undisturbed native conditions. Such 

control measure(s) must be maintained and reapplied, if necessary, until the 

disturbed surface areas are stabilized, in compliance with one of the stabilization 

limitations described in Section 302.2 of this rule. Stabilization shall be achieved, per 

such control measure, within eight months after such control measure has been 

implemented.

d. Uniformly apply and maintain surface gravel, in compliance with one of the 

stabilization limitations described in Section 302.2 of this rule.

e. Apply and maintain an alternative control measure approved in writing by the 

Control Officer and the Administrator of the EPA.

302.2 Stabilization Limitations:

226 
a. A visible crust shall be implemented, as determined by Appendix C, Section 2.3 

(Test Methods For Stabilization-Visible Crust Determination) (The Drop Ball/Steel 

Ball Test) of these rules; or

b. A threshold friction velocity (TFV), corrected for non-erodible elements of 100 

cm/second or higher, shall be implemented, as determined by Appendix C, Section 

2.4 (Test Methods For Stabilization-Determination Of Threshold Friction Velocity 

(TFV)) (Sieving Field Procedure) of these rules; or

c. Flat vegetative cover (i.e., attached (rooted) vegetation or unattached vegetative 

debris lying on the surface with a predominant horizontal orientation that is not 

subject to movement by wind) that is equal to at least 50% shall be implemented, as 

determined by Appendix C, Section 2.5 (Test Methods For StabilizationDetermination Of Flat Vegetative Cover) of these rules; or

d. Standing vegetative cover (i.e., vegetation that is attached (rooted) with a 

predominant vertical orientation) that is equal to or greater than 30% shall be 

implemented, as determined by Appendix C, Section 2.6 (Test Methods For 

Stabilization-Determination Of Standing Vegetative Cover) of these rules; or

e. Standing vegetative cover (i.e., vegetation that is attached (rooted) with a 

predominant vertical orientation) that is equal to or greater than 10% and where the 

threshold friction velocity is equal to or greater than 43 cm/second when corrected 

for non-erodible elements shall be implemented, as determined by Appendix C, 

Section 2.6 (Test Methods For Stabilization-Determination Of Standing Vegetative 

Cover) of these rules; or

f. A percent cover that is equal to or greater than 10% for non-erodible elements shall 

be implemented, as determined by Appendix C, Section 2.7 (Test Methods For 

Stabilization-Rock Test Method) of these rules; or

g. An alternative test method approved in writing by the Control Officer and the 

Administrator of the EPA shall be implemented.

303 UNPAVED PARKING LOTS: The owner and/or operator of an unpaved parking lot shall 

implement one of the control measures described in Section 303.1 of this rule on any surface 

area(s) of the lot on which vehicles enter, park, and exit. For unpaved parking lots that are utilized 

intermittently, for a period of 35 days or less during the calendar year, the owner and/or operator 

shall implement one of the control measures described in Section 303.1 of this rule, during the 

period that the unpaved parking lots are utilized for vehicle parking. For the purpose of this rule, 

such control measure(s) shall be considered effectively implemented when the unpaved parking lot 

meets the stabilization and opacity limitations described in Section 303.2 of this rule. 

303.1 Control Measures:

a. Pave.

b. Apply dust suppressants, in compliance with the stabilization and opacity limitations 

described in Section 303.2 of this rule.

c. Uniformly apply and maintain surface gravel, in compliance with the stabilization 

and opacity limitations described in Section 303.2 of this rule.

303.2 Stabilization And Opacity Limitations: For the purpose of this rule, control measures 

shall be considered effectively implemented when stabilization and opacity observations 

227 
for fugitive dust emissions from unpaved parking lots do not exceed 20% opacity and 

meet one of the following, as determined by Appendix C, Section 2.1 (Test Methods For 

Stabilization-For Unpaved Roads And Unpaved Parking Lots) of these rules:

a. Silt loading is equal to or greater than 0.33 oz/ft2; or

b. Silt content does not exceed 8%.

304 UNPAVED ROADWAYS (INCLUDING ALLEYS): If a person allows 150 vehicles or more per 

day to use an unpaved roadway (including alleys) in the PM10 nonattainment area, then such 

person shall first implement one of the control measures described in Section 304.1 of this rule. 

For the purpose of this rule, such control measure(s) shall be considered effectively implemented

when the unpaved roadway (including alleys) meets the stabilization and opacity limitation 

described in Section 304.2 of this rule.

304.1 Control Measures:

a. Pave.

b. Apply dust suppressants, in compliance with the stabilization and opacity limitations 

described in Section 304.2 of this rule.

c. Uniformly apply and maintain surface gravel, in compliance with the stabilization 

and opacity limitations described in Section 304.2 of this rule.

304.2 Stabilization And Opacity Limitations: For the purpose of this rule, control measures 

shall be considered effectively implemented when stabilization and opacity observations 

for fugitive dust emissions from unpaved roadways (including alleys) do not exceed 20% 

opacity and meet one of the following, as determined by Appendix C, Section 2.1 (Test 

Methods For Stabilization-For Unpaved Roads And Unpaved Parking Lots) of these 

rules:

a. Silt loading is equal to or greater than 0.33 oz/ft2; or

b. Silt content does not exceed 6%.

305 FEEDLOTS AND/OR LIVESTOCK AREAS: The owner and/or operator of any feedlot and/or 

livestock area shall implement one of the control measures described in Section 305.1 of this rule. 

For the purpose of this rule, such control measure(s) shall be considered effectively implemented 

when the feedlot and/or livestock area meets the opacity limitation described in Section 305.2 of 

this rule.

305.1 Control Measures:

a. Apply dust suppressants, in compliance with the opacity limitation described in 

Section 305.2 of this rule.

b. Uniformly apply and maintain surface gravel, in compliance with the opacity 

limitation described in Section 305.2 of this rule.

c. Install shrubs and/or trees within 50 feet to 100 feet of animal pens, in compliance 

with the opacity limitation described in Section 305.2 of this rule.

305.2 Opacity Limitation: For the purpose of this rule, control measures shall be considered 

effectively implemented when opacity observations for fugitive dust emissions from 

feedlots and/or livestock areas do not exceed 20% opacity, as determined by Appendix C, 

228 
Section 3 (Visual Determination Of Opacity Of Emissions From Sources For TimeAverage Regulations) of these rules. 

306 EROSION-CAUSED DEPOSITION OF BULK MATERIALS ONTO PAVED SURFACES: In 

the event that erosion-caused deposition of bulk materials or other materials occurs on any 

adjacent paved roadway or paved parking lot, the owner and/or operator of the property from 

which the deposition eroded shall implement both of the control measures described in Section 

306.1 of this rule. For the purpose of this rule, such control measures shall be considered 

effectively implemented when the deposition meets the opacity limitation described in Section 

306.2 of this rule. Exceedances of the opacity limitation, due to erosion-caused deposition of bulk 

materials onto paved surfaces, shall constitute a violation of the opacity limitation.

306.1 Control Measures:

a. Remove any and all such deposits by utilizing the appropriate control measures 

within 24 hours of the deposits’ identification or prior to the resumption of traffic on 

pavement, where the pavement area has been closed to traffic; and

b. Dispose of deposits in such a manner so as not to cause another source of fugitive 

dust.

306.2 Opacity Limitation: For the purpose of this rule, control measures shall be considered 

effectively implemented when opacity observations for fugitive dust emissions from 

erosion-caused deposition of bulk materials onto paved surfaces do not exceed 20% 

opacity, as described in Appendix C, Section 2.1 (Test Methods For Stabilization-For 

Unpaved Roads And Unpaved Parking Lots) of these rules.

307 EASEMENTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY, AND ACCESS ROADS FOR UTILITIES (ELECTRICITY, 

NATURAL GAS, OIL, WATER, AND GAS TRANSMISSION): If an owner and/or operator 

allows 150 vehicles or more per day to use an easement, right-of-way, and access road for utilities 

(electricity, natural gas, oil, water, and gas transmission) in the PM10 nonattainment area, then 

such owner and/or operator shall first implement one of the control measures described in Section 

307.1 of this rule. For the purpose of this rule, such control measure(s) shall be considered 

effectively implemented, when the easement, right-of-way, and access road for utilities 

(electricity, natural gas, oil, water, and gas transmission) meet the stabilization and opacity 

limitation described in Section 307.2 of this rule.

307.1 Control Measures:

a. Pave.

b. Apply dust suppressants, in compliance with the stabilization and opacity limitations 

described in Section 307.2 of this rule.

c. Uniformly apply and maintain surface gravel, in compliance with the stabilization 

and opacity limitations described in Section 307.2 of this rule.

307.2 Stabilization And Opacity Limitations: For the purpose of this rule, control measures 

shall be considered effectively implemented when stabilization and opacity observations 

for fugitive dust emissions from easements, rights-of-way, and access roads for utilities 

(electricity, natural gas, oil, water, and gas transmission) do not exceed 20% opacity and 

meet one of the following, as determined by Appendix C, Section 2.1 (Test Methods For 

Stabilization-For Unpaved Roads And Unpaved Parking Lots) of these rules:

a. Silt loading is not equal to or greater than 0.33 oz/ft2; or

229 
b. Silt content does not exceed 6%.

SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS (NOT APPLICABLE) 

SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS 

501 STABILIZATION OBSERVATIONS COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION: To determine 

compliance with this rule, the following test methods shall be followed: 

501.1 Opacity Observations:

a. Opacity observations to measure visible emissions shall be conducted in accordance 

with the techniques specified in EPA Reference Method 203B (Visual Determination 

of Opacity of Emissions from Stationary Sources for Time-Exception Regulations). 

Emissions shall not exceed the applicable opacity standards of this rule for a period 

aggregating more than three minutes in any 60-minute period.

b. Opacity observations to determine compliance with Sections 302.6, 302.7, 

302.8(a)(1), 302.8(a)(2), and 302.10 of this rule shall be conducted in accordance 

with the techniques specified in Appendix C (Fugitive Dust Test Methods) of these 

rules.

501.1501.2 Stabilization observations for unpaved parking lots and/or unpaved roadways (including 

alleys) shall be conducted in accordance with Appendix C, Section 2.1-Test Methods for 

Stabilization-for Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots of these rules. 

501.2501.3 Stabilization observations for an open area and vacant lot shall be conducted in 

accordance with the following: 

a. Appendix C, Section 2.3-Test Methods for Stabilization-Visible Soil Crust 

Determination- The Drop Ball/Steel Ball Test of these rules; or 

b. Appendix C, Section 2.4-Test Methods for Stabilization-Determination of Threshold 

Friction Velocity (TFV)-Sieving Field Procedure of these rules, where the threshold 

friction velocity (TFV) for disturbed surface areas corrected for non-erodible 

elements is 100 cm/second or higher; or 

c. Appendix C, Section 2.5-Test Methods for Stabilization-Determination of Flat 

Vegetative Cover of these rules, where flat vegetation cover (i.e., attached (rooted) 

vegetation or unattached vegetative debris lying on the surface with a predominant 

horizontal orientation that is not subject to movement by wind) is equal to at least 

50%; or 

d. Appendix C, Section 2.6-Test Methods for Stabilization-Determination of Standing 

Vegetative Cover of these rules, where standing vegetation cover (i.e., vegetation 

that is attached (rooted) with a predominant vertical orientation) is equal to or greater 

than 30%; or 

e. Appendix C, Section 2.6-Test Methods for Stabilization-Determination of Standing 

Vegetative Cover of these rules, where the standing vegetation cover (i.e., vegetation 

that is attached (rooted) with a predominant vertical orientation) is equal to or greater 

than 10% and where the threshold friction velocity, corrected for non-erodible 

elements, is equal to or greater than 43 cm/second; or 

230 
f. Appendix C, Section 2.7-Test Methods for Stabilization-Rock Test Method of these 

rules where a percent cover is equal to or greater than 10% for non-erodible 

elements. 

g. An alternative test method approved in writing by the Control Officer and the 

Administrator of the EPA. 

502 RECORDKEEPING: Any person subject to the requirements of this rule shall compile and 

retain records that provide evidence of control measure application (i.e., receipts and/or purchase 

records). Such person shall describe, in the records, the type of treatment or control measure, 

extent of coverage, and date applied. Upon verbal or written request by the Control Officer, such 

person shall provide the records and supporting documentation within as soon as possible but no 

later than 48 hours, excluding weekends. If the Control Officer is at the site where requested 

records are kept, such person shall provide the records without delay. 

503 RECORDS RETENTION: Copies of the records required by Section 502-Recordkeeping of this 

rule shall be retained for at least one year two years. 

Adopted 06/16/99 

Revised 02/16/00 

Revised 04/07/04 

Revised 03/26/08 

APPENDIX C 

FUGITIVE DUST TEST METHODS 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

INDEX 

SECTION 1 - RESERVED 

SECTION 2 - TEST METHODS FOR STABILIZATION 

SECTION 3 - TIME AVERAGED METHODS OF VISUAL OPACITY DETERMINATION OF 

EMISSIONS FROM DUST GENERATING OPERATIONS 

SECTION 4 - VISUAL OPACITY DETERMINATION OF EMISSIONS FROM LIVESTOCK 

ACTIVITIES – CORRALS, PENS, AND ARENAS

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

MARICOPA COUNTY 

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS 

APPENDIX C 

FUGITIVE DUST TEST METHODS 

1. RESERVED 

2. TEST METHODS FOR STABILIZATION

2.1 For Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots.

2.1.1 Opacity Test Method. The purpose of this test method is to estimate the percent opacity 

of fugitive dust plumes caused by vehicle movement on unpaved roads and unpaved 

parking lots. This method can only be conducted by an individual who has received 

certification as a qualified observer. Qualification and testing requirements can be found 

in Section 3.4 of this appendix. 

231 
a. Step 1: Stand at least 16.5 feet from the fugitive dust source in order to provide a 

clear view of the emissions with the sun oriented in the 140° sector to the back. 

Following the above requirements, make opacity observations so that the line of 

vision is approximately perpendicular to the dust plume and wind direction. If 

multiple plumes are involved, do not include more than one plume in the line of sight 

at one time. 

b. Step 2: Record the fugitive dust source location, source type, method of control 

used, if any, observer's name, certification data and affiliation, and a sketch of the 

observer's position relative to the fugitive dust source. Also, record the time, 

estimated distance to the fugitive dust source location, approximate wind direction, 

estimated wind speed, description of the sky condition (presence and color of 

clouds), observer's position to the fugitive dust source, and color of the plume and 

type of background on the visible emission observation from both when opacity 

readings are initiated and completed. 

c. Step 3: Make opacity observations, to the extent possible, using a contrasting 

background that is perpendicular to the line of vision. Make opacity observations 

approximately 1 meter above the surface from which the plume is generated. Note 

that the observation is to be made at only one visual point upon generation of a 

plume, as opposed to visually tracking the entire length of a dust plume as it is 

created along a surface. Make two observations per vehicle, beginning with the first 

reading at zero seconds and the second reading at five seconds. The zero–second 

observation should begin immediately after a plume has been created above the 

surface involved. Do not look continuously at the plume but, instead, observe the 

plume briefly at zero seconds and then again at five seconds. 

d. Step 4: Record the opacity observations to the nearest 5% on an observational record 

sheet. Each momentary observation recorded represents the average opacity of 

emissions for a 5–second period. While it is not required by the test method, EPA 

recommends that the observer estimate the size of vehicles which generate dust 

plumes for which readings are taken (e.g. mid–size passenger car or heavy–duty 

truck) and the approximate speeds the vehicles are traveling when readings are taken. 

e. Step 5: Repeat Step 3 (Subsection 2.1.1(c) of this appendix) and Step 4 (Subsection 

2.1.1(d) of this appendix) until you have recorded a total of 12 consecutive opacity 

readings. This will occur once six vehicles have driven on the source in your line of 

observation for which you are able to take proper readings. The 12 consecutive 

readings must be taken within the same period of observation but must not exceed 1 

hour. Observations immediately preceding and following interrupted observations 

can be considered consecutive. 

f. Step 6: Average the 12 opacity readings together. If the average opacity reading 

equals 20% or lower, the source is in compliance. with the opacity standard 

described in Rule 310 of these rules. 

2.1.2 Silt Content Test Method. The purpose of this test method is to estimate the silt content 

of the trafficked parts of unpaved roads and unpaved parking lots. The higher the silt 

content, the more fine dust particles that are released when cars and trucks drive on 

unpaved roads and unpaved parking lots. 

232 
a. Equipment: 

(1) A set of sieves with the following openings: 4 millimeters (mm), 2 mm, 1 

mm, 0.5 mm and 0.25 mm (or a set of standard/commonly available sieves), a 

lid, and collector pan. 

(2) A small whisk broom or paintbrush with stiff bristles and dustpan 1 ft. in 

width (The broom/brush should preferably have one, thin row of bristles no 

longer than 1.5 inches in length). 

(3) A spatula without holes. 

(4) A small scale with half-ounce increments (e.g. postal/package scale). 

(5) A shallow, lightweight container (e.g. plastic storage container). 

(6) A sturdy cardboard box or other rigid object with a level surface. 

(7) A basic calculator. 

(8) Cloth gloves (optional for handling metal sieves on hot, sunny days). 

(9) Sealable plastic bags (if sending samples to a laboratory). 

(10) A pencil/pen and paper. 

b. Step 1: Look for a routinely traveled surface, as evidenced by tire tracks. [Only 

collect samples from surfaces that are not damp due to precipitation or dew. This 

statement is not meant to be a standard in itself for dampness where watering is 

being used as a control measure. It is only intended to ensure that surface testing is 

done in a representative manner.] Use caution when taking samples to ensure 

personal safety with respect to passing vehicles. Gently press the edge of a dustpan 

(1 foot in width) into the surface four times to mark an area that is 1 square foot. 

Collect a sample of loose surface material using a whiskbroom or brush and slowly 

sweep the material into the dustpan, minimizing escape of dust particles. Use a 

spatula to lift heavier elements such as gravel. Only collect dirt/gravel to an 

approximate depth of 3/8 inch or 1 cm in the 1 square foot area. If you reach a hard, 

underlying subsurface that is < 3/8 inch in depth, do not continue collecting the 

sample by digging into the hard surface. In other words, you are only collecting a 

surface sample of loose material down to 1 cm. In order to confirm that samples are 

collected to 1 cm in depth, a wooden dowel or other similar narrow object at least 

one foot in length can be laid horizontally across the survey area while a metric ruler 

is held perpendicular to the dowel. 

• At this point, you can choose to place the sample collected into a plastic bag or 

container and take it to an independent laboratory for silt content analysis. A 

reference to the procedure the laboratory is required to follow is at the end of 

this section. 

c. Step 2: Place a scale on a level surface. Place a lightweight container on the scale. 

Zero the scale with the weight of the empty container on it. Transfer the entire 

sample collected in the dustpan to the container, minimizing escape of dust particles. 

Weigh the sample and record its weight. 

233 
d. Step 3: Stack a set of sieves in order according to the size openings specified above, 

beginning with the largest size opening (4 mm) at the top. Place a collector pan 

underneath the bottom (0.25 mm) sieve. 

e. Step 4: Carefully pour the sample into the sieve stack, minimizing escape of dust 

particles by slowly brushing material into the stack with a whiskbroom or brush. (On 

windy days, use the trunk or door of a car as a wind barricade.) Cover the stack with 

a lid. Lift up the sieve stack and shake it vigorously up, down and sideways for at 

least 1 minute. 

f. Step 5: Remove the lid from the stack and disassemble each sieve separately, 

beginning with the top sieve. As you remove each sieve, examine it to make sure that 

all of the material has been sifted to the finest sieve through which it can pass (e.g., 

material in each sieve (besides the top sieve that captures a range of larger elements) 

should look the same size). If this is not the case, re–stack the sieves and collector 

pan, cover the stack with the lid, and shake it again for at least 1 minute. (You only 

need to reassemble the sieve(s) that contain material, which requires further sifting.) 

g. Step 6: After disassembling the sieves and collector pan, slowly sweep the material 

from the collector pan into the empty container originally used to collect and weigh 

the entire sample. Take care to minimize escape of dust particles. You do not need to 

do anything with material captured in the sieves – only the collector pan. Weigh the 

container with the material from the collector pan and record its weight. 

h. Step 7: If the source is an unpaved road, multiply the resulting weight by 0.38. If the 

source is an unpaved parking lot, multiply the resulting weight by 0.55. The resulting 

number is the estimated silt loading. Then, divide by the total weight of the sample 

you recorded earlier in Step 2 (Subsection 2.1.2(c) of this appendix) and multiply by 

100 to estimate the percent silt content. 

i. Step 8: Select another two routinely traveled portions of the unpaved road or 

unpaved parking lot and repeat this test method. Once you have calculated the silt 

loading and percent silt content of the 3 samples collected, average your results 

together. 

j. Step 9: Examine Results. If the average silt loading is less than 0.33 oz/ft2, the 

surface is STABLE. If the average silt loading is greater than or equal to 0.33 oz/ft2, 

then proceed to examine the average percent silt content. If the source is an unpaved 

road and the average percent silt content is 6% or less, the surface is STABLE. If the 

source is an unpaved parking lot and the average percent silt content is 8% or less, 

the surface is STABLE. If your field test results are within 2% of the standard (for 

example, 4%-8% silt content on an unpaved road), it is recommended that you 

collect 3 additional samples from the source according to Step 1 (Subsection 2.1.2(b) 

of this appendix) and take them to an independent laboratory for silt content analysis. 

k. Independent Laboratory Analysis: You may choose to collect 3 samples from the 

source, according to Step 1 (Subsection 2.1.2(b) of this appendix), and send them to 

an independent laboratory for silt content analysis rather than conduct the sieve field 

procedure. If so, the test method the laboratory is required to use is: "Procedures for 

Laboratory Analysis of Surface/Bulk Dust Loading Samples", (Fifth Edition, 

Volume I, Appendix C.2.3 "Silt Analysis", 1995), AP-42, Office of Air Quality 

Planning & Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina. 

2.2 Stabilization Limitations for Open Areas and Vacant Lots. The test methods described in 

Section 2.3 through Section 2.7 of this appendix shall be used to determine whether an open area 

234 
or a vacant lot has a stabilized surface. Should a disturbed open area or vacant lot contain more 

than one type of disturbance, soil, vegetation, or other characteristics, which are visibly 

distinguishable, test each representative surface separately for stability, in an area that represents a 

random portion of the overall disturbed conditions of the site, according to the appropriate test 

methods in Section 2.3 through Section 2.7 of this appendix. , and include or eliminate it from the 

total size assessment of disturbed surface area(s) depending upon test method results.

2.3 Visible Soil Crust Determination (The Drop Ball Test).

2.3.1 Silt Content Test Method. The purpose of this test method is to estimate the silt content 

of the trafficked parts of unpaved roads and unpaved parking lots. The higher the silt 

content, the more fine dust particles that are released when cars and trucks drive on 

unpaved roads and unpaved parking lots. 

2.3.2 Where a visible crust exists, drop Drop a steel ball with a diameter of 15.9 millimeters 

(0.625 inches) and a mass ranging from 16-17 grams (0.56-0.60 ounce) from a distance 

of 30 centimeters (one foot) one-foot directly above (at a 90° angle perpendicular to) the 

soil surface. If blowsand is present, clear the blowsand from the surfaces on which the 

visible crust test method Drop Ball Test is conducted. Blowsand is defined as thin 

deposits of loose uncombined grains covering less than 50% of a vacant lot or project site

which that have not originated from the representative vacant lot surface being tested. If 

material covers a visible crust, which is not blowsand, apply the test method in Section 

2.4-Determination of Threshold Friction Velocity (TFV) of this appendix to the loose 

material to determine whether the surface is stabilized. 

2.3.3 A sufficient crust is defined under the following conditions: once a ball has been dropped 

according to subsection 2.3.1 of this appendix, the ball does not sink into the surface, so 

that it is partially or fully surrounded by loose grains and, upon removing the ball, the 

surface upon which it fell has not been pulverized, so that loose grains are visible. 

2.3.4 Randomly select each representative disturbed surface for the Drop Ball Test by using a 

blind “over the shoulder” toss of a throwable object (e.g., a metal weight with survey tape 

attached). Using the point of fall as the lower left-hand corner, measure a one-foot square 

area. Drop the ball three times within a survey area that measures 1 foot by 1 foot and 

that represents a random portion of the overall disturbed conditions of the site the onefoot by one-foot square survey area, using a consistent pattern across the survey area. The 

survey area shall be considered to have passed the Visible Crust Determination Test Drop 

Ball Test if at least two out of the three times that the ball was dropped, the results met 

the criteria in subsection 2.3.2 of this appendix. Select at least two other survey areas that 

represent a random portion of the overall disturbed conditions of the site, and repeat this 

procedure. If the results meet the criteria of subsection 2.3.2 of this appendix for all of the 

survey areas tested, then the site shall be considered to have passed the Visible Crust 

Determination Test Drop Ball Test and shall be considered sufficiently crusted. 

2.3.5 At any given site, the existence of a sufficient crust covering one portion of the site may 

not represent the existence or protectiveness of a crust on another portion of the site. 

Repeat the visible crust test Drop Ball Test as often as necessary on each random portion 

of the overall conditions of the site using the random selection method set forth in 

subsection 2.3.3 of this appendix for an accurate assessment. 

2.4 Determination of Threshold Friction Velocity (TFV). For disturbed surface areas that are not 

crusted or vegetated, determine threshold friction velocity (TFV) according to the following 

sieving field procedure (based on a 1952 laboratory procedure published by W. S. Chepil). 

2.4.1 Obtain and stack a set of sieves with the following openings: 4 millimeters (mm), 2 mm, 

1 mm, 0.5 mm, and 0.25 mm or obtain and stack a set of standard/commonly available 

235 
sieves. Place the sieves in order according to size openings, beginning with the largest 

size opening at the top. Place a collector pan underneath the bottom (0.25 mm) sieve. 

Collect a sample of loose surface material from an area at least 30 cm by 30 cm in size to 

a depth of approximately 1 cm using a brush and dustpan or other similar device. Only 

collect soil samples from dry surfaces (i.e. when the surface is not damp to the touch). 

Remove any rocks larger than 1 cm in diameter from the sample. Pour the sample into the 

top sieve (4 mm opening) and cover the sieve/collector pan unit with a lid. Minimize 

escape of particles into the air when transferring surface soil into the sieve/collector pan 

unit. Move the covered sieve/collector pan unit by hand using a broad, circular arm 

motion in the horizontal plane. Complete twenty circular arm movements, ten clockwise 

and ten counterclockwise, at a speed just necessary to achieve some relative horizontal 

motion between the sieves and the particles. Remove the lid from the sieve/collector pan 

unit and disassemble each sieve separately beginning with the largest sieve. As each sieve 

is removed, examine it for loose particles. If loose particles have not been sifted to the 

finest sieve through which they can pass, reassemble and cover the sieve/collector pan 

unit and gently rotate it an additional ten times. After disassembling the sieve/collector 

pan unit, slightly tilt and gently tap each sieve and the collector pan so that material 

aligns along one side. In doing so, minimize escape of particles into the air. Line up the 

sieves and collector pan in a row and visibly inspect the relative quantities of catch in 

order to determine which sieve (or whether the collector pan) contains the greatest 

volume of material. If a visual determination of relative volumes of catch among sieves is 

difficult, use a graduated cylinder to measure the volume. Estimate TFV for the sieve 

catch with the greatest volume using Table 1 of this appendix, which provides a 

correlation between sieve opening size and TFV. 

Table 1. Determination of Threshold Friction Velocity 

Tyler Sieve No. ASTM 11 Sieve No. Opening (mm) TFV(cm/s)

5 5 4 135 

9 10 2 100 

16 18 1 76 

32 35 0.5 58 

60 60 0.25 43 

Collector Pan ⎯ ⎯ 30 

2.4.2 Collect at least three soil samples which represent random portions of the overall 

conditions of the site, repeat the above TFV test method for each sample and average the 

resulting TFVs together to determine the TFV uncorrected for non-erodible elements. 

Non-erodible elements are distinct elements, in the random portion of the overall 

conditions of the site, that are larger than 1 cm in diameter, remain firmly in place during 

a wind episode, and inhibit soil loss by consuming part of the shear stress of the wind. 

Non-erodible elements include stones and bulk surface material but do not include flat or 

standing vegetation. For surfaces with non-erodible elements, determine corrections to 

the TFV by identifying the fraction of the survey area, as viewed from directly overhead, 

that is occupied by non-erodible elements using the following procedure. For a more 

detailed description of this procedure, see Section 2.7 (Test Methods for StabilizationRock Test Method) of this appendix. Select a survey area of 1 meter by 1 meter that 

represents a random portion of the overall conditions of the site. Where many nonerodible elements lie within the survey area, separate the non-erodible elements into 

groups according to size. For each group, calculate the overhead area for the non-erodible 

elements according to the following equations: 

(Average Length) x (Average Width) = Average Dimensions. Eq. 1 

(Average Dimensions) x (Number of Elements) = Overhead Area. Eq. 2 

236 
Overhead Area of Group 1 + Overhead Area of Group 2 (etc.) = Total Overhead 

Area. Eq. 3 

Total Overhead Area/2 = Total Frontal Area. Eq. 4 

(Total Frontal Area/Survey Area) x 100 = Percent Cover of Non-Erodible 

Elements. Eq. 5 

Note: Ensure consistent units of measurement (e.g., square meters or square inches when 

calculating percent cover). 

Repeat this procedure on an additional two distinct survey areas that represent a random 

portion of the overall conditions of the site and average the results. Use Table 2 of this 

appendix to identify the correction factor for the percent cover of non-erodible elements. 

Multiply the TFV by the corresponding correction factor to calculate the TFV corrected 

for non-erodible elements. 

Table 2. Correction Factors for Threshold Friction Velocity 

Percent Cover of Non-Erodible Elements Factor Correction Factor

Greater than or equal to 10% 5 

Greater than or equal to 5% and less than 10% 3 

Less than 5% and greater than or equal to 1% 2 

Less than 1% None 

2.5 Determination of Flat Vegetative Cover: Flat vegetation includes attached (rooted) vegetation or 

unattached vegetative debris lying on the surface with a predominant horizontal orientation that is 

not subject to movement by wind. Flat vegetation, which is dead but firmly attached, shall be 

considered equally protective as live vegetation. Stones or other aggregate larger than 1 centimeter 

in diameter shall be considered protective cover in the course of conducting the line transect test 

method. Where flat vegetation exists, conduct the following line transect test method. 

2.5.1 Line Transect Test Method. Stretch a 100 foot measuring tape across a survey area that 

represents a random portion of the overall conditions of the site. Firmly anchor both ends 

of the measuring tape into the surface using a tool such as a screwdriver, with the tape 

stretched taut and close to the soil surface. If vegetation exists in regular rows, place the 

tape diagonally (at approximately a 45° angle) away from a parallel or perpendicular 

position to the vegetated rows. Pinpoint an area the size of a 3/32 inch diameter brazing 

rod or wooden dowel centered above each 1 foot interval mark along one edge of the 

tape. Count the number of times that flat vegetation lies directly underneath the 

pinpointed area at 1 foot intervals. Consistently observe the underlying surface from a 

90° angle directly above each pinpoint on one side of the tape. Do not count the 

underlying surface as vegetated if any portion of the pinpoint extends beyond the edge of 

the vegetation underneath in any direction. If clumps of vegetation or vegetative debris 

lie underneath the pinpointed area, count the surface as vegetated, unless bare soil is 

visible directly below the pinpointed area. When 100 observations have been made, add 

together the number of times a surface was counted as vegetated. This total represents the 

percent of flat vegetation cover (e.g., if 35 positive counts were made, then vegetation 

cover is 35%). If the survey area that represents a random portion of the overall 

conditions of the site is too small for 100 observations, make as many observations as 

possible. Then multiply the count of vegetated surface areas by the appropriate 

conversion factor to obtain percent cover. For example, if vegetation was counted 20 

times within a total of 50 observations, divide 20 by 50 and multiply by 100 to obtain a 

flat vegetation cover of 40%. 

237 
2.5.2 Conduct the line transect test method, as described in subsection 2.5.1 of this appendix, 

an additional two times on areas that represent a random portion of the overall conditions 

of the site and average results. 

2.6 Determination of Standing Vegetative Cover. Standing vegetation includes vegetation that is 

attached (rooted) with a predominant vertical orientation. Standing vegetation, which is dead but 

firmly rooted, shall be considered equally protective as live vegetation. Conduct the following 

standing vegetation test method to determine if 30% cover or more exists. If the resulting percent 

cover is less than 30% but equal to or greater than 10%, then conduct the test in Section 2.4 

(Determination of Threshold Friction Velocity (TFV)) of this appendix in order to determine if the 

site is stabilized, such that the standing vegetation cover is equal to or greater than 10%, where 

threshold friction velocity, corrected for non-erodible elements, is equal to or greater than 43 

cm/second. 

2.6.1 For standing vegetation that consists of large, separate vegetative structures (e.g., shrubs 

and sagebrush), select a survey area that represents a random portion of the overall 

conditions of the site that is the shape of a square with sides equal to at least 10 times the 

average height of the vegetative structures. For smaller standing vegetation, select a 

survey area of three feet by three feet. 

2.6.2 Count the number of standing vegetative structures within the survey area. Count 

vegetation, which grows in clumps as a single unit. Where different types of vegetation 

exist and/or vegetation of different height and width exists, separate the vegetative 

structures with similar dimensions into groups. Count the number of vegetative structures 

in each group within the survey area. Select an individual structure within each group that 

represents the average height and width of the vegetation in the group. If the structure is 

dense (e.g., when looking at it vertically from base to top there is little or zero open air 

space within its perimeter), calculate and record its frontal silhouette area, according to 

Equation 6 of this appendix. Also, use Equation 6 of this appendix to estimate the 

average height and width of the vegetation if the survey area is larger than nine square 

feet. Otherwise, use the procedure in subsection 2.6.3 of this appendix to calculate the 

frontal silhouette area. Then calculate the percent cover of standing vegetation according 

to Equations 7, 8, and 9 of this appendix. 

(Average Height) x (Average Width) = Frontal Silhouette Area. Eq. 6 

(Frontal Silhouette Area of Individual Vegetative Structure) x (Number of 

Vegetation Structures Per Group) = Frontal Silhouette Area of Group. Eq. 7 

Frontal Silhouette Area of Group 1 + Frontal Silhouette Area of Group 2 (etc.) = 

Total Frontal Silhouette Area. Eq. 8 

(Total Frontal Silhouette Area/Survey Area) x 100 = Percent Cover of Standing 

Vegetation. Eq. 9 

[(Number of Circled Gridlines Within The Outlined Area Counted That Are Not 

Covered By Vegetation/Total Number of Gridline Intersections Within The 

Outlined Area) x 100] = Percent Open Space. Eq. 10 

100 – Percent Open Space = Percent Vegetative Density. Eq. 11 

Percent Vegetative Density/100 = Vegetative Density. Eq. 12 

[Max. Height x Max. Width] x [Vegetative Density/0.4]0.5 = Frontal Silhouette 

Area. Eq.13 

238 
Note: Ensure consistent units of measurement (e.g., square meters or square inches when 

calculating percent cover). 

2.6.3 Vegetative Density Factor. Cut a single, representative piece of vegetation (or 

consolidated vegetative structure) to within 1 cm of surface soil. Using a white paper grid 

or transparent grid over white paper, lay the vegetation flat on top of the grid (but do not 

apply pressure to flatten the structure). Grid boxes of 1 inch or 1/2 inch squares are 

sufficient for most vegetation when conducting this procedure. Using a marker or pencil, 

outline the shape of the vegetation along its outer perimeter, according to Figure B, C, or 

D of this appendix, as appropriate. (Note: Figure C differs from Figure D primarily in 

that the width of vegetation in Figure C is narrow at its base and gradually broadens to its 

tallest height. In Figure D, the width of the vegetation generally becomes narrower from 

its midpoint to its tallest height.) Remove the vegetation, count and record the total 

number of gridline intersections within the outlined area, but do not count gridline 

intersections that connect with the outlined shape. There must be at least 10 gridline 

intersections within the outlined area and preferably more than 20, otherwise, use smaller 

grid boxes. Draw small circles (no greater than a 3/32 inch diameter) at each gridline 

intersection counted within the outlined area. Replace the vegetation on the grid within its 

outlined shape. From a distance of approximately 2 feet directly above the grid, observe 

each circled gridline intersection. Count and record the number of circled gridline 

intersections that are not covered by any piece of the vegetation. To calculate percent 

vegetative density, use Equations 10 and 11 of this appendix. If percent vegetative 

density is equal to or greater than 30, use an equation (one of the equations-Equations 16, 

17, or 18 of this appendix) that matches the outline used to trace the vegetation (Figure B, 

C, or D) to calculate its frontal silhouette area. If percent vegetative density is less than 

30, use Equations 12 and 13 of this appendix to calculate the frontal silhouette area. 

239 
Figure B. Cylinder

Frontal Silhouette Area = Maximum Height x Maximum Width Eq. 16 

240 
Figure C. Inverted Cone 

Frontal Silhouette Area = Maximum Height x 1/2 Maximum Width Eq. 17 

241 
Figure D. Upper Sphere 

Frontal Silhouette Area = (3.14 x Maximum Height x 1/2 Maximum Width)/2 Eq. 18 

242 
2.7 Rock Test Method. The Rock Test Method, which is similar to Section 2.4 (Test Methods for 

Stabilization-Determination of Threshold Friction Velocity (TFV)) of this appendix, examines the 

wind-resistance effects of rocks and other non-erodible elements on disturbed surfaces. Nonerodible elements are objects larger than 1 centimeter (cm) in diameter that remain firmly in place 

even on windy days. Typically, non-erodible elements include rocks, stones, glass fragments, and 

hardpacked clumps of soil lying on or embedded in the surface. Vegetation does not count as a 

non-erodible element in this method. The purpose of this test method is to estimate the percent 

cover of non-erodible elements on a given surface to see whether such elements take up enough 

space to offer protection against windblown dust. For simplification, the following test method 

refers to all non-erodible elements as “rocks”. 

2.7.1 Select a 1 meter by 1 meter survey area that represents the general rock distribution on 

the surface. (A 1 meter by 1 meter area is slightly greater than a 3 foot by 3 foot area.) 

Mark-off the survey area by tracing a straight, visible line in the dirt along the edge of a 

measuring tape or by placing short ropes, yard sticks, or other straight objects in a square 

around the survey area. 

2.7.2 Without moving any of the rocks or other elements, examine the survey area. Since rocks 

>3/8 inch (1 cm) in diameter are of interest, measure the diameter of some of the smaller 

rocks to a get a sense for which rocks need to be considered. 

2.7.3 Mentally group the rocks >3/8 inch (1 cm) diameter lying in the survey area into small, 

medium, and large size categories. Or, if the rocks are all approximately the same size, 

simply select a rock of average size and typical shape. Without removing any of the rocks 

from the ground, count the number of rocks in the survey area in each group and write 

down the resulting number. 

2.7.4 Without removing rocks, select one or two average-size rocks in each group and measure 

the length and width. Use either metric units or standard units. Using a calculator, 

multiply the length times the width of the rocks to get the average dimensions of the 

rocks in each group. Write down the results for each rock group. 

2.7.5 For each rock group, multiply the average dimensions (length times width) by the number 

of rocks counted in the group. Add the results from each rock group to get the total rock 

area within the survey area. 

2.7.6 Divide the total rock area, calculated in subsection 2.7.5 of this appendix, by two (to get 

frontal area). Divide the resulting number by the size of the survey area (make sure the 

units of measurement match), and multiply by 100 for percent rock cover. For example, 

the total rock area is 1,400 square centimeters, divide 1,400 by 2 to get 700. Divide 700 

by 10,000 (the survey area is 1 meter by 1 meter, which is 100 centimeters by 100 

centimeters or 10,000 centimeters) and multiply by 100. The result is 7% rock cover. If 

rock measurements are made in inches, convert the survey area from meters to inches (1 

inch = 2.54 centimeters). 

2.7.7 Select and mark-off two additional survey areas and repeat the procedures described in 

subsection 2.7.1 through subsection 2.7.6 of this appendix. Make sure the additional 

survey areas also represent the general rock distribution on the site. Average the percent 

cover results from all three survey areas to estimate the average percent of rock cover. 

2.7.8 If the average rock cover is greater than or equal to 10%, the surface is stable. If the 

average rock cover is less than 10%, follow the procedures in subsection 2.7.9 of this 

appendix. 

243 
2.7.9 If the average rock cover is less than 10%, the surface may or may not be stable. Follow 

the procedures in Section 2.4 (Determination of Threshold Friction Velocity (TFV)) of 

this rule and use the results from the rock test method as a correction (i.e., multiplication) 

factor. If the rock cover is at least 1%, such rock cover helps to limit windblown dust. 

However, depending on the soil’s ability to release fine dust particles into the air, the 

percent rock cover may or may not be sufficient enough to stabilize the surface. It is also 

possible that the soil itself has a high enough TFV to be stable without even accounting 

for rock cover. 

2.7.10 After completing the procedures described in subsection 2.7.9 of this appendix, use Table 

2 of this appendix to identify the appropriate correction factor to the TFV, depending on 

the percent rock cover. Multiply the correction factor by the TFV value for a final TFV 

estimate that is corrected for non-erodible elements. 

3. TIME AVERAGED METHODS OF VISUAL OPACITY DETERMINATION OF EMISSIONS 

FROM DUST GENERATING OPERATIONS 

3.1 Applicability. This method is applicable for the determination of opacity of fugitive dust plumes 

from dust generating operations. A time-averaged regulation is any regulation that requires 

averaging visible emission data to determine the opacity of visible emissions over a specific time 

period.

3.2 Principle. The opacity of emissions from sources of visible emissions is determined visually by an 

observer qualified according to the procedures of Section 3.4 of this appendix. 

3.3 Procedures. An observer qualified, in accordance with Section 3.4 of this appendix, shall use the 

following procedures for visually determining the opacity of emissions. 

3.3.1 Procedures For Emissions From Stationary Sources. These procedures are not applicable 

to this section.

3.3.23.3.1 To determine the opacity of non-continuous dust plumes caused by activities including, 

but not limited to, bulk material loading/unloading, non-conveyorized screening, or 

trenching with backhoes: 

a. Position. Stand at least 25 feet from the dust generating operation in order to provide 

a clear view of the emissions with the sun oriented in the 140o sector to the back. 

Choose a discrete portion of the operation for observation, such as the unloading 

point, not the whole operation. Following the above requirements, make opacity 

observations so that the line of vision is approximately perpendicular to the dust 

plume and wind direction. If multiple plumes are involved, do not include more than 

one plume in the line of sight at one time. 

b. Initial Fallout Zone. The initial fallout zone within the plume must be identified. 

Record the distance from the equipment or path that is your identified initial fallout 

zone. The initial fallout zone is that area where the heaviest particles drop out of the 

entrained fugitive dust plume. Opacity readings should be taken at the maximum 

point of the entrained fugitive dust plume that is located outside the initial fallout 

zone. 

c. Field Records. Note the following on an observational record sheet: 

(1) Location of dust generating operation, type of operation, type of equipment in 

use and activity, and method of control used, if any; 

(2) Observer's name, certification data and affiliation, a sketch of the observer's 

position relative to the dust generating operation, and observer’s estimated 

distance and direction to the location of the dust generating operation; 

244 
(3) Time that readings begin, approximate wind direction, estimated wind speed, 

description of the sky condition (presence and color of clouds); and 

(4) Color of the plume and type of background. 

d. Observations. Make opacity observations, to the extent possible, using a contrasting 

background that is perpendicular to the line of vision. Make two observations per 

discrete activity, beginning with the first reading at zero seconds and the second 

reading at five seconds. The zero-second observation should begin immediately after 

a plume has been created above the surface involved. Do not look continuously at the 

plume but, instead, observe the plume briefly at zero seconds and then again at five 

seconds. 

e. Recording Observations. Record the opacity observations to the nearest 5% on an 

observational record sheet. Each momentary observation recorded represents the 

average opacity of emissions for a 5-second period. Repeat observations until you 

have recorded at least a total of 12 consecutive opacity readings. The 12 consecutive 

readings must be taken within the same period of observation but must not exceed 

one hour. Observations immediately preceding and following interrupted 

observations can be considered consecutive (e.g., vehicle traveled in front of path, 

plume doubled-over). 

f. Data Reduction. Average 12 consecutive opacity readings together. If the average 

opacity reading equals 20% or lower, the dust generating operation is in compliance. 

with the opacity standard described in Rule 310 of these rules.

3.3.33.3.2 To determine the opacity of continuous dust plumes caused by equipment and activities 

including but not limited to graders, trenchers, paddlewheels, blades, clearing, leveling, 

and raking: 

a. Position. Stand at least 25 feet from the dust generating operation to provide a clear 

view of the emissions with the sun oriented in the 140o sector to your back. 

Following the above requirements, make opacity observations so that the line of 

vision is approximately perpendicular to the dust plume and wind direction. 

b. Dust Plume. Evaluate the dust plume generation and determine if the observations 

will be made from a single plume or from multiple related plumes. 

(1) If a single piece of equipment is observed working, then all measurements 

should be taken off the resultant plume as long as the equipment remains 

within the 140o sector to the back. 

(2) If there are multiple related sources or multiple related points of emissions of 

dust from a particular activity, or multiple pieces of equipment operating in a 

confined area, opacity readings should be taken at the densest point within the 

discrete length of equipment travel path within the 140o sector to the back. 

Readings can be taken for more than one piece of equipment within the 

discrete length of travel path within the 140o sector to the back. 

c. Initial Fallout Zone. The initial fallout zone within the plume must be identified. 

Record the distance from the equipment or path that is your identified initial fallout 

zone. The initial fallout zone is that area where the heaviest particles drop out of the 

entrained fugitive dust plume. Opacity readings should be taken at the maximum 

point of the entrained fugitive dust plume that is located outside the initial fallout 

zone. 

d. Field Records. Note the following on an observational record sheet: 

(1) Location of the dust generating operation, type of operation, type of 

equipment in use and activity, and method of control used, if any; 

245 
(2) Observer's name, certification data and affiliation, a sketch of the observer's 

position relative to the dust generating operation, and observer’s estimated 

distance and direction to the location of the dust generating operation; and 

(3) Time that readings begin, approximate wind direction, estimated wind speed, 

description of the sky condition (presence and color of clouds). 

e. Observations. Make opacity observations, to the extent possible, using a contrasting 

background that is perpendicular to the line of vision. Make opacity observations at a 

point beyond the fallout zone. The observations should be made at the densest point. 

Observations will be made every 10 seconds until at least 12 readings have been 

recorded. Do not look continuously at the plume, but observe the plume momentarily 

at 10-second intervals. If the equipment generating the plume travels outside the field 

of observation or if the equipment ceases to operate, mark an “x” for the 10-second 

reading interval. Mark an “x” when plumes are stacked or doubled, either behind or 

in front, or become parallel to line of sight. Opacity readings identified as “x” shall 

be considered interrupted readings. 

f. Recording Observations. Record the opacity observations to the nearest 5% on an 

observational record sheet. Each momentary observation recorded represents the 

average opacity of emissions for a 10-second period. 

g. Data Reduction. Average 12 consecutive opacity readings together. If the average 

opacity reading equals 20% or lower, the dust generating operation is in compliance. 

with the opacity standard described in Rule 310 of these rules.

3.4 Qualification and Testing. 

3.4.1 Certification Requirements. To receive certification as a qualified observer, a candidate 

must be tested and demonstrate the ability to assign opacity readings in 5% increments to 

25 different black plumes and 25 different white plumes, with an error not to exceed 15% 

opacity on any one reading and an average error not to exceed 7.5% opacity in each 

category. Candidates shall be tested according to the procedures described in subsection 

3.4.2 of this appendix. Any smoke generator used pursuant to subsection 3.4.2 of this 

appendix shall be equipped with a smoke meter, which meets the requirements of 

subsection 3.4.3 of this appendix. Certification tests that do not meet the requirements of 

subsections 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 of this appendix are not valid. The certification shall be valid 

for a period of 6 months, and after each 6-month period the qualification procedures must 

be repeated by an observer in order to retain certification. 

3.4.2 Certification Procedure. The certification test consists of showing the candidate a 

complete run of 50 plumes, 25 black plumes and 25 white plumes, generated by a smoke 

generator. Plumes shall be presented in random order within each set of 25 black and 25 

white plumes. The candidate assigns an opacity value to each plume and records the 

observation on a suitable form. At the completion of each run of 50 readings, the score of 

the candidate is determined. If a candidate fails to qualify, the complete run of 50 

readings must be repeated in any retest. The smoke test may be administered as part of a 

smoke school or training program, and may be preceded by training or familiarization 

runs of the smoke generator, during which candidates are shown black and white plumes 

of known opacity. 

3.4.3 Smoke Generator Specifications. Any smoke generator used for the purpose of 

subsection 3.4.2 of this appendix shall be equipped with a smoke meter installed to 

measure opacity across the diameter of the smoke generator stack. The smoke meter 

output shall display in-stack opacity, based upon a path length equal to the stack exit 

diameter on a full 0% to 100% chart recorder scale. The smoke meter optical design and 

performance shall meet the specifications shown in Table A of this appendix. The smoke 

246 
meter shall be calibrated as prescribed in subsection 3.4.3(a) of this appendix prior to 

conducting each smoke reading test. At the completion of each test, the zero and span 

drift shall be checked, and if the drift exceeds plus or minus 1% opacity, the condition 

shall be corrected prior to conducting any subsequent test runs. The smoke meter shall be 

demonstrated, at the time of installation, to meet the specifications listed in Table A of 

this appendix. This demonstration shall be repeated following any subsequent repair or 

replacement of the photocell or associated electronic circuitry, including the chart 

recorder or output meter, or every 6 months, whichever occurs first. 

a. Calibration. The smoke meter is calibrated after allowing a minimum of 30 minutes 

warm-up by alternately producing simulated opacity of 0% and 100%. When stable 

response at 0% or 100% is noted, the smoke meter is adjusted to produce an output 

of 0% or 100%, as appropriate. This calibration shall be repeated until stable 0% and 

100% readings are produced without adjustment. Simulated 0% and 100% opacity 

values may be produced by alternately switching the power to the light source on and 

off while the smoke generator is not producing smoke. 

b. Smoke Meter Evaluation. The smoke meter design and performance are to be 

evaluated as follows:

(1) Light Source. Verify, from manufacturer's data and from voltage 

measurements made at the lamp, as installed, that the lamp is operated within 

plus or minus 5% of the nominal rated voltage. 

(2) Spectral Response of Photocell. Verify from manufacturer's data that the 

photocell has a photopic response (i.e., the spectral sensitivity of the cell shall 

closely approximate the standard spectral-luminosity curve for photopic vision 

which is referenced in (b) of Table A of this appendix). 

(3) Angle of View. Check construction geometry to ensure that the total angle of 

view of the smoke plume, as seen by the photocell, does not exceed 15°. 

Calculate the total angle of view as follows: 

Total Angle of View = 2tan-1 d/2L 

Where: 

d = The photocell diameter + the diameter of the limiting aperture; and 

L = The distance from the photocell to the limiting aperture. 

The limiting aperture is the point in the path between the photocell and the 

smoke plume where the angle of view is most restricted. In smoke generator 

smoke meters, this is normally an orifice plate. 

(4) Angle of Projection. Check construction geometry to ensure that the total 

angle of projection of the lamp on the smoke plume does not exceed 15°. 

Calculate the total angle of projection as follows: 

Total Angle of Projection = 2tan-1 d/2L 

Where: 

d = The sum of the length of the lamp filament + the diameter of the limiting 

aperture; and 

L = The distance from the lamp to the limiting aperture. 

(5) Calibration Error. Using neutral-density filters of known opacity, check the 

error between the actual response and the theoretical linear response of the 

smoke meter. This check is accomplished by first calibrating the smoke meter, 

according to subsection 3.4.3(a) of this appendix, and then inserting a series of 

three neutral-density filters of nominal opacity of 20%, 50%, and 75% in the 

smoke meter path length. Use filters calibrated within plus or minus 2%. Care 

should be taken when inserting the filters to prevent stray light from affecting 

the meter. Make a total of five nonconsecutive readings for each filter. The 

maximum opacity error on any one reading shall be plus or minus 3%. 

(6) Zero and Span Drift. Determine the zero and span drift by calibrating and 

operating the smoke generator in a normal manner over a 1-hour period. The 

drift is measured by checking the zero and span at the end of this period. 

247 
(7) Response Time. Determine the response time by producing the series of five 

simulated 0% and 100% opacity values and observing the time required to 

reach stable response. Opacity values of 0% and 100% may be simulated by 

alternately switching the power to the light source off and on while the smoke 

generator is not operating. 

Table A. Smoke Meter Design and Performance Specifications 

Parameter Specification 

a. Light Source Incandescent lamp operated at nominal rated voltage. 

b. Spectral response of photocell Photopic (daylight spectral response of the human eye).

c. Angle of view 15° maximum total angle

d. Angle of projection 15° maximum total angle

e. Calibration error Plus or minus 3% opacity, maximum.

f. Zero and span drift Plus or minus 1% opacity, 30 minutes. 

g. Response time Less than or equal to 5 seconds

4. VISUAL OPACITY DETERMINATION OF EMISSIONS FROM LIVESTOCK ACTIVITIES

– CORRALS, PENS, AND ARENAS

4.1 Applicability. This method is applicable for the determination of opacity of fugitive dust plumes 

from livestock activities-corrals, pens, and arenas.

4.2 Principle. The opacity of emissions from livestock activities-corrals, pens, and arenas is 

determined visually by an observer qualified according to Section 3.4 of this appendix.

4.3 Procedures. An observer qualified, in accordance with Section 3.4 of this appendix, shall use the 

following procedures for visually determining the opacity of emissions: 

4.3.1 Position. Stand at a position at least 5 meters from the livestock activities-corrals, pens, 

and arenas in order to provide a clear view of the emissions with the sun oriented in the 

140° sector to the back. Consistent as much as possible with maintaining the above 

requirements, make opacity observations from a position such that the line of sight is 

approximately perpendicular to the plume and wind direction. As much as possible, if 

multiple plumes are involved, do not include more than one plume in the line of sight at 

one time.

4.3.2 Field Records. Record the name of the site, method of control used, if any, observer's 

name, certification data and affiliation, and a sketch of the observer's position relative to 

the livestock activity-corrals, pens, and arenas. Also, record the time, estimated distance 

to the livestock activity-corrals, pens, and arenas location, approximate wind direction, 

estimated wind speed, description of the sky condition (presence and color of clouds), 

observer's position relative to the livestock activity-corrals, pens, and arenas, and color of 

the plume and type of background on the visible emission observation from when opacity 

readings are initiated and completed.

4.3.3 Observations. Make opacity observations, to the extent possible, using a contrasting 

background. For storage piles, make opacity observations approximately 1 meter above 

the surface from which the plume is generated. The initial observation should begin 

immediately after a plume has been created above the surface involved. Do not look 

continuously at the plume, but instead observe the plume momentarily at 15-second 

intervals.

4.3.4 Recording Observations. Record the opacity observations to the nearest 5% every 15 

seconds on an observational record sheet. If a multiple plume exists at the time of an 

observation, do not record an opacity reading. Mark an “x” for that reading. If the 

248 
249 

livestock activity-corrals, pens, and arenas ceases operating, mark an “x” for the 15-

second interval reading. Readings identified as “x” shall be considered interrupted 

readings.

4.3.5 Data Reduction. Within any 60-minute period, count at least three minutes that are 

greater than 20% opacity. If at least 13 readings are greater than 20% opacity, the 

livestock activity-corrals, pens, and arenas is not in compliance. Readings immediately 

preceding and following interrupted readings shall be deemed consecutive and in no case 

shall two sets overlap, resulting in multiple violations.