### State Implementation Plan Revision Package

Revisions to the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations Rule 300 – Visible Emissions

Prepared by Maricopa County Air Quality Department Planning & Analysis Division 1001 North Central Avenue, Suite 595 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 (602) 372-1465

Completeness Checklist

### Completeness Checklist
1. Agency: Maricopa County Air Quality Department

2. Submitted Rule: Number Title Adoption Date 300 Visible Emissi ons March 12, 2008
3. EPA Analogous Approved Rule (Applicable SIP): Rule 300 is analogous to th e EPA applicable SIP approve d Rule 30 of April 12, 1982.
4. State/District Authority for Adoption/Implementation: Authorizing Statutes: Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §49-112 (A), § 49-479, §49- 501, §11-251.63 and §11-871. Implementing Statute: Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §49-479 and §49-501.
5. Pollutants Regulated by Rule: PM

_ 9

__ , SO X



### ___ , VOC

____ , NO x



### ___ , CO

____ , Pb

____ 6. Identification of Source s by Name or Number/Location (City, County, or District) Area's Attainment and Plan Status (Gro up by Size/Subcategory, if Necessary): Sources may consist of any permitted sources, pollution control vendors, contractors, consultants, lawyers, the Co unty, private persons and consumers. The County estimates that as few as 20-30 sources might be actually affected by the rule making. Although many industry categories, including woodworking operations, metallurgical operations, scrap metal operations and cotton gins are potentially subject to Rule 300 most of these sources will be unaffected by this rule as they already comply with e ither form of data reduction for determining compliance with th e standards, are already subj ect to 20% or lower opacity standards, or are regulated by New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).

PM 10 

### Classification: Serious (As of June 10, 1996) Carbon Monoxide Classification: Attainment (As of April 8, 2005) 1-Hour Ozone Classification 1 

### : Attainment (June 14, 2005) 8-Hour Ozone Classification: Nona ttainment (As of April 15, 2004)

1 

### Note: on June 15, 2005 EPA revoked the 1-Hour Ozone stan dard for all areas in Arizona.
7. Summary of Rule/Rule Changes: The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) is proposing revisions to Rule 300. The proposed revisions are in relation to commitments made in the Five Percent Plan for PM 10 

### . Since the region did not attain the PM 10 

### standard by December 31, 2006, the region needs to submit to the Environmen tal Protection Agency (EPA) a Five Percent Plan for PM 10 

### by December 31, 2007. The Five Percent Plan for PM 10 

### must demonstrate 5% reductions per year in emissions from the date of submission to the EPA. The proposed revisions include changing the proce dures for determining compliance with the 20% opacity limitation from “averaging” to “ag gregating” and adding a requirement that

1

### no air contaminant remain visible in the atmos phere at the property lin e. Also, as part of this rulemaking, the MCAQD may add, delete, or modify additional rules as necessary.

Section 200: To add “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 201: To delete “Intermittent Source – A source which causes or discharges visible emissions for a duration of less than 6 consecutive minutes.”
Section 301: To delete from heading “Opacity/Gen eral”. To delete “No person shall discharge into the ambient air from any singl e source of emissions any air contaminant, other than uncombined water, in excess of 20% opacity.”
Section 301.1: To add “No person shall discharge in to the ambient air, from any single source of emissions, any air contaminant, othe r than uncombined wate r, in excess of 20% opacity for a period aggrega ting more than three minutes in any 60-minute period.”
Section 301.2: To add “No person shall ca use, suffer, allow, or permit diffusion of visible emissions, including fugitive du st, beyond the property line wi thin which the emissions are generated.
Section 501: To delete “except as provided in Se ction 502 of this rule” and to add “as modified by EPA Refe rence Method 203B.”
Section 502: To delete “Compliance Determination-Opacity of Visible Emissions From Intermittent Sources: Opacity of visible emissions from intermittent sources shall be determined by observ ations of visible emissions condu cted in accordance with EPA Reference Method 9, except that at least 12 rather than 24 consecutive readings shall be required at 15-second intervals for the averaging time.”

8. Rule's Effect on Emissions: There is no direct effect on emissions from th e changes made to this rule. The intended effect is to provide States with an expa nded array of data reduction procedures for determining compliance with SIP opacity regul ations. These areas that successfully met the December 31, 2006 attainment date administ er rules that utilize a time-exception form of the standard expressed as “... sha ll not exceed 20% opacity for more than three minutes out of any 60-minute period.” This fo rm of data reduction for the 20% opacity standard limits the number of excursions over the 20% visible emission standard and results in a more consistent compliance with the standard.
9. Demonstration That NAAQS (PSD) Increm ents/RFP Demonstration are Protected (as appropriate): The MCAQD is proposing these revisions to Rule 300 to implement a control measure and increase compliance with existing rules fo r 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 PM 10 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 PM 10 

### nonattainment areas that fail to attain are required to submit within 12 months of the a pplicable attainment date, “plan revisions

2

### 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% 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 app licable to an area that misses the serious area attainment date is as soon as practi cable. The region needs to submit to a Five Percent Plan for PM10 by December 31, 2007.
10. Modeling Information Used to Support Rule Revision: The changes to the rule doe not relax th e SIP; therefore modeling was not needed. Information on regional mode ling activities can be found in the Technical Support Document for the Maricopa County Five Percent Plan (available at: http://www.mag.maricopa.gov/pdf/c ms.resource/PM10_2007_Appendices_vol-3.pdf ) which was submitted to EPA in December 2007.

11. Evidence That Emission Limitations are Based on Emission Reduction Technology, Add-On Controls, Reformulated Material s, and/or Industrial/Process Equipment Designs: The amendments to Rule 300 w ill result in a lowering of pa rticulate matter emissions based upon two practices listed Section 301 of the amended rule. These practices are the prohibition of visible emissi ons of particulate matter be yond the property line within which the emissions are generated and to modify EPA Reference Method 9 by incorporation of EPA Refere nce Method 203B. These new pro cedures are not considered a technology or an add-on control or an industrial /proce ss equipment design.

12. Identification of Section/ Paragraph in Rule That Contains Emissions Limitations, Work Practice Standards, Averaging Times, Test Procedures and/or Recordkeeping/Report ing Requirements: Emission limitations are listed in Section 301.1 . Test procedures are listed in Section 501.
13. Compliance/Enforcement Strategies to be Used to Determine Compliance (Including Frequency of Inspection): Not Applicable.
14. Special Economic/Technological Justificat ions for Deviations From EPA Policies (As Appropriate): Not Applicable.

15. Other Comments: Attached Support Documenta tion Includes the Following:
Appendix 1 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Appendix 2 Agenda Form and Notice of Final Rulemaking Appendix 3 Notice of Public Hearing Appendix 4 Affidavit of Publication

3

### Appendix 5 Certified Excerpts From the Minutes of the Board of S upervisors' Public Hearing Appendix 6 Final Adopted Version of Rule

4

### For EPA Use Only

SIP RULE REVISION IS: ____ __COMPLETE _____INCOMPLETE

Name Telephone Number

District Contact: Jo Crumbaker (602) 506-6705

State Contact: Ira Do msky (602) 771-2365 Diane Arnst (602) 771-2375

State Submittal Date: ________

_____________________________________________

5

### EPA SIP Enforceability Statement

1. APPLICABILITY
a. What sources are being regulated? Sources may consist of any permitted sources, pollution control vendors, contractors, consultants, lawyers, the Co unty, private persons and consumers. The County estimates that as few as 20-30 s ources might be actually affected by the rulemaking. Although many industry categories, including woodworking operations, metallurgical operations, scrap metal operations and cotton gins are potentially subject to Rule 300 most of these sources will be unaffected by this rule as they already comply w ith either form of data reduction for determining compliance with the standa rds, are already subject to 20% or lower opacity standards, or are regulated by New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).
b. What exemptions are provided? 302.1 Charging Electric Arc Furnaces: Wh en charging or back-charging any electric arc furnace for which construction commenced prior to February 2, 1963, a person may discharge air contaminants, other than uncombined water, in excess of the applicable opac ity limit in Section 301 of this rule for no more than an aggregate of 3 minutes in any 45 minut e period; however, visible emissions resulting from such discharge of air c ontaminants shall not exceed 40% opacity.
302.2 Emergency Diesel Generators (EDGs) and Equipment: When emergency diesel generators (EDGs) and equipment mu st run for safety reasons and/or for safety and operational tests to meet the requirements legally imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a person may discharge air contaminants, other than uncombined water, in excess of the applicable opacity lim it in Section 301 of this rule. Any discharge of air contaminants, other than uncombined water, in excess of the opacity limit in Section 301 of this rule s hould not contribute to a violation of the national am bient air quality standard.
302.3 Firing of Ordnance At Test Facil ities: Visible emissions exceeding the opacity standards for short periods of tim e resulting from firing test rounds in enclosed bunkers at ordnance test facil ities which do not exceed 6 minutes in length shall not constitu te a violation of Section 301 of this rule.
302.4 Opacity Training: Equipment or pro cesses used to train individuals in opacity observations shall be exempt from opacity standards during the preparation for and/or during the actual training session(s).
c. What are the units of compliance? The units of compliance are in percentages.
d. Is bubbling or averaging of any type allowed? No.

6

### 7 e. If there is a redesig nation, will this change the emissions limitations? No.

2. COMPLIANCE DATES
a. What is the compliance date? The compliance date is the date of rule adoption – March 12, 2008.

b. What is the attainment date? Particulates attainment date: December 31, 2006 or as expeditiously as possible thereafter. 8-hour Ozone attainment date: June 15, 2009

3. SPECIFICIT Y OF CONDUCT
a. What test methods are required? EPA Reference Method 203B.
b. What is the averaging time in the compliance test method? Not Applicable.

4. RECORDKEEPING

a. What records are required to determine compliance? Rule 300 basically addresses a change to the way visible emissions are conducted. and does not contain records requirement s. Many sources subject to Rule 300 would have to comply with other rules sp ecific to their industry or process that would contain records requir ements utilizing the testing technique listed in Rule 300.
b. In what forms or units must records be kept? Opacity shall be determined by observations of visible emissions conducted in accordance with EPA Reference Method 203B. Opacity is reported in percentages.
c. On what time basis must records be kept? Recordkeeping is not addressed in Rule 300.

### Appendix 1NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
MARICOPA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
RULE 300 - VISIBLE EMISSIONS

PREAMBLE

1. Sections affected Rulemaking action
Rule 300 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. List of all previous notices appearing in the register addressing the proposed rule: Notice of Rulemaking Docket Opening: 13 A.A.R. 3373, October 5, 2007

4. The name and address of agency 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 Number: 602-506-6179 Email Address: jkuspert@mail.maricopa.gov or jcrumbak@mail.maricopa.gov

5. An explanation of the rule, including the agen cy’s reasons for initiating the rulemaking: The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MC AQD) is proposing revisions to Rule 300. The MCAQD is proposing these revisions to Rule 300 to implement a control measure and increase compliance with existing rules for the Five Percent Plan for PM 10 . On June 6, 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized its finding that the Phoenix Nonattainment Area did not attain the
24-hour PM 10 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 PM 10 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 PM 10 air quality standard and, from the date of such submission until attainment, for an annual reduction in PM 10 or PM 10 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

1for such area.” In accordance with the CAA section 17 9(d)(3), the attainment de adline applicable to an
area that misses the serious area attainment date is as soon as practicable. The region needs to submit
to a Five Percent Plan for PM 10 by December 31, 2007.

PM 10 Nonattainment St atus History:
In accordance with 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments , the Maricopa County nonattainment area was initially classified as "moderate" for PM 10 pollution. As a moderate nonattainment area, Maricopa County was required to submit to the EPA a moderate PM 10 nonattainment area plan and to show
attainment of the PM 10 national ambient air quality standa rds (NAAQS) by December 31, 1994.
Moderate PM 10 nonattainment area plans were submitted to the EPA in 1991 and 1993.

The Maricopa County moderate PM 10 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 PM 10 nonattainment area. Maricopa County was then required to submit a serious
PM 10 nonattainment area plan, which had to include best available control measures (BACM), measures designed to achieve the maxi mum degree of emissions reduction for PM 10 sources. Maricopa County had to show attainment of the PM 10 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 PM 10 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 stat e’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 PM 10 nonattainment area plan was submitted to the EPA on July 9, 1999. The EPA approved the revised serious PM 10 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 PM 10 nonattainment area plan, the Arizona Department Of Environmental Quality (ADEQ's) prepared and su bmitted a Plan For Attainment Of The 24-Hour PM 10 Standard–Maricopa County PM 10 Nonattainment Area in May 1997. EPA partially disapproved the
Arizona 24-hour Standard PM 10 SIP revision triggering a federal implementation plan (FIP) obligation, which remains in place, related to the area’s PM 10 moderate area plan. The obligation resulted from EPA disapproved those sections of the SIP addre ssing unpaved roads, unpaved shoulders, unpaved parking lots, vacant lots and agricu lture. EPA found that the SIP did no t contain measures to reduce the emissions from or the number of existing sources in these categories and therefore failed to implement

2reasonably available control measur es. Under the court ordered consen t decree, EPA finalized a FIP in July 1998 for the Maricopa County PM 10 nonattainment area that addres ses those four categories of

sources.

On July 2, 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found the controls proposed in the, inadequate to ensure the attainment of the PM 10 national ambient air quality standards (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 PM 10 standard at the Salt River monitoring sites and three other microscale sites in the Maricopa County
PM 10 nonattainment area (Maryvale, Gilbert, and West Chandler).

Although the EPA approved Arizona's 1997 SIP revisi on and additional required controls proposed by Maricopa County on August 4, 1997, EPA's Ae rometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) continued to show exceedances at the Maricopa County PM 10 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 revisi on to identify and implement corrective PM 10 control provisions in the Salt River Study Area and for si milar significant sources in the Maricopa County
PM 10 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 re quired to include control strategies that meet the best available co ntrol measures (BACM) test and the most stringent measures (MSM) test for significan t sources and source categories.

The Final Revised PM 10 State Implementation Plan For The Salt River Area dated August 2004 contained Arizona’s revisions to the State Implementation Plan for the Maricopa County PM 10 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 w ill 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 signifi cantly 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 app lied to sources in the Salt River Study Area

3will be applied to all similar sources thro ughout the Maricopa County PM10 serious
nonattainment area.

● A demonstration that the plan constitutes Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) up to the attainment deadline - 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 Ru lemaking Proposals: For the Five Percent Plan for PM10, an analysis was again conducted to id entify additional measures to reduce emissions and/or improve compliance with existing requirements. Finally, the MCAQD is also proposing to include a co ntrol measure adopted as BACM/M SM in Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Rule 316 in June 2005 for the Salt River SIP in Rule 300. Specifically, the MCAQD is proposing to add a no visible emissions of particulate matter at the property line standard to Rule 300. This proposed revision will make Rule 300 cons istent with Rule 310, Rule 310.01, and Rule 316 that also limit particulate matter.

The MCAQD further sought to review rules from other agencies to increase the consistency of compliance with the existing visible emission st andard of 20%. The MCAQD reviewed rules from Clark County, Nevada; South Coast Air Quality Mana gement District, California (SCAQMD); and San Joaquin Unified Air Pollution Control District, Ca lifornia (SJUAPCD) to identify difference between County rules and rules from areas that successfully met the Decembe r 31, 2006 attainment date. TheMCAQD also reviewed EPA’s notice finalizing Method 203 (A), (B), and (C) (71 FR 55119, September 21, 2006). In the summary of that notice EPA states, “The intended effect is to provide States with an expanded array of data reduction procedures for determining compliance with SIP opacity regulations.” These areas that successfully met the De cember 31, 2006 attainment date administer rules that utilize a time-exception form of the standard expressed as “... shall not exceed 20% opacity for more than 3 minutes out of any 60 minute period.” 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.

Section By Section Expl anation Of Changes:
Section 200: To add “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 201: To delete “Intermittent Source - A source which causes or discharges visible
emissions for a duration of less than 6 consecutive minutes.”

4Section 301: To delete from heading “Opacity/General”. To delete “No person shall discharge into the ambient air from any single sour ce of emissions any ai r contaminant, other than uncombined water, in excess of 20% opacity.” Section 301.1: To add “No person shall discharge into the ambient air, from any single source of emissions, any air contaminant, other than uncombined water, in excess of 20% opacity for a period aggregating more than three minutes in any 60-minute period.” Section 301.2: To add “No person shall cause, suffer, or allow visible emissions of particulate matter, including fugitive dust, beyond the property line within which the emissions are generated.” Section 501: To delete “except as provided in Section 502 of this rule” and to add “as modified by
EPA Reference Method 203B.” Section 502: To delete “Compliance Determination-Opacity Of Visible Emissions From Intermittent Sources: Opacity of visible emissions from intermittent sources shall be determined by observations of visible em issions conducted in accordance with EPA Reference Method 9, except that at least 12 rather than 24 consecutive readings shall be required at 15–second inte rvals for the averaging time.”

6. Demonstration of compliance with A.R.S. §49-112: Under ARS §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 ARS §49-112:

ARS §49-112 (A) 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 eviden ce that the rule, ordinance or other regulation is either: (a) Necessary to prevent a signifi cant 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 fe deral statutes or regulations if the county rule, ordinance or other regulation is equivalent to federal statutes or regulations.

The MCAQD is proposing to revise Rule 300 in order to address a peculiar local condition: EPA’s finding that the Phoenix Nonattainment Area did not attain the 24-hour PM 10 standard by the deadline mandated in the Clean Air Act (CAA), December 31, 2006. (72 FR 31183, June 6, 2007). The Phoenix

5Nonattainment Area is the only nonattainment area designated serious for PM 10 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 PM 10 nonattainment areas that fail to attain are required to submit within 12 months of the applicable atta inment date, “plan revisions which provide for
attainment of the PM 10 air quality standard and, from the date of such submission until attainment, for
an annual reduction in PM 10 or PM 10 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 a pplicable to an area that misses the serious area attainment date is as soon as practicable. The region needs to submit to a Five Percent
Plan for PM 10 by December 31, 2007. The Phoenix Nonattain ment Area is one of three areas in the entire country for which EPA has issued a finding that Section 189(d) has been triggered. Because of this, the revision complies with A.R.S. § 49 -112 (A)(1) and A.R.S. § 49-112 (A) (2).

7. 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 study, all data underlying each study, and any analysis of each study and other supporting
material: Not applicable.

8. A showing of good cause why the rule is necessary to promote a statewide interest if the rule will diminish a previous grant of auth ority of a political subdivision: Not applicable.

9. The preliminary summary of the economic , small business, and consumer impact:
Rule Identification: This rulemaking amends Rule 300, “Visible Emissions,” in Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations. The proposed rule adds a no visible emissions of particulate matter at the property line standard to Rule 300. This proposed revision will make Rule 300 consistent with Rules 310, 310.01 and Rule 316 that also limit particulate matter. A second proposed revision changes the data reduction methodology for the existing 20% and reads “... sha ll not exceed 20% opacity for more than 3 minutes out of any 60 minute period.” This form of data reduction for the 20% opacity standard limits the
number of excursions over the 20% level of the stan dard resulting in more consistent compliance with the existing standard.

Entities Directly Impacted: Entities directly impacted by this rulemaking include certain permitted sources, pollution control vendors, contractors, consultants, lawyers, the County, private persons and consumers. The County

6estimates that as few as 20-30 sources might be a ffected by this rulemaking. Although many industry categories, including woodworking operations, metallurgical operations, scrap metal operations, and cotton gins are potentially subject to Rule 300, most of these sources will be unaffected by this rule as they already comply with either form of data re duction for determining compliance with the standard, are already subject to 20%, or lo wer, opacity standards, or are re gulated by New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), Title 40, Part 60 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Probable Costs and Benefits:
A. Costs to the state of Arizona: If Arizona is unable to submit a plan that demons trates a Five Percent per year reduction and demonstrates attainment at the monitors based on implemented control measures such as this rule, EPA will be required to make a nondiscretionary finding that Arizona has failed to submit an approvable plan. If the County and Arizona fail to correct the identified deficiencies within the ti meframe specified in the notice, the sanctions under § 179 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) will be imposed. Sanctions include loss of highway funds and stricter emission offset requirements for major sources. In addition, under § 110(c) of the CAA, EPA would then need to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan no later than 24 months after the date of publication of the notice.

B. Potential Costs and Benefits to the Public: The most obvious benefit arising from promulgation of this rule is reduction in the harmful effects of air pollution, most notably particulates. Air pollution harms lung function, damages lung tissue, and increases respiratory symptoms, such as coughing, shortness of breat h, wheezing and asthma attacks, and can impair the body’s immune system response to inhaled particles. Results may include restricted activities, and work time and revenues lost due to increased hospital admissions, illness and death. PM associated health risks occur even more frequently in susceptible subpopulations, such as the elderly, children with asthma, and persons with cardiopulmonary disease, and may contribute to up to 65,000 excess deaths in the U.S. annually (STAPPA and ALAPCO, Controlling Particulate Matter Under the Clean Air Act: A Menu of Options, July 1996). Even very low concentrations of particulate matter may increase risk of early death, particularly in elderly populations with preexisting cardiopulmonary diseases (STAPPA and ALAPCO, supra). Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the U.S., cost the country more than 32 billion dollars in 2002, a figure which does not include costs attributable to asthma (American Lung Assoc., “Trends in Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema: Morbidity and Mortality,” Epidemiology and Statistics Unit, Research and Scientific Affairs, March 2003) . Notably, asthma death rates in Arizona equaled or exceeded U.S. rates from 1991-1998. In addition, in 1998, an estimated 316,200 Arizonans suffered breathing discomfort and asthma related stress (Arizona Department of Health Services, “Asthma Control Program,” Office of Nutrition and Chronic Disease Pr evention Services, October, 2002). Therefore,

7the County expects the countywide property line standard and change in data reduction methodology to translate into cost-saving benefits to the general public by reducing emissions-related adverse health
effects and the concurrent lost revenue and health care costs. In addition to direct health-related effects, a statewide opacity limit of 20% will affect the gene ral quality of life, particularly for those persons living near sources. A lower opacity limit will concu rrently increase visibility and enhance the public’s enjoyment of Arizona’s natural resources.

C. Potential Costs and Benefits to the Regulated Community: Both the proposed property line standard for particulate matter and the new data reduction methods for the existing opacity standard will require that owners/operators more closely monitor their activities, processes, and controls to ensure proper operation at all times. As described in the explanation in #5 above, a number of western serious PM-10 nonattainment areas administer rules that include both of the proposed revisions. Those areas contain many similar sources that comply with the proposed
standards and are in the same business as sources in Maricopa County. Furthermore, an EPA study (Office of Air Quality Planning an d Standards, “Opacity Regulations: A Summary of State Regulations and Rulemaking Status”, Special Report February 1983 ) contains information indicating that the state or a local agency in 28 states has adopted a time-exception form of data reduction for their opacity
standard.

Although each regulated facility is unique, the costs of compliance associated with the new rule are similar and may include: new capital equipment or modification of existing equipment, adjusting or enhancing operations and maintenance; replacement or modification of processes and designs; and indirect and administrative costs. Compliance might also result, however, in a variety of offsetting financial benefits for the source. They range from lower operation and maintenance costs, as a result of updated and more efficient equipmen t, to fewer man-hours lost and lower health care costs due to a decrease in pollution-exacerbated illnesses. During the informal workshop process for this rulemaking, the County requested that information on source -specific costs to achieve compliance with these standards, but has not yet received any information. The County is specifically requesting in this preliminary EIS source-specific in formation on costs to achieve compliance with the new data reduction methodology for determining compliance with the existing 20% opacity standard and no visible emissions at the property line standard.

Small Business Analysis: Several small business categories were represented during the stakeholder process for this proposed rule. The County has not identified all small businesses that could be affected by this rulemaking, however, those who did participate did not express any reservations about compliance. The County has considered a variety of methods to reduce the impact of this rule on small businesses, including five

8methods prescribed by A.R.S. § 41-1035: establish less stringent compliance or reporting requirements; establish less stringent schedules or dead lines for compliance or reporting requirements; consolidate or simplify the rulemaking’s reporting requirements; establish pe rformance requirements to replace design or operational sta ndards; or exempt them from some or all of the rule requirements.
For the reasons stated in item #5 of the preamble, and due to the inherent difficulty in identifying all sources which are small businesses, including the possibility that such status may change from year to year, the County has determined that it is not feasible to apply a separate opacity standard to small businesses. The County does employ an ombudsman in the Business Resource Division, to whom small businesses may address their issues with regard to compliance with the rule.

Both the proposed property line standard for particulate matter and the new data reduction methods for the existing opacity standard will require that owners/operators more closely monitor their activities, processes, and controls to ensure proper operation at all times.

As described in the explanation in #5 above, a number of western serious PM 10 nonattainment areas administer a property line standard. Those areas c ontain many similar sources that comply with property line standards and are in the same busines s as sources in Maricopa County. Furthermore, existing Maricopa County sources are already requir ed to employ good hous ekeeping practices and monitor control equipment. To date no source has provided examples of the activities, processes or controls that may need to be modified to comply with this new requirement. The MCAQD is asking for information or examples that would allow for more than a qualitative analysis of the economic impact of the proposed standard.

As described in the explanation in #5 above, a number of western serious PM 10 nonattainment areas administer a time-exception data re duction methodology for their visible opacity limits. Furthermore, an EPA study (Office of Air Quality Planning an d Standards, “Opacity Regulations: A Summary of State Regulations and Rulemaking Status”, Special Report February 1983) contains information indicating that the state or a local agency in 28 states has adopted a time-exception form of data reduction for their opacity standard. Those areas c ontain many similar sources that comply with timeexception data reduction methods for visible emission standards and are in the same business as sources in Maricopa County. To date no source has provided examples of the activities, processes or controls that may need to be modified to comply with this new requirement. The MCAQD is asking for information or examples that would allow for more than a qualitative analysis of the economic impact of the proposed standard.

10. Name and address of department personnel with whom persons may communicate regarding the accuracy of the economic, small busin ess, and consumer impact statement:

9Name: 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 Number: 602-506-6179 Email Address: jkuspert@mail.maricopa.gov or jcrumbak@mail.maricopa.gov

11. The time, place and nature of the proceed ings for the amendment of the rule: Written comments will be accepted if received between the date of this publication and December 11, 2007, 5:00 p.m. Written comments may be mailed or hand delivered to the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (see #4 above). Written comments received during the comment period will be considered formal comments to the proposed rules and will be responded to in the Notice Of Final Rulemaking.

An oral proceeding will be held on December 10, 2007 at 9:00 am at the Maricopa County Flood Control District, 2801 West Durango, Operations Building. All comments made at this oral proceeding
will be considered formal comments and will be re corded and transcribed. All formal comments will be addressed in the Notice Of Final Rulemaking.

12. Any other matters prescribed by the statute that are applicable to the specific agency or to any specific rule or class of rules: Not applicable

13. Incorporations by reference and their location in the rules: Incorporation By Reference Location
EPA Reference Method 9 Rule 300, Section 501
EPA Reference Method 203B Rule 300, Section 501

14. The full text of the rule follows:

REGULATION III – CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 300
VISIBLE EMISSIONS

INDEX

10SECTION 100 – GENERAL
101 PURPOSE
102 APPLICABILITY
SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS
201 INTERMITTENT SOURCE
202 201 OPACITY
203 202 PERCENT OPACITY
204 203 SHUTDOWN
20 5 204 STARTUP
206 205 UNCOMBINED WATER
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS
301 LIMITATIONS – OPACITY/GENERAL
302 EXCEPTIONS SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS (NOT APPLICABLE)
SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS
501 COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION - OPACITY
502 COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION

- OPACITY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS FROM
INTERMITTENT SOURCES

11Revised 07/13/88 Revised 08/05/94 Revised 02/07/01 MARICOPA COUNTY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION III – CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 300
VISIBLE EMISSIONS
SECTION 100 - GENERAL

101 PURPOSE: To limit the emission of air contaminants into the ambient air by establishing
standards for visible emissions and opacity.

102 APPLICABILITY: This rule applies to visible emissions from sources for which no sourcespecific opacity requirements apply. Exceptions to this rule are described in Section 302 of this
rule.

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 INTERMITTENT SOURCE – A source which causes or discharges visible emissions for a
duration of less than 6 consecutive minutes.

202 201 OPACITY - A condition of the ambient air, or any part thereof, in which an air contaminant partially or wholly obscures the view of an observer.

203 202 PERCENT OPACITY - The degree to which an effluent plume or any other emission of air contaminants obscures the transmission of light expressed as a percentage.

204 203 SHUTDOWN - The cessation of operation of any air pollution control equipment and/or process equipment for any purpose, except routine phasing out of process equipment.

205 204 STARTUP - The setting into operation of any air pollution control equipment and/or process equipment for any purpose, except routine phasing in of process equipment.

206 205 UNCOMBINED WATER - Condensed water containing no mo re than analytical trace amounts of other chemical elements or compounds.

12SECTION 300 – STANDARDS

301 LIMITATIONS

– OPACITY/GENERAL : No person shall discharge into the ambient air from any single source of emissions any air contaminan t, other than uncombined water, in excess of 20% opacity.

301.1 No person shall discharge into the ambient air, from any single source of emissions, any air contaminant, other than uncombined water, in excess of 20% opacity for a period aggregating more than three minutes in any 60-minute period.

301.2 No person shall cause, suffer, or allow visible emissions of particulate matter, including fugitive dust, beyond the property line within which the emissions are generated.

302 EXCEPTIONS:

302.1 Charging Electric Arc Furnaces: When charging or back-charging any electric arc furnace for which construction commenced prior to February 2, 1963, a person may discharge air contaminants, other than uncomb ined water, in exce ss of the applicable opacity limit in Section 301 of this rule for no more than an aggregate of 3 minutes in any 45 minute period; however, visible emissi ons resulting from such discharge of air contaminants shall not exceed 40% opacity.

302.2 Emergency Diesel Genera tors (EDGs) And Equipment: When emergency diesel generators (EDGs) and equipment must run for safety reasons and/or for safety and operational tests to meet the requirements legally imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a person may discharge air contaminants, other than uncombined water, in excess of the applicable opacity limit in Sec tion 301 of this rule. Any discharge of air contaminants, other than uncombined water, in excess of the opacity limit in Section 301 of this rule should not contribute to a violation of the national ambient air quality
standard.

302.3 Firing Of Ordnance At Test Facilities: Visible emissions exceeding the opacity standards for short periods of time resulting from firing test rounds in enclosed bunkers at
ordnance test facilities which do not exceed 6 minutes in length shall not constitute a
violation of Section 301 of this rule.

1314 302.4 Opacity Training: Equipment or processes used to train individuals in opacity observations shall be exempt from opacity standards during the preparation for and/or during the actual training session(s).

SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS (NOT APPLICABLE)

SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS

501 COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION - OPACITY : Opacity shall be determined by
observations of visible emissi ons conducted in accordance w ith EPA Reference Method 9 as modified by EPA Reference Method 203B . , except a s provided in Section 502 of this rule.

502 COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION

- OPACITY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS FROM
INTERMITTENT SOURCES: Opacity of visible emissions from intermittent sources shall be determined by observations of visible emissions conducted in acc ordance with EPA Reference Method 9, except that at least 12 rather than 24 consecutive readings shall be required at 15

– second intervals for the averaging time.

### Appendix 2NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING
MARICOPA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
RULE 300 – VISIBLE EMISSIONS

PREAMBLE

1. Sections affected Rulemaking action
Rule 300 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 rule: Date of Adoption: March 12, 2008

4. List of all previous notices appearing in the Register addressing the rulemaking: Notice of Rulemaking Docket Opening: 13 A.A.R. 3373, October 5, 2007 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: 13 A.A.R. 3864, November 9, 2007

5. The name and address of agency 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 Number: 602-506-6179 Email Address: jkuspert@mail.maricopa.gov or jcrumbak@mail.maricopa.gov

6. An explanation of the rule, including the agen cy’s reasons for initiating the rulemaking: The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) revised Rule 300 to implement a control measure and increase compliance with existing rules for the Five Percent Plan for PM 10 . On June 6, 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized its finding that the Phoenix
nonattainment area did not attain the 24-hour PM 10 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 PM 10 nonattainment areas that fail to attain are required to submit within 12 months of the

1applicable attainment date, “plan revisions which provide for attainment of the PM 10 air quality standard and, from the date of such submission until attainment, for an annual reduction in PM 10 or PM 10 precursor emissions within the area of not less than 5% of the amount of such emissions as reported in the most recent inventory prepared fo r such area.” In accordance with the CAA section 179(d)(3), the attainment deadline a pplicable to an area that misses the serious area attainment date is as soon as practicable. The region submitted a Five Percent Plan for PM 10 by December 31, 2007.

PM 10 Nonattainment St atus History: The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments initially cla ssified Maricopa County as a "moderate" nonattainment area for PM 10 pollution. This classification required the Phoenix nonattainment area to
show attainment of the PM 10 national ambient air quality standa rds (NAAQS) by December 31, 1994. The Maricopa County moderate PM 10 nonattainment area failed to attain the NAAQS by this deadline. Consequently, on May 10, 1996, the EPA reclassified Maricopa County as a serious PM 10 nonattainment area. The EPA partially disapproved the PM 10 SIP revision triggering a federal implementation plan (FIP) obligation. The EPA disapproved those sections of the SIP addressing unpaved roads, unpaved shoulders, unpaved parking lots, vacant lots, and agriculture. Under the court ordered consent decree, the EPA fina lized a FIP in July 1998 for the Maricopa County PM 10 nonattainment area that addressed four of those categories. In response to the EPA’s disapproval, a SIP was prepared by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to include implementation of Best Available Control Measures (BACM) demonstrating attainment of the PM 10 NAAQS by December 21,
2001.

Emission inventories and air quality modeling analysis of these control measures found a 16.4% PM 10 reductions shortfall, so attainment was not achiev ed by the December 2001 targ et date. A Serious Area
Plan for PM 10 was submitted to EPA on July 9, 1999 containing 77 additional control measures. This revised serious area plan was approved by the EPA in April 2002 contingent on the completion of three commitments by Maricopa County. Revisions to Rule 310 adopted on April 7, 2004 addressed
these commitments.

On July 2, 2002, the EPA found the SIP control inadequate to ensure the attainment of the PM 10 NAAQS at the Salt River air quality monitoring sites and three other microscale sites in the Maricopa County nonattainment ar ea (Maryvale, Gilbert, and West Chandler). The EPA’s Aerometric Information Retrieval System (A IRS) continued to show exceedan ces at the Maricopa County PM 10 nonattainment area Salt River site, recording exceedan ces in 1999, 2000, and through three quarters of 2001. Consequently, the EPA required Arizona to submit a SIP revision to identify and implement
corrective PM 10 control provisions in the Salt River Study Area and for similar significant sources in the Maricopa County PM 10 nonattainment area.

2Arizona’s Salt River SIP revision provided attain ment by 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 Mo st Stringent Measures (MSM) test for significant sources and source categories.

The Final Salt River PM 10 State Implementation Plan dated August 2004 included the following 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 PM 10 will result in attainment of the 24-hour NAAQS by December 31, 2006, at the Salt River PM 10 monitoring site, in accordance with CAA §189(b)(1)(A) and §188(e).

● Commitments to implement BACM-MSM for sources significantly contribu ting to exceedances of
the 24-hour PM 10 standard in the Salt River area as expe ditiously as possible (CAA §189(b)(1)(B))
and a commitment that all BACM and MSM control measures adopted and applied to sources in the Salt River Study Area will be applied to all similar sources throughout the Maricopa County
PM 10 serious nonattainment area.

● A demonstration that the plan constitutes Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) up to the attainment deadline (December 31, 2006).

● A demonstration that all the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act Amendments that pertain to
serious PM 10 nonattainment areas are met, including CAA §110(l), §110(a)(2)(E)(i), and 40 CFR §51.280 and §51.111).

Explanation for Current Ru lemaking Proposals:
The Phoenix nonattainment area did not attain the 24-hour PM 10 standard by the deadline of December 31, 2006 mandated in the Clean Air Act (CAA) (72 FR 31183, June 6, 2007). Now, the required 5%
Plan for PM 10 must demonstrate 5% reductions per year in emissions from the date of submission to
the EPA.

The MCAQD conducted an analysis to identify additional measures to reduce emissions and/or improve compliance with existing requirements. In this analysis, the MCAQD reviewed current rules to determine the Most Stringent Measures (MSM) application of th e 20% visible emission standard. This review included rules from Clark County, Nevada; South Coast Air Quality Management District, California (SCAQMD); and San Joaquin Unifie d Air Pollution Control District, California (SJUAPCD) in an effort to identify the differen ces between Maricopa County rules and rules from areas that successfully met the December 31, 2006 attainment date. The MCAQD also reviewed the

3EPA’s notice finalizing Method 203 (A), (B), and (C) (71 FR 55119, September 21, 2006). In the summary of that notice the EPA stat es: “The intended effect is to provide States with an expanded array of data reduction procedures for determinin g compliance with SIP opacity regulations.” These areas that successfully met the D ecember 31, 2006 attainment date admi nister rules that utilize a timeexception form of the standard expressed as “... shall not exceed 20% opacity for more than three minutes out of any 60-minute period.” This form of data reduction for the 20% opacity standard limits
the number of excursions over the 20% visible emission standard and results in a more consistent compliance with the standard.

Section by Section Explanation of Changes:
Section 200: Added “See Rule 100 – General Provisions and Definitions of these rules fordefinitions of terms that are used but not specifically defined in this rule” and renumbered definitions to be consistent with definition changes. Section 201: Deleted “Intermittent Source – A source which causes or discharges visible
emissions for a duration of less than 6 consecutive minutes.” Re-numbered definitions to be consistent with definition changes. Section 301: Deleted from heading “Opacity/Gen eral”. Added “for a period aggregating more than three minutes in any 60-minute period ” and added “of this rule” for reference

purposes. Section 501: Deleted “except as provided in Section 502 of this rule” and added “as modified by
EPA Reference Method 203B.” Section 502: Deleted “Compliance Determination – Opacity of Visible Emissions From Intermittent Sources: Opacity of visible emissions from intermittent sources shall be determined by observations of visible em issions conducted in accordance with EPA Reference Method 9, except that at least 12 rather than 24 consecutive readings shall be required at 15–second inte rvals for the averaging time.”

7. Demonstration of compliance with A.R.S. §49-112: Under ARS §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 th e requirements of ARS §49-112, which in Section (A) states:

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 eviden ce that the rule, ordinance or other regulation is either:

4(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 Rule 300 in order to address a peculiar local condition: EPA’s finding that the
Phoenix nonattainment area did not attain the 24-hour PM 10 standard by the December 31, 2006 deadline mandated in the Clean Air Act (CAA; 72 FR 31183, June 6, 2007). The Phoenix nonattainment area is the only nonattainment area designated serious for PM 10 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 PM 10 nonattainment areas that fail to attain are required to submit within 12 months of the applicable atta inment date “plan revisions which provide for
attainment of the PM 10 air quality standard and, from the date of such submission until attainment, for
an annual reduction in PM 10 or PM 10 precursor emissions within the area of not less than 5% 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 prac ticable. The region submitted a Five Percent Plan for
PM 10 by December 31, 2007. The Phoenix nonattainme nt area is one of three areas in the entire country for which the EPA has issued a finding that Section 189(d) has been triggered. Because of this, the revisions to Maricopa County Rule 300 comply with A.R.S. § 49-112 (A)(1) and A.R.S. § 49-112 (A)(2).

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 study, all data underlying each study, and any analysis of each study and other supporting
material: Not applicable.

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 auth ority of a political subdivision: Not applicable.

10. A preliminary summary of the economic, small business, and consumer impact:
Rule Identification: This rulemaking amends Rule 300 – Visible Emissions in the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations. The revision changes the data reduction methodology for the existing 20% opacity limit and reads “... shall not exceed 20% opacity for more than three minutes out of any 60-minute period.”

5This form of data reduction for the 20% opacity standard limits the number of excursions over the 20% visible emission standard and results in a more consistent compliance with the standard.

Entities Directly Impacted: Entities directly impacted by this rulemaking include certain permitted sources, pollution control vendors, contractors, consultants, lawyers, the County, private persons and consumers. The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) estimates that as few as 20 to 30 sources might be affected by this rulemaking. Although many industry cat egories, including wo odworking operations, metallurgical operations, scrap metal operations, and cotton gins are potentially subject to Rule 300, most of these sources will be unaffected by this rule . Such sources either already comply with a form of data reduction for determining compliance with th e standard, are already subject to the 20% opacity standard or lower opacity standards, or are regul ated by New Source Perfo rmance Standards (NSPS) under Title 40, Part 60 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Probable Costs and Benefits:
A. Costs to the state of Arizona: If Arizona is unable to submit a plan that demonstrates a 5% per year reduction in PM 10 and is unable
to demonstrate attainment at the monitors based on implemented control measures such as this rule, the EPA will be required to make a nondiscretionary finding that Arizona has failed to submit an approvable plan. If the County and Ar izona fail to correct the identified deficiencies – described in the EPA’s nondiscretionary finding – within the time frame specified in the EPA’s nondiscretionary finding, the sanctions under § 179 of the Clean Ai r Act (CAA) will be imposed. Sanctions include loss of highway funds and stricter emission offset requirements for major sources. In addition, under § 110(c) of the CAA, the EPA would then need to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) no later than 24 months after the date of publication of the notice of EPA’s nondiscretionary finding.

B. Potential Costs and Benefits to the Public: The most obvious benefit arising from promulgation of this rule is reduction in the harmful effects of air pollution, most notably particulates. Air pollution harms lung function, damages lung tissue, and increases respiratory symptoms, such as coughing, shortness of breat h, wheezing and asthma attacks, and can impair the body’s immune system response to inhaled particles. Results may include restricted activities, work time lost, revenues lost due to increased hospital admissions, illness, and death. PM associated health risks occur even more frequently in susceptible subpopulations, such as the elderly, children with asthma, and persons with cardiopulmonary disease, and may contribute to up to 65,000 excess deaths in the U.S. annually (STAPPA and ALAPCO, Controlling Particulate Matter Under the Clean Air Act: A Menu of Options, July 1996). Even very low concentrations of particulate matter may increase risk of early death, particularly in elderly populations with preexisting cardiopulmonary

6diseases (STAPPA and ALAPCO, supra ). Chronic obstructive pulmona ry disease (COPD), a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the U.S., cost the country more than 32 billion dollars in 2002, a figure which does not include costs attributable to asthma (American Lung Assoc., “Trends in Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema: Morbidity and Mortality,” Epidemiology and Statistics Unit, Research and Scientific Affairs, March 2003) . Notably, asthma death rates in Arizona equaled or exceeded U.S. rates from 1991–98. In addition, in 1998, an estimated 316,200 Arizonans suffered breathing discomfort and asthma related stress (Arizona Department of Health Services, “Asthma Control Program,” Office of Nutrition and Chronic Disease Pr evention Services, October, 2002). Therefore, Maricopa County expects the change in data re duction methodology; i.e., utilizing a time-exception form of the standard expressed as “... shall not ex ceed 20% opacity for more than three minutes out of any 60-minute period”, to translate into cost-saving benefits to the general public by reducing
emissions-related adverse health e ffects and the concurrent lost reve nue and health care costs. In
addition to direct health-related e ffects, a statewide opacity limit of 20% will affect the general quality of life, particularly for those persons living near sources.

C. Potential Costs and Benefits to the Regulated Community: The change in the data reduction methodology for the existing opacity standard in Rule 300 will require that owners/operators more closely monitor their activities, processes, and controls to ensure proper operation at all times. Areas that successfully met the December 31, 2006 PM 10 attainment date – including Clark County, Nevada; South Coast Ai r Quality Management District, California; San Joaquin Unified Air Pollution Control District, Califor nia; and six out of 14 western states that are members of the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) – all administer rules that include the data reduction methodology adopted in Rule 300. These areas contain sources similar to sources in Maricopa County and such similar sources comply with the adopted standard.

Although each regulated facility is uni que, the costs of compliance associat ed with the revision to Rule 300 are similar and may include: new capital equipment or modification of existing equipment, adjusting or enhancing operations and maintenance; replacing or modifying processes and designs; and indirect and administrative costs. Compliance might also result, however, in a variety of offsetting financial benefits for the source. Such benefits rang e from lower operation and maintenance costs, as a result of updated and more efficient equipment, to fewer man-hours lost and lower health care costs due to a decrease in pollution-ex acerbated illnesses. During the info rmal workshop process for this rulemaking, the Maricopa County Air Quality De partment (MCAQD) requested, from sources participating in the rulemaking process, informat ion on source-specific costs to achieve compliance with these standards. The MCAQD did not receive any information.

Small Business Analysis:

7The MCAQD has not identified all small businesses that could be affected by this rulemaking; however, several small business categories were represented during the rulemaking process for Rule 300 and such businesses did not express any reservations about compliance. The MCAQD has considered a variety of methods to reduce the impact of this rule on small businesses, including five methods prescribed by A.R.S. § 41-1035: (1) establish less stringent compliance or reporting requirements; (2) establish less stringent schedul es or deadlines for co mpliance or reporting requirements; (3) consolidate or simplify the rulemaking’s reporting requirements; (4) establish performance requirements to replace design or operatio nal standards; or (5) exempt them from some or all of the rule requirements. For the reasons stated in Item #6 of this Notice of Final Rulemaking and due to the inherent difficulty in identifying all sources which are small businesses, including the possibility that such status may change from year to year, the MCAQD has determined that it is not feasible to apply a separate opacity standard to small businesses. The MCAQD does employ an ombudsman in the Business Resource Division, to whom small businesses may address their issues regarding compliance with the rule.

The change in the data reduction methodology for the existing opacity standard in Rule 300 will require that owners/operators more closely monitor their activities, processes, and controls to ensure proper operation at all times. Areas that successfully met the December 31, 2006 PM 10 attainment date – Clark County, Nevada; South Coast Air Quality Management District, California; San Joaquin Unified Air Pollution Control District, California; and six of 14 western states that are members of the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) – all administer rules that include the data reduction methodology adopted in Rule 300. These areas contain sources similar to sources in Maricopa County and such similar sources comply with the adopted standard.

Although each regulated facility is uni que, the costs of compliance associat ed with the revision to Rule 300 are similar and may include: new capital equipment or modification of existing equipment, adjusting or enhancing operations and maintenance; replacing or modifying processes and designs; and indirect and administrative costs. Compliance might also result, however, in a variety of offsetting financial benefits for the source. Such benefits rang e from lower operation and maintenance costs, as a result of updated and more efficient equipment, to fewer man-hours lost and lower health care costs due to a decrease in pollution-ex acerbated illnesses. During the info rmal workshop process for this rulemaking, the Maricopa County Air Quality De partment (MCAQD) requested, from sources participating in the rulemaking process, informat ion on source-specific costs to achieve compliance with these standards. The MCAQD did not receive any information.

11. Name and address of department personnel with whom persons may communicate regarding the accuracy of the economic, small busin ess, and consumer impact statement:

89 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 Number: 602-506-6179 Email Address: jkuspert@mail.maricopa.gov or jcrumbak@mail.maricopa.gov

12. Description of the changes betw een the proposed rule, including supplemental notices and final
rule: Since the final draft of Rule 300 was 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 Rule 300 were made. Th ese changes appear in the text of the final rule published in this Notice of Final Rulemaking:

Rule 300, Section 301.1: Moved new Section 301.1 to existing Section 301. In Section 301, deleted from heading “Opacity/General” and added “for a pe riod aggregating more than three minutes in any 60-minute period.” Section 301 reads: “Limitations: No person shall discharge into the ambient air from any single source of emissions any air contaminant, other than uncombined water, in excess of 20% opacity for a period aggregating more than three minutes in any 60-minute period.”

Rule 300, Section 301.2: Deleted new Section 301.2: “No person shall cause, suffer, or allow visible emissions of particulate matter, including fugitive dust, beyond the property line within which the emissions are generated.”

13 A summary of the comments made regarding the rule and the department response to them: The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) conducted two Public Workshops throughout the ru lemaking process for Rule 300 (in April and August 2007), and received formal comments during the formal comment period (N ovember–December 2007) from Arizona Public Service (APS) and Salt River Project (SRP), Ariz ona Associated General Contractors, Arizona Department of Agriculture, and Joint Environmen tal Task Force. The fo rmal comments and the MCAQD’s responses to such formal comments are summarized below:Comment #1: APS and SRP are concerned with the proposed changes to this section as it relates to stack emissions. Based on information provided in the 2005 Maricopa County Emissions Inventory, modeling analyses performed by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), recommended Control Measures identified by the Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee of the MAG, and cond itions set forth in Senate Bill 1552, it appears the intent of the five percent plan is to reduce particulate matter emissions from fugitive dust sources. However, the requirements set forth in this rule ap ply to emissions that have no applicable sourcespecific opacity requirement. It is clear that f ugitive dust sources have a source specific opacity requirement under Rule 310 and 310.01; therefore, th e changes in this rule do not address fugitive dust sources, but would instead impact point sources. As such, the changes set forth in this rule are beyond the scope of the five percent plan and do not reduce fugitive dust emissions.

Response #1: The technical analysis associat ed with the Salt River Area PM 10 SIP revision submitted in 2005 determined that stationary sources contribute significantly to exceed ances of the 24-hour PM 10 standard that occur under stagnant conditions. That analysis characterized the specific types, number, and size of sources present in th e modeling domain; land use; the to pography of the area; and the design day specific meteorological conditions pr esent 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 conditi ons present that cause exceedances in the nonattainment area. Therefore, the nonattainment area plans for the Phoenix nonattainment area for PM 10 are required under the Clean Air Act, in effect, to address actual local conditions that are unique to a geographical area. Further, the EPA’s latest partic ulate 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 source measures. The rule also lists improved monitoring as a control measure. The 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 t operate as intended or required. The result would be increased emissions reductions from implementing existing and new rules.

Comment #2: The language "no person shall discharge" should be replaced with the phrase "an owner/operator shall take reasonable measures to prevent discharge into ambient air" in Section 301.1 and Section 301.2. There should be consistency when the phrase "reasonable measure" substitutes "no person shall discharge" in Rules 300, 310, and 310.01.

10Response #2: Using the term “reasonable” represents a relaxation of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The term "reasonable" would not add to or clarify the meani ng. Since "reasonable" is a qualitative term, it would simply lead to more ambiguity.

Comment #3: With respect to Section 301.1, 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:

“Under Method 9, the opacity is determined as the average of 24 cons ecutive observations recorded at 15-second intervals. As such, the opacity determination is based on a six-minute average of 24 observations. In Method 203B, the number of observ ations above the applicab le 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 e liminates the averaging effect of readings below the standard...Obviously a 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 regulati ons 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 2 03B 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 PM 10 regulations that the “peculiar local co ndition” referred to in the statute was
somehow connected to PM 10 . 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 in tended to measure and cannot measure PM 10 emissions or the

11emissions of any other pollutant. For this reason, so urce category specific rules typically specify both an opacity limit and an emission limit...”

“Since there is no coincidence between PM 10 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 PM 10 (or any other) emissions...”

“Either the MCAQD must make the showings and pr ovide the evidence required by statute (which we judge to be unlikely) or the proposal should be immediately withdrawn...”

Response #3: The revision to the data reduction methodology to EPA Method 203B, which is associated with Maricopa County's 20% opacity standard, is intende d to further efforts to increase compliance. This form of data reduction for the 20% opacity standard limits the number of excursions over the 20% opacity standard, which results in more consistent compliance with the existing standard. A rule effectiveness study conducted 2006 through 2007 by the MCAQD found that compliance with the existing rules is lower than anticipated.

The commenter also states that the proposed revisions to the data reduction methodology make the 20% opacity standard substantially more stringent that the current rule. The MCAQD disagrees and believes that the comment overstates the stringency of EPA Method 203B. Throughout the informal and formal rulemaking process, the MCAQD has repeatedly asked for examples of changes or modifications that would be necessary to comply with the proposed revision to Rule 300, using EPA
Method 203B data reduction met hodology. The MCAQD did not recei ve any additional information. Further, areas that successfully met the December 31, 2006 PM 10 attainment date – including Clark County, Nevada; South Coast Air Quality Management District, California; San Joaquin Unified Air Pollution Control District, California; and six out of 14 western states that are members of the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) – all administer rules that include the data reduction methodology proposed in Rule 300. These areas contain sources similar to sources in Maricopa County and such similar sources comply with the adopted standard.

In addition, if EPA Method 203B were substantially more stringent than EPA Method 9, then the MCAQD would have been required to include the measure in the most stringent measure
demonstration contained in the MAG Serious Area PM 10 Nonattainment Area Plan and Attainment Date Extension Request.

1213 The technical analysis associat ed with the Salt River Area PM 10 SIP revision submitted in 2005 determined that stationary sources contribute significantly to exceed ances of the 24-hour PM 10 standard that occur under stagnant conditions. That analysis characterized the specific types, number, and size of sources present in th e modeling domain; land use; the to pography of the area; and the design day specific meteorological conditions pr esent 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 cond itions present that cause exceedances in the nonattainment area. Therefore, the nonattainment area plans for the Phoenix nonattainment area for
PM 10 are required under the Clean Air Act, in effect, to address actual local conditions that are unique to a geographical area. Further, the EPA’s latest pa rticulate 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 ru le also lists improved monitoring as a control measure. The 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 inte nded or required. The result would be increased emissions reductions from implementing existing and new rules.

The MCAQD disagrees that there is no coincidence between PM 10 emissions and opacity. Within an individual source, a change in opac ity indicates a change in PM emissions. It is not necessary to
demonstrate a correlation between mass emissions and opacity across all so urce 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, the EPA states, “...visible emi ssions and the opacity of visible emissions are indicators of a change in PM emissions levels...” In the EPA’s fact sheet on the rule finalizing Methods 203A, B, and C, the EPA states, “Evaluatin g 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 the EPA’s Response to Comments on the Portland Cement Manufacturing NESHAP (page 227), the EPA stat es, “An opacity limit was established to ensure effective PM control, but opacity is a separately enforced pollu tant ...” In other NESHAPs, where the EPA uses PM as a surrogate for hazardous air po llutants (HAPs), the EPA consistently states that opacity limits are separately enforceable emissions limits which repr esent and demonstrate con tinuous compliance with the MACT floor of particulate HAP control.Comment #4: We are opposed to a zero property line standard. To date we have received no guidance from the County on how this will be regulated with consiste ncy. This requirement also needs to be enforced across all air permits – not just Rule 310 and Rule 316, including Non-Title 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 PM10 re ductions than all sources of trackout throughout the County need to be held to the same standard. Stopping drag-out from a site is going to be a constant challenge, either a permitted source is goin g to create mud at the exit and have trackout (new 25 foot standard) or it will be a little dry and w ill have property emissions because of drag-out.

Response #4: The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) clarified the proposed property line standard to provide more consistent enforcement in Rules 310 and 310.01. The MCAQD withdrew the property line standard from Rule 300 as the routine dust generating operations at stationary sources are subject to Rule 310. The MCAQD will develop a policy/guideline and train compliance staff to ensure
consistent enforcement of the property line standard.

As noted in the comment, Rule 310 applies to Non-Title V and Title V permit holders as well as Dust Control Permit holders. The MCAQD inspectors currently address and will continue to address stationary source dust generating operations during site inspections. The MCAQD has included the property line standard in Rule 310.01 that addres ses sources that are not required to obtain permits. The MCAQD believes the property line provisions in Rules 310, 310.01 and 316 effectively cover all sources over which Maricopa County has jurisdiction. Un-permitted sources outnumber permitted sources. Many of the new measures in the Five Percent Plan include additional municipal codes and ordinances to address un-permitted sources. The MC AQD is also in the pro cess of adding additional field staff to address un-permitted sources. The MCAQD intends to begin implementation of the new rule provisions upon adoption by the Board of Supervisors.

Comment #5: With respect to Section 301.2, APS and SRP agree with the property line standard conclusion in the
letter from the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and I ndustry Air Quality Subcommittee to Ms. Johanna Kuspert dated September 10, 2007. This letter states that promulgating a standard to not allow visible emissions across the property boundary line is unc onstitutional and cited Ross Neely Exp. v. ADE, and CF&U v. CAPCC. Although the cont ext of this letter was with Maricopa County Rule 310 and 310.01, the same legal analysis and conclusion are directly a pplicable to Rule 300. Sec tion 301.2, as written, is unconstitutionally vague and unenfor ceable and should, th erefore, be removed from this rule.

14Furthermore, 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.

“The MCAQD’s draft Rule 310.01 would relax the regulation offugitive dust emissions from Countyowned unpaved roads, compared to the current air quality requirements for County-owned unpaved roads (Rule 310.10, 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 co ntrast to the MCAQD’s efforts to increase the regulation of almost every other type of activity th at emits fugitive dust within Maricopa County...The changes proposed in the draft 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.”

“In the draft rules, County-owned unpaved roads have fewer and less strict dust control requirements than do business-owned unpaved roads...If the MCAQD intends to impose increased obligations on the business sector, including requ irements for business-owned unpaved roads that are more stringent than the requirements for County-owned unpaved ro ads, then the MCAQD should clearly justify the disparity...”

“At least two other jurisdictions have concluded that absolute prohibitions against visible emissions crossing the property line are unconstitutional. In Ross Neely Exp. v. ADE, the Alabama Supreme Court held that a state rule prohibiting visible emi ssions from crossing the pr operty line: is clearly overbroad, encompassing every situation in which visible fugitive dust emissions move across a lot line, without regard to damage, injury, or inconven ience caused, reasonable attempts to control, etc. This invades the area of protected freedom, severely restricting th e use of property, and creates a situation where discriminatory enforcement is almost inevitable. See also, CF&U v. CAPCC, 640 P.2d 238 (Colo. App. 1981) (holding that property boundary standard “contravenes fundamental due process rights”).”

Response #5: The MCAQD withdrew the property line standard from Rule 300 and further clarified the property line standard in Rules 310 and 310.01 as it applies to fu gitive dust. Since stationary sources regulated by Rule 300 are also subject to the fugitive dust limitations in Rule 310, the property line standard in Rule 300 was duplicative of the standard in Rule 310.

The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) does not agree that the property line standard is unconstitutionally vague and unenforceable and does not agree that the requirement will not

15result in any emission reductions. In 1987, since both court decisions were issued, the EPA refined the national ambient air quality standard for particulate matter to inhalable particulate matter 10 microns or less in aerometric diameter. Unlike the two jurisdictions cited in the comment, the Phoenix PM 10 nonattainment area failed to meet the 24-hour PM 10 standard by December 31, 2006. As a result, residents still have the potential to be exposed to unhealthy levels of PM 10 . Exceedances are recorded under both stagnant and elevated wind conditions. Since secondary aerosols are not significant contributors to the exceedances recorded in Maricopa County, geologic material (e.g. dust) remains the
dominant constituent of PM 10 . Locally generated PM 10 significantly contributes to recorded
exceedances of the PM 10 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 ex pressed, the MCAQD clarified the property line
standard in Rules 310 and 310.01.

The MCAQD disagrees that there is no credible lin k between opacity and particulate matter emissions. In fact, the next sentence in the EPA notice cited by the comment stat es, “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 cont rol equipment operation ...” The MCAQD’s goal with the change in Rule 300 is to improve the monitoring of dust control measures by providing a simple visual tool that can be applied by employees as well as the MCAQD to evaluate the effectiveness of the dust control

measure.

Comment #6: Include to the Exceptions section, "The provisions of this rule shall not apply to normal farm cultural practices according to Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) § 49-457 and ARS § 4957" [ sic ]. This exemption is currently found in Rule 310 and Rule 310.01, Section 103.

Response #6:
The intent of Rule 300 is to cover sources of visi ble emissions that are not covered by source-specific
rules like Rule 310 and Rule 310.01 . Therefore, source-specific exem ptions like agricultural activities
or construction activities are not included in the Rule 300.

Comment #7: Rule 300, Section 302.2 Emergency Diesel Generators and Equipment: All emissions from such sources should be taken into account as sources of PM10? Emergency generators and “non-road” engines are exempted. Large engines put out significant amounts of pollution and should be counted.

16Response #7: This exemption is very limited in scope as it only applies to emergency diesel generators and equipment at nuclear power facilities. All other emer gency diesel generators and equipment are subject
to the standards of Section 300.

Comment #8: With respect to Rule 300, Section 501, 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.

Response #8 See Response #3 regarding revision from time averaging to time exception data reduction.

Comment #9: There are not classes offered to agricultural producers or livestock owners to become qualified in EPA Reference Method 9, which includes determining 20% 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 #9: 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/envir on/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 #10: Reduction in the number of readings for Determination of Visual Opacity (EPA Method 9) from 12 to 24 readings. We believe this along with disallowing the zero readings to become part of the count sets the permitted source up for failure of the opacity te st. Once recorded this becomes a possible violation for the permitted source.

Response #10:

17The revision to the data reduction methodology to EPA Method 203B, which is associated with Maricopa County's 20% opacity standard, is intende d to further efforts to increase compliance. This form of data reduction for the 20% opacity standard limits the number of excursions over the 20% opacity standard, which results in more consistent compliance with the existing standard.

In 2006 through 2007, the MCAQD conducted a rule effectiveness study an d found that compliance with the existing rules is lower than anticipat ed. The MCAQD conducted an analysis to identify additional measures to reduce emissions and/or impr ove compliance with existing requirements. In this analysis, the MCAQD reviewed cu rrent rules to determine the Most Stringent Measures (MSM) application of the 20% visible emission standard. This included a review of rules from Clark County, Nevada; South Coast Air Quality Management Di strict, California (SCAQMD); and San Joaquin Unified Air Pollution Control District, California (SJU APCD) in an effort to identify the differences between Maricopa County rules and rules from ar eas that successfully met the December 31, 2006 attainment date. The MCAQD also reviewed the EPA’s notice finalizing Method 203 (A), (B), and (C) (71 FR 55119, September 21, 2006). In the summary of that notice the EPA states, “The intended effect is to provide States with an expanded array of data reduction procedures for determining compliance with SIP opacity regulations.” These ar eas that successfully met the December 31, 2006
attainment date administer rules that utilize a ti me-exception form of the standard expressed as “...shall not exceed 20% opacity for more than three minutes out of any 60-minute period.” This form of data reduction for the 20% opacity standard lim its the number of excursions over the 20% visible emission standard and results in a more consistent compliance with the standard.

Areas that successfully met the December 31, 2006 PM 10 attainment date – including Clark County, Nevada; South Coast Air Quality Management Distri ct, California; San Joaquin Unified Air Pollution Control District, California; and six out of 14 wester n states that are members of the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) – all administer rules that include the data reduction methodology adopted in
Rule 300. These areas contain sources similar to sour ces in Maricopa County and such similar sources comply with the proposed standard.

Comment #11: Define the term "immediately". This term needs a reasonable timeframe and consistency in draft Rules 300, 310, and 310.01.

Response #11: The term “immediately” is not used in Rule 300.

Comment #12:

18Opacity should be measured whenever a plant is operating. Checking opacity at night should be implemented. Using the word “visible” should not limit opacity measurements to sunny days. Find a technique that works at night and use it.

Response #12: The MCAQD has set up a class for inspectors to be certified to read opacity at night. After successfully completing the class, inspectors will be certified to measure opacity at night.

Comment #13: Item #7 of the Preamble involves “demonstration of compliance with ARS 49-112”. This should not be a consideration since A.R.S. § 49-112 conflicts with the Clean Air Act.

Response #13: The MCAQD is required to demonstrate compliance with A.R.S. § 49-112 as part of changes to or updates to rules and regulations that are part of a St ate Implementation Plan (SIP). It is unclear to the MCAQD why the commenter believes A.R.S. § 49-112 conflicts with the federal Clean Air Act.

14 Any other matters prescribed by the statute that ar e applicable to the specific department or to any specific rule or class of rules:
No

15 Incorporation by reference and their location in the rule: EPA Reference Method 9 Rule 300, Section 501 EPA Reference Method 203B Rule 300, Section 501

16 Was this rule previously an emergency rule?
No

17 The full text of the rule follows:
REGULATION III – CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 300
VISIBLE EMISSIONS

INDEX

SECTION 100 – GENERAL
101 PURPOSE

19102 APPLICABILITY
SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS
201 INTERMITTENT SOURCE
202 201 OPACITY
203 202 PERCENT OPACITY
204 203 SHUTDOWN
20 5 204 STARTUP
206 205 UNCOMBINED WATER
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS
301 LIMITATIONS – OPACITY/GENERAL
302 EXCEPTIONS SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS (NOT APPLICABLE)
SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS
501 COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION – OPACITY
502 COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION

- OPACITY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS FROM
INTERMITTENT SOURCES

20Revised 07/13/88 Revised 08/05/94 Revised 02/07/01 Revised 03/12/08 MARICOPA COUNTY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION III – CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 300
VISIBLE EMISSIONS
SECTION 100 – GENERAL

101 PURPOSE: To limit the emission of air contaminants into the ambient air by establishing
standards for visible emissions and opacity.

102 APPLICABILITY: This rule applies to visible emissions from sources for which no sourcespecific opacity requirements apply. Exceptions to this rule are described in Section 302 of this
rule.

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 INTERMITTENT SOURCE – A source which causes or discharges visible emissions for a
duration of less than 6 consecutive minutes.

202 201 OPACITY – A condition of the ambient air, or any part thereof, in which an air contaminant partially or wholly obscures the view of an observer.

203 202 PERCENT OPACITY – The degree to which an effluent plume or any other emission of air contaminants obscures the transmission of light expressed as a percentage.

204 203 SHUTDOWN – The cessation of operation of any air pollution control equipment and/or process equipment for any purpose, except routine phasing out of process equipment.

205 204 STARTUP – The setting into operation of any air pollution control equipment and/or process equipment for any purpose, except routine phasing in of process equipment.

206 205 UNCOMBINED WATER – Condensed water containing no mo re than analytical trace amounts of other chemical elements or compounds.

21SECTION 300 – STANDARDS

301 LIMITATIONS – OPACITY/GENERAL : No person shall discharge into the ambient air from any single source of emissions any air contaminan t, other than uncombined water, in excess of 20% opacity for a period aggregating more than th ree minutes in any 60-minute period.

302 EXCEPTIONS:

302.1 Charging Electric Arc Furnaces: When charging or back-charging any electric arc furnace for which construction commenced prior to February 2, 1963, a person may discharge air contaminants, other than uncomb ined water, in exce ss of the applicable opacity limit in Section 301 of this rule for no more than an aggregate of three minutes in any 45-minute period; however, visible emissions resulting from such discharge of air contaminants shall not exceed 40% opacity.

302.2 Emergency Diesel Genera tors (EDGs) and Equipment: When emergency diesel generators (EDGs) and equipment must run for safety reasons and/or for safety and operational tests to meet the requirements legally imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a person may discharge air contaminants, other than uncombined water, in excess of the applicable opacity limit in Sec tion 301 of this rule. Any discharge of air contaminants, other than uncombined water, in excess of the opacity limit in Section 301 of this rule should not contribute to a violation of the national ambient air quality
standard.

302.3 Firing of Ordnance at Test Facilities : Visible emissions exceeding the opacity standards for short periods of time resulting from firing test rounds in enclosed bunkers at
ordnance test facilities which do not exceed six minutes in length shall not constitute a
violation of Section 301 of this rule.

302.4 Opacity Training : Equipment or processes used to train individuals in opacity observations shall be exempt from opacity standards during the preparation for and/or during the actual training session(s).

SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS (NOT APPLICABLE)

SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS

2223 501 COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION – OPACITY : Opacity shall be determined by
observations of visible emissions conducted in acco rdance with EPA Refere nce Method 9, except as provided in Section 502 of this rule as modified by EPA Reference Method 203B

.

502 COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION

- OPACITY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS FROM
INTERMITTENT SOURCES: Opacity of visible emissions from intermittent sources shall be determined by observations of visible emi ssions conducted in acco rdance with EPA Re ference Method 9, except that at least 12 rather than 24 consecutive readings shall be required at 15

– second intervals for the averaging time.

### Appendix 3

### NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR MARICOPA COUNTY AIR POLLU TION CONTROL REGULATIONS AND STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) REVISIONS
Notice is hereby given that the Maricopa County Bo ard of Supervisors will conduct a public hearing on March 12, 2008 at 9:00 AM on proposed revisions to the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations, Rules 280 (Fees), 300 (Visible Emissions), 314 (Open Outdoor Fires & Indoor Fireplaces at Commercial & Institutional Establishments), and 316 (Nonmetallic Mine ral Processing). The Public Hearing will be held at the Maricopa County Board of Supe rvisors’ Auditorium, 205 West Jeffer son Street Phoenix, Arizona. Copies of the final draft rule will be available at least 30 days prior to the hearing for public inspection at the offices of the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (M CAQD), 1001 N. Central Ave. #595, Phoenix, Arizona, 85004. For current information call (602) 372-1465 or visit MCAQD’s website at http://www.maricopa.gov/aq and click on the date of the Public Hearing on th e calendar on the right-hand side. Accommodations for individuals with disabilities, alternative format materials, sign langua ge interpretation, and assistive listening devices are available upon 72 hours adva nce notice. If you need accommodation in order to participate in any forthcoming meeting or hearing, pl ease contact Michelle Mada at michellemada@mail.maricopa.gov or (602) 372-1465 or contact the Maricopa County ADA Office at 602-506-1778.

PUBLISH Arizona Republic Saturday, February 9, 2008 and Saturday, February 16, 2008 Record Reporter Wednesday, February 13, 2008 and Wednesday, February 20, 2008 Business Gazette Thursday, February 14 , 2008 and Thursday, February 21, 2008

### Appendix 4

### Appendix 5

### Appendix 6

### REGULATION III – CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS

RULE 300 VISIBLE EMISSIONS

INDEX

SECTION 100 – GENERAL
101 PURPOSE
102 APPLICABILITY

SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS
201 OPACITY
202 PERCENT OPACITY
203 SHUTDOWN
204 STARTUP
205 UNCOMBINED WATER

SECTION 300 – STANDARDS
301 LIMITATIONS
302 EXCEPTIONS

SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQU IREMENTS (NOT APPLICABLE)

SECTION 500 – MONITO RING AND RECORDS
501 COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION-OPACITY

300.1

### BLANK PAGE

300.2

### Revised 07/13/88 Revised 08/05/94 Revised 02/07/01 Revised 03/12/08

MARICOPA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS REGULATION III – CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS

RULE 300 VISIBLE EMISSIONS

SECTION 100 – GENERAL

101 PURPOSE: To limit the emission of air contaminants into the ambient air by establishing standards for vi sible emissions and opacity.

102 APPLICABILITY: This rule applies to visible em issions from sources for which no source-specific opacity requirements apply. Ex ceptions to this rule are described in Section 302 of this rule.

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 OPACITY – A condition of the ambient air, or any part thereof, in which an air contaminant partially or wholly obscures the view of an observer.

202 PERCENT OPACITY – The degree to which an effluent plume or any other emission of air contaminants obscures the transmi ssion of light expressed as a percentage.

203 SHUTDOWN – The cessation of operation of any ai r pollution control equipment and/or process equipment for any purpose, except ro utine phasing out of process equipment.

204 STARTUP – The setting into operation of any ai r pollution control equipment and/or process equipment for any purpose, except ro utine phasing in of process equipment.

205 UNCOMBINED WATER – Condensed water containing no more than analytical trace amounts of other chemical elements or compounds.

SECTION 300 – STANDARDS

301 LIMITATIONS: No person shall discharge into the ambient air from any single source of emissions any air contaminant, other than uncombined water, in excess of 20% opacity for a period aggregating more than th ree minutes in any 60-minute period.

300.3300.4 

### 302 EXCEPTIONS:
302.1 Charging Electric Arc Furnaces: When charging or back-charging any electric arc furnace for which construction commenced prior to February 2, 1963, a person may discharge air cont aminants, other than uncombined water, in excess of the applicable opacity limit in Section 301 of this rule for no more than an aggregate of three minutes in any 45-minute period; however, visible emissions resulti ng from such discharge of air contaminants shall not exceed 40% opacity.
302.2 Emergency Diesel Generato rs (EDGs) and Equipment: When emergency diesel generators (EDGs) and equipment must run for safety reasons and/or for safety and operati onal tests to meet the requirements legally imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a person may discharge air contaminants , other than uncombined water, in excess of the applicable opacity limit in Section 301 of this rule. Any discharge of air contaminants, other than uncombined wa ter, in excess of the opacity limit in Section 301 of this rule should not contribute to a violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard.
302.3 Firing of Ordnance at Test Facilities: Visible emissions exceeding the opacity standards for short periods of time resulting from firing test rounds in enclosed bunkers at ordnance test facilities which do not exceed six minutes in length shall not constitute a violation of Section 301 of this rule.
302.4 Opacity Training: Equipment or processes used to train individuals in opacity observations shall be exempt from opacity standards during the preparation for and/or during the actual training session(s).
SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQU IREMENTS (NOT APPLICABLE)

SECTION 500 – MONITO RING AND RECORDS

501 COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION – OPACITY: Opacity shall be determined by observations of visible emissions conducted in accordance with EPA Reference Method 9 as modified by EPA Reference Method 203B.