State Implementation Plan 

Revision Package 

Revisions to the 

Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations 

Appendix C – Fugitive Dust Test Methods

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

Appendix C Fugitive Dust Test Methods March 26, 2008 

3. EPA Analogous Approved Rule (Applicable SIP): 

Appendix C is analogous to the SIP approved Appendix C of April 7, 2004. 

4. State/District Authority for Adoption/Implementation: 

Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §49-406(G), A.R.S. §49-479, and A.R.S. §49-480 

5. Pollutants Regulated by Rule: 

PM_9__, SOX___, VOC____, NOx___, CO____, Pb____ 

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

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

Dust-generating operations include: any activity capable of generating fugitive dust, 

including but not limited to, land clearing, earthmoving, weed abatement by discing or 

blading, excavating, construction, demolition, bulk material handling, storage and/or 

transporting operations, vehicle use and movement, the operation of any outdoor equipment, 

or unpaved parking lots. For the purpose of this rule, landscape maintenance and playing on 

or maintaining a field used for non-motorized sports shall not be considered a dustgenerating operation. However, landscape maintenance shall not include grading, trenching, 

or any other mechanized surface disturbing activities performed to establish initial 

landscapes or to redesign existing landscapes. The completeness checklist for Rule 310 is in 

a separate document. 

Appendix C describes procedures for test methods associated with Rule 310 (Fugitive 

Dust). 

PM10 Classification: Serious (As of June 1996) 

Carbon Monoxide Classification: Serious (As of July 1996) 

Ozone Classification: Serious (As of February 1998) 

7. Summary of Rule/Rule Changes: 

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

and Appendix C to implement control measures and increase compliance with existing 

rules for the Five Percent Plan for PM10. On June 6, 2007, the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) finalized its finding that the Phoenix Nonattainment Area did not attain 

the 24-hour PM10 standard by the deadline mandated in the Clean Air Act (CAA), 

December 31, 2006. (72 FR 31183, June 6, 2007) Under Section 189(d) of the CAA, 

serious PM10 nonattainment areas that fail to attain are required to submit within 12 

months of the applicable attainment date, “plan revisions which provide for attainment of 
the PM10 air quality standard and, from the date of such submission until attainment, for 

an annual reduction in PM10 or PM10 precursor emissions within the area of not less than 

5 percent of the amount of such emissions as reported in the most recent inventory 

prepared for such area.” In accordance with the CAA section 179(d)(3), the attainment 

deadline applicable to an area that misses the serious area attainment date is as soon as 

practicable. The region submitted a Five Percent Plan for PM10 by December 31, 2007. 

One of the major changes to Appendix C is the requirement to determine opacity from 

livestock activities-corrals, pens and arenas in Section. Another major change is the 

requirement to perform the "Drop Ball Test" in Section 2.3.3 for determining silt content. 

8. Rule's Effect on Emissions: 

Appendix C is associated with Rule 310 (Fugitive Dust). Appendix C addresses test 

methodologies and has no effect on emissions from the changes made to this rule. 

9. Demonstration That NAAQS/PSD Increments/RFP Demonstration Are Protected (As 

Appropriate): 

Appendix C is associated with Rule 310 (Fugitive Dust), which strengthens the SIP by 

limiting the amount of PM10 emitted from all dust-generating operations. The completeness 

checklist for Rule 310 is in a separate document. 

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

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

moderate nonattainment area, Maricopa County was required to submit to EPA a 

moderate PM10 nonattainment area plan and to show attainment of the PM10 national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) by December 31, 1994. Moderate PM10

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

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

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

reclassified Maricopa County as a serious PM10 nonattainment area. Maricopa County 

was then required to submit a serious PM10 nonattainment area plan, which had to include 

Best Available Control Measures (BACM), measures designed to achieve the maximum 

degree of emissions reduction for PM10 sources. Maricopa County had to show 

attainment of the PM10 NAAQS by December 21, 2001. 

Emission inventories and air quality modeling analysis of existing control measures 

showed that attainment could not be reached by December 21, 2001. A shortfall of a 

16.4% reduction in PM10 concentration was identified. Consequently, a rigorous planning 

effort was conducted to develop 77 additional control measures, which included revising 

Maricopa County's Rule 310. The serious PM10 nonattainment area plan was submitted to 

EPA on July 9, 1999. 

On November 9, 1999, EPA determined that the serious PM10 nonattainment area plan 

could not be approved, because the plan assumed that Maricopa County's Rule 310 and 

Rule 310.01 would achieve 90% compliance by 2006. EPA believed that the compliance 
rate was unrealistic and that there was no strategy in the plan for reducing dust on private 

unpaved roads. To address the approvability issues, Maricopa County committed to 

revising Rule 310 and to strengthening the enforcement of Rule 310. A revised serious 

PM10 nonattainment area plan was submitted to EPA in February 2000. 

EPA approved the revised serious PM10 nonattainment area plan in April 2002, 

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

to Appendix C address one of the commitments. 

The Maricopa county air quality department (MCAQD) revised rules 200, 310, 310.01 

and Appendix C to implement control measures and increase compliance with existing 

rules for the five percent plan for PM10. On June 6, 2007, the Environmental Protection 

agency (EPA) finalized its finding that the Phoenix nonattainment area did not attain the 

24-hour PM10 standard by the deadline mandated in the clean air act (CAA), December 

31, 2006. (72 FR 31183, June 6, 2007) under section 189(d) of the CAA, serious PM10 

nonattainment areas that fail to attain are required to submit within 12 months of the 

applicable attainment date, “plan revisions which provide for attainment of the PM10 air 

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

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

of the amount of such emissions as reported in the most recent inventory prepared for 

such area.” In accordance with the CAA section 179(d)(3), the attainment deadline 

applicable to an area that misses the serious area attainment date is as soon as practicable. 

The region submitted a Five Percent Plan for PM10 by December 31, 2007. 

10. Modeling Information Used to Support Rule Revision: 

Modeling information was not used to support revisions to Appendix C, because Appendix 

C is associated with Rule 310 (Fugitive Dust), which strengthens the SIP by limiting the 

amount of PM10 emitted from all dust-generating operations. The completeness checklist 

for Rule 310 is in a separate document. Information on regional modeling activities can be 

found in the Technical Support Document for the Maricopa County Five Percent Plan 

(available at: 

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

which was submitted to EPA in December 2007. 

11. Evidence That Emissions Limitations are Based on Continuous Emission Reduction 

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

Equipment Designs: 

Appendix C describes procedures for test methods associated with Rule 310 (Fugitive 

Dust). The emissions limitations and work practices standards required in Rule 310 include 

the most stringent measures from other states. For example, the control measures for 

trackout are potentially more stringent than South Coast's Rule 403; the control measures 

for bulk material transport are as stringent as the most stringent measures identified in 

Imperial County's Regulation VIII; the control measures for material spillage, erosion, and 

accumulation onto roadways are as stringent as South Coast's Rule 1186. 
12. Identification of Section/Paragraph in Rule That Contains Emission Limitations, 

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

Recordkeeping/Reporting Requirements: 

Appendix C describes procedures for test methods associated with Rule 310 (Fugitive 

Dust). Section 2 describes test methods for stabilization and Section 3 describes methods of 

visual opacity determination of emissions from dust-generating operations. 

Appendix C is associated with the following sections in Rule 310 (Fugitive Dust): 

Section 301 (General Requirements for Dust-Generating Operations) 

Section 304 (Stabilization Requirements for Dust-Generating Operations 

Section 501 (Compliance Determination) 

Section 502 (Recordkeeping) 

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

Frequency of Inspection): 

Appendix C is associated with Rule 310 (Fugitive Dust), which strengthens the SIP by 

limiting the amount of PM10 emitted from all dust-generating operations. The completeness 

checklist for Rule 310 is in a separate document. 

Implementation of an enhanced fugitive dust program includes public outreach/education, 

rule development, staffing, inspection frequency, policy development, enforcement plan 

development, and performance measures. 

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

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

compliance test methods, and review of records and activities. Maricopa County's 

enforcement options include: compliance status notification, notice of violation, follow-up 

inspection/investigation, Department report, referral to County Attorney, review by 

Enforcement Officer, order of abatement by consent, order of abatement, civil complaint, 

notice to appear and complaint (criminal complaint), injunctive relief, photographs, videos, 

compliance inspection reports, correspondence, records, other applicable documentation, 

and analytical tests. 

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

Appropriate): 

Appendix C does not deviate from EPA policies. 

15. Other Comments: 

Attached Support Documentation 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 
Appendix 5 Certified Excerpts From the Minutes of the Board of Supervisors' Public 

Hearing 

Appendix 6 Final Adopted Version of Rule 
For EPA Use Only

SIP RULE REVISION IS: ______COMPLETE _____INCOMPLETE 

Name Telephone Number

District Contact: Jo Crumbaker (602) 506-6705 

State Contact: Ira Domsky (602) 771-2365 

 Diane Arnst (602) 771-2375 

State Submittal Date: _____________________________________________________