______________________________________________________________________________

Appendix 13: Notice of Final Rulemaking for 310 and 310.01 (Adopted 2008)

Page 471 of 720
NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING

MARICOPA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS

FIVE PERCENT PLAN RULEMAKING PROJECT

PREAMBLE

1. Sections affected

Rule 200 Amend

Rulemaking action

Rule 310 Amend

Rule 310.01 Amend

Appendix C Amend

2.

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

Statutory authority for the rulemaking:

Implementing statute: A.R.S. § 49-112

3.

Date of Adoption: March 26, 2008

The effective date of the rules:

4.

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

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

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

5.

Name: Johanna M. Kuspert or Jo Crumbaker

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

regarding the rulemaking:

Maricopa County Air Quality Department

Address: 1001 N. Central Ave, Suite 595

Phoenix, AZ 85004

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

Fax: (602) 506-6179

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

6.

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 

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

Page 472 of 720
within 12 months of the applicable attainment date, “plan revisions which provide for attainment of the 

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

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

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

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

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

December 31, 2007.

PM10 Nonattainment Status History:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(adopted April 7, 2004) addressed the commitments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 473 of 720
shoulders, unpaved parking lots, vacant lots and agriculture. The EPA found that the SIP did not 

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

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

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

area that addresses those four categories of sources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PM10 nonattainment area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CAA §189(b)(1)(A) and §188(e).

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

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

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

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

Page 474 of 720
Salt River Study Area will be applied to all similar sources throughout the Maricopa County 

PM10 serious nonattainment area.

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

attainment deadline of December 31, 2006.

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

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

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

Explanation for Current Rulemaking Proposals:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

provisions to increase the consistency of compliance.

Construction activities represent a significant contribution to the attainment demonstration for both 

high wind and low wind days at two separate sites. For a low wind design day, Table 8-8 on page 8-50 

(West 43rd Avenue site) shows that construction activities contribute 11.39 ug/m3 out of a total of 

233.09 ug/m3

. A source category that contributes 5 ug/m3 or more is considered to be a significant 

contributor to a nonattainment area’s exceedances. Table 8-8 also indicates that a 48% reduction in 

construction activities is needed in order for the monitor to achieve attainment. In terms of a high wind 

day, the roll back modeling performed at the Higley monitor demonstrates the dominant role 

construction activities play in contributing to the monitor’s exceedances. Table VI-29 on page VI-43 

indicates that construction activities contribute a staggering 80.43% of the PM10 emissions around the 

monitor, far outweighing any other source of emissions. Lastly, the emissions reductions from 

construction activities, attributed to the control measures (see measures 2, 3, 8-10, 16, 36-38, 44) as 

documented in the Technical Support Document, combine to total 16,373 tons per year by 2010.

Page 475 of 720
Windblown dust from vacant lots represents a significant contribution to the attainment demonstration 

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

vacant lots contributes 20.50 ug/m3 out of a total of 202.22 ug/m3

. A source category that contributes 5 

ug/m3 or more is considered to be a significant contributor to a nonattainment area’s exceedances. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

date. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

operators of all the various requirements.

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

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

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

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

fugitive dust sources in Rules 310 and 310.01.

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

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

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

310 and in 310.01 to improve compliance with the rules.

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

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

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

Page 476 of 720
of water where measures to prevent vehicular trespassing and movement are not effective. The 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

roads.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

day notification letter.

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

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

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

Section By Section Explanation of Changes:

Rule 200-Permit Requirements:

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

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

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

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

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

Page 477 of 720
for some of these permits are described in individual rules of these rules, as applicable/as specified in 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to Rule 310.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

date.” This information is addressed in Rule 310.

Page 478 of 720
Rule 200, Section 305.3: Deleted “Action On Permit Application: The Control Officer shall take final 

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

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

information is addressed in Rule 310.

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

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

Rule 310.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

register within 30 days of the NTC issuance.

Rule 310-Fugitive Dust:

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

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

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

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

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

Page 479 of 720
rule: normal farm cultural practices under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 49-457 and § 49-504.4, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Range 1 East.”

Page 480 of 720
Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 202: Deleted “retail”. Deleted “open”. In Notice of Proposed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to the requirements of Rule 310.

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

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

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

Page 481 of 720
Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 205.3: Changed “pre-wetting” to “pre-watering.” Matched term used 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Section 103.4.

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

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

airborne transport of fugitive dust.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Section 103.5. 

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

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

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

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

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

Page 482 of 720
emergency shall not include any noncompliance due to improperly designed equipment, lack of 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 483 of 720
institutional, governmental, or commercial lot. 219.4 A tract of land, in the nonattainment area, 

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

Sources of Fugitive Dust.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

South Coast’s Rule 403-Fugitive Dust.

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

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

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

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

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

from Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive Dust.

Page 484 of 720
Rule 310, Section 232: Deleted “Vacant Parcel – The definition of vacant parcel is included in Section 

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

Dust from Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive Dust.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

travel by motor vehicles” to New Section 103.8. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or when issuing a Notice of Violation (NOV).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 485 of 720
Also in the NPR, proposed revisions to Section 402 – to move the description of the required elements 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Officer a Dust Control Plan.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

obtained the appropriate permits, if permits are required.

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

Opacity Limitation Requirement.”

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

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

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

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

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

Page 486 of 720
limitation and from the property line standard provided specific/specified control measures are 

implemented.

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

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

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

303.2(a)(1).

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

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

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

provided specific/specified control measures are implemented.

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

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

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

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

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

specific/specified control measures are implemented.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 487 of 720
duration in any six minute period (EPA Reference Method 22). The MCAQD will not enforce on a 

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

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

required.

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

to administrative requirements section.

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

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

rule.”

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

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

restricted to no more than 15 miles per hour.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 488 of 720
Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 305: Added heading “For Dust- Generating Operations” and added

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

issued.

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

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

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

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

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

Page 489 of 720
Rule 310, New Section 305.3: Deleted Table 13 and Table 14 and added control measures from Table 

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

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

to control emissions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

310, Section 305.4.

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

11 and Table 12 to Rule 310, Section 305.5.

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

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

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

Control for Construction Activities.

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

Section 305.7.

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

310, Section 305.8.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 490 of 720
312. However, vehicles hauling the equipment into the site or re-stabilizing any soil surfaces 

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

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

305.10.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

control measures in all areas of the permitted site.

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

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

necessary.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

310, Section 305.12 applies.

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

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

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

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

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

Page 491 of 720
other options available to the site. If visible emissions are observed crossing over the property line, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

306.1(b)(2).

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

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

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

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

Handbook adopted March 18, 2003.

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

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

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

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

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

Page 492 of 720
more than one acre of disturbed surface area. A Basic Dust Control Training Class is required at least 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

where they are more directly applicable.

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

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

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

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

contain the following information.”

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

administrative requirements section.

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

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

and submit such information as a Dust Control Plan.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

operation.”

Page 493 of 720
Rule 310, New Section 402.3(c)(2): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to add the 

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

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

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

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

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

they are already written in new Section 402.6.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 494 of 720
Dust Control Plan for all dust-generating operations. Control measures for specific dust-generating 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

they are more directly applicable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 404.4 to new Section 404.3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 495 of 720
agencies, and utilities.” New re-numbered Section 404.3 reads: “The Dust Control permit-Block permit 

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

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

authority for dust control on the project.”

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

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

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

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

directly applicable.

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

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

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

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

directly applicable.

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

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

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

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

directly applicable.

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

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

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

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

directly applicable.

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

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

Posting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 496 of 720
or more acres of disturbed surface area. A Comprehensive Dust Control Training Class is required at 

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

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

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

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

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

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

emissions requirements and stabilization requirements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dust-Generating Operations.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

obtained the appropriate permits, if permits are required.

Page 497 of 720
Rule 310, Section 501.2(a): Deleted “constitutes” and adds “shall constitute.” Deleted “1” and added

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to perform the formal Appendix C test methods.

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

constitute.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 498 of 720
Rule 310, Section 503: Clarified who must maintain records and for how long. Records must be 

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

from the date the records were initiated.

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

“Maricopa County Air Quality Department.”

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

“2006.”

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

“2005.”

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

added “2002.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

obtained the appropriate permits, if permits are required.

Rule 310.01-Fugitive Dust from Open Areas, Vacant Lots, Unpaved Parking Lots, and Unpaved 

Roadways:

Rule 310.01, Rule Title: Changed “Fugitive Dust from Open Areas, Vacant Lots, Unpaved Parking 

Lots, and Unpaved Roadways” to “Fugitive Dust from Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive Dust.”

Page 499 of 720
Rule 310.01, Section 101: Deleted “To limit the emission of particulate matter into the ambient air 

from open areas, vacant lots, unpaved parking lots, and unpaved roadways which are not regulated by 

Rule 310-Fugitive Dust of these rules, and which do not require a permit nor a Dust Control Plan. The 

effect of this rule shall be to fine particulate matter (PM10) entrained into the ambient air as a result of 

the impact of human activities by requiring measures to prevent, reduce, or mitigate particulate matter 

emissions” and added “To minimize the amount of fugitive dust entrained into the ambient air from 

non-traditional sources of fugitive dust by requiring measures to prevent, reduce, or mitigate fugitive 

dust emissions.” Clarified the purpose of Rule 310.01. Introduced/used the term “non-traditional 

sources of fugitive dust”, in order to identify the types of activities that Rule 310.01 regulates. Using 

the term “non-traditional sources of fugitive dust” indicates that Rule 310.01 regulates more than open 

areas, vacant lots, unpaved parking lots, and unpaved roadways.

Rule 310.01, Section 102: Deleted “The provisions of this rule shall apply to open areas, vacant lots, 

unpaved parking lots, and unpaved roadways which are not regulated by Rule 310-Fugitive Dust of 

these rules and which do not require a permit nor a Dust Control Plan. In addition, the provisions of 

this rule shall apply to any open area or vacant lot that is not defined as agricultural land and is not 

used for agricultural purposes according to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 42-12151 and § 42-

12152. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to normal farm cultural practices according to A.R.S.

§ 49-457 and A.R.S. § 49-504.4” and added “102.1 The provisions of this rule shall apply to nontraditional sources of fugitive dust that are conducted in Maricopa County, except for those dustgenerating operations listed in Section 103 of this rule. 102.2 The provisions of this rule shall apply to 

any open area or vacant lot that is not defined as agricultural land and is not used for agricultural 

purposes according to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 42-12151 and A.R.S. § 42-12152.”

Clarified the applicability of Rule 310.01. Introduced/used the term “non-traditional sources of fugitive 

dust”, in order to identify the types of activities that Rule 310.01 regulates. Using the term “nontraditional sources of fugitive dust” indicates that Rule 310.01 regulates more than open areas, vacant 

lots, unpaved parking lots, and unpaved roadways.

Rule 310.01, New Section 103:

103.1 The provisions of this rule shall not apply to normal farm cultural practices according to A.R.S.

§ 49-457 and A.R.S. § 49-504.4.

 Changed format. Added Exemptions:

103.2 The provisions of this rule shall not apply to dust-generating operations that are subject to the 

standards and/or requirements described in Rule 310-Fugitive Dust from Dust-Generating Operations 

of these rules.

103.3 The provisions of this rule shall not apply to emergency activities that may disturb the soil 

conducted by any utility or government agency in order to prevent public injury or to restore critical 

utilities to functional status.”

Page 500 of 720
103.4 An area is considered to be a disturbed surface area until the activity that caused the disturbance 

has been completed and the disturbed surface area meets the standards described in this rule. To move 

this provision from re-numbered Section 207. 

103.5 Establishing initial landscapes without the use of mechanized equipment, conducting landscape 

maintenance without the use of mechanized equipment, and playing on or maintaining a field used for 

non-motorized sports shall not be considered a dust-generating operation. However, establishing initial 

landscapes without the use of mechanized equipment and conducting landscape maintenance without 

the use of mechanized equipment shall not include grading, or trenching, performed to establish initial 

landscapes or to redesign existing landscapes. This provision relates-to new Section 208.

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

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

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

that are subject to other rules in Regulation III (Control of Air Contaminants) of these rules. To move 

this provision from re-numbered Section 213.

Rule 310.01, New Section 201: Added “Animal Waste - Any animal excretions and mixtures 

containing animal excretions.” Definition matches definition used in San Joaquin’s Rule 4570-

Confined Animal Facilities.

Rule 310.01, New Section 202: Added “Area A - As defined in A.R.S. § 49-541(1), the area in 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Range 1 East.”

Rule 310.01, New Section 203: Added “Area Accessible To The Public - Any parking lot or public 

roadway that can be entered or used for public travel primarily for purposes unrelated to the dustgenerating operation.” Definition matches definition in Rule 310. In the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to add the definition of area accessible to the public, which was 

proposed to read: “Any parking lot or public roadway that is accessible to public travel primarily for

purposes unrelated to the dust-generating operation.” In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR) 

instead-of using the term “accessible” in the definition of area accessible to the public, deleted “is 

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

Page 501 of 720
reads: “Any parking lot or public roadway that can be entered or used for public travel primarily for

purposes unrelated to the dust-generating operation.”

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 204: Changed format of definition of bulk material and listed only 

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

Rule 310.01, Section 206: Deleted “Feedlots and/or Livestock Areas - Any area on which an operation 

directly related to feeding animals, displaying animals, racing animals, exercising animals, and/or for 

any other such activity exists. Instead, used and defined the term “livestock activities.”

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 207: Deleted “(or material placed thereupon) which” and added

“or material placed on the earth’s surface that”. Deleted “thereby increasing the potential for the 

emission of fugitive dust” and added “if the potential for the emission of fugitive dust is increased by 

the movement, destabilization, or modification.” Moved “For the purpose of this rule, an area is 

considered to be a disturbed surface area until the activity that caused the disturbance has been 

completed and the disturbed surface area meets the standards described in Section 300 of this rule” to 

New Section 103.4. Matched definition of disturbed surface area to definition of disturbed surface area 

in Senate Bill 1552. Senate Bill 1552 reads, in part, as follows: A.R.S. § 49-474.01(A)(11) In a county 

with a population of two million or more persons or any portion of a county within an area designated 

by the Environmental Protection Agency as a serious PM10 nonattainment area or a maintenance area 

that was designated as a serious PM10 nonattainment area, no later than March 31, 2008, adopt rule 

provisions, and, no later than October 1, 2008, commence enforcement of those rule provisions 

regarding the stabilization of disturbed surfaces of vacant lots that include the following: “Disturbed 

surface” means a portion of the earth’s surface or material placed on the earth’s surface that has been 

physically moved, uncovered, destabilized, or otherwise modified from its undisturbed native 

condition if the potential for the emission of fugitive dust is increased by the movement, 

destabilization, or modification. Vacant lots do not include any site of disturbed surface area that is 

subject to a permit issued by the Control Officer that requires control of PM10 emissions from dustgenerating operations.” 

Rule 310.01, New Section 208: Added “Dust-Generating Operation - Any activity capable of 

generating fugitive dust, including but not limited to, the following activities: 208.1 Land clearing, 

maintenance, and land cleanup using mechanized equipment 208.2 Earthmoving 208.3 Weed 

abatement by discing or blading 208.4 Excavating 208.5 Construction 208.6 Demolition 208.7 Bulk 

material handling (e.g., bulk material hauling and/or transporting, bulk material stacking, loading, and 

unloading operations) 208.8 Storage and/or transporting operations (e.g., open storage piles, bulk 

material hauling and/or transporting, bulk material stacking, loading, and unloading operations) 208.9 

Operation of any outdoor equipment 208.10 Operation of motorized machinery 208.11 Establishing 

and/or using staging areas, parking areas, material storage areas, or access routes to and from a site 

Page 502 of 720
208.12 Establishing and/or using unpaved haul/access roads to, from, and within a site 208.13 

Disturbed surface areas associated with a site 208.14 Installing initial landscapes using mechanized 

equipment.” Definition matches definition in Rule 310. New Section 208 relates-to new Section 103.5.

Rule 310.01, New Section 210: Added “Emergency - A situation arising from sudden and reasonably 

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

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

technology-based emission limitation under the permit, due to unavoidable increases in emissions 

attributable to the emergency. An emergency shall not include any noncompliance due to improperly 

designed equipment, lack of preventative maintenance, careless or improper operation, or operator 

error.” In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), the phrase “technology-based emission 

limitation under the permit” was included in the proposed definition of emergency. In the Notice of 

Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted the phrase “technology-based emission limitation under the permit” 

and added the phrase “limitation in this rule.” New Section 210 - definition of emergency reads: “A 

situation arising from sudden and reasonably unforeseeable events beyond the control of the source, 

including acts of God, which situation requires immediate corrective action to restore normal 

operation, and that causes the source to exceed a limitation in this rule, due to unavoidable increases in 

emissions attributable to the emergency. An emergency shall not include any noncompliance due to 

improperly designed equipment, lack of preventative maintenance, careless or improper operation, or 

operator error.”

Rule 310.01, New Section 211: Added “Emergency Activity - Repairs that are a result of an 

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

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

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

Rule 310.01, New Section 212: Added “Feed Lane Access Areas - Roads providing access from the 

feed preparation areas to and including feed lane areas at a livestock activity. These access roads are 

typically used to distribute feed from feed trucks to the animals.” Definition matches definition used in 

South Coast’s Rule 1186-PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads and Livestock Operations.

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 213: Moved “For the purpose of this rule, fugitive dust does not 

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

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

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

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

Rule 310.01, New Section 214: Added “Gravel Pad – A layer of washed gravel, rock, or crushed rock 

that is at least one inch or larger in diameter, that is maintained at the point of intersection of a paved 

Page 503 of 720
area accessible to the public and a work site entrance to dislodge mud, dirt, and/or debris from the tires 

of motor vehicles and/or haul trucks, prior to leaving the work site. A gravel pad shall consist of one 

inch to 3 inches rough diameter, clean, well-graded gravel or crushed rock. Minimum dimensions must 

be 30 feet wide by 3 inches deep, and, at minimum, 50 feet long or the length of the longest haul truck, 

whichever is greater.” Definition matches definition used in Rule 310.

Rule 310.01, New Section 215: Added “Grizzly - A device (i.e., rails, pipes, or grates) used to dislodge 

mud, dirt, and/or debris from the tires and undercarriage of motor vehicles and/or haul trucks prior to 

leaving the work site.” Definition matches definition used in Rule 310.

Rule 310.01, New Section 216: Added “Livestock Activities - Any activity directly related to feeding 

animals, displaying animals, racing animals, exercising animals, and/or for any other such activity, 

including but not limited to, livestock arenas, horse arenas, and feed lots.” Definition matches 

definition used in South Coast’s Rule 1186-PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads and

Livestock Operations.

Rule 310.01, New Section 218: Added “Non-Traditional Source of Fugitive Dust - A source of fugitive 

dust that is located at a source that does not require any permit under these rules. The following nontraditional sources of fugitive dust are subject to the standards and/or requirements described in Rule 

310.01-Fugitive Dust from Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive Dust of these rules: 218.1 Vehicle use 

in open areas and vacant lots; 218.2 Open areas and vacant lots; 218.3 Unpaved parking lots; 218.4 

Unpaved roadways (including alleys); 218.5 Livestock activities; 218.6 Erosion-caused deposition of 

bulk materials onto paved surfaces; 218.7 Easements, rights-of-way, and access roads for utilities 

(electricity, natural gas, oil, water, and gas transmission).” Introduced/used the term “non-traditional

sources of fugitive dust”, in order to identify the types of activities that Rule 310.01 regulates. Using 

the term “non-traditional sources of fugitive dust” indicates that Rule 310.01 regulates more than open 

areas, vacant lots, unpaved parking lots, and unpaved roadways.

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 221: Deleted “Section 211.1” and added “Section 221.1.” Deleted 

“Section 211.4” and added “Section 221.3.” Deleted “adjoining a developed or partially developed 

residential, industrial, institutional, governmental, or commercial area.” Deleted “A tract of land, in the 

PM10 nonattainment area, adjoining agricultural property.”

Rule 310.01, New Section 225: Added “Property Line - The boundaries of an area in which either a 

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

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

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

South Coast’s Rule 403-Fugitive Dust.

Page 504 of 720
Rule 310.01, New Section 227: Added “Trackout/Carryout – Any and all bulk materials that adhere to 

and agglomerate on the surfaces of motor vehicles, haul trucks, and/or equipment (including tires) and

that have fallen or been deposited onto a paved area accessible to the public.” Definition matches 

definition used in Rule 310.

Rule 310.01, New Section 228: Added “Trackout Control Device - A gravel pad, grizzly, wheel wash 

system, or a paved area, located at the point of intersection of an unpaved area and a paved area 

accessible to the public that controls or prevents vehicular trackout.” Definition matches definition 

used in Rule 310.

Rule 310.01, New Section 229: Added Unpaved Access Connections - Any unpaved road connection 

with a paved pubic road.” Definition matches definition used in South Coast’s Rule 1186-PM10

Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads and Livestock Operations.

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 230: Deleted “larger than 5,000 square feet” and added “material 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 231: Added “An unpaved roadway (including alleys) includes 

designated or opened trail systems and service roads regardless of surface composition and any other 

property dedicated or otherwise reserved for public or private street uses, as evidence by a recorded 

document, or having thereon a public easement for such use.” Added to the definition of unpaved 

roadway (including alleys) “any other property dedicated or otherwise reserved for public or private 

street uses, as evidenced by a recorded document, or having thereon a public easement for such use”. 

When developing new ordinance P-28-Off-Road Vehicle Use In Unincorporated Areas of Maricopa 

County, one of the main categories in which public comment and discussion were focused included the 

definition of road or highway. Stakeholders expressed the following concerns: clarify where 

designated and open trails fall, address service roads, and address private roads. In response to those 

concerns, the MCAQD reviewed state statutes, the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Maricopa 

County Zoning Ordinance and consulted with a group of public and trust Land Managers and 

developed the following language to supplement the definition of road or highway that the MCAQD 

initially proposed: “For the purposes of this definition the term “road or highway” also includes 

designated or opened trail systems, service roads regardless of surface composition, and any other 

property dedicated or otherwise reserved for public or private street uses, as evidenced by a recorded 

document, or having thereon a public easement for such use.” To maintain consistency among rules 

Page 505 of 720
and ordinances in the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations, the definition of unpaved 

roadway (including alleys) in Rule 310.01 now reads: “A road that is not paved and that is owned by 

Federal, State, county, municipal, or other governmental or quasi-governmental agencies. An unpaved 

roadway (including alleys) includes designated or opened trail systems and service roads regardless of 

surface composition and any other property dedicated or otherwise reserved for public or private street 

uses, as evidenced by a recorded document, or having thereon a public easement for such use.”

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 232: Deleted “Section 211” and added “Section 220.”

Rule 310.01, New Section 301:

301.1 An owner and/or operator of a non-traditional source of fugitive dust shall be subject to the 

standards and/or requirements described in this rule. Failure to comply with any such standards and/or 

requirements is deemed a violation of this rule.

 Added “General Requirements for Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive 

Dust:

301.2 When an owner and/or operator of a non-traditional source of fugitive dust fails to stabilize 

disturbed surfaces of vacant lots as required in Section 302.4 and Section 302.5 of this rule, the Control 

Officer shall commence enforcement of those rule provisions regarding the stabilization of disturbed 

surfaces of vacant lots that include the following:

a. Reasonable written notice to the owner or the owner’s authorized agent or the owner’s statutory 

agent that the unpaved disturbed surface of a vacant lot is required to be stabilized. The notice shall be 

given not less than 30 days before the day set for compliance and shall include a legal description of 

the property and the estimated cost to the county for the stabilization if the owner does not comply. 

The notice shall be either personally served or mailed by certified mail to the owner’s statutory agent, 

to the owner at the owner’s last known address or to the address to which the tax bill for the property 

was last mailed.

b. Authority to enter upon any said land/property where such non-traditional source of fugitive dust 

exists/where such disturbed surface area exists and to take remedial and/or corrective action as may be 

deemed appropriate to cope with and relieve, reduce, remedy, and/or stabilize such non-traditional 

source of fugitive dust/such disturbed surface area. Any cost incurred in connection with any such 

remedial or corrective action by the Maricopa County Air Quality Department or any person acting for 

the Maricopa County Air Quality Department shall be reimbursed by the owner and/or operator of 

such non-traditional source of fugitive dust.” 

Clarified the standards to which an owner and/or operator is subject. The new General Requirements 

section has been added to identify all of the applicable provisions of Rule 310 with which an 

owner/operator must comply. The MCAQD does not intend to reference Rule 310, Section 301 when 

issuing a Notice To Correct (NTC) or when issuing a Notice of Violation (NOV). Matched Clark 

County’s Section 94-Permitting and Dust Control for Construction Activities and Senate Bill 1552. 

Senate Bill 1552 reads, in part, as follows: A.R.S. § 49-474.01(A)(11) In a county with a population of 

Page 506 of 720
two million or more persons or any portion of a county within an area designated by the Environmental 

Protection Agency as a serious PM10 nonattainment area or a maintenance area that was designated as 

a serious PM10 nonattainment area, no later than March 31, 2008, adopt rule provisions, and, no later 

than October 1, 2008, commence enforcement of those rule provisions regarding the stabilization of 

disturbed surfaces of vacant lots that include the following: “Disturbed surface” means a portion of the 

earth’s surface or material placed on the earth’s surface that has been physically moved, uncovered, 

destabilized, or otherwise modified from its undisturbed native condition if the potential for the 

emission of fugitive dust is increased by the movement, destabilization, or modification. Vacant lots do 

not include any site of disturbed surface area that is subject to a permit issued by the Control Officer 

that requires control of PM10 emissions from dust-generating operations. (a) Reasonable written notice 

to the owner or the owner’s authorized agent or the owner’s statutory agent that the unpaved disturbed 

surface of a vacant lot is required to be stabilized. The notice shall be given not less than 30 days 

before the day set for compliance and shall include a legal description of the property and the 

estimated cost to the county for the stabilization if the owner does not comply. The notice shall be 

either personally served or mailed by certified mail to the owner’s statutory agent, to the owner at the 

owner’s last known address or to the address to which the tax bill for the property was last mailed. (b) 

Authority for the county to enter the lot to stabilize the disturbed surface at the expense of the owner if 

the vacant lot has not been stabilized by the day set for compliance. (c) Methods for stabilization of the 

disturbed surface of the vacant lot, the actual cost of stabilization, and the fine that may be imposed for 

a violation of this section.” 

Rule 310.01, New Section 302: Added “Control Measures for Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive 

Dust.” Clarified the standards for control measures to which an owner and/or operator is subject.

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.1: Added “When engaged in the activities described in Section 302.4 

through Section 302.10 of this rule, the owner and/or operator of a non-traditional source of fugitive 

dust shall implement control measures as described in Section 302.4 through Section 302.10 of this 

rule, as applicable.”

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.2: Added “Control measures shall be implemented to achieve the 

visible emissions requirements, as required for each activity and the compliance determination in 

Section 501 of this rule.”

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.3: Added “Failure to implement control measures as required by this 

rule, as applicable, and/or failure to maintain stabilization of a non-traditional source of fugitive dust 

with adequate surface crusting to prevent wind erosion as measured by the requirements in this rule 

shall be deemed a violation of this rule.”

Page 507 of 720
Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.4: Changed format. Added visible emissions requirements. 

Changed “If open areas and vacant lots are 0.10 acre or larger and have a cumulative of 500 square feet 

or more that are driven over and/or used by motor vehicles and/or off-road vehicles, then the owner 

and/or operator of such open areas and vacant lots shall implement one of the control measures 

described in Section 301.1 of this rule within 60 calendar days following the initial discovery of 

vehicle use on open areas and vacant lots” to “If open areas and vacant lots are 0.10 acre (4,356 square 

feet) or larger and have a cumulative of 500 square feet or more that are disturbed by being driven over 

and/or used by motor vehicles, by off-road vehicles, or for material dumping, then the owner and/or 

operator shall implement one or more of the control measures described in Section 302.4(b) of this rule 

within 60 calendar days following the initial discovery by the Control Officer of disturbance or vehicle 

use on open areas and vacant lots.” Added posting provisions as a control measure for preventing 

motor vehicle and/or off-road vehicle trespassing, parking, and/or access: “Prevent motor vehicle 

and/or off-road vehicle trespassing, parking, and/or access by posting that consists of one of the 

following: (a) A sign written in compliance with ordinance(s) of local, County, State, or Federal sign 

standards. (b) An order of a government land management agency. (c) Most current maps approved by 

a government land management agency. (d) Virtual posting a government land management agency.”

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.5: Changed format. Added visible emissions requirements.

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.5(c)(1): Changed “If open areas and vacant lots have 0.5 acre 

or more of disturbed surface area and remain unoccupied, unused, vacant, or undeveloped for more 

than 15 days, then the owner and/or operator of such open areas and vacant lots shall implement one of 

the control measures described in Section 302.1 of this rule within 60 calendar days following the 

initial discovery of the disturbance on the open areas and vacant lots” to “If open areas and vacant lots 

are 0.10 acre (4,356 square feet) or larger and have a cumulative of 500 square feet or more that are 

disturbed and if such disturbed area remains unoccupied, unused, vacant, or undeveloped for more than 

15 days, then the owner and/or operator shall implement one or more of the control measures described 

in Section 302.5(b) of this rule within 60 calendar days following the initial discovery by the Control 

Officer of the disturbance on the open areas and vacant lots.” Revised the specifications (i.e., acreage 

and square footage dimensions) for when an area would have-to comply with Section 302.5-Open 

Areas and Vacant Lots to match the specifications (i.e., acreage and square footage dimensions) for

when an area would have-to comply with Section 302.4-Vehicle Use In Open Areas and Vacant Lots, 

since both sections address open areas and vacant lots.

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.6: Changed format. Added visible emissions requirements. 

Added trackout control device requirement and water as control measures. Added control measures for 

cleaning-up trackout.

Page 508 of 720
Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.6(c)(1): Changed “The owner and/or operator of an unpaved 

parking lot shall implement one of the control measures described in Section 303.1 of this rule on any 

surface area(s) of the lot on which vehicles enter, park, and exit. For unpaved parking lots that are 

utilized intermittently, for a period of 35 days or less during the calendar year, the owner and/or 

operator shall implement one of the control measures described in Section 303.1 of this rule, during the 

period that the unpaved parking lots are utilized for vehicle parking” to “The owner and/or operator of 

an unpaved parking lot shall implement one of the control measures described in Section 302.6(b) of 

this rule [(i.e., pave; apply dust suppressants other than water and install, maintain, and use a suitable 

trackout control device that controls and prevents trackout and/or removes particulate matter from tires 

and the exterior surfaces of motor vehicles that traverse the site; uniformly apply and maintain surface 

gravel; or apply water and install, maintain, and use a suitable trackout control device that controls and 

prevents trackout and/or removes particulate matter from tires and the exterior surfaces of motor 

vehicles that traverse the site.)] on any surface area(s) of the lot on which vehicles enter, park, and exit. 

(a) If an unpaved parking lot is utilized for a period of 35 days or less during the calendar year, the 

owner and/or operator shall implement one or more of the control measures described in Section 

302.6(b) of this rule [(i.e., pave; apply dust suppressants other than water and install, maintain, and use 

a suitable trackout control device that controls and prevents trackout and/or removes particulate matter 

from tires and the exterior surfaces of motor vehicles that traverse the site; uniformly apply and 

maintain surface gravel; or apply water and install, maintain, and use a suitable trackout control device 

that controls and prevents trackout and/or removes particulate matter from tires and the exterior 

surfaces of motor vehicles that traverse the site)] during the period that the unpaved parking lot is 

utilized for vehicle parking and shall restrict vehicle access to only those areas upon which a control 

measure has been implemented. (b) If an unpaved parking lot is utilized for more than 35 days during 

the calendar year, the owner and/or operator shall implement one or more of the control measures 

described in Section 302.6(b)(1) through Section 302.6(b)(3) of this rule [(i.e., pave; apply dust 

suppressants other than water and install, maintain, and use a suitable trackout control device that 

controls and prevents trackout and/or removes particulate matter from tires and the exterior surfaces of 

motor vehicles that traverse the site; or uniformly apply and maintain surface gravel)] during the 

period that the unpaved parking lot is utilized for vehicle parking and shall restrict vehicle access to 

only those areas upon which a control measure has been implemented.”

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.6(c)(2): Added “Control measure(s) shall be considered 

effectively implemented when the unpaved parking lot achieves the compliance determinations 

described in Section 302.6(a) of this rule.”

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.6(c)(3): Added “If trackout occurs, the owner and/or operator 

shall repair and/or replace the control measure(s) and shall clean-up immediately such trackout from 

Page 509 of 720
paved areas accessible to the public including curbs, gutters, and sidewalks when trackout extends a 

cumulative distance of 25 linear feet or more and at the end of the day for all other trackout.” 

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.6(c)(4): Added “Parking, maneuvering, ingress, and egress 

areas at developments other than residential buildings with four or fewer units shall be maintained with 

one or more of the following dustproof paving methods: (a) Asphaltic concrete. (b) Cement concrete.

(c) Penetration treatment of bituminous material and seal coat of bituminous binder and a mineral 

aggregate. (d) A stabilization method approved in writing by the Control Officer and the 

Administrator.” Matched Senate Bill 1552. Senate Bill 1552 reads, in part, as follows: A.R.S. § 49-

474.01(A)(5) In a county with a population of two million or more persons or any portion of a county 

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

a maintenance area that was designated as a serious PM10 nonattainment area, no later than March 31, 

2008, adopt or amend codes or ordinances and, no later than October 1, 2008, commence enforcement 

of those codes or ordinances as necessary to require that parking, maneuvering, ingress, and egress 

areas at developments other than residential buildings with four or fewer units are maintained with one 

or more of the following dustproof paving methods: (a) Asphaltic concrete. (b) Cement concrete. (c) 

Penetration treatment of bituminous material and seal coat of bituminous binder and a mineral 

aggregate. (d) A stabilization method approved by the county.

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.6(c)(5): Added “Parking, maneuvering, ingress, and egress 

areas 3,000 square feet or more in size at residential buildings with four or fewer units shall be 

maintained with a paving or stabilization method authorized by the county by code, ordinance, or 

permit.” Matched Senate Bill 1552. Senate Bill 1552 reads, in part, as follows: A.R.S. § 49-

474.01(A)(6) In a county with a population of two million or more persons or any portion of a county 

in an area designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as a serious PM10 nonattainment area or 

a maintenance area that was designated as a serious PM10 nonattainment area, no later than March 31, 

2008, adopt or amend codes or ordinances and, no later than October 1, 2009, commence enforcement 

of those codes or ordinances as necessary to require that parking, maneuvering, ingress, and egress 

areas 3,000 square feet or more in size at residential buildings with four or fewer units are maintained 

with a paving or stabilization method authorized by the county by code, ordinance, or permit.

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.7: Changed format. Added requirement to conduct vehicle 

counts/traffic counts.

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.7(a): Deleted “a non-traditional source of fugitive dust that involves” 

from new Section 302.7(a). New Section 302.7(a) reads: “The owner and/or operator of unpaved 

roadways (including alleys) shall not cause or allow visible fugitive dust emissions to exceed 20% 

opacity and either Section 302.7(a)(1) or Section 302.7(a)(2) of this rule.”

Page 510 of 720
Rule 310.01, New Section 302.7(c)(1): Added “If a person allows 150 vehicle trips or more per day on 

an unpaved roadway (including an alley) in the PM10 nonattainment area, then such person shall first 

implement one of the control measures described in Section 302.7(b) of this rule.”

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.7(c)(2): Added “A person, who allows 150 vehicle trips or more per 

day on an unpaved roadway (including an alley) in the PM10 nonattainment area, shall be responsible 

for conducting vehicle counts/traffic counts to determine if 150 vehicle trips or more per day occur on 

an unpaved roadway (including an alley). Two separate 24-hour traffic counts shall be conducted. The 

average vehicle counts/traffic counts on the highest trafficked days shall be recorded and provided to 

the Control Officer in writing within 60 days of verbal or written request by the Control Officer.”

Deleted “two separate 24-hour traffic counts shall be conducted” and to add “A traffic count shall 

measure vehicular traffic over a 48-hour period, which may consist of two non-consecutive 24-hour 

periods. Vehicular traffic shall be measured continuously during each 24-hour period.” New Section 

302.7(c)(2) reads: “A person, who allows 150 vehicle trips or more per day to use an unpaved roadway 

(including an alley) in the PM10 nonattainment area, shall be responsible for conducting vehicle 

counts/traffic counts to determine if 150 vehicle trips or more per day occur on an unpaved roadway 

(including an alley). A traffic count shall measure vehicular traffic over a 48-hour period, which may 

consist of two non-consecutive 24-hour periods. Vehicular traffic shall be measured continuously 

during each 24-hour period. The average vehicle counts/traffic counts on the highest trafficked days 

shall be recorded and provided to the Control Officer in writing within 60 days of verbal or written 

request by the Control Officer.”

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.7(c)(3)(a): Changed “Section 302.8(a)” to “Section 302.7(a).”

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.7(c)(3)(b): Added “Control measure(s) shall be considered effectively 

implemented under the following conditions: (b) When one of the control measures described in 

Section 302.7(b) of this rule is implemented on 5 miles of unpaved roadways (including alleys) having 

vehicle traffic of 150 vehicle trips or more per day within one calendar year beginning in calendar year 

of 2008. If the control measure described in Section 302.7(b)(2) of this rule is implemented, the 

unpaved roadways (including alleys) must be maintained so as to comply with Appendix C of these 

rules.”

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.8: Changed format. Added visible emissions requirements. 

Added control measures for cleaning-up trackout. Changed “feedlots and/or livestock areas” to 

“livestock activities.”

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.8(b): Added “Control Measures: (1) For unpaved access connections: 

(a) Apply and maintain dust suppressants other than water; or (b) Apply and maintain pavement, gravel 

(maintained to a depth of four inches), or asphaltic roadbase. (2) For unpaved feed lane access areas: 

Page 511 of 720
(a) Apply and maintain dust suppressants other than water; or (b) Apply and maintain pavement, gravel 

(maintained to a depth of four inches), or asphaltic roadbase. (3) For bulk material hauling, including 

animal waste, off-site and crossing and/or accessing a paved area accessible to the public: (a) Load all 

vehicles used to haul bulk material, including animal waste, such that the freeboard is not less than 

three inches; (b) Prevent spillage or loss of bulk material, including animal waste, from holes or other 

openings in the cargo compartment’s floor, sides, and/or tailgate(s); (c) Cover cargo compartment with 

a tarp or other suitable closure; and (d) Install, maintain, and use a suitable trackout control device that 

controls and prevents trackout and/or removes particulate matter from tires and the exterior surfaces of 

motor vehicles that traverse the site. (4) For corrals, pens, and arenas: (a) Apply water; (b) Install 

shrubs and/or trees within 50 feet to 100 feet of corrals, pens, and arenas; (c) Scrape and/or remove 

manure; (d) Apply a fibrous layer (i.e., wood chips) in working areas; or (e) Apply and maintain an 

alternative control measure approved in writing by the Control Officer and the Administrator.” In Rule 

310.01, New Section 302.8(b)(4), added three control measures for corrals, pens, and arenas. Three 

control measures are similar to control measures included in “Handbook for Conservation 

Management Practices for San Joaquin Valley-Minimizing Agricultural PM10 from Animal Feeding 

Operations (AFOs)-Dairies and Feedlots” dated May 2004.

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.8(c)(2): Added “Control measure(s) shall be considered effectively 

implemented when the livestock activities achieve the compliance determinations described in Section 

302.8(a) of this rule.”

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.8(c)(3): Added “If trackout occurs, the owner and/or operator shall 

repair and/or replace the control measure(s) and shall clean-up immediately such trackout from paved 

areas accessible to the public including curbs, gutters, and sidewalks when trackout extends a 

cumulative distance of 25 linear feet or more and at the end of the day for all other trackout.”

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.9: Changed format.

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.9(b): Deleted “Opacity Limitation: For the purpose of this 

rule, control measures shall be considered effectively implemented when opacity observations for 

fugitive dust emissions from erosion-caused deposition of bulk materials onto paved surfaces do not 

exceed 20% opacity, as described in Appendix C, Section 2.1 (Test Methods for Stabilization-for

Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots) of these rules” and added “Additional Requirements: (1) 

In the event that erosion-caused deposition of bulk materials or other materials occurs on any adjacent 

paved roadway, paved parking lot, curb, gutter, or sidewalk, the owner and/or operator of the property 

from which the deposition eroded shall implement both of the control measures described in Section 

302.9(a) of this rule. (2) Failure to comply with both of the control measures described in Section 

302.9(a) of this rule shall constitute a violation of this rule.”

Page 512 of 720
Rule 310.01, New Section 302.10: Changed format. Added requirement to conduct vehicle 

counts/traffic counts. Added control measure “install locked gates at each entry point”. Changed 

heading “Easements, Rights-of-Way, and Access Roads for Utilities (Electricity, Natural Gas, Oil, 

Water, and Gas Transmission)” to “Easements, Rights-of-Way, and Access Roads for Utilities 

(Transmission of Electricity, Natural Gas, Oil, Water, and Gas).” In the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, proposed to change “If an owner and/or operator allows 150 vehicles or more per day to 

use an easement, right-of-way, and access road for utilities (electricity, natural gas, oil, water, and gas 

transmission) in the PM10 nonattainment area, then such owner and/or operator shall first implement 

one of the control measures described in Section 307.1 of this rule” to “The owner and/or operator of a 

non-traditional source of fugitive dust that involves easements, rights-of-way, and access roads for 

utilities (transmission of electricity, natural gas, oil, water, and gas) that are used by 130 vehicle trips 

or more per day in Area A shall be subject to the stabilization requirements described in Section 

302.10(a) of this rule and unless otherwise specified and/or required, comply with one of the control 

measures described in Section 302.10(b) of this rule and the additional requirements described in 

Section 302.10(c) of this rule.” In this Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), changed “130 vehicle trips 

or more per day in Area A” to “150 vehicle trips or more per day in the PM10 nonattainment area.”

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.10(b)(2): Changed “Apply dust suppressants, in compliance 

with the stabilization and opacity limitations described in Section 307.2 of this rule” to “Control 

Measures: (2) Apply dust suppressants other than water.”

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.10(b)(4): Added “Control Measures: (4) Install locked gates at each 

entry point.”

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.10(c): Changed “For the purpose of this rule, control measures 

shall be considered effectively implemented when stabilization and opacity observations for fugitive 

dust emissions from easements, rights-of-way, and access roads for utilities (electricity, natural gas, 

oil, water, and gas transmission) do not exceed 20% opacity and meet one of the following, as 

determined by Appendix C, Section 2.1 (Test Methods for Stabilization-for Unpaved Roads and

Unpaved Parking Lots) of these rules: a. Silt loading is not equal to or greater than 0.33 oz/ft2

; or b. 

Silt content does not exceed 6%” to “Additional Requirements: (1) If an owner and/or operator allows 

150 vehicle trips or more per day to use an easement, right-of-way, and access road for utilities 

(transmission of electricity, natural gas, oil, water, and gas) in the PM10 nonattainment area, then such 

owner and/or operator shall first implement one of the control measures described in Section 302.10(b) 

of this rule. (2) A person, who allows 150 vehicle trips or more per day to use an easement, right-ofway, and access road for utilities (transmission of electricity, natural gas, oil, water, and gas) in the 

PM10 nonattainment area, shall be responsible for conducting vehicle counts/traffic counts to determine 

if 150 vehicle trips or more per day occur on an easement, right-of-way, and access road for utilities 

Page 513 of 720
(transmission of electricity, natural gas, oil, water, and gas). Such person shall provide to the Control 

Officer written results of such vehicle counts/traffic counts within 60 days of verbal or written request 

by the Control Officer. (3) Control measure(s) shall be considered effectively implemented when the 

easement, right-of-way, and access road for utilities (transmission of electricity, natural gas, oil, water, 

and gas) achieves the compliance determinations described in Section 302.10(a) of this rule.”

Rule 310.01, Section 501: Added opacity observations. Changed title of test method referenced in 

Appendix C, Section 2.3 to “Test Methods for Stabilization-Soil Crust Determination -The Drop Ball 

Test. Matched Clark County’s Section 94-Permitting and Dust Control for Construction Activities. 

Deleted “Stabilization Observations” and added “Compliance Determination: To determine 

compliance with this rule, the following test methods shall be followed.”

Rule 310.01, New Section 501.1: Added “Opacity Observations: a. Opacity observations to measure 

visible emissions shall be conducted in accordance with the techniques specified in EPA Reference 

Method 203B (Visual Determination of Opacity of Emissions from Stationary Sources for TimeException Regulations). Emissions shall not exceed the applicable opacity standards of this rule for a 

period aggregating more than three minutes in any 60-minute period. b. Opacity observations to 

determine compliance with Sections 302.6, 302.7, 302.8(a)(1), 302.8(a)(2), and 302.10 of this rule 

shall be conducted in accordance with the techniques specified in Appendix C (Fugitive Dust Test 

Methods) of these rules.”

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 501.3(a): Deleted “visible” and added “soil.” Deleted “/Steel 

Ball.”

Rule 310.01, Section 502: Deleted “within” and added “as soon as possible but no later than.”

Rule 310.01, Section 503: Deleted “one year” and added “two years.”

Appendix C-Fugitive Dust Test Methods:

Appendix C, Section 2.2: Deleted “and include or eliminate it from the total size assessment of 

disturbed surface area(s) depending upon test method results.”

Appendix C, Section 2.3: Changed heading “Visible Crust Determination” to “Soil Crust 

Determination (The Drop Ball Test).”

Appendix C, Section 2.3.1: Deleted “where a visible crust exists, drop” and added “drop”. Added

“(0.56-0.60 ounce).” Deleted “30 centimeters (one foot)” and added “one-foot.” Deleted “visible crust 

test method” and added “Drop Ball Test.” Added “or project site”. Deleted “which” and added “that.” 

Deleted “vacant lot.” Added “Determination of Threshold Friction Velocity (TFV).”

Page 514 of 720
Appendix C, Section 2.3.3: Added “Randomly select each representative disturbed surface for the 

Drop Ball Test by using a blind “over the shoulder” toss of a throwable object (e.g., a metal weight 

with survey tape attached). Using the point of fall as the lower left-hand corner, measure a one-foot 

square area.” Deleted “a survey area that measures 1 foot by 1 foot and that represents a random 

portion of the overall disturbed conditions of the site” and added “the one-foot by one-foot square 

survey area, using a consistent pattern across the survey area.” Deleted “Visible Crust Determination” 

and added “Drop Ball Test.”

Appendix C, Section 2.3.4: Deleted “visible crust test” and added “Drop Ball Test.” Deleted “random.” 

Added “using the random selection method set forth in subsection 2.3.3 of this appendix.”

Appendix C, Section 3: Changed heading “Time Average Methods of Visual Opacity Determination of

Emissions from Dust-Generating Operations” to “Visual Opacity Determination of Emissions from

Dust-Generating Operations.”

Appendix C, Section 3.1: Deleted “A time average regulation is any regulation that requires averaging 

visible emission data to determine the opacity of visible emissions over a specific time period.”

Appendix C, Section 3.3.1: Deleted “Procedures for Emissions from Stationary Sources. These 

procedures are not applicable to this section.”

Appendix C, Re-Numbered Section 3.3.1(f): Deleted “with the opacity standard described in Rule 310 

of these rules.”

Appendix C, Re-Numbered Section 3.3.2(g)”: Deleted “with the opacity standard described in Rule 

310 of these rules.”

Appendix C, Section 4: Added heading “Visual Opacity Determination of Emissions from Livestock

Activities-Corrals, Pens, and Arenas.”

Appendix C, Section 4.1: Added “Applicability. This method is applicable for the determination of 

opacity of fugitive dust plumes from livestock activities-corrals, pens, and arenas.”

Appendix C, Section 4.2: Added “Principle. The opacity of emissions from livestock activities-corrals, 

pens, and arenas is determined visually by an observer qualified according to Section 3.4 of this 

appendix.”

Appendix C, Section 4.3: Added “Procedures. An observer qualified, in accordance with Section 3.4 of 

this appendix, shall use the following procedures for visually determining the opacity of emissions:”

Page 515 of 720
Appendix C, Section 4.3.1: Added “Position. Stand at a position at least 5 meters from the livestock 

activities-corrals, pens, and arenas in order to provide a clear view of the emissions with the sun 

oriented in the 140° sector to the back. Consistent as much as possible with maintaining the above 

requirements, make opacity observations from a position such that the line of sight is approximately 

perpendicular to the plume and wind direction. As much as possible, if multiple plumes are involved, 

do not include more than one plume in the line of sight at one time.”

Appendix C, Section 4.3.2: Added “Field Records. Record the name of the site, method of control 

used, if any, observer's name, certification data and affiliation, and a sketch of the observer's position 

relative to the livestock activity-corrals, pens, and arenas. Also, record the time, estimated distance to 

the livestock activity-corrals, pens, and arenas location, approximate wind direction, estimated wind 

speed, description of the sky condition (presence and color of clouds), observer's position relative to 

the livestock activity-corrals, pens, and arenas, and color of the plume and type of background on the 

visible emission observation from when opacity readings are initiated and completed.”

Appendix C, Section 4.3.3: Added “Observations. Make opacity observations, to the extent possible, 

using a contrasting background. For storage piles, make opacity observations approximately 1 meter 

above the surface from which the plume is generated. The initial observation should begin immediately 

after a plume has been created above the surface involved. Do not look continuously at the plume, but 

instead observe the plume momentarily at 15-second intervals.”

Appendix C, Section 4.3.4: Added “Recording Observations. Record the opacity observations to the 

nearest 5% every 15 seconds on an observational record sheet. If a multiple plume exists at the time of 

an observation, do not record an opacity reading. Mark an “x” for that reading. If the livestock activitycorrals, pens, and arenas ceases operating, mark an “x” for the 15-second interval reading. Readings 

identified as “x” shall be considered interrupted readings.”

Appendix C, Section 4.3.5: Added “Data Reduction. Within any 60-minute period, count at least three 

minutes that are greater than 20% opacity. If at least 13 readings are greater than 20% opacity, the 

livestock activity-corrals, pens, and arenas is not in compliance. Readings immediately preceding and 

following interrupted readings shall be deemed consecutive and in no case shall two sets overlap, 

resulting in multiple violations.”

7.

Under A.R.S. § 49-479(C), a county may not adopt a rule or ordinance that is more stringent than the 

rules adopted by the Director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) for similar 

sources unless it demonstrates compliance with the requirements of A.R.S. § 49-112.

Demonstration of compliance with A.R.S. § 49-112:

A.R.S. § 49-112 (A)

Page 516 of 720
When authorized by law, a county may adopt a rule, ordinance, or other regulation that is more 

stringent than or in addition to a provision of this title or rule adopted by the director or any board or 

commission authorized to adopt rules pursuant to this title if all the following conditions are met:

1. The rule, ordinance or other regulation is necessary to address a peculiar local condition;

2. There is credible evidence that the rule, ordinance or other regulation is either:

(a) Necessary to prevent a significant threat to public health or the environment that results from 

a peculiar local condition and is technically and economically feasible

(b) Required under a federal statute or regulation, or authorized pursuant to an intergovernmental 

agreement with the federal government to enforce federal statutes or regulations if the county 

rule, ordinance or other regulation is equivalent to federal statutes or regulations.

The MCAQD revised Rules 200, 310, 310.01 and Appendix C in order to address a peculiar local 

condition: EPA’s finding that the Phoenix Nonattainment Area did not attain the 24-hour PM10

standard by the deadline mandated in the Clean Air Act (CAA), December 31, 2006. (72 FR 31183, 

June 6, 2007). The Phoenix Nonattainment Area is the only nonattainment area designated serious for 

PM10 in Arizona. Consequently stronger regulations must be adopted in this area to address a serious 

health threat. Under Section 189(d) of the CAA, serious PM10 nonattainment areas that fail to attain are 

required to submit within 12 months of the applicable attainment date, “plan revisions which provide 

for attainment of the PM10 air quality standard and, from the date of such submission until attainment, 

for an annual reduction in PM10 or PM10 precursor emissions within the area of not less than 5 percent 

of the amount of such emissions as reported in the most recent inventory prepared for such area.” In 

accordance with the CAA section 179(d)(3) and 189(d)(3), the attainment deadline applicable to an 

area that misses the serious area attainment date is as soon as practicable. The region submitted a Five 

Percent Plan for PM10 by December 31, 2007. The Phoenix Nonattainment Area is one of three areas in 

the entire country for which EPA has issued a finding that Section 189(d) has been triggered. As 

described in Sections 6 and 10 of this Notice of Final Rulemaking, Maricopa County and the EPA have 

concluded that the revisions implement control measures that are technologically and economically 

feasible based on creditable evidence of implementation in other western and desert environments. 

Because of this, the revisions comply with A.R.S. § 49-112 (A)(1) and A.R.S. § 49-112 (A) (2).

In addition, several of the revisions are required to by A.R.S. § 49-474.01(A)(5, 6 and 11), 49-474.05 

and 49-474.06 recently enacted in Senate Bill 1552. Therefore, a demonstration of compliance with 

A.R.S. § 49-112 as required by the County’s general grant of rulemaking and ordinance authority in 

A.R.S. § 49-479 does not apply to those rule provisions.

8. A reference to any study relevant to the rule that the agency reviewed and either proposes to rely 

on in its evaluation of or justification for the rule, where the public may obtain or review each 

Page 517 of 720
study, all data underlying each study, and any analysis of each study and other supporting 

material:

ADEQ, 2004. “Summary of economic, small business, and consumer impact”. Contained in: Notice of 

Final Rulemaking, Maricopa County Rule 325: Brick and Structural Clay Products (BSCP) 

Manufacturing. Arizona Administrative Register, Vol. 11, Issue 37, Sep. 9, 2005. 

ADHS, 2002. Arizona Department of Health Services, Asthma Control Program, Office of Nutrition 

and Chronic Disease Prevention Services, Phoenix, AZ: Oct. 2002.

American Lung Association, 2003. Trends in Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema: Morbidity and 

Mortality. Epidemiology and Statistics Unit, Research and Scientific Affairs, Washington, DC: March 

2003.

Sierra Research, Inc., 2007. Analysis of Particulate Control Measure Cost Effectiveness. Document 

prepared for Maricopa Association of Governments, Phoenix AZ: April 2007.

STAPPA/ALAPCO, 1996. Controlling Particulate Matter Under the Clean Air Act: A Menu of 

Options. State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and the Association of 

Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO), Washington, DC: July 1996.

U.S. EPA, 1999a. “Human Health Effects of Criteria Pollutants.” Chapter 5 in The Benefits and Costs 

of the Clean Air Act 1990 to 2010, Report to Congress, Washington, DC: Nov.1999.

U.S. EPA, 1999b. “Economic Valuation of Human Health Effects.” Chapter 6 in The Benefits and 

Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990 to 2010, Report to Congress, Washington, DC: Nov.1999.

9.

Not applicable

A showing of good cause why the rule is necessary to promote a statewide interest if the rule will 

diminish a previous grant of authority of a political subdivision of this state:

Page 518 of 720
10.

10.1 Summary

Summary of the economic, small business, and consumer impact:

The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) revised Rule 200, Rule 310, Rule 310.01, 

and Appendix C. As required by A.R.S. § 41-1055, this economic, small business and consumer 

impact statement includes a discussion of the persons most likely to be impacted by the rules, along 

with a cost-benefit analysis of the rules’ probable impact on the MCAQD as the implementing agency 

and other public agencies, other political subdivisions of the state, and businesses affected by the 

rulemaking. Where data are unavailable or highly uncertain, this statement discusses the limitations of 

the data, the methods used to develop qualitative and/or quantitative estimates, and attempts to 

characterize all probable impacts in qualitative terms.

To submit or request additional data on the information included in the economic, small business and 

consumer impact statement, please contact:

Johanna Kuspert or Jo Crumbaker 

Planning and Analysis Division

Maricopa County Air Quality Department

1001 N. Central Ave. Suite 595

Phoenix, AZ 85004

jkuspert@mail.maricopa.gov or jcrumbak@mail.maricopa.gov

10.2 Identification of the proposed rule making

Each change to these rules are described in detail under Item 6 above. While some changes are 

primarily administrative in nature, or designed to clarify existing County air quality rules, a subset of 

the rule changes have been deemed to have potentially significant economic impacts, and are thus 

explicitly addressed in this Economic Impact Statement (EIS). These rule changes, and the relevant 

sections, include:

• Subcontractor Registration: Rule 200, § 306

• Unpaved Parking Lots: Rule 310, § 233 and Rule 310.01, § 230

• Visible Emissions Beyond Property Line:

− Dust-Generating Operations: Rule 310, § 303

− Vehicle Use in Open Areas and Vacant Lots: Rule 310.01, § 302.4

− Open Areas and Vacant Lots: Rule 310.01, § 302.5

− Unpaved Parking Lots: Rule 310.01, § 302.6

− Livestock Activities: Rule 310.01, § 302.8

• Cumulative Trackout Limit of 25 Feet:

− Dust-Generating Operations: Rule 310, § 306

− Unpaved Parking Lots: Rule 310.01, § 302.6

− Livestock Activities: Rule 310.01, § 302.8

Page 519 of 720
• Dust Control Training Classes

− Basic: Rule 310, § 309.1

− Comprehensive: Rule 310, § 309.2

• Dust Control Coordinator for Dust-Generating Operations: Rule 310, § 310

• Unpaved Roadways: Rule 310.01, § 302.7

• Trackout Control Devices:

− Unpaved Parking Lots: Rule 310.01, § 302.6

− Livestock Activities: Rule 310.01, § 302.8

• Control Measure Options for Easements and Rights of Way: Rule 310.01, § 302.10

• Visible Emission Limits for Livestock Activities: Rule 310.01, §302.8

10.3 Entities Expected to Be Affected by, Bear the Costs of, or Directly Benefit from the 

Proposed Rule Making

Rule 200, § 306: Subcontractor Registration: It is estimated that up to 10,000 subcontractors are

subject to the registration requirement. This figure includes those individuals and entities involved in 

performing ancillary services (including but not limited to: site foremen/supervisors, superintendents, 

truck drivers, initial grading, excavation, pouring concrete/footings, landscapers, utility installation, 

framers, drywall installation, electricians, swimming pool installers, et al.) that perform work on a 

permitted site. In addition, the MCAQD, as the implementing agency, will incur costs for the design, 

implementation, and administration of this program.

Rule 310, § 233 and Rule 310.01, § 230: Unpaved Parking Lots: With the elimination of the 5000-

square-foot size criterion under these rules, all owners of unpaved parking lots of any size are required 

to meet the requirements of the rules.

Rule 310, § 303 and Rule 310.01, §§ 302.4, 302.5, 302.6, and 302.8: Visible Emissions Beyond 

Property Line: Owners of unpaved parking lots, open areas, vacant lots, and areas containing livestock 

activities will bear the costs of implementing required control measures required to prevent no visible 

emissions beyond the property line.

Rule 310, § 306 and Rule 310.01, §§ 302.6 and 302.8: Cumulative Trackout Limit of 25 Feet: Owners 

of unpaved parking lots and areas containing livestock activities will bear the costs of monitoring, 

implementing immediate clean-up measures, and repairing/replacing control measures when trackout 

extends a cumulative distance of 25 linear feet or more.

Rule 310, §§ 309.1 and 309.2: Basic and Comprehensive Dust Control Training Classes: Those entities 

(individuals, corporations, or other organizations) currently required to obtain a Dust Control permit 

for dust-generating operations within Maricopa County are the groups that are directly affected by the 

requirement to attend a basic or comprehensive dust control class. In addition, the implementing 

Page 520 of 720
agency (MCAQD) will be responsible for the design, implementation, and administration of this 

program.

Rule 310.01, § 302.7: Unpaved Roadways: Owners of a non-traditional source of fugitive dust that 

involves unpaved roadways will bear the cost of conducting and documenting vehicle/traffic counts 

and ensuring that the unpaved roadways are used for less than 150 vehicle trips per day.

Rule 310.01, §§ 302.6 and 302.8: Trackout Control Devices: Owners of unpaved parking lots and 

livestock activities will bear the cost of installing trackout control devices as an optional control 

measure to comply with the requirements of the rules.

Rule 310.01, § 302.10: Control Measure Options for Easements and Rights of Way: Owners of 

easements, right-of-way, and access roads for utilities who choose to install locked gates as a control 

measure option will bear the costs associated with this option. 

Rule 310.01, § 302.8: Visible Emission Limits for Livestock Activities: There should be no significant 

additional costs associated with the use of the aggregate number of 15-second observations which 

exceed the 20 percent opacity standard.

10.4 Cost-benefit analysis

10.4.1 The probable costs and benefits to the implementing agency and other agencies directly 

affected by the implementation and enforcement of the proposed rule making

Rule 200, § 306: Subcontractor Registration: The MCAQD will require four additional permit 

technicians to administer the subcontractor registration program. The direct annual costs associated 

with four additional permit technicians, as well as database maintenance personnel, are estimated to be 

$232,000. Annual costs of administering the program (including database development and 

maintenance, consumables, etc.) are estimated to be $88,000. Total agency costs, including the 

allotment of overhead costs (for administrative, financial, cashiering personnel etc.) are estimated to be

$444,500.

Rule 310, § 233 and Rule 310.01, § 230: Unpaved Parking Lots: The elimination of the 5000-squarefoot size criterion will not have a direct impact on the MCAQD workload associated with inspections 

of unpaved parking lots. The MCAQD committed to begin proactive inspections of unpaved parking 

lots, because this was on the list of suggested county-implemented measures (MAG measure 31) to 

reduce PM10 emissions. As a result, the MCAQD committed to conduct proactive and complaint-based 

inspections of existing parking lots located within unincorporated areas of Maricopa County. The 

MCAQD will hire four dust control vacant lot compliance inspectors to conduct proactive and 

complaint-based inspections of parking lots within the unincorporated areas. The annual costs 

associated with four additional dust control vacant lot inspectors are estimated to be $255,000. OnePage 521 of 720
time costs are estimated to be $82,000. The Maricopa County Planning and Development Department 

also estimated that five drainage plan reviewers will be required to perform drainage reviews of parcels 

requiring dustproof paving. Annual costs associated with five additional drainage plan reviewers are 

estimated at an annual cost of $378,000, and one-time costs are estimated to be $93,000.

Rule 310, § 303 and Rule 310.01, §§ 302.4, 302.5, 302.6, and 302.8: Visible Emissions Beyond 

Property Line: A workload analysis was conducted by the MCAQD Planning and Analysis Division 

and it was determined that dust inspection labor time will not appreciably increase from the additional 

requirement that no visible emissions be allowed beyond the property line. Based on this analysis, the 

rule change should yield no additional costs for MCAQD or any other agency.

Rule 310, § 306 and Rule 310.01, §§ 302.6 and 302.8: Cumulative Trackout Limit of 25 Feet: Since 

the existing rules already contain immediate clean-up and control measure replacement/repair 

requirements for a cumulative trackout distance criterion of 50 feet, there should not be any cost 

increases to the MCAQD or any other agency in association with the decrease in cumulative distance 

criteria to 25 feet.

Rule 310, § 309.1 and 309.2: Basic and Comprehensive Dust Control Training Classes: Maricopa 

County will hire four additional FTEs to coordinate and conduct dust control training. Annual costs 

associated with the four additional FTEs, database maintenance, training materials, and room rental are 

estimated to be $382,000. One-time costs are estimated to be $460,000 for database development, 

equipment costs, and training materials.

Rule 310.01, § 302.7: Unpaved Roadways: The current rules for unpaved roads already have 

provisions for required implementation of control measures based on the threshold criterion of 150 

vehicles per day. There should be minimal additional cost to Maricopa County to ensure that required 

traffic counts are conducted and properly documented for applicable unpaved roadways. Compliance 

with the rule change can be assured by the MCAQD during the normal dust inspection process. There 

should be no additional costs to any other agencies associated with this rule change.

Rule 310.01, §§ 302.6 and 302.8: Trackout Control Devices: The addition of a trackout control device 

as a possible control measure to ensure compliance with all visible emissions requirements under these 

rules should not yield increased cost for Maricopa County or any other agencies.

Rule 310.01, § 302.10: Control Measure Options for Easements and Rights of Way: The addition of 

the control measure option to install locked gates at entry points under this rule should not yield any 

increased costs to MCAQD or any other agencies.

Page 522 of 720
Rule 310.01, § 302.8 Visible Emission Limits for Livestock Activities: There should be no additional 

cost to the MCAQD or any other agency in association with the use of the aggregate number of 15-

second observations which exceed the 20 percent opacity standard.

10.4.2 Probable costs and benefits to other political subdivisions of the state

It is assumed that the only potential impact on other agencies and other political subdivisions of the 

state would be in a limited number of instances where these entities are themselves permit holders for 

activities regulated under the rule(s). As this occurs rather infrequently and these permits comprise 

only a small fraction of all regulated activity under the rule(s), it is anticipated that compliance with the 

rules will impose no significant economic impact on any other agency or political subdivision of the 

state.

10.4.3 Probable costs and benefits to businesses directly affected by the proposed rule making

Rule 200, § 306: Subcontractor Registration: The annual subcontractor registration fee is $50. 

Additional indirect costs (e.g., time spent to complete and submit the forms, and the associated 

recordkeeping) are estimated to average 1.5 hours per registrant. Assuming an average wage of 

$25/hour, the indirect costs of registering under this program would be $37.50, for a total cost per 

registrant of $87.50, and a total cost on businesses of all sizes impacted by this rule of $875,000.

Rule 310, § 233 and Rule 310.01, § 230: Unpaved Parking Lots: With the elimination of the minimum 

size criterion under these rules, all owners of unpaved parking lots will bear the costs of implementing 

control measures to meet all new/revised requirements for unpaved parking lots under Rule 310 and 

Rule 310.01. Control measures must be implemented to prohibit visible emissions beyond the property 

line and trackout must be cleaned-up immediately (including repairing or changing control measures to 

eliminate trackout), when it extends a cumulative distance of 25 feet or more. The discussion of 

possible cost impacts of these requirements for all unpaved parking lots is included below.

Rule 310, § 303 and Rule 310.01, §§ 302.4, 302.5, 302.6, and 302.8: Visible Emissions Beyond 

Property Line: Owners of unpaved parking lots, open areas and vacant lots, and livestock activities 

must implement control measures to prevent visible emissions beyond the property line. Estimated 

costs will vary depending on the type and number of control measures required to prevent visible 

emissions beyond the property line. Annualized costs for implementing each possible control measure 

under each applicable section have not been fully developed at this time, however some preliminary 

cost data for control measures under the various rule sections are provided below.

Annualized costs for the installation of a rock barrier as a possible control measure under § 302.4 have 

been estimated to be approximately $1,340 per vacant lot per year with installation costs estimated to 

be approximately $11,400 for a three-acre parcel of land (Sierra Research, 2007).

Page 523 of 720
The possible range of annualized control measure costs for unpaved parking lots (based on a 0.1 acre 

parking lot) for reducing visible emissions under the rule changes is expected to range from as low as 

$100 per parking lot per year (assumes annual subgrade preparation and polymer emulsion application) 

for application of a dust palliative to as high as $1,700 per parking lot per year for paving of the 

parking lot (based on total construction cost of $15,400 and a useful life of 25 years).

Rule 310, § 306 and Rule 310.01, §§ 302.6 and 302.8: Cumulative Trackout Limit of 25 Feet: Prior to 

these rule revisions, the rule contained requirements for both (a) immediate cleanup, and (b) control 

measure replacement/repair when trackout exceeds 50 feet. Since the amount of trackout tends to 

decrease sharply as distance from the exit increases, the new rule's limit of 25 feet will require only a 

marginal increase in the maintenance frequency of control devices or measures to restore the efficiency 

of the trackout control device to its original condition. The cost of this incremental activity is expected 

to be negligible in most circumstances.

Rule 310, § 309.1: Basic Dust Control Training Class: The MCAQD fee for the basic dust control 

training class is $50. Each attendee will spend 4 hours in class, plus an estimated 1.5 hours for travel 

time, associated recordkeeping, etc. Assuming an average wage of $24.23/hour, the indirect costs of 

registering under this program would be $133.27, for a total cost per registrant of $183.27. With an 

estimated 10,336 persons required to enroll for a basic dust control training class, the estimated total 

costs on businesses of all sizes impacted by this rule of $1,894,227. 

Rule 310, § 309.1 Comprehensive Dust Control Training Class: The MCAQD fee for the 

comprehensive dust control training class is $125. Each attendee will spend 8 hours in class, plus an 

estimated 1.5 hours for travel time, recordkeeping, etc. Assuming an average wage of $29.27/hour, the 

indirect costs of registering under this program would be $278.07, for a total cost per registrant of 

$403.07, and a total cost on businesses of all sizes impacted by this rule of $803,712. 

Rule 310, § 310: Dust Control Coordinator for Dust-Generating Operations: The incremental costs 

imposed by the requirement for a Dust Control Coordinator to be on-site for sites that are five acres or 

larger are expected to vary, depending on current management practices at a site. For those sites that 

presently have supervisory management personnel on-site whenever dust-generating operations are 

occurring, this provision will impose no additional costs. As a most conservative estimate for a project 

lasting 6 months, this provision will require additional personnel (at an average salary of $35/hr) to be 

present on-site 10 hours per day for 133 work-days of the lifetime of the project, for a total cost of 

$46,550.

Rule 310.01, § 302.7: Unpaved Roadways: Prior to these rule revisions, control measures were 

required for unpaved roads based on the threshold criterion of 150 vehicles per day. With the rule 

revisions, formal, documented traffic counts are required if an unpaved roadway is used for 150 

Page 524 of 720
vehicle trips or more per day. Based on rough estimates obtained from the Maricopa County 

Department of Transportation (MCDOT), the estimated daily cost to conduct traffic counts will be 

approximately $85 per road per count. It is assumed that conducting the traffic counts will require 

approximately 4 hours of total labor each day to both place and remove a bi-directional traffic counting 

cord. 

Rule 310.01, §§ 302.6 and 302.8: Trackout Control Devices: Owners of unpaved parking lots and 

livestock activities may have to bear the cost of installing trackout control devices as a required control 

measure. A trackout control device is one of several control measures that owners can implement in 

order to comply with all requirements under §§ 302.6 and 302.8, but is not mandatory. Trackout 

control devices include: a gravel pad, a grizzly, a wheel wash system, or a paved area. It is expected 

that the cost of these trackout control devices will fall within the range of costs specified for possible 

control measures to be used to prevent visible emissions beyond the property line.

Rule 310.01, § 302.10: Control Measure Options for Easements and Rights of Way: Owners of 

easements, rights-of-way, and access roads for utilities will bear the cost of installing locked gates as a 

possible control measure under this rule. The annualized cost for installing an individual locked gate at 

an entry point is expected to be no more $150 per year based on a total installation cost of $1,500 and a 

useful life of at least 10 years.

Rule 310.01, § 302.8 Visible Emission Limits for Livestock Activities: There should be no additional 

cost associated with the use of the aggregate number of 15-second observations which exceed the 20 

percent opacity standard.

10.5 Impact on private and public employment 

In cases where estimates of increased workloads and anticipated additional staff (FTE’s) required for 

MCAQD to design, implement, and administer the programs associated with these rule revisions have 

been quantified individually in section 10.4.1 above. Since Maricopa County will be the implementing 

entity for these programs, no other significant impacts on public-sector employment of other agencies 

or political subdivisions of the state are anticipated.

The potential financial impacts on permit holders (businesses and individuals), on a per-case basis, and 

cumulative impacts on all permit holders, have been described and quantified, insofar as possible, in 

section 10.4.3 above.

Rule 200, § 306: Subcontractor Registration: Since a single business entity (corporation, LLC, 

individual, etc.) only requires a single registration, no impact on private employment is anticipated. 

The only direct effect on employment will be the four additional permit technicians anticipated to be 

required by implementation of this rule.

Page 525 of 720
Rule 310, § 233 and Rule 310.01, § 230: Unpaved Parking Lots: As discussed above, all owners of 

unpaved parking lots will bear the costs of implementing control measures to meet proposed visibility 

and trackout requirements for unpaved parking lots. Very rough cost impacts were estimated and 

presented for the businesses directly affected by the rule changes. The affected businesses may be 

forced to offset any additional costs incurred in order to comply with the rules. Based on the cost data 

presented above, the MCAQD does not have sufficient data at this time to quantitatively evaluate 

potential employment impacts for businesses impacted by the rules. 

Rule 310, § 303 and Rule 310.01, §§ 302.4, 302.5, 302.6, and 302.8: Visible Emissions Beyond 

Property Line: Costs associated with achieving zero visible emissions beyond the property line 

through the use of one or more control measures may affect employment for the various 

owners/operators of the applicable fugitive dust source areas under the rule changes. The MCAQD 

does not have sufficient data at this time to quantitatively evaluate potential employment impacts for 

businesses directly affected by the requirements.

Enforcing the visible emissions requirement beyond the property line will require some additional 

labor time for the MCAQD dust inspectors, but the amount of labor time is not expected to 

substantially increase the resources (full-time employees) required to conduct and complete the 

required dust inspection backlog. Employment at political subdivisions of the state are not expected to 

be affected by this rulemaking.

Rule 310, § 306 and Rule 310.01, §§ 302.6 and 302.8: Cumulative Trackout Limit of 25 Feet: Prior to 

these rule revisions, if trackout extended 50 feet or more, then trackout was required to be cleaned-up 

immediately. The trackout control device was also required to be replaced/repaired when needed. 

Consequently, there should be no impact on employment associated with changing the trackout limit 

from 50 feet to 25 feet.

Rule 310, §§ 309.1 and 309.2: Basic and Comprehensive Dust Control Training Classes: It is 

anticipated that the MCAQD, as the implementing agency, will require approximately 2.2 additional 

FTE’s to oversee and implement these training programs. The MCAQD is training and certifying thirdparty entities to conduct these training programs, so some additional private-sector employment impact 

is likely.

Rule 310.01, § 302.7: Unpaved Roadways: Prior to these rule revisions, control measures were 

required for unpaved roadways based on the threshold criterion of 150 vehicles per day. The rules 

revisions require formal, documented traffic counts, if unpaved roadways are used for 150 vehicle trips 

or more per day. Employment may be effected by businesses required to bear the cost of implementing 

Page 526 of 720
a traffic counting system and documenting the traffic count results. Sufficient data does not exist to 

determine precise employment impacts based on the cost impacts presented above.

Rule 310.01, §§ 302.6 and 302.8: Trackout Control Devices: As stated above, owners of unpaved 

parking lots and livestock activities may have to bear the cost of installing trackout control devices as a 

required control measure to comply with the requirements of §§ 302.6 and 302.8. It is one of several 

control measure options, but is not a mandatory control option. The inclusion of a trackout control 

device as one of the possible control options should not have an effect on employment for affected 

businesses, implementing agencies, or political subdivisions of the state.

Rule 310.01, § 302.10: Control Measure Options for Easements and Rights of Way: Owners of 

easements, right-of-way, and access roads for utilities will bear the cost of installing locked gates as a 

control measure. This is only one of several possible control measures and is not cost prohibitive based 

on the data provided above. Costs to affected businesses will not be appreciably increased under this 

addition to the rule; therefore, employment should not be impacted at any businesses directly impacted 

by this rule. Employment at agencies and political subdivisions of the state should not be impacted by 

this rule change.

Rule 310.01, § 302.8 Visible Emission Limits for Livestock Activities: Since no additional costs will 

be incurred by any party as a result of the change in the opacity calculation methodology, employment 

will not be affected at any businesses, agencies or political subdivisions of the state.

10.6 Probable Impact of the Proposed Rule Making on Small Businesses

For all rule changes discussed in this analysis, a description of affected entities of all sizes is contained 

in Section 10.3 above. Due to constraints in time, available resources, and readily accessible current 

data, no reliable estimates on the separate impact on small businesses have yet been developed.

10.6.1 Alternative Methods Considered to Reduce Impact on Small Business

Rule 200, § 306: Subcontractor Registration: No alternatives considered; the parameters of the 

program have been developed to comply with A.R.S. § 49-474.06.

Rule 310, §§ 309.1 and 309.2: Basic and Comprehensive Dust Control Training Programs: The 

rulemaking imposes permitting and training requirements only on dust-generating operations greater 

than 0.1 acre (4,356 sq. ft.). All projects below this minimum size threshold are exempt from 

permitting and training requirements, limiting the financial and administrative burden for very small 

projects. As little or no relevant information is available, no attempt has been made to quantify the 

number of projects under this size threshold or to estimate the increase in costs (additional inspectors 

and enforcement personnel) that would be required to apply the rules to dust-generating operations of 

Page 527 of 720
less than 0.1 acre. No other alternatives have been considered; the parameters of the permitting and 

training programs have been prepared to comply with A.R.S. 49-474.05.

10.6.2 Probable Cost and Benefit to Private Persons and Consumers 

All changes to Rules 310 and 310.01 are designed to reduce particulate matter emissions with the 

ultimate goal of protecting the public health and welfare by attaining PM10 and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) throughout Maricopa County. A detailed description of the 

benefits for the public at large are excerpted from a cost analysis conducted by ADEQ (2004) and is 

provided below.

Improvement in air quality will generate cost-saving benefits by avoiding adverse-health effects, such 

as emergency room visits, hospital admissions, acute pediatric bronchitis, chronic adult bronchitis, 

acute respiratory symptom days, and even premature death. Potential benefits arising from a reduction 

PM and other pollutants emitted into the atmosphere can be inferred from data associated with the 

reduction of any airborne Particulate Matter (PM).

Some of health effects of human exposure to PM can be quantified while others cannot. Quantified 

adverse-health effects include: mortality, bronchitis (chronic and acute), new asthma cases, hospital 

admissions (respiratory and cardiovascular), emergency room visits for asthma, lower and upper 

respiratory illness, shortness of breath, respiratory symptoms, minor restricted activity days, days of 

work loss, moderate or worse asthma status of asthmatics. Unquantifiable adverse-health effects 

include: neonatal mortality, changes in pulmonary function, chronic respiratory diseases (other than 

chronic bronchitis), morphological changes, altered host defense mechanisms, cancer, and non-asthma 

respiratory emergency room visits (U.S. EPA, 1999a).

Epidemiological evidence shows that particulates have negative health impacts in a variety of ways, 

including: increased mortality and morbidity; more frequent hospital admissions, emergency room and 

clinician visits; increased need and demand for medication; and lost time from work and school. There 

is also increasing evidence that ambient air pollution can precipitate acute cardiac episodes, such as 

angina pectoris, cardiac arrhythmia, and myocardial infraction, although the majority of PM-related 

deaths are attributed to cardiovascular disease (The U.S. EPA’s PM Health Effects Research Center 

Program, prepared by PM Centers Program staff, January 2002).

New evidence also links exposure to ambient PM concentrations to airway inflammation that in turn 

produces systemic effects, such as acute phase response with increased blood viscosity and 

coagulability, as well as increased risk of myocardial infraction in patients with coronary artery 

disease. Chronic effects of repeated airway inflammation may also cause airway remodeling, leading 

to irreversible lung disease. Individuals with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease may be 

Page 528 of 720
at even higher risk from repeated exposure to particulates, according to the U.S. EPA’s PM Health 

Effects Research Center Program.

The Health Effects Institute confirmed the existence of a link between particulate matter and human 

disease and death (premature mortality). The data revealed that long-term average mortality rates, even 

after accounting for the effects of other health effects, were 17-26% higher in cities with higher levels 

of airborne PM (Health Effects of Particulate Air Pollution: What Does The Science Say Hearing 

before the Committee on Science, House of Representatives, 107th Congress of the U.S., second 

session, May 8, 2002). Data further reveal that every 10-microgram increase in fine particulates per 

cubic meter produces a 6% increase in the risk of death by cardiopulmonary disease, and an 8% 

increase for lung cancer. Even very low concentrations of PM can increase the risk of early death, 

particularly in elderly populations with preexisting cardiopulmonary disease (STAPPA/ALAPCO, 

1996).

In 2002 alone, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease cost the U.S. more than $32 million, a sum not 

including costs attributable to asthma (American Lung Association, 2003). In Arizona, deaths 

attributable to asthma have equaled or exceeded national rates from 1991-1998. In 1998, some 316,200 

Arizonans suffered breathing discomfort or asthma related stress (ADHS, 2002).

The MCAQD expects that a reduction in PM potentially will create commensurate cost-saving benefits 

to the general public by contributing towards reducing these emissions-related health problems. This 

rulemaking will help improve the general quality of life for the citizens of Maricopa County, 

particularly those residing near sources that have reduced PM emissions and other air pollutants 

associated with the manufacturing processes.

Health benefits can be expressed as avoided cases of PM related-health effects and assigned a dollar 

value. EPA used an average estimate of value for each adverse-health effect of criteria air pollutants. 

Table 1 contains valuation estimates from the literature reported in dollars per case reduced. For 

example, the table shows a value of $401,000 (in 2006 dollars) per case of chronic bronchitis avoided.

Table 1. Monetized Adverse-Health Effects Avoided from Exposure to PM

Adverse Health Effect *

Per Case Valuation

(1990 dollars)

Per Case Valuation

(2006 dollars)

Mortality $4,800,000 $7,403,800 

Chronic bronchitis $260,000 $401,000 

Hospital admissions for respiratory conditions $6,900 $10,640 

Hospital admissions for cardiovascular 

conditions

$9,500 $14,650 

Emergency room visits for asthma $194 $299 

Acute Bronchitis $45 $69 

Asthma attack $32 $49 

Moderate or worse asthma day $32 $49 

Acute respiratory symptom $18 $28 

Page 529 of 720
Upper respiratory symptom $19 $29 

Lower respiratory symptom $12 $19 

Shortness of breath, chest tightness, or wheeze $5 $8 

Work loss day $83 $128 

Mild restricted activity day $38 $59 

* An individual’s health status and age prior to exposure impacts his/her susceptibility. At risk persons 

include those who have suffered a stroke or have cardiovascular disease. Some age cohorts are more 

susceptible to air pollution than others, i.e., children and elderly.

Source: Derived from U.S. EPA, 1999b. According to EPA, cost values 

of these illnesses tend to underestimate the true value of avoiding these 

adverse-health effects. Mean estimates of willingness-to-pay (WTP) 

were used to derive values, unless WTP values were not available, in 

which case, the cost of treating or mitigating the effects was used. The 

value of an avoided asthma attack, for example, would be a person’s 

WTP to avoid that symptom.

Mortality in Table 1 actually refers to statistical deaths, or inferred deaths due to premature mortality. 

A small decline in the risk for premature death will have a certain monetary value for individuals, and 

as such, they will be willing to pay a certain amount to avoid premature death. For instance, if PM 

emissions are reduced so that the mortality risk on the exposed population is decreased by one in onehundred thousand, then among 100,000 persons, one less person will be expected to die prematurely. If 

the average willingness-to-pay (WTP) per person for such a risk reduction were $75, the implied value 

of the statistical premature death avoided would be $7.5 million.

10.7 Probable effect on county revenues

Some of the rule changes would result in increased fee revenue to the MCAQD, which has revised its 

fee schedule (under a separate rulemaking) in order to recoup the costs of designing, implementing and 

administering new programs contained within this rulemaking. A list of the programs, along with 

estimates of user fees and overall revenue projections, is as follows:

Program

Estimated 

Users Fee/User

Estimated Annual 

Revenue

Subcontractor Registration Program 10,000 $50 $500,000

Basic Dust Control Training Class 10,336 $50 $516,800

Comprehensive Dust Control Training Class 1,994 $125 $249,250

No other significant impact on state or County revenues from this rulemaking is anticipated.

10.8 Alternative Methods Considered to Achieve the Purpose of the Proposed Rule Making

State law requires agencies to reduce the impact of a rule on small businesses by using certain 

methods, when they are legal and feasible, in meeting the statutory objectives of the rulemaking. The 

MCAQD considered each of the methods prescribed in A.R.S. § 41-1035 and A.R.S. § 41-1055(B) for 

reducing the impact on small businesses. Methods that may be used include the following: (1) exempt 

them from any or all rule requirements, (2) establish performance standards that would replace any 

design or operational standards, or (3) institute reduced compliance or reporting requirements, such as 

Page 530 of 720
establishing less stringent requirements, consolidating or simplifying them or setting less stringent 

schedules or deadlines.

In some cases, no alternatives have been considered, as the rule changes are designed to comply with 

state statute: e.g., the Subcontractor Registration Program (Rule 200, § 306), has been developed to 

comply with A.R.S. § 49-474.06; and the Basic and Comprehensive Dust Control Training Classes 

(Rule 310, §§ 309.1 and 309.2) have been developed to comply with A.R.S. § 49-474.05.

10.9 Data Availability and Limitations of Assumptions

This economic impact statement was developed in accordance with A.R.S. § 41-1055 to assess the 

potential economic impacts of the changes to these rules. Sources of data and any assumptions used to 

develop these estimates have been included in the discussion of these analyses; and where data are 

lacking or uncertain, this has been noted wherever possible. 

11.

Name: Johanna M. Kuspert or Jo Crumbaker

Name and address of department personnel with whom persons may communicate regarding the 

accuracy of the economic, small business, and consumer impact statement:

Maricopa County Air Quality Department

Address: 1001 N. Central Ave, Suite 595

Phoenix, AZ 85004

Telephone: (602) 506-6710 or (602) 506-6705

Fax: (602) 506-6179

E-mail: jkuspert@mail.maricopa.gov or jcrumbak@mail.maricopa.gov

12.

Since the final drafts of Rules 200, 310, 310.01, and Appendix C were published in the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking on November 9, 2007 and in response to formal comments received during the 

formal comment period - November-December 2007, the following changes to Rules 200, 310, 310.01, 

and Appendix C have been made. These changes appear in the text of the final rules published in this 

Notice of Final Rulemaking:

Description of the changes between the proposed rules, including supplemental notices and final 

rules:

Rule 200, Section 301: Corrected the references made in this section. Deleted “Section 302 thru 

Section 305 of this rule” and added “Section 302 thru Section 305 and Section 307 of this rule.” 

Section 301reads in part as follows: “The standards and/or requirements for these permits are described 

in Section 302 thru Section 305 and Section 307 of this rule. Additional standards, administrative 

requirements, and monitoring and records requirements for some of these permits are described in 

individual rules of these rules, as applicable/as specified in Section 302 thru Section 305 and Section 

307 of this rule.”

Page 531 of 720
Rule 310, New Section 103.7: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to add new 

Section 103 - exemptions from Rule 310. New Section 103.7 read: “An unpaved road is not a horse 

trail, hiking path, bicycle path, or other similar path used exclusively for purposes other than travel by 

motor vehicles.” This text was deleted from re-numbered Section 234-Definition of Unpaved Road. In 

the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted new Section 103.7 and returned the following text to 

re-numbered Section 234: “An unpaved road is not a horse trail, hiking path, bicycle path, or other 

similar path used exclusively for purposes other than travel by motor vehicles.”

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 202: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) in the definition of 

area accessible to the public, proposed to delete “retail” and to delete “open”; “accessible” was 

proposed to replace “open”. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR) instead-of using the term

“accessible” in the definition of area accessible to the public, deleted “accessible” and added “can be 

entered or used for.” The definition of area accessible to the public reads: “Any parking lot or public 

roadway that can be entered or used for public travel primarily for purposes unrelated to the dustgenerating operation.”

Rule 310, New Section 212: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), the phrase “technologybased emission limitation under the permit” was included in the proposed definition of emergency. In 

the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted the phrase “technology-based emission limitation 

under the permit” and added the phrase “limitation in this rule.” New Section 212 - definition of 

emergency reads: “A situation arising from sudden and reasonably unforeseeable events beyond the 

control of the source, including acts of God, which situation requires immediate corrective action to 

restore normal operation, and that causes the source to exceed a limitation in this rule, due to 

unavoidable increases in emissions attributable to the emergency. An emergency shall not include any 

noncompliance due to improperly designed equipment, lack of preventative maintenance, careless or 

improper operation, or operator error.” 

Rule 310, New Section 214: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), the definition of end of 

work day was proposed to read as follows: “The end of a working period that may include one or more 

work shifts but not later than 8 pm.” In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), made the definition less 

ambiguous as to what is considered to be the end of a working period, because some sources work 24 

hours a day. Changed the definition of end of work day such that it reads: “The end of a working 

period that may include one or more work shifts. If working 24 hours a day, the end of a working 

period shall be considered no later than 8 pm.”

Rule 310, New Section 223: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to add the 

definition of open storage pile - to read as follows: “Any accumulation of bulk material with a 5% or 

greater silt content which in any one point attains a height of three feet and a total surface area of 150 

Page 532 of 720
square feet or more. Silt content shall be assumed to be 5% or greater unless a person can show, by 

testing in accordance with ASTM Method C136-06 or other equivalent method approved in writing by 

the Control Officer and the Administrator that the silt content is less than 5%.” In the NPR, proposed 

to move definition of “open storage pile” from standards section to definitions section; term and 

definition were used in Rule 310, Section 308.6 adopted April 7, 2004. An open storage pile is an open 

storage pile if/when such pile attains a height of three feet and a total surface area of 150 square feet or 

more. Such dimensions matched dimensions used in South Coast’s Rule 403-Fugitive Dust definition 

of open storage pile. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR) in the first sentence of the definition of 

open storage pile, deleted “which in any one point attains a height of three feet and covers a total 

surface area of 150 square feet or more” and added “that has a total surface area of 150 square feet or 

more and that at any one point attains a height of three feet.” The intent is that the surface area of the 

storage pile is of concern - not the footprint of the storage pile.

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 234: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to 

delete the following text from re-numbered Section 234-Definition of Unpaved Road: “An unpaved 

road is not a horse trail, hiking path, bicycle path, or other similar path used exclusively for purposes 

other than travel by motor vehicles.” This text was proposed to be added to new Section 103.7. In the 

Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), returned the text to re-numbered Section 234 and deleted new 

Section 103.7.

Rule 310, New Section 302.3: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed new Section 

302 - to add permit requirements for dust-generating operations from Rule 200-Permit Requirements;

Permit requirements for earthmoving operations to be revised in Rule 200 to “permit requirements for 

dust-generating operations” and to reference Rule 310. Also in the NPR, proposed revisions to Section 

402 - to move the description of the required elements of a Dust Control Plan from standards section of 

Rule 310 to administrative requirements section of Rule 310. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking 

(NFR), revised new Section 302.3 - permit requirements for routine dust-generating operations at a site 

with a Title V permit, Non-Title V permit, or General permit - to be consistent with revised Section 

402.1 - Dust Control Plan requirements for routine dust-generating operations at a site with a Title V 

permit, Non-Title V permit, or General permit. In the NFR, added “that disturbs a surface area of 0.10 

acre or greater” to new Section 302.3. New Section 302.3 reads: “No person shall commence any 

routine dust-generating operation that disturbs a surface area of 0.10 acre or greater at a site that has 

obtained or must obtain a Title V, Non-Title V, or General permit under Regulation III-Permits and

Fees of these rules without first submitting to the Control Officer a Dust Control Plan.”

Rule 310, New Section 303.1(b): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed new Section 

303.1(b), which required owners and/or operators of a dust-generating operation to not allow visible 

emissions of particulate matter, including fugitive dust, beyond the property line within which the 

Page 533 of 720
emissions are generated. This property line standard was a “presence” or “absence” limitation. To 

clarify that the MCAQD will not be enforcing on a single puff of dust, in the Notice of Final 

Rulemaking (NFR), added a second sentence to new Section 303.1(b). The second sentence reads: 

“Visible emissions shall be determined by a standard of no visible emissions exceeding 30 seconds in 

duration in any six minute period as determined using EPA Reference Method 22.”

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 303.2(a): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to 

add “described in Section 303.1(a) of this rule” to the first sentence in re-numbered Section 303.2(a). 

This addition provided an exemption from the 20% opacity limitation during a wind event provided 

specific/specified control measures were implemented. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), 

changed “described in Section 303.1(a) of this rule” to “described in Section 303.1 of this rule.” With 

this change, an exemption is provided from the 20% opacity limitation and from the property line 

standard provided specific/specified control measures are implemented.

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 303.2(a)(2): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed 

to delete “The 20% opacity exceedance” and to add “Exceedances of the opacity limit described in 

Section 303.1(a) of this rule.” In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), changed “Exceedances of the 

opacity limit described in Section 303.1(a) of this rule” to “Exceedances of the opacity limits described 

in Section 303.1 of this rule.” With this change, an exemption is provided from the 20% opacity 

limitation and from the property line standard provided specific/specified control measures are 

implemented.

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 303.2(b): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to 

delete “No opacity limitation shall” and to add “The opacity limit described in Section 303.1(a) of this 

rule shall not.” In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), changed “The opacity limit described in 

Section 303.1(a) of this rule shall not” to “The opacity limits described in Section 303.1 of this rule

shall not.” With this change, an exemption is provided from the 20% opacity limitation and from the 

property line standard provided specific/specified control measures are implemented.

Rule 310, New Section 303.2(d): In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), added new Section 

303.2(d), which adds an exemption from the property line standard when an owner and/or operator 

conducts dust-generating operations within 25 feet of the property line. New Section 303.2(d) reads: 

“Activities Near The Property Line: The opacity limit described in Section 303.1(b) of this rule shall 

not apply to dust-generating operations conducted within 25 feet of the property line.”

Rule 310, Re-Numbered Section 305.1: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to 

delete Table 15-Bulk Material Hauling/Transporting Off-Site Hauling/Transporting Onto Paved Areas 

Accessible To The Public and to add control measures from Table 15 to re-numbered Section 305.1. In 

so doing, also proposed to change heading to “Off-Site Hauling.” In the Notice of Final Rulemaking 

Page 534 of 720
(NFR), added “onto paved areas accessible to the public” to the new heading of re-numbered Section 

305.1. The heading of re-numbered Section 305.1 reads: “Off-Site Hauling Onto Paved Areas 

Accessible To The Public.”

Rule 310, New Section 305.1(a)(2): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), the intent of 

proposed new Section 305.1(a)(2) was to require that haul trucks be loaded such that the bulk material 

within the cargo compartment be no higher than the bulk material along the sides, front, and back of 

the cargo compartment. In the NPR, the text of new Section 305.1(a)(2) did not clearly express such 

intent. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted “the highest point at which the bulk material 

contacts”. In the NFR, new Section 305.1(a)(2) reads: “Load all haul trucks such that at no time shall 

the highest point of the bulk material be higher than the sides, front, and back of a cargo container 

area.”

Rule 310, Section 305.3(b): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), the intent of proposed new 

Section 305.3(b) was to require that haul trucks be loaded such that the bulk material within the cargo 

compartment be no higher than the bulk material along the sides, front, and back of the cargo 

compartment. In the NPR, the text of new Section 305.3(b) did not clearly express such intent. In the 

Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted “the highest point at which the bulk material contacts”. In 

the NFR, new Section 305.3(b) reads: “Load all haul trucks such that at no time shall the highest point 

of the bulk material be higher than the sides, front, and back of a cargo container area.”

Rule 310, New Section 305.11(b)(1): Added “as necessary” to the end of new Section 305.11(b)(1). 

New Section 305.11(b)(1) reads: “Apply water or other suitable dust suppressant other than water, as 

necessary.”

Rule 310, New Section 306.1(b): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to delete 

Table 16-Clean-Up of Trackout, Carry-Out, Spillage, and Erosion and Table 17-Trackout Control and 

proposed to add control measures from Table 16 and Table 17 to new Section 306. In so doing, the 

control measures described in new Section 306.1(b) were intended to correspond with the work sites 

described in new Section 306.1(a). In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), added to the beginning 

of new Section 306.1(b) the phrase: “For those work sites identified in Section 306.1(a) of this rule” to 

make it clear that the control measures described in new Section 306.1(b) are intended to correspond 

with the work sites described in new Section 306.1(a).

Rule 310, New Section 306.1(b)(2): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to delete 

Table 16-Clean-Up of Trackout, Carry-Out, Spillage, and Erosion and Table 17-Trackout Control and 

proposed to add control measures from Table 16 and Table 17 to new Section 306. In so doing, the 

reference to the definition of gravel pad was incorrect in new Section 306.1(b)(2). In the Notice of 

Page 535 of 720
Final Rulemaking (NFR), corrected the reference to the definition of gravel pad in new Section 

306.1(b)(2).

Rule 310, New Section 310.7: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to add dust 

control training requirements for sources that obtain a single permit for multiple non-contiguous sites. 

This requirement matched the requirement in Senate Bill 1552. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking 

(NFR), added “in accordance with Section 404 of this rule” and “Basic Dust Control Training Class” 

to the introduction of new Section 310.7. Also in the NFR, deleted new Section 310.7(a) and added it 

to the introduction of new Section 310.7 and deleted in its entirety new Section 310.7(b). New Section 

310.7 reads: “The permittee, who is required to obtain a single permit for multiple non-contiguous sites 

in accordance with Section 404 of this rule, shall have on sites with greater than one acre of disturbed 

surface area at least one individual who is designated by the permittee as a Dust Control Coordinator 

trained in accordance with Section 309.1-Basic Dust Control Training Class of this rule. The Dust 

Control Coordinator shall be present on-site at all times during primary dust-generating activities that 

are related to the purposes for which the permit was obtained.”

Rule 310, New Section 401.1: In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted the reference to 

Maricopa County’s “Application for Dust Control Permit” and revised the introductory statement to 

read as follows: “To apply for a Dust Control permit, an applicant shall complete a permit application 

in the manner and form prescribed by the Control Officer. At a minimum, such application shall 

contain the following information.”

Rule 310, Section 402.2: In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted the second sentence in 

Section 402.2: “Applicants shall complete Maricopa County’s “Application for Dust Control Permit” 

and submit such information as a Dust Control Plan.”

Rule 310, New Section 402.3(c): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to move the 

description of the required elements of a Dust Control Plan from standards section of Rule 310 to 

administrative requirements section of Rule 310. In the NPR, new Section 402.3(c) required that the 

control measures described in Section 305-Control Measures for Dust-Generating Operations be 

included in the Dust Control Plan. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), added Section 306-

Trackout, Carry-Out, Spillage, and/or Erosion to new Section 402.3(c), so that the control measures for 

trackout, carry-out, spillage, and/or erosion will also be required to be included in the Dust Control 

Plan. New Section 402.3(c) reads: “Appropriate control measures, or a combination thereof, as 

described in Section 305 and Section 306 of this rule, for every actual and potential dust-generating 

operation.”

Rule 310, New Section 402.3(c)(2): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to add the 

following two sentences to new Section 402.3(c)(2): “Should any primary control measure(s) prove 

Page 536 of 720
ineffective, the owner and/or operator shall immediately implement the contingency control 

measure(s). If the identified contingency control measure(s) is effective to comply with all of the 

requirements of this rule, the owner and/or operator need not revise the Dust Control Plan.” In the

Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted these two sentences in new Section 402.3(c)(2), because 

they are already written in new Section 402.6.

Rule 310, New Section 402.3(c)(3): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to move 

the description of the required elements of a Dust Control Plan from standards section of Rule 310 to 

administrative requirements section of Rule 310. In the NPR, new Section 402.3(c)(3) allowed 

alternative control measures to be used - control measures that were not listed in Section 305-Control 

Measures for Dust-Generating Operations. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), added Section 

306-Trackout, Carry-Out, Spillage, and/or Erosion to new Section 402.3(c)(3), so that alternative 

control measures can be used - control measures that are not listed in Section 306-Trackout, Carry-Out, 

Spillage, and/or Erosion. New Section 402.3(c)(3) reads: “A control measure that is not listed in 

Section 305 or in Section 306 of this rule may be chosen provided that such control measure is 

implemented to comply with the requirements described in Section 301 of this rule.”

Rule 310, New Section 402.3(e): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to move the 

description of the required elements of a Dust Control Plan from standards section of Rule 310 to 

administrative requirements section of Rule 310. In so doing, the word “roads” was inadvertently 

omitted from the description of one of the required elements of a Dust Control Plan. In the Notice of 

Final Rulemaking (NFR), added the word “roads” to new Section 402.3(e). New Section 402.3(e) 

reads: “Specific surface treatment(s) and/or control measures utilized to control material trackout and 

sedimentation where unpaved roads and/or access points join paved areas accessible to the public.”

Rule 310, Section 402.6: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to add the following 

sentence to new Section 402.6: “At least one primary control measure and one contingency measure 

must be identified in the Dust Control Plan for all dust-generating sources.” In the Notice of Final 

Rulemaking (NFR), deleted this sentence from new Section 402.6 and added this sentence to the 

introduction in re-numbered Section 305-Control Measures for Dust-Generating Operations. The 

introduction in re-numbered Section 305 reads: “When engaged in a dust-generating operation, the 

owner and/or operator shall install, maintain, and use control measures, as applicable. The owner 

and/or operator of a dust-generating operation shall implement control measures before, after, and 

while conducting dust-generating operations, including during weekends, after work hours, and on 

holidays. At least one primary control measure and one contingency measure must be identified in the

Dust Control Plan for all dust-generating operations. Control measures for specific dust-generating 

operations are described in Section 305.1 through Section 305.12 of this rule.”

Page 537 of 720
Rule 310, New Section 404.1(a) and New Section 404.1(b): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPR), proposed new Section 404 .1 - to add Block permit requirements from Rule 200-Permit 

Requirements; Block permit requirements to be deleted from Rule 200 and to reference Rule 310. In 

the NPR, new Section 404.1(a) and new Section 404.1(b) referred to “canal road grading”. In the

Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), changed “canal road grading” to “canal bank and road grading”. 

New Section 404.1(a) and new Section 404.1(b) read in part as follows: “...including but not limited 

to, weed control around a prison, canal bank and road grading, and road shoulder grading.”

Rule 310, New Section 404.3: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed new Section 

404.3 - to add Block permit requirements from Rule 200-Permit Requirements; Block permit 

requirements to be deleted from Rule 200 and to reference Rule 310. In the NPR, the intent was that 

new Section 404.3 replicate the text from Rule 200: “...may submit one permit application covering 

multiple sites at which construction will commence within 12 months of permit issuance...” The 

purpose of new Section 404.3 was to make clear to stakeholders that a Block permit will not be granted 

if the dust-generating operation does not commence within one year of issuance. However, with the 

other revisions proposed in Rule 310, replicating the text from Rule 200 makes new section 404.3 

unclear. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted new Section 404.3 and re-numbered new 

Section 404.4 to new Section 404.3.

Rule 310, New Re-Numbered Section 404.3: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed 

new Section 404.4 - to add Block permit requirements from Rule 200-Permit Requirements; Block 

permit requirements to be deleted from Rule 200 and to reference Rule 310. In the NPR, new Section 

404.4 referred to “municipalities and/or utilities” while new Section 404.1 referred to “municipalities, 

governmental agencies, and utilities”. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), revised new renumbered Section 404.3 to be consistent with new Section 404.1. In the NFR, changed “municipalities 

and/or utilities” in new re-numbered Section 404.3 such that it reads “municipalities, governmental 

agencies, and utilities.” New re-numbered Section 404.3 reads: “The Dust Control permit-Block permit 

will cover crews that work for municipalities, governmental agencies, and utilities, including 

subcontractors. However, municipalities, governmental agencies, and utilities shall retain overall 

authority for dust control on the project.”

Rule 310, Section 501.1(a): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to retain original 

text of Section 501.1(a): “Opacity observations of a source engaging in dust-generating operations 

shall be conducted in accordance with Appendix C, Section 3-Time Averaged Methods of Visual 

Opacity Determination of Emissions from Dust-Generating Operations.” In the Notice of Final 

Rulemaking (NFR), deleted “a source engaging in” to make Section 501.1(a) consistent with the 

introductory statements in Section 501.1(b) and Section 501.1(c). Section 501.1(a) reads: “Opacity 

observations of dust-generating operations shall be conducted in accordance with Appendix C, Section 

Page 538 of 720
3-Time Averaged Methods of Visual Opacity Determination of Emissions from Dust-Generating 

Operations.”

Rule 310, New Section 501.1(d): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), Section 501.1 

described test methods to determine compliance with visible emissions requirements for dustgenerating operations, an unpaved parking lot, and an unpaved haul/access road. In the Notice of Final 

Rulemaking (NFR), added new Section 501.1(d), which describes the test method to determine 

compliance with the property line standard - by conducting observations in accordance with EPA 

Reference Method 22. New Section 501.1(d) reads: “Visible Emissions Beyond The Property Line: 

Opacity observations of any visible emissions beyond the property line shall be conducted in 

accordance with EPA Reference Method 22.”

Rule 310, New Section 504.4: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), Section 504 listed and 

described test methods adopted by reference. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), added new 

Section 504.4, which lists and describes the test method to determine compliance with the property line 

standard - by conducting observations in accordance with EPA Reference Method 22. New Section 

504.4 reads: “EPA Reference Method 22 (“Visual Determination of Fugitive Emissions from Material 

Sources and Smoke Emissions from Flares”), 2000 edition.”

Rule 310.01, New Section 103.7: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), the following text was 

proposed to be deleted from re-numbered Section 221-Definition of Open Areas and Vacant Lots and 

added to new Section 103.7: “Vacant portions of residential or commercial lots that are immediately 

adjacent and owned and/or operated by the same individual or entity are considered one vacant open 

area or vacant lot.” In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted new Section 103.7 and returned

the text to re-numbered Section 221.

Rule 310.01, New Section 103.8: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), the following text was 

proposed to be deleted from re-numbered Section 231-Definition of Unpaved Roadway (Including 

Alleys) and added to new Section 103.8: “For the purpose of this rule, an unpaved roadway (including 

alleys) is not a horse trail, hiking path, bicycle path, or other similar path used exclusively for purposes 

other than travel by motor vehicles.” In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted new Section 

103.8 and returned the text to re-numbered Section 231.

Rule 310.01, New Section 203: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed to add the 

definition of area accessible to the public, which was proposed to read: “Any parking lot or public 

roadway that is accessible to public travel primarily for purposes unrelated to the dust-generating 

operation.” In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR) instead-of using the term “accessible” in the 

definition of area accessible to the public, deleted “is accessible to” and added “can be entered or used 

Page 539 of 720
for.” The definition of area accessible to the public reads: “Any parking lot or public roadway that can 

be entered or used for public travel primarily for purposes unrelated to the dust-generating operation.”

Rule 310.01, New Section 210: In the Notice of Propose Rulemaking (NPR), the phrase “technologybased emission limitation under the permit” was included in the proposed definition of emergency. In 

the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), deleted the phrase “technology-based emission limitation 

under the permit” and added the phrase “limitation in this rule.” New Section 210 - definition of 

emergency reads: “A situation arising from sudden and reasonably unforeseeable events beyond the 

control of the source, including acts of God, which situation requires immediate corrective action to 

restore normal operation, and that causes the source to exceed a limitation in this rule, due to 

unavoidable increases in emissions attributable to the emergency. An emergency shall not include any 

noncompliance due to improperly designed equipment, lack of preventative maintenance, careless or 

improper operation, or operator error.”

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 221: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), the following 

text was proposed to be deleted from re-numbered Section 221-Definition of Open Areas and Vacant 

Lots and added to new Section 103.7: “Vacant portions of residential or commercial lots that are 

immediately adjacent and owned and/or operated by the same individual or entity are considered one 

vacant open area or vacant lot.” In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), returned the text to renumbered Section 221 and deleted new Section 103.7.

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 231: Add to the definition of unpaved roadway (including alleys)

“any other property dedicated or otherwise reserved for public or private street uses, as evidenced by a 

recorded document, or having thereon a public easement for such use”. When developing proposed 

new ordinance P-28-Off-Road Vehicle Use In Unincorporated Areas of Maricopa County, one of the 

main categories in which public comment and discussion were focused included the definition of road 

or highway. Stakeholders expressed the following concerns: clarify where designated and open trails 

fall, address service roads, and address private roads. In response to those concerns, the MCAQD

reviewed state statutes, the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance 

and consulted with a group of public and trust Land Managers and developed the following language 

to supplement the definition of road or highway that the MCAQD initially proposed: “For the purposes 

of this definition the term “road or highway” also includes designated or opened trail systems, service 

roads regardless of surface composition, and any other property dedicated or otherwise reserved for 

public or private street uses, as evidenced by a recorded document, or having thereon a public 

easement for such use.” To maintain consistency among rules and ordinances in the Maricopa County 

Air Pollution Control Regulations, the definition of unpaved roadway (including alleys) in Rule 310.01

is now reads: “A road that is not paved and that is owned by Federal, State, county, municipal, or other 

governmental or quasi-governmental agencies. An unpaved roadway (including alleys) includes 

Page 540 of 720
designated or opened trail systems and service roads regardless of surface composition and any other 

property dedicated or otherwise reserved for public or private street uses, as evidenced by a recorded 

document, or having thereon a public easement for such use.”

Rule 310.01, Section 302.4(c)(3): Changed “achieve the compliance determinations described in 

Section 501 of this rule” to “achieve the compliance determinations described in Section 302.4(a) of 

this rule.”

Rule 310.01, Section 302.5(c)(3): Changed “achieves the compliance determinations described in 

Section 501 of this rule” to “achieves the compliance determinations described in Section 302.5(a) of 

this rule.”

Rule 310.01, Re-Numbered Section 302.6(c)(2): Changed “achieves the compliance determinations 

described in Section 501 of this rule” to “achieves the compliance determinations described in Section 

302.6(a) of this rule.”

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.7(a): Deleted “a non-traditional source of fugitive dust that involves” 

from new Section 302.7(a). New Section 302.7(a) reads: “The owner and/or operator of unpaved 

roadways (including alleys) shall not cause or allow visible fugitive dust emissions to exceed 20% 

opacity and either Section 302.7(a)(1) or Section 302.7(a)(2) of this rule.”

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.7(c)(1) and New Section 302.7(c)(2): Changed “to use an unpaved 

roadway (including an alley)” to “on an unpaved roadway (including an alley).”

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.7(c)(2): Added “A person, who allows 150 vehicle trips or more per 

day on an unpaved roadway (including an alley) in the PM10 nonattainment area”.

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.7(c)(2): Deleted “two separate 24-hour traffic counts shall be 

conducted” and added “A traffic count shall measure vehicular traffic over a 48-hour period, which 

may consist of two non-consecutive 24-hour periods. Vehicular traffic shall be measured continuously 

during each 24-hour period.” New Section 302.7(c)(2) reads: “A person, who allows 150 vehicle trips 

or more per day to use an unpaved roadway (including an alley) in the PM10 nonattainment area, shall 

be responsible for conducting vehicle counts/traffic counts to determine if 150 vehicle trips or more 

per day occur on an unpaved roadway (including an alley). A traffic count shall measure vehicular 

traffic over a 48-hour period, which may consist of two non-consecutive 24-hour periods. Vehicular 

traffic shall be measured continuously during each 24-hour period. The average vehicle counts/traffic 

counts on the highest trafficked days shall be recorded and provided to the Control Officer in writing 

within 60 days of verbal or written request by the Control Officer.”

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.7(c)(3)(a): Changed “Section 302.8(a)” to “Section 302.7(a).”

Page 541 of 720
Rule 310.01, New Section 302.8(b)(4): Added three control measures for corrals, pens, and arenas. The 

three control measures are similar to control measures included in “Handbook for Conservation 

Management Practices for San Joaquin Valley-Minimizing Agricultural PM10 from Animal Feeding 

Operations (AFOs)-Dairies and Feedlots” dated May 2004. New Section 302.8(b)(4) reads: (a) Apply 

water; (b) Install shrubs and/or trees within 50 feet to 100 feet of corrals, pens, and arenas; (c) Scrape 

and/or remove manure; (d) Apply a fibrous layer (i.e., wood chips) in working areas; or (e) Apply and 

maintain an alternative control measure approved in writing by the Control Officer and the 

Administrator.”

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.8(c)(2): Changed “achieve the compliance determinations described in 

Section 501 of this rule” to “achieve the compliance determinations described in Section 302.8(a) of 

this rule.”

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.10: Changed “130 vehicle trips or more per day in Area A” to “150 

vehicle trips or more per day in the PM10 nonattainment area.”

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.10(c)(3): Changed “achieves the compliance determinations described 

in Section 501 of this rule” to “achieves the compliance determinations described in Section 302.10(a) 

of this rule.”

Rule 310.01, New Section 501.1(b): Deleted “302.4”.

13.

The Maricopa County Air Quality Department conducted six Public Workshops throughout the 

rulemaking process for the Five Percent Plan Rulemaking Project – April-August 2007 - and received 

formal comments during the formal comment period – November-December 2007 - from Arizona 

Public Service (APS) and Salt River Project (SRP), Arizona Associated General Contractors, Arizona 

Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Contractors Association, Inc., Arizona Department of Agriculture, 

Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Ballard Spahr, City of Mesa, El Paso Natural Gas, 

Farnsworth Development, Home Builders of Central Arizona, Joint Environmental Task Force, 

Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT), (4) Private Citizens, SCS Engineers, and 

Waste Management of Arizona, Inc. The formal comments and the MCAQD’s responses to such 

formal comments are written below:

A summary of the comments made regarding the rule and the department response to them:

Comment #1: 

Rule 200, Section 300:

MCAQD should identify and include Dust Control Block Permits in this paragraph list.

Response #1:

Page 542 of 720
Rule 200 describes the types of permits that the MCAQD issues. Requirements specific to each type of 

permit are described in further detail in individual rules in the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control 

Regulations. Dust Control permits, as described in Rule 200, are a type of permit the MCAQD issues. 

Details about Dust Control permits are described in Rule 310. Block permits are a sub-set of Dust 

Control permits. Block permits are described in Rule 310, Section 404.

Comment #2:

Several comments recommend that the references to other sections made within this section, 301, be 

corrected from "Section 302 thru Section 305" to "Section 302 through Section 305 and Section 307". 

Response #2:

The MCAQD will correct the references in Rule 200, Section 301. This correction will be documented 

in the Notice of Final Rulemaking.

Comment #3:

Is "area source" defined in MCAQD rules?

Response #3:

Yes, "area source" is defined in Rule 100, Section 200.18.

Comment #4:

In Section 305, the MCAQD should clearly identify where the primary responsibility for obtaining a 

dust control permit resides. A property owner may not have direct supervisory or operational control 

over the dust-generating activity caused by a hired contractor or operator. Is MCAQD intending for 

property owners to obtain the relevant dust control permits before any dust-generating activity caused 

by a contractor or operator hired by the property owner? Or alternatively, does MCAQD intend the 

contractor or operator of the dust-generating activity to possess the primary responsibility to obtain the 

dust control permit?

Response #4:

Section 302.4 of Rule 310 as well as Section 305 of Rule 200 clearly indicate that both the owner and 

the operator (or other designated official of the owner/operator) are responsible for ensuring a dust 

control permit has been obtained before any dust-generating activities occur. Dust Control Permits are 

site-specific; therefore only one permit is needed per site. The purpose of this section is to make clear 

that there is shared responsibility by the owner; operator or responsible official in ensuring an 

applicable permit is obtained before dust-generating operations commence. Neither owner nor operator 

nor responsible official can circumvent dust control permit requirements by claiming it is the sole 

responsibility of one particular party to obtain the required dust control permit. The Department has no 

ability to intervene in contractual issues.

Comment #5:

Rule 310, General Comments:

First and foremost, we believe the current Rule 310 may be sufficient to regulate the permitted 

community had the County Air Quality Department been given the necessary resources to fulfill the 

Page 543 of 720
previous commitments made in 2004. Adding new provisions onto an existing rule without testing out 

the effectiveness of the current rule under the present environment is onerous and will present 

problems with compliance.

Response #5:

From July 2006 through January 2007, the MCAQD conducted a rule effectiveness study for Rules 

310, 310.01 and 316. The results were described in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Even with 

additional personnel, the MCAQD staff will only inspect sites periodically. Permit holders are 

responsible for maintaining consistent compliance and could also have improved their site 

management efforts in the past several years so that another SIP revision would not have been 

necessary. Consistent compliance that will result in emission reductions requires the efforts of all 

affected parties and all must step up to meet the challenge to reduce PM10 in Maricopa County. 

Specifically under Section 189(d) of the Clean Air Act, the state was required to submit State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions which provide for attainment of the PM10 air quality standard in 

Maricopa County and, from the date of such submission until attainment, for an annual reduction in 

PM10 or PM10 precursor emissions within the area of not less than 5% of such emissions as reported in 

the most recent inventory prepared for such area. PM10 emissions from Rule 310 sources are 

significant and account for over 38% of the 2005 Periodic Inventory. In order for the Five Percent Plan 

to be effective, additional reductions from this source category are necessary. For the Five Percent Plan 

for PM10, an analysis was again conducted to identify additional measures to reduce emissions and/or 

improve compliance with existing requirements. In addition, the Arizona State Legislature enacted SB 

1552 that also contains requirements for additional control measures that are included in the revisions 

to the rules in this notice. The MCAQD also reformatted the rules and clarified text to address 

concerns and comments that arose in the enforcement process. Finally, the MCAQD also added, in 

Rules 310 and 310.01, several control measures that were adopted in June 2005 as BACM/MSM in 

Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations Rule 316.

Comment #6:

Rule 310, Section 100:

For fairness and maximum emission reductions, significant sources, such as vacant lots and unpaved 

roads, should be subject to the same emission control requirements as permitted sources. Accordingly, 

rather than different rules for permitted and unpermitted sources, HBACA recommends that all 

fugitive dust sources be subject to Rule 310. This does not mean that all unpermitted sources would 

require permits. Vacant lots and unpaved roads could be excused from permitting requirements as they 

are currently.

Response #6:

Unpermitted sources present unique challenges to reducing particulate emissions and are subject to 

emission control requirements as consistent with those that apply to permitted sources as appropriate 

given the legal, technological and economic feasibility issues associated with those source categories. 

Page 544 of 720
Land use approvals, property rights, multiple property owners, shared easements, unoccupied 

properties, and the very large number of such sources are a few of the complications that must be 

addressed with unpermitted sources. Activities at permitted sources are initiated to conduct business, 

usually manned, and under common control whether direct or through contract.

Comment #7:

MCAQD should include transportation emergency repair activities as those necessary to return the 

transportation system to functional status in this rule paragraph.

Response #7:

MCAQD maintains that the current language of this section best describes the intent of the section. 

Emergency repair activities will be judged against the criteria described in this section. There are too 

many different types of governmental agencies to include language specific to each agency’s mission.

Comment #8:

Provision should not discriminate against private agencies.

Response #8:

The exemption in Rule 310, Section 103.3, for public protection and restoration of critical public 

utilities (which is also critical to public protection) does not constitute discrimination. This exemption 

is based on the activity conducted (i.e., protection of the public and not the nature of the agency).

Comment #9:

Strike "been completed" and replace with "ceased".

Response #9:

Rule 310, Section 103.4 was originally in the SIP approved definition of "disturbed surface area". Rule 

310, Section 103.4 has been created to make it clear which activities are exempt from Rule 310. 

Comment #10:

Several commenters suggest this section be revised to accommodate the potential for trespassers, as 

follows: “An unpaved road is not a horse trail, hiking path, bicycle path, or other similar path for 

which the designated use is for purposes other than travel by motor vehicles.” This change is necessary 

as the owner/operator of the path should not be held accountable for illegal activity beyond their 

control. 

Response #10: 

A blanket exemption for trespassing is not appropriate and relaxes the rule. The department has no way 

to distinguish the vehicles of trespassers from those driven by legitimate employees. The 

owner/operator is ultimately responsible for conditions and emissions coming from their properties. 

The owner/operator will need to investigate why illegal activity is occurring, take steps to minimize the 

activity and mitigate the effects of that activity. The owner/operator can present information regarding 

the circumstances leading to a Notice of Violation should the situation escalate to the enforcement 

stage.

Rule 310, Section 200:

Page 545 of 720
Comment #11:

A clear definition of utilities should be added to the definitions. Throughout the regulations, whenever 

"utilities" are referenced a parenthetical definition follows. For consistency and clarity, all definitions 

should be contained in a Definitions section. An oil pipeline is not typically considered a "utility". 

Utilities should include interstate gas transmission and interstate gas transmission in addition to local 

gas distribution. Consider the definition of Utilities - Transmission or distribution of electricity, natural 

gas, oil and other petroleum products, water, gasoline including interstate natural gas transmission and 

intrastate natural gas transmission.

Response #11:

MCAQD maintains that the parenthetical definitions of utilities described in this rule best reflect the 

intended applicability of the Rule.

Comment #12:

Current Rule 310 and proposed Rule 310.01 include the term, “area accessible to the public” (defined 

as, “Any parking lot or public roadway that is accessible to public travel primarily for purposes 

unrelated to the dust-generating operation”). Rule 310, Section 201; Proposed Rule 310.01, Section 

203. This term creates confusion because the new term sounds like it is related to the definition 

elsewhere in the County rules for “ambient air” (i.e., “That portion of the atmosphere, external to 

buildings, to which the general public has access.”) See Rule 100, Section 200.13. The “ambient air” 

definition serves important but unrelated purposes under unrelated parts of the air program, including 

stationary source permitting. In response to a question at the July 19, 2007 public meeting, MCAQD 

explained that the term “area accessible to the public” is used for a unique purpose concerning trackout 

controls. Moreover, the definitions section in Rule 310 begins with this restrictive phrase, “For the 

purpose of this rule, the following definitions shall apply.” Thus, it appears that MCAQD correctly 

does not intend that this term and its definition have any effect on the unrelated definition or 

interpretation of “ambient air” in Rule 100, § 200.13. In order to avoid future confusion or controversy, 

the Chamber requests that MCAQD formally state that the term “area accessible to the public” and its 

definition in Rules 310 and 310.01 do not have an effect on the definition or interpretation of “ambient 

air” in Rule 100, Section 200.13. However, it would be preferable to use a term other than “area 

accessible to the public” in Rules 310 and 310.10. For example, either “paved public parking/travel 

area” or “public parking/travel area” would be a good, non-controversial substitute for “area accessible 

to the public.” This change also would avoid the circularity and the lack of clarity caused by using 

“accessible” in both the term being defined and in its definition.

Response #12:

The definition of “area accessible to the public” was adopted in 2004 to close a loophole that allowed 

several permittees to use parking lot surfaces as trackout control devices without restricting public 

travel during work hours. The revision is intended to clarify at what physical point trackout must be 

controlled and cleaned up. Based on the recommendations of the MCAQD Dust Compliance and 

Page 546 of 720
Enforcement Divisions, the current revisions to this definition address additional construction site 

locations such as schools, churches, and gated subdivisions. The terminology in this definition 

specifically addresses the circumstances encountered when conducting dust-generating operations. 

This definition in conjunction with rule limitations allows paved public parking/travel areas to be used 

as trackout control devices provided that 1) the surface is designated as a trackout control device in an 

approved dust control plan, 2) barriers are installed to prevent the public from using the surfaces when 

construction activities are occurring, and 3) all trackout is cleaned up before the public is allowed to 

use the surface. For example, lanes are frequently barricaded and closed at night or over a weekend and 

reopened to accommodate rush hour traffic during roadwork. The definition further qualifies access for 

public by the phrase "public travel primarily for purposes unrelated to the dust-generating operation." 

When evaluating stationary source permits under the procedures and provisions of Regulation II, the 

terms, definitions, and provisions contained in those rules will apply to the review of stationary source 

applications. The determination of "ambient air" in relation to any stationary source permit application 

will continue to be made on a case-by-case basis given the specific site configurations and 

circumstances of each applicant. The MCAQD does not agree with the suggested fix because changing 

the terminology from "area accessible to the public" to "public parking/travel area" is less clear when 

applied to these circumstances. The Department has replaced the phrase “is accessible to” in the 

description of the definition with the phrase “can be approached, entered, or used for”.

Comment #13:

A number of comments addressed the definition of “bulk materials”. Several comments requested that 

items listed in "bulk material" be defined. Other comments requested that manure or animal waste be 

added while another comment felt that several terms were duplicative and other terms restricted to 

materials less than 2 inches in diameter.

Response #13:

The definition of bulk material is consistent with the definitions currently in the State Implementation 

Plan and other MCAQD air quality rules and matches that included in Rule 316. The dust-generating 

operations delineated under Section 203 represent an illustrative, not exhaustive, list of possible 

materials. The test methods listed in the rule further refines what materials are regulated by the rule. 

The definition of manure is self-evident. In addition, animal waste in general is regulated under Rule 

310.01. No further definition refinement is required.

Comment #14:

"Piling" and "moving" are vague and redundant of more specific terms transporting, unloading, and 

stacking.

Response #14:

The MCAQD has opted to be more inclusive as the terms “piling” and “moving” are used by affected 

sources in the field. The definition of “bulk material handling, storage, and/or transporting operation” 

Page 547 of 720
is consistent with the definitions currently in the State Implementation Plan and other MCAQD air 

quality rules; therefore, the MCAQD is not changing the definition at this time.

Comment #15:

Rather than list specific control measures, reference Section 305.

Response #15:

The list of possible control measures was added in response to EPA comments and is part of the State 

Implementation Plan; therefore, MCAQD is not changing the definition at this time.

Comment #16:

"Control Measure" - Sand and gravel mining operations require watering DURING operations, not just 

pre-watering.

Response #16:

Rule 310, Section 205 defines the term "control measure" and lists several control measures. Prewatering is just one example of a control measure that may be required to reduce PM10. Specifically, to 

pre-water the site to depth of cuts and to allow time for penetration is one of two control measure 

options before disturbed surface areas are created. However, while disturbed surface areas are being 

created, the source must apply water or other suitable dust suppressant other than water, apply water as 

necessary to maintain a minimum of 12% soil moisture content, or implement a control measure 

described in Rule 310, Section 305.11(b)(1) or Section 305.11(b)(2) and construct fences or three-foot 

to five-foot high wind barriers with 50% or less porosity adjacent to roadways or urban areas to reduce 

the amount of windblown material leaving a site.

Comment #17:

Dust Control Plan - Specify that an approved Dust Control Plan must be available before operations 

begin under the new or revised permit.

Response #17:

Rule 310, Section 302.1 requires an approved Dust Control Plan prior to commencing a dustgenerating operation. The purpose of Rule 310, Section 402 is to define the nature of a dust control 

plan. Sections 402.1 and 402.2 both state that a dust control plan must be submitted before any dustgenerating activities occur when a permit is required. Also, Section 405 states that a Dust Control 

permit application or revision must be approved or denied by the MCAQD within 14 days of receipt. 

This would include any approval action taken on the Dust Control Plan that would be a required part of 

the Dust Control permit application or revision. The MCAQD believes 14 days is a reasonable and 

prudent amount of time to approve or deny a permit and its associated documents, including the Dust 

Control Plan.

Comment #18:

Clearly define what the specific activities in "Dust-Generating Operation" includes. For example what 

types of activities are included in “construction activities”? Clark County [NV] has a list of 16 types of 

"construction activities".

Page 548 of 720
Response #18:

Rule 310, Section 209 broadly defines a dust-generating activity with the beginning phrase "Any 

activity capable of generating fugitive dust...", therefore a specific listing of sub-activities (like types 

of construction activities) is not necessary as all construction activities that generate fugitive dust are 

subject to this definition.

Comment #19:

Several comments express concern that the proposed definition of dust-generating operation is too 

broad and would have unintended consequences. The definition is not specific to activities that actually 

generate dust. Under the proposed definition, for example, any activity involving the "operation of any 

outdoor equipment" or the "operation of motorized machinery" at Title V sources would require a Dust 

Control Plan, even if the operation of such equipment or machinery is nowhere near an area in which 

fugitive dust could be generated. See Sections 209.9, 209.10 and 302.3. As another example, any 

"property owner" who "operates . . . a dust-generating operation" (which is defined to include things 

such as construction, operating outdoor equipment, and operating motorized machinery) is required to 

obtain a permit, regardless of where the activity occurs or whether dust is actually generated. Other 

examples where dust permits would be required include: Installation of a sprinkler system on a 

residential property if mechanized equipment is used to dig the necessary "trenches"; Operation of a 

lawnmower or weed trimmer; and Utilization of a playground with a sand-based floor. These types of 

activities (and many others) should not be regulated under Rule 310, and the definition of "Dust 

Generation Operation" should be modified accordingly. As currently written, there is nothing in the 

Section 209 definition of "Dust-Generating Operation," or in the requirements set forth in Section 302, 

that restrict the obligation to obtain a permit to persons who actually generate dust. The language is far 

too broad and should be expressly limited to activities that actually generate dust. We understand that 

the intent of this rule is to focus on those activities that are of primary concern with regards to the 

particulate matter non-attainment issues occurring in the county. We therefore encourage the MCAQD 

to restrict the requirements of Rule 310 to activities that actually generate dust. In addition, certain 

other minor activities should be encompassed within Rule 310.01, which does not require an air quality 

permit or dust control plan, but does require the use of control measures to reduce fugitive dust 

emissions. Definition should be limited to anthropomorphic sources. 209.3 through 209.8 are already 

in earthmoving definition, so inclusion here is redundant. 209.9 should be revised as follows: "209.9 

Operation of any outdoor equipment haul trucks or other motorized machinery in conjunction with or 

for the purposes of conducting activities listed in subsections 209.1 and 209.2." 209.10 through 209.14 

should be deleted, because unrelated to the purposes for which a permit is obtained and do not meet the 

definition of "source" and "building, structure, facility, or installation". For example, as crafted, 

operating motorized machinery is a dust-generating operation. Dust-generating operations that disturb 

more than 0.1 acre require a permit. Accordingly, a permit would be necessary to operate a vehicle on 

a county road under this proposal.

Page 549 of 720
Response #19:

Rule 310, Section 209 states that a dust-generating activity must first be “capable of generating 

fugitive dust” for the definition to be applicable to the list of example sources included in the 

definition. If the machinery the commenter mentions is “nowhere near an area in which fugitive dust 

could be generated”, then that machinery is not capable of generating fugitive dust and would not be 

considered a dust-generating operation; and thus not be subject to the provisions of Rule 310. 

Additionally, Rule 310 does not require permits for specific pieces of equipment, but rather for the 

control of fugitive dust generated by that equipment. This is an important distinction, and explains why 

construction equipment does not have permits, but rather only when construction equipment is used to 

disturb surface areas are the requirements for a permit and the Rule in general triggered. It is important 

to remember that Section 302 of Rule 310 provides the applicability of which sources need a permit for 

dust-generating activities. The example given by the commenter (installation of residential sprinkler

system) while technically dust-generating activities would almost never approach the permit threshold 

of disturbing a surface area larger than 0.10 acres as described in Section 302.1. If those activities do 

disturb areas larger than 0.10 acres, then the MCAQD believes it is prudent and necessary for those 

activities to require a permit. Other examples given by the comments (operation of a lawn mower or 

weed trimmer, utilization of a playground with sand-based floor, and the public driving on a county 

unpaved road) are exempted under Sections 103.2, 103.5, and 103.6. The MCAQD is not changing the 

definition at this time.

Comment #20:

Dust-Generating Operation - Include reclamation in this category. If any of the operations listed are 

part of sand and gravel mining, then fugitive dust from these operations should be calculated for each 

permit; especially for the excavation operation. This is a big loophole that needs to be taken into 

account.

Response #20:

The calculations of fugitive and process emissions that determine the potential to emit (PTE) for a 

source required to obtain a Title V, Non-Title V, or General permit is regulated by the provisions 

contained in Regulation II. The inclusion of reclamation in this definition would have no effect on 

calculation of PTE.

Comment #21:

Define "motorized machinery" and "outdoor equipment".

Response #21:

Categories were added to clarify the intent of the section. The dust-generating operations delineated 

under Section 209 represent an illustrative, not exhaustive, list of possible activities. No further 

definition refinement is required.

Comment #22:

Earthmoving operations - Include reclamation in this category.

Page 550 of 720
Response #22:

Categories were added to clarify the intent of the section. The earthmoving operations delineated under 

Section 211 represent an illustrative, not exhaustive, list of possible activities. No further definition 

refinement is required.

Comment #23:

The MCAQD should include the emergency repair of transportation systems to this definition. 

Transportation systems are critical infrastructure and fall into the same category of care as power 

systems, drinking water, waste water and other utilities.

Response #23:

Transportation system repairs are routinely covered under a block permit. It has been the Department’s 

experience that traffic can be directed to a detour leading to personal inconvenience until the repair can 

be completed. In contrast the loss of the systems covered in Rule 310, Section 213 can be life 

threatening conditions.

Comment #24:

Discriminatory definition, should not exclude private sector. Phrase "technology-based emission 

limitation under a permit" should be replaced with "limitation in this rule".

Response #24:

The purpose of Section 213 is to provide an exemption only

Comment #25:

to essential public utilities which are 

critical to public health and welfare. If the private sector operates and manages an essential public 

utility, then this defined emergency activity would be covered by this exemption. MCAQD agrees with 

the comment regarding the phrase "technology-based emission limitation under a permit" and has 

replaced the phrase in Section 212 definition of “emergency” with “limitation in this rule”.

Several comments suggest that the MCAQD provide a better definition of "end of work day". As 

currently defined, it is ambiguous as to what is considered to be the end of the work day except that it 

must not be later than 8 pm. 

Response #25:

The MCAQD will amend this definition to read, “The end of a working period that may include one or 

more shifts. If working 24 hours a day, the end of a working period shall be considered no later than 8 

pm.”

Comment #26:

Add after "capture", "a control system"; if airborne dust is controlled by a spray bar system, for 

example, is it still fugitive dust? Definition must exclude natural sources, including wind. Otherwise, 

wind would meet definition of a dust-generating operation for which a permit is required. Also, 

concrete and tile cutting should be explicitly excluded.

Response #26:

Page 551 of 720
MCAQD used the definition found in EPA reference documents. The definition in this section remains 

unchanged from the existing rule adopted by EPA.

Comment #27:

Insert "pad" after "Minimum" in last sentence.

Response #27:

The MCAQD is not changing the definition as the proposed modification does not add clarity to the 

definition.

Comment #28:

Several comments recommend that the proposed additional language for this definition be moved to 

Section 306, as this language pertains to operating requirements for the gravel pad. 

Response #28:

Rule 310, Section 306 requires the installation and utilization of trackout control devices and does not 

address each possible type of device individually. The only reference to a gravel pad occurs in the 

definition of trackout control device in Section 228, thus this definition for gravel pad is clarifying 

another definition. This additional language is necessary to define when the layer of gravel will qualify 

as a trackout control device.

Comment #29:

Several comments state that the dimensions listed may be problematic in certain situations such as for 

single lane entrance/exits. They suggest revising the definition to "width of the outgoing travel lane" or 

"If practicable, a gravel pad should Minimum dimensions must be 30 feet wide by 3 inches deep, and, 

at minimum, 50 feet long or the length of the longest haul truck, whichever is greater."

Response #29:

A gravel pad is only one option that can be selected as a trackout control device. A permittee has the 

option of selecting another device to fit their site specific circumstances or applying for approval the 

gravel pad with smaller dimensions as an alternative control measure under Rule 310, Section 

402.3(c)(3). The Department will add “Section 306.1(b)” to Section 402.3(c)(3) to be consistent with 

the provision the existing rule.

Comment #30:

MCAQD should consider adding language to Rule 310, Section 222-Definition of Off-Road Vehicle to 

emphasize the recreational nature of the listed examples. A road scraper or bulldozer could be included 

in this definition as it is currently written and clearly from the listed examples, neither are recreational 

vehicles.

Response #30:

The term “off-road vehicle” is used in Rule 310, Section 205-Definition of Control Measure. The 

MCAQD will take the suggestion under advisement. Rule 310, Section 222-Definition of Off-Road 

Vehicle is a carry-over from the existing rule and is not a change or addition to Rule 310. The 

MCAQD is not addressing previously approved rule language in this rulemaking.

Page 552 of 720
Comment #31:

In the definition of "open storage pile," it is assumed the silt content of the storage pile is greater than 5 

percent unless testing is conducted to show that it is less than 5 percent. It is unclear how often testing 

would be required to demonstrate that an open storage pile has a silt content of less than 5 percent. For 

example, if there is a storage pile of washed gravel at a site, which inherently has extremely minimal 

silt content, how often would it need to be tested? Furthermore, in this example, it is clearly not 

necessary to test to confirm that the silt content is less than 5 percent; this can be determined through 

visual observation alone. Another comment requested that the definition should include exclusion for 

washed materials, which would not have 5% silt content and should not require testing.

Response #31:

The MCAQD recognizes the results of the laboratory tests that document the specifications of washed 

products. A pile of washed materials can become contaminated depending upon site activities, so total 

exclusion is not necessarily appropriate. However, inspectors perform visual checks of piles. Based on 

the frequency of activity, a permittee may also choose to use visual checks to ascertain if the pile of 

washed materials has become contaminated.

Comment #32:

The MCAQD should clearly identify where the primary responsibility for obtaining a dust control 

permit resides. A property owner may not have direct supervisory or operational control over the dustgenerating activity caused by a hired contractor or operator. Is MCAQD intending for property owners 

to obtain the relevant dust control permits before any dust-generating activity caused by a contractor or 

operator hired by the property owner? Or alternatively, does MCAQD intend the contractor or operator 

of the dust-generating activity to possess the primary responsibility to obtain the dust control permit?

Response #32:

See the response to comment #4.

Comment #33:

Is a "person" in this definition identical to the "Owner and/or Operator" identified in a previous 

definition?

Response #34:

Rule 100, Section 200.78 contains the current definition of "person" and includes “owner/operator”.

Comment #35:

Definition in Section 226 is unnecessary and unenforceable in the field.

Response #35:

This definition clarifies a standard in a rule. Further, permit applicants are required to include a site 

plan with project boundaries with the application and Dust Control Plan.

Comment #36:

The MCAQD should consider establishing a threshold value (0.10 acre) for an unpaved parking lot. As 

this definition is drafted, a parking lot could be one square foot or less. A permit threshold area as 

Page 553 of 720
established in Rule 200 Section? 302.1 would clarify this definition. Another comment states that no 

change necessary to current definition concerning area limitation. As proposed, one car idling onsite 

would render that spot an unpaved parking lot.

Response #36:

The MCAQD’s intent is to be consistent with Senate Bill 1552. The definition does not establish 

permit thresholds. A single idling vehicle does not provide much information to an inspector on what’s 

happening onsite. Typically, the MCAQD looks for parked vehicles and supplies to indicate where

unpaved parking is occurring. The MCAQD does not agree that a reasonable person automatically 

assumes an idling car renders the spot an unpaved parking lot. The MCAQD consults the approved 

Dust Control Plan when questions arise. 

Comment #37:

Are "Visible emissions" as identified by this definition an opacity standard evaluation? If so then what 

method is to be used to determine compliance? If not, then what evidence is sufficient to establish 

evidence of visible emissions?

Response #37:

“Visible emissions" in this definition simply refer to any level of dust in the atmosphere that is 

observable by the naked eye.

Comment #38:

"Wind Event" - This needs to be redefined. Wind events as low as 10 mph can cause excessive PM10

pollution. Re-evaluate this criterion based on real time data from the monitoring network.

Response #38:

The intent of this definition is to point out those wind events that are certain to generate large PM10

emissions and overwhelm best available control measures (BACM). While lower speed winds can also 

generate PM10 emissions, those wind speeds do not overwhelm BACM. For purposes of Rule 310, the 

MCAQD believes the current definition in Section 236 meets this criterion. 

Comment #39:

Rule 310, Section 300:

In the proposed amendment to Rule 310 there is a new General Practices provision that Maricopa 

County claims summarizes the general conditions that are citable offenses under section 301. Our 

understanding is this listing is meant only to clarify the rule’s requirements and to make it easier to 

understand. The County should clarify these General Provisions so as not to cause double jeopardy to 

the permitted source when issuing a NOV. For example, XYZ Company is issued a NOV for Track-out 

under the work practice section, and then issued a similar second NOV under 301 for failure to comply 

with the General Provisions of the Rule and Dust Control Permit / Plan. We need a clear interpretation 

or guidance when new inspectors are hired years [sic] as to intent and consistency of inspections. 

Another comment recommends that it would make more sense to provide a guidance document that 

clarifies what constitutes a violation of the rule. This section could then be removed.

Page 554 of 720
Response #39:

The purpose of the change was to summarize general requirements for dust-generating operations, not 

to increase the possible number of violations cited by MCAQD. The explanation section in the Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking and in the Notice of Final Rulemaking indicates that the MCAQD intends the 

General Requirements Section to be a list that summarizes and reminds owners of all the various 

requirements contained in Rule 310. Following Clark County’s example, the MCAQD is including a 

similar list in the rule itself, as guidance documents that accompanied this rule in the past have not 

necessarily been widely read. The MCAQD confirms yet again that the Department will not reference 

Section 301 when issuing a Notice to Comply or Notice of Violation.

Comment #40:

Specify what type of permit is needed. If this is not mining, say so.

Response #40:

Rule 200 indicates the specific types of permits needed depending on the type of source.

Comment #41:

Several comments recommend revising this section to refer specifically to Dust Control Permits and

Dust Control Permit revisions only, rather than generic references to "permits" or "permit revisions. 

Response #41:

The MCAQD has designed the scope of the rules to covers all

Comment #42:

permits.

Rule 310, Section 302.2 is unnecessary and incapable of consistent enforcement in the field. How will 

inspector know whether one site is under common control with another?

Response #42:

The MCAQD inspectors do have access to a dust control permit database that allows for discovery of 

sites under common control. Further, this section is necessary to ensure that thresholds for applicable 

requirements and Dust Control Permit requirements are not circumvented by artificially subdividing 

area under common control.

Comment #43:

Rule 310, Section 302.3 is identical to Section 402.1(a) and could lead to multiple violations for the 

same action. For this reason, we request that Section 402.1(a) be deleted. Also, as written this 

condition requires that a source that performs routine dust generation operation at a site that has 

obtained a Title V, Non-Title V, or General Permit must obtain a Dust Control Plan. This is 

problematic because routine is defined as "any dust-generating operation which occurs more than four

times per year or lasts 30 cumulative days or more per year". It is possible that the temporary storage 

piles at our Service Centers that have a general permit for gasoline storage would have to get a dust 

control plan for routine dust-generating activities at the facility when the dust-generating activity 

(storage piles) is less than one tenth of an acre. It is our position that a Service Center that has 

temporary storage piles created more than 4 times a year and that is less than one tenth of an acre 

Page 555 of 720
should not be required to obtain a dust control plan merely because it has a gasoline storage general 

permit. APS and SRP request clarification on this matter and that this condition be modified to 

accommodate the example mentioned above.

Response #43:

The MCAQD will revise Rule 310, Section 302.3 to be consistent with Section 402.1. Section 302.3 

will now read, “No person shall commence any routine dust-generating operation that disturbs a 

surface area of 0.10 acres or greater at a site that has obtained or must obtain a Title V, Non-Title V, or 

General permit under Regulation II-Permits and Fees of these rules without first submitting to the 

Control Officer a Dust Control Plan.”

Comment #44:

This requirement is consistently violated in Non-Title V permits. At least 60 days is allowed before the 

Dust Control Plan is due. Change permits to conform.

Response #44:

This requirement exists in the current rule. It is the MCAQD’s intent to enforce this section with

regards to all permit holders. It is important to note that because the MCAQD has a unitary permit 

program, often Non-Title V permits may be issued before a source is built, and thus before the source 

can commence any dust-generating operations that would require a Dust Control Plan. The MCAQD 

will review its standard permit conditions and revise as necessary to ensure that the Dust Control Plan 

is submitted and approved prior to commencement of dust-generating operations.

Comment #45:

The MCAQD should clearly identify where the primary responsibility resides for obtaining and 

maintaining compliance with a dust control permit. A property owner may not have direct supervisory 

or operational control over the dust-generating activity caused by a hired contractor or operator. Is 

MCAQD intending for property owners to obtain the relevant dust control permits before any dustgenerating activity caused by a contractor or operator hired by the property owner? Or alternatively, 

does MCAQD intend the contractor or operator of the dust-generating activity to possess the primary 

responsibility to obtain the dust control permit? Another comment states that it is unclear who is 

responsible for obtaining the permit under this section. This is particularly true where, for example, 

there is an owner, a contractor, and a supervisor for a project. Is it the MCAQD's intent to require that 

each of these persons obtain a dust permit (i.e., three separate permits)? Is it the MCAQD's intent that 

only one of these persons must obtain the permit? If so, who? And who is liable under that permit? If 

the owner obtains a permit, and the contractor violates that permit, who is liable? MCAQD must 

clarify these important issues. We suggest that the party who actually performs the work be required to 

obtain the permit and have liability under that permit. It would be inequitable to impose liability on a 

party who has no control over a project. This section is also confusing due to the integrated definition 

of "Owner and/or Operator". The comment requests that the integrated definition of "Owner and/or 

Operator" be removed, and that MCAQD instead use the term itself in the section so that it reads as 

Page 556 of 720
follows: "The property owner, lessee, developer, responsible official, Dust Control permit applicant 

(who may also be the responsible party contracting to do the work), general contractor, prime 

contractor, supervisor, management company, or any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or 

supervises a dust generating operation subject to the requirements of this rule owner and/or operator

shall be responsible for obtaining a permit or permit revision, pursuant to section 400 of this rule

Response #45:

, from 

the Control Officer."

See the response to comment #4.

Comment #46:

APS and SRP recommend revising this section to refer specifically to Dust Control Permits, Dust 

Control Permit applications, and Dust Control Permit revisions, rather than generic references to 

"permits," "permit applications", or "permit revisions.?

Response #46:

See response to comment #41. 

Comment #47:

Rule 310, Section 302.5 does not contain the qualifiers found in Rule 200, Sections 309.1, 309.2, and 

309.3. No rule would be necessary if the Control Officer had the authority to impose whatever 

condition he deemed necessary to assure compliance with 20% opacity standard.

Response #47:

Rule 310, Section 400 includes existing language found in Rule 200, Section 308. Section 309 

qualifies additional monitoring and sampling not specified by rule and would still apply even if not 

specifically listed in Rule 310. However, the testing procedures for dust-generating operations are 

specified by rule, not by the permit under Rule 200.

Comment #48:

Rule 310, Section 302.7 is unnecessary and problematic. What if Rule 310 preempted in the future by 

state or federal law?

Response #48:

State and County rules govern stationary sources at all times. This language is standard in air quality 

permitting rules to ensure that owner/operators understand their statutory obligations. Actions at the 

state and federal may impose a duty on the County to revise its rules in the future as it has been 

obligated to do in the past. Nothing in this rule changes that obligation.

Comment #49:

Is the visible fugitive dust emissions property line limitation in Rule 310, Section 303.1(b) a presence 

or absence limitation (i.e. instantaneous) or must the 20% opacity limit in Rule 310, Section 303.1(a) 

be exceeded first? If Rule 310, Section 303.1(b) is an instantaneous limit, what opacity observation 

method will be used? Another comment requested an exception to the "zero opacity on property line" 

Page 557 of 720
for work that occurs exactly on the property line, such as building a block wall or maintaining an 

unpaved road shoulder. 

Response #49:

The property line standard in Rule 310, Section 303.1 is a presence or absence limitation. To clarify 

that the Department will not be enforcing on a single puff of dust, the following text, “Visible 

emissions shall be determined by a standard of no visible emissions exceeding 30 seconds in duration 

in any six minute period as determined using EPA Reference Method 22.” has been added to Section 

303.1(b). The MCAQD has added a new subsection to Rule 310, Section 501.1 to determine 

compliance with the property line standard by conducting observations in accordance with EPA 

Reference Method 22. To address other feasibility concerns identified in the comments, the MCAQD 

is adding an exemption from the property line standard when an owner and/or operator conducts dustgenerating activities within 25 feet of the property line. Further, the MCAQD also intends to issue a 

Notice To Comply for the first violation at sites that are applying controls and have obtained the 

appropriate permits. The MCAQD will modify its enforcement policy to address this new requirement.

Comment #50:

If Farm Cultural Practices are not exempt in Rule 303, please note that there are not classes offered to 

agricultural producers or livestock owners to become qualified in EPA Reference Method 9 which 

includes determining 20% opacity.

Response #50:

At least two training providers in Maricopa County offer EPA Method 9 Visible Emissions 

Observation Certification Training to anyone required to complete periodic visible emissions 

observations. While the MCAQD does not make recommendations, training is available through: The 

ASU Environmental Technology Management (ETM) program offers EPA Method 9 Certification 

training. Information on the ETM training can be found at 

http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/compliance/smoke.html or by calling (480) 727-1322. In addition, 

Arizona Smoke School offers Method 9 training. Information on Arizona Smoke School can be found 

at http://www.arizonasmokeschool.com/ or by calling (480) 226-0945. Additionally, normal farm 

cultural practices are exempt from Rule 310 as stated in Section 103.1.

Comment #51:

Require that this paragraph be enforced at night as well as during the day. Also, periodic monitoring is 

not sufficient to enforce this requirement.

Response #51:

Rule 310, Section 303.1 does apply to all times of the day, and is not limited to daylight hours. 

Monitoring and recordkeeping requirements for visible emissions are explained in Section 500 of the 

Rule.

Comment #52:

Page 558 of 720
Several comment express significant concerns regarding this [prohibiting visible emissions at property 

line] condition. They support the Chamber of Commerce's September 10, 2007 comment that this 

condition, which prohibits visible emissions from crossing the property boundary line, is 

unconstitutional. We agree with the Chamber of Commerce that this condition should be removed. As 

written, this requirement would be impossible to comply with in many instances. Even if a source is 

implementing the best available control measures as required in other portions of this rule, the potential 

exists for visible emissions to cross the property line if a dust-generating operation is occurring near 

the property line and there is a gust of wind. A source could violate this requirement for reasons 

beyond its control and regardless of its best faith efforts to comply with the rule including compliance 

with every requirement to limit dust in the rule. In addition, there is no indication that this requirement 

will result in any reduction in particulate matter emissions, since there is no credible link between 

opacity and particulate matter emissions. EPA itself has conceded that a "reliable and direct correlation 

between opacity and PM emissions cannot be established without significant site-specific simultaneous 

testing of both PM emissions and opacity . . ." See 72 Fed. Reg. 18428, 18429 (April 12, 2007). 

MCAQD has indicated that the changes proposed in this rule are necessary to reduce particulate matter 

emissions in accordance with the particulate matter non-attainment area State Implementation Plan. 

However, it is clear that this condition will not achieve any creditable reductions. At a minimum, the 

MCAQD should answer the following questions related to this proposed condition: How will the 

MCAQD determine what point marks the property line? It would be impossible for inspectors to know 

where that location is, without a fence to mark the property line. Only a survey can determine 

conclusively where the property line is located. How will the MCAQD inspectors document the exact 

location where visible emissions were observed crossing the "property line," so that a source can refute 

the alleged violation if the visible emissions were not at the actual property line? How will the 

MCAQD address this issue for line-type properties, such as unpaved roads? As written now, there is no 

flexibility afforded to these sources even if they are implementing the control measures required by 

this rule. Commenters request that this provision be removed. If the MCAQD continues to believe the 

provision must be included, comments submit that, at a minimum, the provision should be reworded. 

In addition to the issues described above, it is inappropriate for this section to refer to "particulate 

matter, including fugitive dust". Any requirements contained in this rule should only pertain to fugitive 

dust, which is in keeping with the title and purpose of this rule. APS and SRP suggest the following 

revision: "The owner and/or operator of a dust-generating operation shall not cause, suffer, or allow 

visible emissions of particulate matter, including fugitive dust, beyond the property line within which 

the emissions are generated. The owner and/or operator shall be exempt from this requirement if it can 

demonstrate that it is implementing best available control measures, as defined by section 304 through 

306 of this rule, and the source is in compliance with the opacity requirement in Section 303.1(a) of 

this rule." Comment recommends 5%-10% opacity at property boundary which is less than half of the 

current standard.

Page 559 of 720
Response #52:

The EPA has refined the national ambient air quality standard for particulate matter in 1987 to 

inhalable particulate matter 10 microns or less in aerometric diameter since both court decisions. 

Unlike the two jurisdictions cited in the comment, the Phoenix PM10 Nonattainment Area failed to 

meet the 24 hour PM10 standard by December 31, 2006. As a result, residents still have the potential to 

be exposed to unhealthy levels of PM10. Exceedances are recorded under both stagnant and elevated 

wind conditions. Secondary aerosols are not significant contributors to the exceedances recorded in 

Maricopa County. Geologic material (e.g. dust) remains the dominant constituent of PM10. Locally 

generated PM10 significantly contributes to recorded exceedances of the PM10 standard and can be 

released from dust generating activities or any unstabilized surface, exposing residents to unhealthy 

levels of particulates. The property line standard can serve as a simple visual technique to monitor the 

dust released by the operation. To address the feasibility concerns expressed, the County is clarifying 

the property line standard. First, the text, “Visible emissions shall be determined by a standard of no 

visible emissions exceeding 30 seconds in duration in any six minute period as determined using EPA 

Reference Method 22.” has been added to Rule 310, Section 303.1(b). Next, the Department has added 

text to allow an owner or operator to claim an affirmative defense during high winds. The MCAQD is 

also adding an exemption from the property line standard when an owner and/or operator conducts 

dust generating activities within 25 feet of the property line to Rule 310, Section 303 to address 

concerns regarding work performed at the property line. The Department has added updated Rule 310, 

Section 500 to include EPA Reference Method 22. Further, the MCAQD also intends to issue a Notice 

to Comply for the first violation of the property line standard at sites that are applying controls and 

have obtained the appropriate permits. The MCAQD will modify its enforcement policy to address this 

new requirement. The MCAQD will develop a policy/guideline and train compliance staff to ensure 

consistent enforcement of the property line standard. The MCAQD disagrees that there is no credible 

link between opacity and particulate matter emissions. In fact the next sentence in the EPA notice cited 

by the comment states, “Nonetheless, because there is at least an indirect relationship between opacity 

and PM emissions, including the use of opacity to track the effectiveness of PM control equipment 

operation ...” The MCAQD’s goal with this change is to improve the monitoring of dust control 

measures by providing a simple visual tool that can be applied by employees as well as by the 

MCAQD to evaluate the effectiveness of the dust control measure. Even though the MCAQD can not 

derive a quantitative correlation between opacity and PM emissions for a general rule, improving the 

consistency of compliance will reduce emissions and reduce the concentrations measured at the 

monitors. Owners and/or operators are required to provide a site plan and legal description of their 

permitted site with their permit application. The MCAQD inspectors carry GPS units and would be 

able to use those devices if necessary. However, the inspector only has to determine that emissions 

coming from the permitted site are present at a point that is beyond the property line. Once the 

inspector determines that the visible emission is generated from the permitted site and visible emission 

Page 560 of 720
reaches a point clearly beyond the property line (e.g. a nearby public road), described and documented 

by the inspector, then the exact location of the property line is moot. As noted above, an exemption 

from the property line standard has been added for dust generating activities taking place within 25 feet 

of the property line. These activities will continue to be subject to the 20% opacity standard, the 

requirement to implement control measures including contingency measures, the requirement to obtain 

a permit, etc. Since visible emissions can contain other particles deposited on the site surface as well as 

dust, the Department does not believe that the property line standard should be limited to fugitive dust.

Comment #53:

The referenced provision reads: “The owner and/or operator of a dust generating operation shall not 

cause or allow visible fugitive dust emissions to remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property 

line.” At least two other jurisdictions have concluded that absolute prohibitions against visible 

emissions crossing a property line are unconstitutional. In Ross Neely Exp. v. ADE, the Alabama 

Supreme Court held that a state rule prohibiting visible emissions from crossing a property line: "is 

clearly overbroad, encompassing every situation in which visible fugitive dust emissions move across a 

lot line, without regard to damage, injury, or inconvenience caused, reasonable attempts at control, etc. 

This invades the area of protected freedom, severely restricting the use of property, and creases [sic] a 

situation where discriminatory enforcement is almost inevitable." Ref: 437 So.2d 82, 85 (Ala. 1983); 

see also CF & U v. CAPCC, 640 P.2d 238 (Colo. App. 1981) (holding that property boundary standard 

“contravenes fundamental due process rights”). The Chamber respectfully requests this subsection be 

removed from the draft rule.

Response #53:

See the response to comment #52.

Comment #54:

A blanket prohibition is unlawful. See, e.g., Ross Neely Express, Inc. v. Alabama Dept Envl. Mgmt., 

437 So.2d 82 (Ala. 1983); CF&I Steel Corp. v. Colorado Air Pollution, 640 P.2d 238, 241 (Colo. App. 

1981). While some jurisdictions may have some sort of property boundary limitation on the books, that 

is only because they do not impose blanket prohibitions or have not been challenged. Pima County 

does not impose a blanket prohibition. Pima County's rule states: "No person shall [allow] visible 

emissions...beyond the property boundary line within which the emissions become airborne, without 

taking reasonable necessary and feasible precautions..." [Emphasis added.] Under Pima County's 

rule, so long as reasonably necessary and feasible precautions are taken, emissions can cross the 

property line. Pima County also provides an exception for wind events, which this proposal does not 

do. Note, this is an example of a measure where due process for the industry would be beneficial, 

which Pima County does as well, because there is no test method for this measure.

Response #54:

See the response to comment #52.

Comment #55:

Page 561 of 720
The direction and reflection of the sun determines opacity, so make clear to use EPA Method 9. Now 

the rule says "no visible emissions"(?) Many controls have to be implemented at property lines such as: 

street sweepers and facility entrances.

Response #55:

The property line standard in Rule 310, Section 303.1(b) is a presence or absence limitation. To clarify 

that the Department will not be enforcing on a single puff of dust, the following text, “Visible 

emissions shall be determined by a standard of no visible emissions exceeding 30 seconds in duration 

in any six minute period as determined using EPA Reference Method 22.” has been added to Rule 310, 

Section 303.1(b). The Department has added a new subsection to Rule 310, Section 501.1 in to 

determine compliance with the property line standard by conducting observations in accordance with 

EPA Reference Method 22.

Comment #56:

APS and SRP suggest that MCAQD extend the affirmative defense option to the opacity limit 

described in Rule 310, Section 303.1(b), as well as the 20% opacity limitation. Also, MCAQD should 

clarify that a source is not required to submit an excess emissions report or permit deviation 

notification every time there is a wind event, if fugitive dust emissions exceed 20 percent opacity or if 

there are visible emissions across the property line. Such a notification would be impossible if the site 

is inactive during a wind event and no one is on site to make the proper assessment that such a 

submittal should be made. 

Response #56:

As noted in the response to comment #52, MCAQD has added the property line standard to the high 

wind affirmative defense provision. Stationary sources are not required to submit an excess emission 

report or permit deviation notification for situations that they do not observe. However, the owner 

and/or operator is responsible for results of the periodic assessment of the routine dust generating 

operations covered by their permit.

Comment #57:

Where will this meteorological wind speed data be obtained from to allow an owner/operator to 

comply with this provision?

Response #57:

Wind data will be obtained through Maricopa County's meteorological network of monitoring stations.

Comment #58:

Will MCAQD accept manufacturer provided porosity data - sufficient to meet this requirement?

Response #58:

Yes, manufacturer's data is sufficient to determine compliance with this porosity requirement.

Comment #59:

Wind fences should stand alone as an alternative or be removed, as it currently adds nothing to the 

rule.

Page 562 of 720
Response #59:

Rule 310, Section 303.2(a)(1)(a)(iv) provides four different options. The MCAQD maintains that the 

use of wind barriers is a legitimate option and is included to enhance the flexibility of sites subject to 

Rule 310. 

Comment #60:

Is it MCAQD’s intention to require additional application of water in the case of any evidence of wind 

blown dust or can an alternative water based dust suppressant be applied in lieu of water? Does 

MCAQD intend an instantaneous opacity standard of any observation to trigger additional action or 

can a physical assessment based upon silt loading be applied?

Response #60:

This section only allows the use of water, however Rule 310, Section 303.2(1)(b)(i) does allow for the 

use of other dust suppressant. All opacity determinations for this rule are governed by Rule 310, 

Section 501.1.

Comment #61:

Several comments suggest that MCAQD revise this requirement so that it extends the affirmative 

defense option to the opacity limit described in Section 303.1 - as well as the 20 percent opacity 

limitation. 

Response #61:

The Department has revised the section to allow an owner or operator to claim an affirmative defense 

during high winds for exceedances of the property line standard as well as the 20% opacity standard.

Comment #62:

Replace with "Emergency Maintenance of Utilities”. Revise to the following: Section 303.2(b)-The 

opacity limit described in Section 303.1(a) of this rule shall not apply to emergency activities 

associated with utilities, including the emergency maintenance of flood control channels and water 

retention basins."

Response #62:

MCAQD cannot add this text as it would constitute a relaxation of the Rule. However, exemptions for 

emergency activities for essential public utilities are addressed in Section 103.3.

Comment #63:

Unpaved parking lot. By what test methods will MCAQD conduct compliance determinations?

Response #63:

Rule 310, Section 501.1(b) details the methods used to determine opacity for this section and Rule 310, 

Section 501.2(a) details the methods used to determine the silt loading or silt content.

Comment #64:

Reference to opacity standard should be stricken as redundant. Opacity covered under Section 303.

Response #64:

Page 563 of 720
The reference to opacity is not new and is in the SIP. This reference occurs under Section 304.1 

because compliance with the opacity standard is required in conjunction with either the silt content or 

silt loading standard. The clarity of its application in this instance would be lost if the reference was 

stricken from the section. A responsible party may be found in violation if the vehicular activity on the 

lot violates the opacity standard. If the Department is unable to conduct an opacity observation than a 

site may be found in violation if it fails both the silt content and silt loading tests.

Comment #65:

Unpaved Haul/Access Road. By what test methods will MCAQD conduct compliance determinations? 

Is this paragraph applicable to haul roads around agricultural fields and farm operations (nonlivestock)?

Response #65:

The test methods for the stabilization requirements of Section 304.2 are listed in Section 501.2(b) of 

Rule 310. If a haul/access road is part of normal farm cultural practices this section does not apply, as 

exempted under Section 103.1.

Comment #66:

Reference to opacity standard should be stricken as redundant. Opacity covered under Section 303.

Response #66:

The opacity standard is not new to Rule 310, Section 304.2 - unpaved haul/access road - nor is it new 

to Rule 310, Section 303 - visible emissions requirements for dust generating operations. It is part of 

the federally approved rule in the SIP.

Comment #67:

Unpaved Haul/Access Road – It doesn’t appear that this rule is enforced.

Response #67:

It is the intent of the MCAQD to enforce and ensure compliance with all sections of Rule 310. The 

Department has issued Notices of Violation for this standard. 

Comment #68:

APS and SRP believe it is important that this section account for the possibility of trespassers on 

unpaved haul and access roads. The limit on vehicle trips and vehicle speeds should be for authorized 

traffic. It is critical that the owner/operator not be penalized for illegal trespassing that occurs on its 

site. 

Response #68:

A blanket exemption for trespassing is not appropriate and relaxes the rule. The department has no way 

to distinguish the vehicles of trespassers from those driven by legitimate employees. The 

owner/operator is ultimately responsible for conditions and emissions coming from their properties. 

The owner/operator will need to investigate why illegal activity is occurring, take steps to minimize the 

activity and mitigate the effects of that activity. The owner/operator can present information regarding 

Page 564 of 720
the circumstances leading to a Notice of Violation should the situation escalate to the enforcement 

stage.

Comment #69:

Disturbed Surface Area. Does MCAQD have a definition of "temporarily or permanently inactive"? 

MCAQD should clearly identify where the primary responsibility resides for obtaining and 

maintaining compliance with a dust control requirement. A property owner may not have direct 

supervisory or operational control over the dust generating activity caused by a hired contractor or 

operator. At what point does MCAQD expect the property owner to exert control over the property 

once a contractor has left? Are there other environmental programs/regulations where such a hand off 

occurs?

Response #69:

The purpose/intent of Rule 310, Section 304.3 is to describe control measures to stabilize disturbed 

surface areas on a work site that is under construction when there is no activity occurring at a work site 

Comment #70:

(i.e., when the construction at the work site is temporarily or permanently inactive). Neither owner nor 

operator nor responsible official can circumvent dust control requirements by claiming it is the sole 

responsibility of one particular party to obtain the required dust control permit and comply with 

applicable requirements. The Department has no ability to intervene in contractual issues.

APS and SRP are concerned that MCAQD proposes to change the name of this section from "Open 

Area and Vacant Lot" to "Disturbed Surface Area" because the terms have significantly different 

meanings. MCAQD indicated during stakeholder meetings that this change was a result of a request 

from stakeholders to add more clarity. Unless more accurate terminology is used to provide additional 

clarity, MCAQD should revert to the previous terms (i.e., open area and vacant lot) and provide a 

definition of open area and vacant lot that is consistent with Rules 310, 310.01, and 200. 

Response #70:

The title of this section and the text describing the standard are inconsistent. The text appropriately 

describes the surfaces at sources subject to Rule 310 so a revision to the title was necessary. Further, 

Rule 310 does not apply to non-traditional sources of fugitive dust that are located at sources that do 

not require any permit under these rules. One such non-traditional source of fugitive dust is open areas 

and vacant lots. Non-traditional sources of fugitive dust (e.g. open areas and vacant lots) are subject to 

the standards and/or requirements described in Rule 310.01.

Comment #71:

As written, there is confusion between Section 304.3 and Section 305.11, because the stabilization 

requirements of 304.3 are not consistent with the control measures of 305.11. Section 304.3 allows a 

source to water the disturbed surface area on which no activity is occurring in order to form a soil crust 

in accordance with Appendix C. Once a soil crust is form and maintained, the source is in compliance 

with Section 304.3 of this rule. The control requirements of Section 305.11 require that, after the 

Page 565 of 720
activity that caused the disturbed surface area is complete for a period of 30 days or longer, the source 

must implement one of the listed control measures within ten days. Creating a soil crust is not an 

identified control measure. Comments request that "maintain a soil crust" be added to Section 305.11.c 

as a control measure. 

Response #71:

The purpose/intent of Rule 310, Section 304.3 is to describe the stabilization standards that must be 

met and maintained for disturbed surface areas on a work site when there is no activity occurring at a 

work site. 

Comment #72:

The purpose/intent of Rule 310, Section 305.11 is to describe specific controls measures to 

control fugitive dust on a work site before, during, and after conducting operations/activities that 

disturb the work site’s surface areas. Several of these specific control measures will result in a soil 

crust that will meet the stabilization requirements described in Section 304.3. The MCAQD does not 

believe the sections are inconsistent.

It is not clear these sections would apply to projects on our ROW. If yes, then it would [be] difficult to 

maintain a soil crust or maintain a flat vegetative cover or standing vegetative cover. The ROW is to be 

kept free of deep rooted vegetation and is periodically driven over by motor vehicles for maintenance 

activities. It would also be difficult to restrict vehicle access to the area.

Response #72:

Rule 310 only applies to your permitted site, usually the pumping station. The rights-of-way along the 

pipelines are not permitted and thus are addressed in Rule 310.01.

Comment #73:

The new phrase "visibly distinguishable stabilization characteristics" is redundant and vague, will lead 

to inconsistent enforcement, and should be stricken. Change from "visible crust" to "soil crust" is 

vague and should be stricken.

Response #73:

The stabilization standards and corresponding test methods apply to specific types of surfaces and do 

not provide meaningful information when applied to other types of surfaces. For example, performing 

a test to verify that sufficient vegetation is present always indicates failure when the surface lacks 

vegetation. Rule 310, Section 304.3 explains that the owner and/or operator must test separately each 

type of surface that can be visibly distinguished. These surfaces may be characterized by different 

soils, the presence or absence of vegetation, gravel, or control method. The owner/operator is required 

to verify compliance with a stabilization standard appropriate for each identified surface. The phrase 

“visibly distinguishable” is used so that the owner and/or operator does not have to conduct more tests 

than necessary (e.g. perform a standing vegetation test when the application of water to maintain a soil 

crust is the chosen control method). The phrase “visible crust” was changed to “soil crust” to match 

changes in Appendix C.

Comment #74:

Page 566 of 720
Current rule imposes different requirements for hauling offsite, hauling within a site, and crossing a 

public road. See tables 13 and 15. No change should be made. This proposal creates confusion as to 

applicability of Section 305.1 vs. 305.2 vs. 305.3. Subsection (c) is redundant and is covered under 

trackout provisions. Subsection (a)(2) is infeasible. It is impossible to load haul trucks so that load is 

completely level or lower in the center than it is on the sides. Loading the trucks in this manner will 

require the bulk material in haul truck cargo container area to be leveled before the truck moves. Such 

a requirement could be costly and could require a worker within the cargo box with a shovel or rake to 

move the material around to meet this requirement. Such activity could be hazardous. This section 

should be revised as follows: "Load all haul trucks such that at no time shall the highest point of the 

bulk material be higher than the highest point at which the bulk material contacts the sides, front, and 

back of a top of the

Response #74:

cargo container area;" 

The purpose/intent of Rule 310, Section 305.1 is to combine the provisions of existing Sections 308.1 

and 308.2 with existing Tables 13-15. To minimize confusion the MCAQD revised the title to Section 

305.1 from “Off-Site Hauling” to “Bulk Material Hauling Off-Site Onto Paved Areas Accessible To 

The Public”. This title structure now parallels the titles of Sections 305.2 and 305.3 and matches the 

original title of existing Section 308.1. All the required control measures under Section 305.1 through 

305.3 match the existing rule except the new requirement in Sections 305.1(a)(2) and 305.3(b) 

addressing the height of the load to better prevent spillage from the top of the hauling vehicle. The 

MCAQD concurs the with stakeholders’ concerns regarding flat loads and revised the requirement to 

read, "Load all haul trucks such that at no time shall the highest point of the bulk material be higher 

than the top of the sides, front, and back of a cargo container area;"

Comment #75:

Does this rule apply to non-traditional sources of fugitive dust? If this rule does apply to livestock 

owners, who are hauling or transporting feed for livestock, they cannot perform control measures b, 

and c. It is not feasible to apply water to feed, or cover feed with tarps when dispensing to livestock.

Response #75:

Rule 310, Section 103.2 states that non-traditional sources of fugitive dust are not subject to the 

provisions of Rule 310, including Section 305.2 of Rule 310. Non-traditional sources of fugitive dust 

does include livestock activities as part of its definition, therefore livestock activities are exempt from 

Rule 310. It should be noted that livestock activities and other non-traditional sources of fugitive dust 

are subject to the applicable provisions of Rule 310.01.

Comment #76:

Rule 310, Section 305.3(b) is infeasible. Section 305.3(d) is redundant and should be removed to 

prevent confusion and possible duplicative enforcement.

Response #76:

See response to comment #74. Rule 310, Section 305.3(b) has been revised.

Page 567 of 720
Comment #77:

What does the phrase "as necessary" mean? As necessary to comply with opacity standard? If so, this 

section is not necessary, because opacity is already a rule requirement.

Response #77:

Rule 310, Section 305.4 describes the appropriate control measure. “As necessary” is included here to 

recognize situations where moisture is already present, such as rainfall. Opacity and the new property 

line standard simply provide a method of determining if sufficient moisture is present. 

Comment #78:

Wind fences should stand alone as an alternative or be removed, as it currently adds nothing to the 

rule.

Response #78:

A few permittees have chosen to the wind fence combination under Rule 310, Section 305.5(b). The 

MCAQD will continue to provide permittees with that flexibility in meeting this control measure.

Comment #79:

Insert "similar" before "material".

Response #79:

The word "similar" does not add any clarity to the existing section.

Comment #80:

Definitions must be added. Storage areas should be stricken as covered under storage piles. Current 

rule for parking lots allows water to be applied to meet silt loading requirements. Proposal to require 

visible moisture is wasteful of limited resource.

Response #80:

Storage areas contain supplies and equipment to support the permitted operation and are not covered 

by the open storage pile provisions. A description for storage can be found in a dictionary. The control 

measures address vehicle use and parking on sites that require a permit and match Clark County's 

Section 94-Permitting and Dust Control for Construction Activities. If an owner/operator feels the 

application of water is wasteful, then this section lists several other options that can be used instead.

Comment #81:

APS and SRP believe it is important that this section account for the possibility of trespassers on 

unpaved staging areas, parking areas, material storage areas, and access routes. The limit on vehicle 

trips and vehicle speeds should be for authorized traffic only and the rule should clearly state this. It is 

critical that the owner/operator not be penalized for illegal trespassing occurring on their site.

Response #81:

A blanket exemption for trespassing is not appropriate and relaxes the rule. The MCAQD has no way 

to distinguish the vehicles of trespassers from those driven by legitimate employees. The 

owner/operator is ultimately responsible for conditions and emissions coming from their properties. 

The owner/operator will need to investigate why illegal activity is occurring, take steps to minimize the 

Page 568 of 720
activity and mitigate the effects of that activity. The owner/operator can present information regarding 

the circumstances leading to a Notice of Violation should the situation escalate to the enforcement 

stage.

Comment #82:

Several comments are concerned about fugitive dust regulations covered by rules other than Rule 310. 

For example, Rule 312-Abrasive Blasting regulates particulate matter emission from abrasive blasting 

and includes an opacity limit with more stringent control measures than Rule 310. A source subject to 

Rule 312 should not have to meet the opacity conditions and control measures set forth in Rule 310. 

However, since blasting is included under the definition of earthmoving operation in Rule 310, the 

source would be regulated under Rule 310 in addition to Rule 312. This could result in multiple 

violations for the same non-compliant action. APS and SRP recommend that the MCAQD include a 

provision exempting from Rule 310 those activities that are subject to fugitive dust requirements under 

other rules. 

Response #82:

The "blasting operations" referred to in Rule 310 apply to explosive blasting practices, such as rock 

removal or structural concrete removal. Rule 310 does not apply to abrasive blasting operations that 

are subject to more stringent requirement under Rule 312. Rule 310, Section 103.6 clarifies that the 

abrasive blasting process is covered by Rule 312. However, vehicles hauling the equipment into the 

site or re-stabilizing any soil surfaces surrounding the structure being blasted will be subject to Rule 

310.

Comment #83:

There is no definition for "demolition activities." This term should be defined.

Response #83:

Demolition means the wrecking or taking out of any load-supporting structural member of a facility 

together with any related handling operations. This is the same definition that the MCAQD uses in its 

asbestos regulations.

Comment #84:

Wind fences and restricting vehicle access should stand alone as an alternative or be removed, as it 

currently adds nothing to the rule. Subsection (b)(1) should clarify that water need only be applied to 

comply with opacity standard. As crafted, it could be interpreted to require application of water at all 

times. Current rule allows 8 months before permanent stabilization and allows use of water. We have 

not seen an analysis of emission reductions associated with the changes. Trespass by definition cannot 

be prevented. Reasonable precautions can be taken and so Section 305.11(c)(4) should be re-written as 

follows: "Take reasonable precautions to prevent access such as fences, ditches, vegetation, berms, or 

other barrier approved by the Control Officer." MAG did not support any changes to current 

stabilization measures and none are warranted. Home Builders estimate this measure will cost 

$2,000/unit.

Page 569 of 720
Response #84:

During the activity that disturbs a surface, a wind fence does not minimize the opacity generated by the 

activity. A wind fence only shields an area three times the height of the fence from a perpendicular 

wind and does not reduce the amount of dust generated by the activity. In Section 305.11(b) when dust 

generating activity is occurring, a wind fence may provide a useful, supplemental control when 

operating near sensitive receptors. Removing this option from the rule only limits the flexibility of 

permit holders to meet the control measure requirements. The MCAQD has revised Section 

305.11(b)(1) as follows: “Apply water or other suitable dust suppressant, as necessary.” This change 

will make this section consistent with the over subsections in Section 305 that allow for the application 

of water while recognizing that continuous application of water may not be necessary such as 

following a rainstorm. As pointed out in comment #77, the opacity standard is already a rule 

requirement. The MCAQD has not changed the language of Section 305.11(c)(4) with regards to 

barriers to prevent trespass. The EPA has long held that the use of the term “reasonable precautions” is 

vague and must be replaced with specific language in order to be considered RACM. Unstabilized 

disturbed areas can contribute to large PM10 emissions through vehicle travel on such surfaces and 

through windblown dust generated from such surfaces. On May 23, 2007, MAG recommended adding 

barriers to the stabilization requirements as part of the Five Percent Plan. These new stabilization 

methods are necessary in order to achieve the required PM10 emission reductions of the Five Percent 

Plan. The new requirements are in place in Clark County.

Comment #85:

As currently worded, this requirement does not make sense. It appears that MCAQD is trying to cover 

two separate incidents: full completion of the dust generating operation and "temporary pauses" (an 

undefined term) in dust generating operations that extend beyond 30 days. These are two very different 

situations and should be treated separately within the rule. The types of control measures that should 

be allowed when stabilizing an area upon completion are different from those control measures that 

would be required during a "temporary pause", due to the extent of time that the area needs to remain 

controlled.

Response #85:

The owner/operator must address the stabilization requirements under both situations described in Rule 

310, Section 305.11(c). The MCAQD believes that the section offers sufficient flexibility by providing 

five different options to cover the range of circumstances that fall under the two situations.

Comment #86:

Several comments also request that the timeframe to implement the control measure be extended to 40 

days due to time delays resulting from specific city ordinances and city approval for the control 

measures listed.

Response #86:

Page 570 of 720
The total time allowed under Rule 310, Section 305.11(c) is actually 40 days, when the 30 days after 

finishing a dust generating operation is combined with the ten days allowed to implement the listed 

control measures.

Comment #87:

In addition, as written, confusion exists between Section 304.3 and Section 305.11, because the 

stabilization requirements of 304.3 are not consistent with the control measures of 305.11. Section 

304.3 allows a source to water the disturbed surface area on which no activity is occurring, in order to 

form a soil crust in accordance with Appendix C. Once a soil crust is formed and maintained, the 

source is in compliance with Section 304.3 of this rule. The control requirements of Section 305.1 1 

require that, after the activity that caused the disturbed surface area is complete for a period of 30 days 

or longer, the source must implement one of the listed control measures within ten days. Creating a soil 

crust is not an identified control measure listed. APS and SRP request that "maintain a soil crust" be 

added to Section 305.11(c) as a control measure.

Response #87: 

See the response to comment #71.

Comment #88:

It is not clear if these sections would apply to projects on our ROW. If yes, then it would [be] difficult 

to maintain a soil crust or maintain a flat vegetative cover or standing vegetative cover requirements. 

The ROW is to be kept free of deep rooted vegetation and is periodically driven over by motor vehicles 

for maintenance activities. It would also be difficult to restrict vehicle access to the area.

Response #88:

Dust generating operations regarding rights–of-way (ROW) are subject to Rule 310.01, not 310, unless 

the site in question already has a General, Non-Title V, or Title V permit, in which case Section 305.12 

of Rule 310 applies.

Comment #89:

For fairness, rule should require easement holders to identify in their control plans the number of 

vehicles trips and provide a description of how speeds will be limited.

Response #89:

Right-of-ways and easements commonly provide access to operate and maintain infrastructure across 

someone else’s property. These forms of access are not manned. The MCAQD notes the comment and 

will further research right-of-ways and easements, if they are present on permitted sites that are 

required to submit a dust control plan, and address this issue the next time Rule 310 is opened. 

Currently, Rule 310, Section 305.12 applies to sources that have a Title V permit, a Non-Title V 

permit, and/or a General permit. If such sources engage in dust generating operations, then such 

sources must submit a Dust Control Plan. If such sources use the easements and right-of-way as a haul 

or access road onsite, then the requirements that apply to onsite haul/access roads are more stringent 

Page 571 of 720
and will apply. At a minimum, the Dust Control Plan must meet the Dust Control Plan requirements in 

Rule 310, Section 402.

Comment #90:

All track out should be totally prevented and if it occurs, you have failed to prevent it. This is the only 

way to satisfy provisions of the 5% plan.

Response #90: 

The purpose of this Rule 310, Section 306 is to "prevent and control" trackout, not eliminate it. While 

it is not feasible to totally eliminate trackout for all dust generating activities, trackout builds up over 

time, and needs to be cleaned up when it does occur. The MCAQD believes that the presence of 

trackout is an indication that maintenance or modification of the trackout control device is necessary. 

In this Section 306, the MCAQD has reduced the length of trackout to be consistent with a provision 

adopted in 2005 in Rule 316 originally adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 

Re-entrained road dust is one of the largest sources of PM10 in the region. This measure will contribute 

to a reduction in PM10 emissions as outlined in the 5% plan.

Comment #91:

Provision 306.1(a) should be limited to exits designated in a Dust Control Plan.

Response #91:

This comment would make the rule less stringent. The owner/operator is responsible for ensuring 

contractors/employees only use designated exits. 

Comment #92:

Trackout Control Device. Why was "100 cubic yards" selected as a threshold of applicability?

Response #92:

The 100 cubic yards is equal to the load capacity of 10 three-axle truck trips hauling material off site 

e.g. 100 cubic yards of material. In 2004 EPA states in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for 

their approval of San Joaquin Valley's 2003 PM-10 Plan, that sites with little hauling activity have less 

propensity for trackout and believe that the threshold is acceptable as BACM in light of the 

requirements to mitigate trackout should it occur.

Comment #93:

MCAQD needs to clarify the scope of this requirement. This can be accomplished by rewording this 

section as follows: "For those work sites identified in Section 306.1.a, prevent trackout, carryout, 

spillage, and/or erosion by implementing one of the following control measures:"

Response #93:

The requirement to control and prevent trackout is required of all sites regardless of whether section 

306.1a is applicable to a site. For those sites that are less than two acres or where less than 100 cubic 

yards of material are hauled off-site, the control measures of section 306.1b still apply.

Comment #94:

Page 572 of 720
Large construction sites need more stringent trackout controls with a wheel wash or grizzly in addition 

to a gravel pad at sites 5 acres or larger. This should be mandatory and if trackout occurs, then the 

measure selected is not effective and should be fixed.

Response #94:

This suggestion would result in a substantive change to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that the 

MCAQD is unable to consider at this time - in this rulemaking. The MCAQD believes that the 

presence of trackout is an indication that maintenance or modification of the trackout control device is 

necessary. The rule already requires that contingency measures be implemented when the primary 

measure proves ineffective.

Comment #95:

Provisions in Rule 310, Section 306.1(b) are unnecessary. Definition of trackout control device 

identifies options, which also includes grizzlies. Additionally, please provide documentation 

concerning the emission reductions associated with paving an area 100 feet in length and 20 feet in 

width to reduce trackout. A reference to other rules without this supporting documentation is unhelpful 

and does not demonstrate how the proposal will reduce emissions, which is a required element of the 

5% plan.

Response #95:

A definition is not a standard. Further, Section 306.1(b) contains other specifications not found in the 

definition of trackout control device. The control measure option of paving an area 100 feet in length 

and 20 feet in width to reduce trackout is not new and can be found in Table 17 in the current version 

of Rule 310. No additional reductions were assumed for that control option in the 5% plan.

Comment #96:

Clean Up of Trackout. Does MCAQD have an objective measure of sufficient trackout cleanliness?

Response #96:

In general, trackout is considered "cleaned-up" or "removed" when bulk materials are no longer 

adhering to nor agglomerating on the surface of a paved area accessible to the public. The inspector 

makes this determination by visually inspecting the paved surface.

Comment #97:

This requirement also needs to be enforced across all air permits (Not just 310 & 316), including NonTitle V and Title V permit holders (their permits state they must follow Rule 310 as well), as well as 

Rule 310.01 sources, if the County is going to successfully achieve the PM-10 reductions than all 

sources of track-out throughout the County need to be held to the same standard. Construction sites 

might agree to this standard during hauling operations but at all other times the standard should remain 

at 50 feet as this is already pretty stringent.

Response #97:

Rules 310, 310.01 and 316 all contain the 25 foot cumulative limit for trackout. MCAQD maintains 

that practically all sources of trackout are subject to one of these three rules. Non-Title V and Title V 

Page 573 of 720
permit holders are not exempted from these rules if they contain sources at their facilities that are 

subject to these rules (i.e., unpaved parking lot, unpaved alley, sand and gravel operations, etc.). 

Additionally it should be noted that the goal of the control measures in the above three rules is to 

reduce emissions from re-entrained road dust.

Comment #98:

Trackout requirements should remain 50 feet. MAG estimated costs originally at $2,500,000/ton 

emissions reduced. Home Builders estimates that this measure will increase per unit costs approaching 

$5,000. References to curbs, gutters, and sidewalks should be removed as inconsistent with the 

definition of area accessible to the public. "Immediately" should be defined and tied to knowledge of 

individual who can take action to address. Subsection (b) is unnecessary, unclear, and could lead to 

duplicative enforcement.

Response #98:

MAG’s original estimates overstated the costs associated with this measure as their consultant did not 

assume that any maintenance or modification would be performed on the trackout control device and 

site setup. The MCAQD believes that the presence of trackout is an indication that maintenance or 

modification of the trackout control device is necessary. Appropriate attention directed to site trackout 

control will minimize the amount of cleanup necessary. The Dust Control Coordinators now required 

under Senate Bill 1552 and Rule 310 will be able to provide more effective site dust control. The 

MCAQD believes the $5000/unit still overstates the cost as that number continues to assume 8 hours of 

manual clean up per day, when, in fact, there is no rule requirement to station someone full time as a 

trackout cleanup person. Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks are integral parts of paved areas accessible to 

the public. Further, these areas are frequently overlooked during cleanup efforts, and continue to result 

in re-entrainment of dust from the wake effects of errant drivers. The problem of a grace period 

described above for “immediately” will exist with what ever time period is specified. In the 

Department’s experience, trackout builds up over time and the individual who can take action has a 

duty to monitor it and should be aware cleanup will soon be needed. To condition cleanup based on 

knowledge removes an incentive to monitor trackout and would make the rule less stringent. Section 

(b) is existing rule text moved from Table 16 as the MCAQD has attempted to streamline the rule 

improving clarity. The MCAQD is required to list appropriate control measures so that industry will 

know what types of control measures implement the technology requirements contained in the rule in 

case a permittee chooses to apply for alternative equivalent in effect to the existing measures described 

in the rule.

Comment #99:

Manual sweeping to clean up track out is a safety hazard. Recommend that "edges and curbs" be 

removed from the text in this section.

Response #99:

Page 574 of 720
Manually sweeping-up of trackout is one of two options for removing trackout and has been selected in 

dust control plans. Trackout must be removed from paved areas accessible to the public, which 

includes curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. See the response to comment #98 regarding curbs, gutters and 

sidewalks.

Comment #100:

The proposed revisions include a 50 percent reduction in the amount of trackout allowed at a site. As 

such, the MCAQD should provide a more reasonable amount of time to clean up trackout, carry-out, or 

spillage. In some cases, it is impossible to clean up an area immediately after the cumulative trackout 

extends more than 25 linear feet due to safety issues, particularly if the trackout is on roads accessible 

to the public. It may not be possible to divert traffic while the trackout is being cleaned up. If traffic 

cannot be diverted, employees who are trying to clean up are at significant risk. Furthermore, it was 

communicated in stakeholder meetings that the enforcement of the current trackout requirement is 

dependent on the inspector. Some inspectors provide a reasonable amount of time for cleanup, and 

some provide no leeway based on the requirement that it be cleaned up "immediately." In order to 

ensure fair and equitable treatment of all sources, MCAQD should provide a specific amount of time in 

the rule for cleanup that is more reasonable than "immediately." 

Response #100:

The MCAQD trains its inspectors on trackout enforcement to ensure fair and equitable treatment. In 

the MCAQD’s experience, trackout builds up over time and the individual who can take action has a 

duty to monitor it and should be aware cleanup will soon be needed. The MCAQD inspectors place 

more importance on taking action to initiate cleanup of trackout than they do on counting minutes. The 

MCAQD does not believe the differences between inspectors are as significant as portrayed based on 

the reports prepared when Notices of Violations are referred for escalated enforcement. If a permittee 

believes that they have been treated unfairly, they may contact a supervisor or other department 

management.

Comment #101:

Suggest adding "by wind" after "dislodged". Soil maintained in sufficiently damp condition to control 

dust may have loose grains of soil dislodged by vehicle movement and yet the material moved would 

not be sufficiently friable to generate fugitive dust. Another comment suggested the provision is 

redundant and out of place given other rule revisions and therefore could lead to duplicative 

enforcement. Control measures are defined in Section 305. This could be interpreted to require the 

continuous application of water even if not necessary to meet opacity, stabilization, or control measure 

requirements. As a result, it is both vague and overboard.

Response #101:

"Because Maricopa County is a serious area nonattainment area for PM10, the Maricopa County 

Environmental Services Department (MCESD) helped develop a PM10 serious area nonattainment plan 

for the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). The EPA approved the plan in April 2002 contingent 

Page 575 of 720
on the completion of three commitments by Maricopa County (See 65 Fed. Reg. 19964 (2000) and 67 

Fed. Reg. 48717 (2002)). To complete commitment #2, Maricopa County was to "research, develop, 

and incorporate additional requirements for dust suppression practices/equipment for construction 

activities into Dust Control Plans and/or Rule 310" (65 Fed. Reg. 19964, 19980). The intent of this 

section, adopted by the Board in 2004, is to ensure that a water application system is present on site 

when water is the chosen control measure. This section has not been revised and does not require 

continuous operation of a water system. It was simply re-numbered in the re-organization of the rule. 

The comment’s suggestion substantively changes this section. The Department will make note of the 

comment and consider the request the next time Rule 310 is re-opened. 

Comment 102:

Suggest including "Dust Control permit-Block permit" in earlier listing of air quality permits issued by 

the MCAQD. Suggest signage requirements be included with all permit requirements regardless of 

disturbed area size.

Response #102:

Block permits are a subset of the Dust Control permits described in Rule 200. The threshold for

signage has not been changed in this revision and would represent a substantive change if implemented 

at this time - in this rulemaking. The MCAQD notes the comment and will consider the change next 

time Rule 310 is re-opened/revised.

Comment #103:

First, for fairness, block permit holders should be held to same requirement. After all, the MCAQD has 

stated that it has difficulty identifying block permit holder permit violations. By imposing sign 

requirement, county could determine whether a block permit holder is responsible for any violation 

associated with open trenches. Second, original language concerning public readability is superior to 

revised language. It may be impossible for sites that have limited public access points to install a sign 

that the public can view and read "at all times". This revision is unnecessary.

Response #103:

The routine activities allowed to be covered under a Block permit do not last very long and in many 

instances are completed in less than one day. Signage for Block permit holders would be gone once 

their work was completed. The specific information required to be on the project information sign 

matches requirements in Clark County's Construction Activities Dust Control Handbook adopted on 

March 18, 2003.

Comment #104:

Increase frequency of dust control training for Dust Coordinator to annually. It is only required every 3 

years in the block permits. Also let Dust coordinators who complete the training, train employees of 

the same permit holder.

Response #104:

Page 576 of 720
Requirements for dust control training classes are being added to Rule 310 to comply with Senate Bill 

1552. The MCAQD will consider increasing the training frequency for Dust Control Coordinators after 

we gain experience through implementation of the training program this year. We will have a better 

sense of the time, number and workload involved. SB1552 allows the Control Officer to approve 

training developed and provided by a third party for both basic and comprehensive training. If a Dust 

Control Coordinator passes the MCAQD Train the Trainer course and either used the curriculum the 

MCAQD supplies or submits their own for approval, then the coordinator may train employees of the 

same permit holder.

Comment #105:

These provisions need to be completely consistent with SB 1552. Latest draft does not include A.R.S. 

§49-474.05(H).

Response #105:

A.R.S. §49-474.05(H) reads: "Subsections C and D do not apply when on-site dust generating 

operations are conducted by a permittee who is required to obtain a single permit for multiple noncontiguous sites that is issued by a Control Officer and that requires control of PM10 emissions." Rule 

310 has been written to be consistent with Senate Bill 1552.

Comment #106:

Re-look at the number of individuals that are required to take the Certified Dust Coordinator training. 

Limit the certification to one class. Provide an internet training program. Add Method 9 certification or 

training to the training curricula.

Response #106:

Requirements for dust control training classes are being added to Rule 310 to comply with Senate Bill 

1552. The Basic Dust Control Training Class can be conducted or approved by the Control Officer. 

The Comprehensive Dust Control Training Class can be conducted or approved by the Control Officer. 

The training classes will include implementation of control measures and discussion of what opacity is. 

However, formal opacity certification training will not be part of the training class. Opacity 

certification can only be done by the EPA-approved or the ADEQ-approved trainers. The Control 

Officer is requiring that an individual certified to conduct comprehensive training must show proof of 

opacity certification before the Control Officer will approve the third party trainer.

Comment #107:

This section is a duplicate requirement to Section 309.2(a) and should be removed.

Response #107:

The requirement in this section is identical to Section 309.2(a) but included to make clear the required 

training regiment (Section 309.2(a)) and also the requirements for a Dust Control Coordinator (Section 

310.4). Rule 310 has been written to be consistent with Senate Bill 1552.

Comment #108:

Rule 310 Section 400

Page 577 of 720
MCAQD should clearly identify where the primary responsibility resides for obtaining and 

maintaining compliance with a dust control permit. A property owner may not have direct supervisory 

or operational control over the dust generating activity caused by a hired contractor or operator. More 

succinctly, the operator or contractor would be the proximate cause of any dust emissions and thusly is 

responsible for dust control efforts. Is MCAQD intending for property owners to obtain the relevant 

dust control permits before any dust generating activity caused by a contractor or operator hired by the 

property owner? Or alternatively, does MCAQD intend the contractor or operator of the dust 

generating activity to possess the primary responsibility to obtain the dust control permit?

Response #108:

See the response to comment #4.

Comment #109:

Provision in Section 401.1 as crafted raises incorporation by reference concerns because the Dust 

Control Permit Application is not included in the rule. Rather than add more to the rule, we 

recommend that you simply note that application shall include applicant information, project 

information, and a Dust Control Plan.

Response #109:

Section 401.1 reads as follows: "To apply for a Dust Control permit, an applicant shall complete a 

permit application in the manner and form prescribed by the Control Officer. At a minimum, such 

application shall contain the following information."

Comment #110:

If no activities are occurring, what permit conditions would apply?

Response #110:

The conditions in the permit will be enforced once the first on-site activity commences. At other 

periods of inactivity, the stabilization requirements will apply. Note that Section 401.2(a) requires 

compliance with all provisions of the regulations.

Comment #111:

The wording of this section creates uncertainty regarding what conditions are required to be included 

in an approvable Dust Control Plan. As it is written, it is possible to meet Sections 401.2(a), (b), (c), 

and (d) but still not receive approval for a Dust Control Plan. APS and SRP request that the language 

"but not limited to" be removed since it implies that there are requirements other than those in the rule. 

Response #111:

There are requirements other than those in Rule 310 that may become part-of a Dust Control permit 

such as compliance with the asbestos NESHAPS. This reality does not necessarily mean that a Dust 

Control Plan will be disapproved.

Comment #112:

Permittee cannot ensure all persons, including trespassers and other unrelated third parties, comply 

with the permit.

Page 578 of 720
Response #112:

Rule 310 contains specific requirements that must be followed to prevent fugitive dust emissions. The 

MCAQD has no way to distinguish the vehicles of trespassers from those driven by legitimate 

employees. The owner/operator is ultimately responsible for conditions and emissions coming from 

their properties. The owner/operator will need to investigate why illegal activity is occurring, take 

steps to minimize the activity, and mitigate the effects of that activity. The owner/operator can present 

information regarding the circumstances leading to a Notice of Violation should the situation escalate

to the enforcement stage.

Comment #113:

Supplying Dust Control Plan and permit to all contractors and subcontractors, regardless of whether 

they conduct dust generating operations, is infeasible. A better approach would be for the 

subcontractor registration program to require that subcontractors be familiar with the dust control plans 

on the sites at which they operate.

Response #113:

Rule 310 contains specific requirements that must be followed to prevent fugitive dust emissions. A 

permit holder is responsible for persons on-site who violate the rule. Since dust control plans are sitespecific, the permit holder needs to ensure that all individuals involved in dust-generating operations 

are aware of dust control plan specifics for that site. The subcontractor registration program, delineated 

in Rule 200, is consistent with Senate Bill 1552.

Comment #114:

Provision is not consistent with SB 1552.

Response #114:

The training requirements in Rule 310 are with Senate Bill 1552.

Comment #115:

What is the purpose of this provision 401.3? It seems like it has the potential to add duplicative 

penalties.

Response #115:

The intent of Rule 310, Section 401.3 is to describe that the signature of the permittee is required on a 

Dust Control permit application and that such signature represents the permittee’s agreement to accept 

responsibility for meeting the conditions of the permit. A permittee’s signature and such agreement are

required for all permits that the MCAQD issues.

Comment #116:

Some sites do not have linear dimensions.

Response #116:

The majority of sites do have linear dimensions. This requirement is designed to measure the surface 

area that will be disturbed and not the volume of dirt moved. The MCAQD accepts appropriate 

calculations of surface area when sites boundaries are not straight lines. The MCAQD uses a project 

Page 579 of 720
site drawing to delineate boundaries for a reference. The project site drawing should be as accurate as 

possible.

Comment #117:

In Section 402.3(c)(3) reference should be to Sections 303 and 304 - not Section 301.

Response #117:

A control measure that is not listed in Rule 310, Section 305 but is chosen for/in the Dust Control Plan 

must meet the general requirements for dust-generating operations and have an effect similar the 

BACM/MSM control measures specifically listed in the rule.

Comment #118:

Provision in Section 402.3(c)(4) is redundant. Either remove here or remove reference in other 

locations in the rule.

Response #118:

Earlier provisions provided control measure requirements. This requirement lists the contents of an 

application and Dust Control Plan. The repetition here adds clarity.

Comment #119:

"And/or" should be deleted from Section 402.3(e) so that phrase reads "where unpaved and/or access 

points..."

Response #119:

The MCAQD inadvertently left out the word roads. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking, Section 

402.3(e) reads “where unpaved roads and/or access points...”

Comment #120:

Provision in Section 402.4 is redundant, because Dust Control Plan should reflect rule's requirements. 

As drafted, this could lead to duplicative enforcement.

Response #120:

A Dust Control Plan is a legally binding document just as is the Dust Control permit. As such, the 

procedures to approve or disapprove a Dust Control Plan are the same as the procedures to approve or 

disapprove a Dust Control permit application. There is no redundancy nor will it lead to duplicative 

enforcement. 

Comment #121:

Does the MCAQD have a listing of primary control measures or secondary control measures?

Response #121:

The Dust Control permit application identifies primary control measures and contingency control 

measures.

Comment #122:

Rule 310, Section 402.6 is a duplicate requirement to Section 402.3(c)(2) and should be removed.

Response #122:

Page 580 of 720
Rule 310, Section 402.3 describes the elements required to be in a Dust Control Plan and Rule 310, 

Section 402.6 describes the requirements of the Dust Control Plan. To avoid overlap, the MCAQD

modified the two sections by retaining the first sentence in Section 402.3(c)(2) and retaining the rest of 

the paragraph in Section 402.6.

Comment #123:

Suggest language be included in Rule 310, Section 403.1 to ensure that the written notice will include 

the standard exceeded and to what extent. 

Response #123:

This comment confuses a notice to revise the dust control plan with a Notice of Violation (NOV). The 

section already requires that the Control Officer explain why the Dust Control Plan needs to be 

revised. For NOVs, the Dust Compliance Division follows the MCAQD’s policies and procedures to 

document air quality violations and to notify alleged violators to ensure that all compliance actions are 

addressed in a timely and appropriate manner.

Comment #124:

During the process of Dust Control Plan revision, will the previous Dust Control Plan be the operant 

plan until the revised plan is in place, or will the permittee be expected to abide by potential revisions 

until the plan is approved.

Response #124:

It is important to note that the permit holder must still comply with all the provisions of Rule 310 even 

if a previous or existing Dust Control Plan is deficient. The previous approved Dust Control Plan 

remains in effect until the proposed Dust Control Plan revisions are approved by the MCAQD. 

However, the permittee will be allowed to operate under the proposed Dust Control Plan revisions 

provided they stay in compliance with the standards in Rule 310.

Comment #125:

The owner/operator should apply new dust control methods if the Dust Control Plan has been 

followed, yet fugitive dust emissions still exceed the standards of the rule. It may be difficult to submit 

a revised plan within three working days of receipt of a written notice. The time period should be 

increased to within five or seven working days. The owner/operator should implement the inspector's 

recommendations, but be allowed additional time for a written response.

Response #125:

The MCAQD believes three working days is an adequate amount of time to complete revisions of a 

Dust Control Plan. If additional time is needed for special circumstances, Rule 310, Section 403.1(b)

allows the Control Officer to extend the time frame for good cause.

Comment #126:

Does the MCAQD expect the permittee to file Dust Control Plan revisions for decreases in acreages? 

The header of this paragraph suggests this is an optional requirement. 

Response #126:

Page 581 of 720
A permittee is allowed to make changes to an approved Dust Control permit and Dust Control Plan. A 

permittee might have to change a Dust Control Plan if more acreage will be disturbed than included in 

the original application and Dust Control Plan. A permittee may also choose to adjust project acreage 

to indicate completion of a project phase. In order to change a Dust Control permit and/or Dust Control 

Plan for any other reason, the MCAQD accepts the following permit modification forms: permit 

acreage change request, permit cancellation request, permit name change, permit plan change, and 

parcel sale notification.

Comment #127:

Revision should not be necessary if Dust Control Plan requirements are not changed due to the change 

in acreage.

Response #127:

While a revision is optional for a decrease in acreage, a revision must be filed for an increase in 

acreage identifying what will happen on the additional acreage. A Dust Control Plan is specific to the 

layout and identified dust-generating activities on a site. A change of acreage can trigger many 

different requirements on an existing Dust Control Plan (e.g., additional control measures); therefore, 

the MCAQD believes it is necessary to revise a Dust Control Plan whenever an acreage change occurs.

Comment #128:

For what kind of permit holder "change" does the MCAQD expect the permittee to file a Dust Control 

Plan revision? The header of this paragraph suggests this is an optional requirement.

Response #128:

Rule 310, Section 403.2(b) refers to a change in the owner of the permit. Such a change is substantial 

and requires a revision to the Dust Control Plan. Revisions of this nature are not optional. The 

language in the section is meant to convey that the reason for the revision is an action initiated by the 

permittee (e.g., change in permit ownership). 

Comment #129:

The changes in administrative contact information and responsibility require a revision in the Dust 

Control Plan. The header of this paragraph suggests such revisions are optional and at the request of 

the permit holder. Will such a review be subject to generally practiced MCAQD administrative review 

timelines?

Response #129:

Revisions of the nature as listed in Rule 310, Section 403.2(c) are not optional. The language in the 

section is meant to convey that the reason for the revision is an action initiated by the permittee (e.g., 

administrative change). Rule 310, Section 405 sets the MCAQD timelines for review and approval of 

revised plans.

Comment #130:

Multiple parties are responsible for dust generating operations at various times. The phrase "and 

responsible for the dust generating operation change" should be deleted.

Page 582 of 720
Response #130:

Rule 310, Section 403.2(c) remains unchanged. As described in the response to comment #4 regarding 

whose responsibility it is to obtain a Dust Control Permit, there is shared responsibility by the owner, 

operator, or responsible official in ensuring that dust-generating operations comply with all rule and 

permit requirements. Neither owner nor operator nor responsible official can circumvent dust control 

requirements by claiming it is the sole responsibility of one particular party to comply. The MCAQD

has no ability to intervene in contractual issues. The owner/operator remains responsible for providing 

accurate information regarding the responsible official on a work site.

Comment #131:

Suggest that "materially" be inserted before "change" in Rule 310, Section 403.2(d). 

Response #131:

The term "materially" would not add to or clarify the meaning; it would simply lead to more 

ambiguity. If activities on a work site change and the changes affect the Dust Control permit or Dust 

Control Plan, then the permittee must notify the Control Officer. For example, if a permittee hits a 

substrate that requires blasting but has not included blasting in the original application, the permittee 

must notify the MCAQD and file a revision to the Dust Control Plan identifying control measures for 

blasting.

Comment #132:

Suggest MCAQD add "upon written notice by MCAQD" after "respectively" in Rule 310, Section 

403.3(b).

Response #132:

Since Arizona State Statutes require the MCAQD to publicize rule revisions, such requirement is not 

included in Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations.

Comment #133:

Rule 310, Section 404 discriminates against private entities. All entities who meet the standards should 

be able to obtain a block permit.

Response #133:

Rule 310, Section 404-Dust Control Permit-Block Permit Requirements does not discriminate against 

private entities. Both public and private utilities that meet the requirements may apply for a block 

permit. Rule 310, Section 404.4 addresses private entities under contract to Block Permit holders.

Comment #134:

Suggest that "Dust Control permit-Block permit" be included and defined earlier in these rules.

Response #134:

Given the multiple aspects that define a block permit, a single definition in Rule 310, Section 200 

would be awkward.

Comment #135:

Page 583 of 720
El Paso may replace a valve, a ten foot pipeline section, or other section of pipe. It is not clear as to the 

definition of "new construction" since a Block Permit may include maintenance, expansion and 

extension of utilities under 404.1(b) and 404.1(c)? For routine operation and maintenance projects 

which may include installing sections of new pipe to an existing pipeline, it would be burdensome to 

obtain an individual Dust Control permit for each project. Please consider removing the sentence "New 

construction shall obtain a separate dust control permit”, since it is confusing.

Response #135:

The term "new construction", in Rule 310, Section 404.1 indicates a project that has no connection to 

an issued block permit. The examples given by the commenter would fall under Rule 310, Sections 

404.1(a) through 404.1(c) as either routine operations, maintenance operations, or expansion 

operations. However the creation of a new pipeline or pumping station not associated with existing 

infrastructure would be considered new construction and would not be covered under an existing block 

permit.

Comment #136:

The reference to "canal road grading" should be revised to "canal bank grading," as this term more 

accurately describes the activity. 

Response #136:

The MCAQD revised Rule 310, Sections 404.1(a) and 404.1(b) to read “canal road and bank grading” 

instead of just “canal road grading”.

Comment #137:

Consider revising Rule 310, Section 404.2 since it is difficult to provide a drawing to meet Section 

402.3(b) requirements, an exact project location, and an exact project size for ROW locations which 

traverse Maricopa County.

Response #137:

Current wording in Rule 310, Section 404.2 does not require a drawing, rather simply a list of all sites 

that includes location and size. Typically, applicants provide a map or description of the location and 

describe linear length and average width of the right-of-way. 

Comment #138:

The purpose of this requirement is unclear. A block permit is only valid for a period of 12 months. 

Therefore, if an activity does not commence within the 12 months after issuance of the block permit, 

the source would be required to obtain a block permit renewal, at which time this proposed activity 

could be reviewed. 

Response #138:

The MCAQD agrees and has deleted Rule 310, Section 404.3. While Rule 310, Section 404-Dust 

Control Permit-Block Permit Requirements may seem redundant with Rule 310, Section 406-Terms 

for Permits for Dust-Generating Operations, the purpose of Section 406 is to make clear to 

Page 584 of 720
stakeholders that a block permit will not be granted if the dust-generating operation does not 

commence within one year of issuance.

Comment #139:

Suggest MCAQD insert "maintenance and construction" before "crews"; insert "other governmental 

entities" after "municipalities". Revise last sentence to read "However while municipalities, other 

governmental agencies and/or utilities may contract for services, it remains the dust generating 

contractor’s responsibility for compliance with dust control regulations on the project."

Response #139:

The MCAQD inserted “governmental agencies,” after the word “municipalities” in Rule 310, Sections 

404.1(a) and 404.1(b). However, the MCAQD maintains the current language regarding responsibility 

for compliance best conveys the intent of this section. Overall responsibility for work under a block 

permit resides with the permit holder.

Comment #140:

Commenters are unclear as to the intent of this condition. We request clarification on why this 

requirement only applies to block permit holders. All individuals with dust control permits should be 

required to retain overall authority for dust control on their project, not just block permittees. 

Response #140:

The intent of Rule 310, Section 404.3 is to make clear that overall responsibility for work under a 

block permit resides with the permit holder. This is similar to the subcontractor-contractor relationship 

with non-block dust-generating operations permits. While this requirement may seem redundant, the 

MCAQD’s intent is to acknowledge the desire of stakeholders that all requirements placed upon a 

permit holder be spelled out in applicable sections in Rule 310, even if that same requirement is 

mentioned in other sections in Rule 310.

Comment #141:

The emphasis is on the filing of a complete application. Rather than either approval or denial, will 

MCAQD notify the applicant of an incomplete application and allow correction or addition within a 

reasonable timeframe?

Response #141:

When an application is incomplete, the MCAQD does notify applicants within 14 days though the

notice usually occurs earlier. If an applicant fails to provide the requested information, the Control 

Officer may deny the application. After a complete application is received, the MCAQD follows the 

permit requirements in Rule 200, in order to take final action, either approving or disapproving a 

permit, within 14 days.

Comment #142:

Rule 310, Sections 405 and 406 apply to Dust Control permits only. This Rule does not exclude sand 

and gravel mining permits so it is inconsistent to only discuss Dust Control permits.

Response #142:

Page 585 of 720
Rule 316 specifically regulates sand and gravel mining operations. When there exists a source-specific 

rule like Rule 316, it is not necessary to include a specific exemption for that source in all other rules, 

including an exemption in Rule 310. Therefore, the purpose of Rule 310, Sections 405 and 406 are 

intentionally limited to sources that are subject to Rule 310.

Comment #143:

Provisions should make clear that permits are administratively continued when a timely renewal 

application has been submitted.

Response #143:

The MCAQD treats timely renewal applications for Dust Control permits the same way as all other 

permits. Rule 200 still applies to Dust Control permits and contains general requirements for 

administrative continuation of a permit when a timely application for renewal has been filed.

Comment #144:

We request this section be revised to state that posting is required only during active operations. If a 

site is not actively being worked, there may not be a location that is suitable to post a copy of the 

permit or dust control plan. Another comment requests that requirements for permit posting should be 

revised as follows: "be kept available on-site at all times during permitted activities" to eliminate 

potential for confusion.

Response #144:

The posting requirement in Rule 310, Section 409 matches posting requirements for other permits and 

is also consistent with state statutes. The section recognizes that the permit and Dust Control Plan may 

be kept in on-site equipment or in an on-site vehicle. Like other air quality permits where the permit is 

not available to the MCAQD when the business is not open, the permit and Dust Control Plan won’t be 

available to the MCAQD when there is no activity occurring on site. No change is necessary.

Comment #145:

The language of Rule 310, Section 410 suggests these rules are immediately effective upon adoption. 

Such an implementation schedule may be burdensome for some. Will the MCAQD have an 

implementation schedule? Other comments respectfully request that the MCAQD allow for a 

reasonable amount of time between the adoption date of this rule and the effectiveness date of this rule, 

such as 6 months. Another comment requests that given the breadth of new requirements, effective 

date should be June 30, 2008.

Response #145:

Rule 310 has been in effect since 1994. Many sources should be familiar with the required control 

measures and work practices and should already be implementing them. The training requirements, 

which are new requirements in Rule 310, have a compliance schedule.

Comment #146:

What is the definition of "primary dust generating operations"? By implication, can one have 

secondary dust generating operations?

Page 586 of 720
Response #146:

The training requirements in Rule 310 have been written to be consistent with SB 1552. The intent of 

Rule 310, Section 309 is to make clear that for those sites that require a Dust Control Coordinator that 

individual must be on-site when dust-generating operations are taking place for which the permit was 

applied. The example provided during discussions regarding SB 1552 described the delivery of 

supplies and materials in the middle of the night as a secondary dust-generating activity.

Comment #147:

Rule 310, Section 410.2-Compliance Schedule-Dust Control Coordinator as drafted is not consistent 

with SB 1552, which does not contain "common control" language.

Response #147:

The training requirements in Rule 310, Section 309 have been written to be consistent with SB 1552 

and have been combined with the permit requirements in Rule 310, Section 302.2.

Comment #148:

Rule 310 Section 500

Areas that have not been disturbed by the permittee should not be subject to permit requirements for 

stabilization.

Response #148:

The owner and/or operator of a dust-generating operation that involves disturbed surface areas must 

implement control measures for all areas covered by the permit as described in the application and site 

plan. Properties that are not covered by a Dust Control permit will be subject to the stabilization 

requirements contained in Rule 310.01.

Comment #149:

Suggest that MCAQD require record keeping to be more clearly related to Dust Control permit 

requirements and not simply to the existence of Dust Control Plan.

Response #149:

The requirements in this rule apply to sites that have air quality operating permits as well as sites that 

have Dust Control permits. The Dust Control Plans contain the specific identification site layout, types 

of dust-generating operations to be performed and the selected control measures for each type of dustgenerating activity. Recordkeeping requirements are tied to the Dust Control Plan because Dust 

Control Plans vary based on the dust-generating operation being performed. This allows the permit 

holder to keep accurate records of all activities that apply specifically to the site, while showing 

compliance with their approved Dust Control Plan. Additionally, Rule 310, Section 502.2 provides the 

recordkeeping requirements placed upon dust-generating activities that do not require a Dust Control 

Plan.

Comment #150:

Comments are concerned with the recordkeeping requirements in Rule 310, Section 502.1. The 

language proposed in this section has been altered dramatically from the existing rule and requires the 

Page 587 of 720
regulated community to invest a large amount of resources with only minimal environmental benefit. 

The recordkeeping section of the current rule requires that inspections be performed and records be 

maintained when control measures are implemented. Examples of this would include control measures 

such as applying water, building three sided enclosures to control wind blown particulate, and covering 

dirt piles. However, the proposed language of Section 502.1 requires that self inspections be performed 

and records be maintained for each day dust generating operations are conducted. This presents a 

problem because the definition of dust generating operations is very broad (includes operation of any 

outdoor equipment and motorized machinery, as well as the use of staging areas, unpaved access roads, 

and parking areas). The proposed changes would require commenters to perform daily inspections of 

over 300 substations for dust generating activities that have unchanging control measures (e.g., 15 mile 

per hour speed limit sign). It is APS and SRP's position that self inspections and recordkeeping should 

only be required when dust control measures are being implemented. Therefore, we recommend that 

MCAQD revise Section 502.1 to read as follows: "Any person who conducts dust generating 

operations that require a Dust Control Plan shall keep a written record of self-inspection on each day 

control measures for dust generating operations are implemented/conducted. Self -inspection records 

shall include daily inspections for crusted or damp soil, trackout conditions and clean-up measures, 

daily water usage and dust suppressant application. Such written record shall also include the 

following information:..."

Response #150:

The language as written in Rule 310, Section 502.1 requires daily self-inspection any time dustgenerating activities occur. To keep in compliance with this rule, every time a dust-generating activity 

occurs some sort of control measure is/should be implemented. While these control measures may be 

the same every time (such as lower speed limits) it is important to record their implementation. 

Conditions may change at various sites (i.e., increased traffic may require more frequent watering) and 

new control measures may be required; therefore daily records are a necessary step in showing 

compliance with Rule 310 along with improving the compliance rates of subject sites.

Comment #151:

Comment requests that the current rule language in Rule 310, Section 502.1 be retained. Additionally, 

Rule 310, Sections 502.1(g) and (h) are inconsistent with SB 1552.

Response #151:

The revisions to the existing recordkeeping requirements in Rule 310, Section 502.1 were modeled 

after the Clark County rule and more clearly describe what actions are necessary in order to record the 

daily application of dust control measures. Based on the rule effectiveness study, many sites failed to 

record the implementation of control measures and were not performing the test methods required in 

the rule. The MCAQD believes the language in Section 502.1 better clarifies the recordkeeping 

requirements. Sections 502.1(g) and (h) document the implementation of the new programs required 

Page 588 of 720
by SB 1552. SB 1552 authorized these programs, but did not address all aspects of these programs or 

their interface with existing dust control programs.

Comment #152:

Define "intensity". What is information is MCAQD attempting to capture here?

Response #152:

For the purpose of Rule 310, Section 502.1(a), “intensity” refers to magnitude of a quantity per unit of 

measurement (area, mass, or time), such as the mixing ratio (concentration) of a dust suppressant with 

water.

Comment #153:

Keeping a list of subcontractors' names and registration numbers updated when changes are made and 

the name of the employee(s) who successful complete dust control training classes should be removed 

from the Recordkeeping section. It is not clear as to which subcontractor's names are required-only 

those that pertain to dust generating operations? What registration numbers are required? The 

requirement for Dust Control training is for only certain projects thresholds. The requirement to keep a 

copy of the certificate should also be for only certain project thresholds.

Response #153:

These sections will only apply if subcontractors engage in dust-generating operations. All 

subcontractors that engage in dust-generating activities would be required to be listed in the selfinspection along with their registration numbers issued by the MCAQD under the new Section 306 

added to Rule 200. If training is not required at a site subject to permit, then the permittee only needs 

to provide documentation sufficient to verify that training is not required.

Comment #154:

This paragraph is confusing as to its intent. Under what circumstances would a person not be required 

to submit a Dust Control Plan? The records retention requirement appears to be more stringent than 

Section 503 in that no records retention language is provided.

Response #154:

Rule 310, Section 401 describes when a Dust Control Plan is required. There are situations that exist 

(typically at Non-Title V or Title V permit sites) where a source may be subject to Rule 310 and not be 

required to submit a Dust Control Plan. In these situations, the recordkeeping requirements of Section 

502.2 apply. The text in Section 502.2 is unchanged from the existing text approved in the SIP.

Increasing the recordkeeping retention requirement in Section 503 to two years was a recommendation 

made by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Comment #155:

Comment requests that the current language be retained. Record retention length should be tied to 

permit term. If the MCAQD wishes to issue permits for two years, then two year record retention 

would be appropriate. Additionally, as crafted, anyone who drives on a permitted site, including 

inspectors, would be required to maintain records.

Page 589 of 720
Response #155:

Record retention beyond the life of a permit is necessary both for the benefit of the permittee and the 

MCAQD in showing compliance with Rule 310 provisions over the life of the permit. Recordkeeping 

requirements are tied to the permit holder required to have a Dust Control Plan or to sources that are 

subject to provisions of Rule 310.

Comment #156:

Test Methods - The opacity measuring Method 203B from the EPA has been left out. There is no 

method listed. List the EPA method.

Response #156:

The methods used for determining opacity are listed in Rule 310, Section 501. Currently, Appendix C 

is the test method used to determine opacity at sites subject to Rule 310 requirements, not EPA Method 

203B. The opacity methods approved in Appendix C were modified specifically to address the plumes 

generated by moving equipment and are more appropriate for evaluating dust plumes generated on 

construction sites than Method 203B.

Comment #157:

General Comments:

Consider the use of advanced dust control methods since water is at a premium here in the desert.

Response #157:

The use of dust palliatives or paving or other non-water stabilization and control methods are all viable 

options under Rule 310 and are available to permit holders under the selective stabilization options and 

control measures of Rule 310, Sections 304, 305, and 306 and of Rule 310.01.

Comment #158:

Why isn’t PM2.5 considered?

Response #158:

Fugitive dust PM2.5 is a subset of fugitive dust PM10. Control measures that reduce PM10 will also 

reduce fugitive dust PM2.5. Therefore, a specific rule regulating the emissions of PM2.5 from fugitive 

dust sources is not necessary at this time.

Comment #159:

Maricopa County is proposing a requirement that permit holders must conduct sieve testing and other 

stabilization testing as part of their daily recordkeeping requirements. Industry understands this is a 

requirement under the current Rule 310. If permit holders out of good faith conduct these tests and 

through recordkeeping prove they are effective in addressing stabilization, the County should only 

verify the tests are being done. There should be no issuing of NOV’s even if they have failing results 

from time to time and can demonstrate revisions to the plan were made to address test failures.

Response #159:

The requirements for stabilization observations are stated in Rule 310, Section 501.2. This section 

states that when a test method shows an exceedance of the stabilization limits, then that exceedance 

Page 590 of 720
constitutes a violation of the rule and proves that stabilization methods are ineffective at the site. 

However, as noted by the comment, the documentation of routine testing and corrective actions can be 

beneficial to the permittee, if an NOV is issued and referred to enforcement.

Comment #160:

In the proposed rules, County-owned unpaved roads have fewer and less strict dust control 

requirements than do business-owned unpaved roads. This disparity is illustrated in a table in the 

comment letter submitted by the commenter. If the MCAQD intends to impose increased obligations 

on the business sector, including requirements for business-owned unpaved roads that are more 

stringent than the requirements for County-owned unpaved roads, then the MCAQD should clearly 

justify that disparity and explain and support with facts its assertions summarized above and any others 

on this subject. Given the significant amount of the PM10 problem attributed to fugitive dust from 

unpaved roads and shoulders - regardless of who owns them - the MCAQD should provide the public 

with a detailed explanation for its position that its unpaved roads should be subject to less stringent 

controls than business-owned unpaved roads. In the absence of a convincing demonstration, common 

sense and fairness should compel the County to adopt comparable regulations for County-owned 

sources and business-owned sources of dust emissions. The Chamber requests MCAQD to provide the 

public with a detailed explanation of its position, including supporting legal and cost analysis, if 

MCAQD continues to advocate less stringent controls for unpaved roads owned by the County than for 

unpaved roads owned by businesses. 

Response #160:

County operations such as landfills, flood control maintenance and rehabilitation, road maintenance 

and construction activities, equipment yards, service centers, jails, as well as all associated parking lots 

and access roads are subject to Rule 310 and subject to the same requirements for unpaved roads as 

business-owned roads. There is no disparity in the application of these provisions between government 

conducting business that generates emissions and business conducting business that generates 

emissions. This comment confuses roads associated with conducting business, which operates 

equipment and/or activities generating emissions, whether private or governmental, with roads 

managed and operated by government on behalf of the general public to provide access to multiple 

properties where the public generates the emissions. A number of complicating circumstances apply to 

public unpaved roads. One example is the situation where the County network road is associated with a 

patchwork of dedications of which only the newer dedications are specifically to Maricopa County. All 

other easements must be acquired subject to private property rights and due process. Second, not all 

unpaved roads used by the public are public highways owned by government. A significant number of 

roads have a patchwork of ownership, in which the county may not own any of the road or only owns a 

segment or half of a segment. Third, the County as a government agency uses a variety of funding 

sources and the federal monies require that an environmental impact analysis be prepared and 

approved. Fourth, road right-of-ways frequently include utility easements. The location/re-location and 

Page 591 of 720
access to utilities must be considered in any road improvement project. Finally, there is a substantial 

body of case law associated with roads that directly impacts any road improvement. Maricopa County 

has maintained an active program for paving unpaved roads since 1987 that has paved over 500 miles 

of roads. The funding for this program competes with other transportation priorities such as 

intersection improvements, capacity enhancements, bridges and signal synchronization that, in some 

instances, may help keep traffic off of unpaved roads. The cost of paving includes the acquisition of 

right-of-way, engineering to address traffic safety issues and structural deficits, utility relocation, and 

actually improving the road surface. Recent estimates from MCDOT indicate that the average cost for 

paving a mile of unpaved road is approximately $465,000. Approximately 1⁄3 to 1⁄2 of the total cost is 

spent on paving or applying a surface treatment. The remainder is spent on right-of-way acquisition, 

design, and engineering. MCDOT’s lifecycle cost analysis indicates that road paving is more cost 

effective than applying dust suppressants. The formation of new unpaved roads through lot splits, 

wildcat subdivisions, or businesses exempt from planning and zoning requirements result in ever 

changing impacts increasing traffic on outlying roads in the existing public highway network. 

Comment #161:

They would like to develop an on-line dust prevention training program and coordinate with the 

County Dust training class.

Response #161:

MCAQD recommends that the commenter contact the MCAQD’s Dust Compliance Division to 

discuss the approval process for curriculums and the certification of trainers. 

Comments #162:

Roofing company requests exemption for tile cutting on residential rooftops which creates dust. OSHA 

safety concerns prohibit water being used on tile rooftops to prevent dust. Pre-watering as a control 

measure is also an OSHA safety concern on rooftops.

Response #162:

Tile cutting that is occurring on a site with a Dust Control permit is subject to the Dust Control Plan 

and provisions of Rule 310. Tile-cutters are not limited to water as a control measure. Sections 205, 

305, and 402 of this rule allows flexibility in choice of control measure for this activity.

Comment #163:

Roofing company requests a clearer definition of when an operation is a non-permit activity or is 

required to obtain a permit subject to a Title V, non-title V or General Permit.

Response #163:

If tile cutting occurs on a site that already has a dust control permit or is part of a stationary source 

(e.g. tile manufacturing facility), than that operation falls underneath the jurisdiction of that permit. If 

tile cutting is the only activity or occurs on an unpermitted site (re-roofing project), masonry cutting is 

on a list of insignificant activities that do not require a permit in Rule 200 Appendix D. However, Rule 

200 Section 303.3.c states, “... any source that is exempt from obtaining a Non-Title V permit 

Page 592 of 720
according to this section shall still comply with all other applicable requirements of these rules.” Other 

applicable requirements include the visible emission limitations. Tile cutting activities are the source of 

a number of complaints MCAQD receives each year. MCAQD inspectors have documented dust 

plumes from tile cutting that violate the visible emission standards, recording some 6 minute averages 

as high as 60%.

Comment #164:

Two legal references concerning responsibility of government regulation to be clear:

1. A.R.S. § 41-1001 et seq. See G.D. Ltd. Travel v. City of Lake Oswego, 436 F.3d 1064, 1084 (9th 

Cir. 2006) (holding that a government regulation is vague if it “fail[s] to give persons of ordinary 

intelligence adequate notice of what conduct is proscribed.”)

2. Federal Administrative Procedure Act, “[a] rule may [] be invalidated . . . if an agency fails to 

explain the rule adequately.” Alvarado Comm’y Hosp. v. Shalala, 155 F.3d 1115, 1122 (9th Cir. 1998)

Response #164:

MCAQD notes the cited legal statues and case law and thanks the commenter for their submission.

Comment #165:

The MCAQD feels that there should be no warnings issued, thus allowing a homebuilder a chance to 

correct a possible violation. In every other aspect of our industry, inspectors come out and give 

warning notices so we can have a chance to correct deficiencies. Why can't we have a similar process 

in regards to dust control?

Response #165:

Nothing in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or in the Notice of Final Rulemaking affects the 

County’s enforcement policy or administrative due process.

Comment #166:

What I have trouble understanding is why would Maricopa County continue to consider adopting 

costly and unnecessary regulations on the home building community when the measures have yet to 

demonstrate that they reduce dust nor are they necessary for the 5% plan.

Response #166:

Construction activities constitute a large percentage of PM10 pollution in the nonattainment area 

(approximately 38% of the 2005 periodic emissions inventory). Reducing PM10 emissions from this 

major contributor is a necessary component to achieving the required 5% reduction in PM10 emissions 

as specified by an approvable 5% plan.

Comment #167:

Here are just a few of the proposed changes that seem to cause an undue hardship on the home 

building industry, yet it is not clearly demonstrated that they have any positive effect on reducing dust: 

only allowing a 25 foot trackout area, increased recordkeeping requirements, zero visible emissions at 

the property line, holding home builders responsible for trespassers such as ATVs and dirt bikes, and 

immediate clean-up of trackout areas.

Page 593 of 720
Response #167:

The 5% plan as currently prepared by MAG does show emissions reductions from the rule 310 

requirements listed in this comment. Chapter III and IV of Appendix C, Exhibit 1, of the 5% Plan 

provide a detailed accounting of PM10 emission reductions achieved through these rule 310 

requirements

Comment #168:

If we have already achieved significant and serious reductions through the training/coordinator 

program, met the tonnage required for the 5% plan, why are we adopting costly measures on the home 

building industry during these difficult economic times that do not reduce dust?

Response #168:

The 5% plan also has to demonstrate attainment at violating monitors. The microscale inventory 

developed for the Higley monitor estimated that 80% of PM10 affecting that monitor comes from 

construction on the design day. All of the new rule 310 requirements (including training programs) 

contribute to the reduction of PM10 emissions and are necessary to achieve the attainment at the 

monitors and the mandatory 5% reduction as required by the 5% Plan. 

Comment #169:

The proposal does not comply with A.R.S. §49-112. Before imposing requirements more stringent than 

found elsewhere in the state, the MCAQD must make the finding required by A.R.S. §49-112. The 

conclusory paragraphs on page 37 of the preamble do not meet this burden. In particular, the 

discussion does not explain why the regulation is necessary to achieve attainment. The discussion does 

not identify what credible evidence exists to show that the rule revisions are necessary to prevent a 

significant threat to public health or the environment. The discussion does not identify what credible 

evidence exists to demonstrate that the proposed rule revisions are technically and economically 

feasible. The discussion does not identify what credible evidence exists that these particular measures 

are required under federal statute or regulation. Section 189(d) simply requires the development of a 

plan showing 5% annual reductions. It does not specify what measures are required to be included 

within that plan. Fundamentally, the MCAQD cannot meet its burden at this time. Imposing additional 

measures in Rule 310 is unauthorized under A.R.S. §49-112 because the MCAQD has not 

demonstrated that emission reductions are associated with these various rule revision proposals and has 

not demonstrated that rule revisions are necessary to comply with the Five Percent Plan.

Response #169:

Maricopa County has met its burden of demonstrating compliance with A.R.S. §49-112. Item #6 in the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking laid out the peculiar local condition in Maricopa County not found 

elsewhere in the state that result from the ongoing failure to meet the health-based federal PM10

standard and all associated requirements under the Clean Air Act. It included the appropriate legal 

citations. The explanation also laid out the legal requirements for the Five Percent Plan. The preamble 

to this Notice of Final Rulemaking includes a substantial amount of information in various other 

Page 594 of 720
sections that supplement the discussion in Item #6. Item #5 in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

contained the explanation for initiating the rulemaking. It included a background summary and 

discusses the current revisions. It noted that under CAA requirements, the MCAQD rules were 

required to address significant contributors by imposing BACM/MSM. The explanation in this section 

notes that a low compliance rate was identified through a formal rule effectiveness study. It noted that 

the current rules are not working as effectively as predicted and more reductions are needed. Further 

discussion described a review of measures from western areas that met the PM10 attainment date to 

identify what else could be done. As noted, the County looked at measures that are already adopted 

and implemented. The Preamble also included Item #7 that provided a list of references to any studies 

relevant to this rulemaking that included several references to feasibility studies. Item #9 provided the 

preliminary summary of the economic, small business, and consumer impact.

Comment #170:

Rather than add new rule requirements that will increase the potential for noncompliance, the MCAQD 

should focus its efforts on ways to increase compliance with the current rule. Assuming that the 

MCAQD's 51% compliance rate is accurate, the HBACA asserts that it would be more appropriate to 

focus on ways to improve compliance rather than add new control measures to Rule 310. That is why 

the HBACA supported the training provisions in SB 1552, which will reduce emissions by several 

thousand tons per year. The HBACA requests an explanation as to how each of the proposed rule 

changes will increase compliance with the current rule, rather than raise the potential for reduced 

compliance in the future. The HBACA renews its request that the MCAQD focus on measures to 

improve compliance, not adopt new requirements that threaten to decrease compliance.

Response #170:

Rule effectiveness is a product of control effectiveness and the associated compliance rate. Three main 

factors associated with any rule contribute to a rule’s effectiveness. These factors are clear, 

understandable requirements implementing effective controls, a regulated source’s knowledge of 

what’s required, and consistent enforcement of rule provisions. Given the magnitude of reductions that 

are necessary to attain the standard and demonstrate 5% per year reductions, Maricopa County’s 

commitments for the 5% Plan address all three factors. To illustrate the magnitude of the challenge in 

this plan and to this rulemaking, approximately 80% of the PM10 emissions contributing to 

exceedances of PM10 standard at the Higley monitor came from construction. The MCAQD does not 

agree that the additional control measures threaten to reduce the compliance rate in the future. Several 

of the revisions are specifically designed to improve on-site management of dust control efforts adding 

motivation to effective training and education. Some measures, such as the property line standard and 

25 feet trackout, are included to make these rules consistent and uniform with other MCAQD rules. 

Under the Salt River Monitor SIP, these measures were identified as BACM/MSM in Rule 316 for 

another fugitive dust source category after the last revisions were made to this rule. These measures 

also provide visual clues to on-site personnel that their control measures aren’t working as designed 

Page 595 of 720
and corrective actions are necessary. The revisions also reorganize and streamline the rule improving 

clarity. A summary list of all rule requirements is included to remind sources of rule requirements.

Also, the recordkeeping section clarifies what’s necessary to document control measure 

implementation.

Comment #171:

Government entities, utilities, and the private sector should be subject to the same requirements. 

According to the MCAQD's own estimates, the residential single family construction industry 

contributes 4% of the emissions in the Maricopa County nonattainment area. The contributions of 

unpaved roads, unpermitted sources, and other construction sources are all higher. Yet, the MCAQD 

continues to impose greater burdens on the single family residential homebuilding community than any 

other group. Rule 310 contains a hierarchy of requirements. Unpermitted sources are subject to none. 

Government and utilities are subject to some. Permitted sources are subject to many. And largeacreage projects, of which residential developments are the most common, are subject to the most 

requirements and the largest number of inspections compared to any other activity (even though the 

MCAQD's own emissions inventory states that home building contributes less dust per acre than 

commercial or road building). The dichotomy between permitted and unpermitted sources under Rule 

310 and 310.01 is even more pronounced. The HBACA incorporates the comments of the Arizona 

Chamber of Commerce to this point (attachment to original comment letter not reproduced here). 

There is no justification for imposing more requirements on one of the smallest contributors. The 

single family residential community is not asking for fewer requirements. We just want everyone else 

to meet the same requirements we already do. Adding new requirements on our industry will only 

make the current unfairness more pronounced. This rule would impose steep financial burdens on our 

members, the individuals who are employed by our members, the businesses who transact with our 

members, and our eventual home buyers. This proposal is an unnecessary roadblock on the path to the 

recovery for our industry. We believe the only way to move Maricopa County towards attainment is to 

raise the compliance efforts at far more significant sources, such as unpermitted sources and unpaved 

roads, to levels similar to those already found in the single family residential home building 

community.

Response #171:

The MCAQD disagrees that residential homebuilding is one of the smallest sources. The 4% 

contribution mentioned above fails to include major site preparation and infrastructure installation 

performed before a homebuilder conducts local streets and houses installation. The number also fails to 

recognize that residential homebuilding, as with other types of construction, is a significant contributor 

to dust accumulation on paved roads, which increases estimates of re-entrained paved road emissions 

in the inventory. Further, PM10 concentrations are significantly influenced by nearby sources. While a 

source category may not contribute as much to a regional inventory, the magnitude of the dust 

emissions from a construction site near a monitor can be much more significant. In the Five Percent

Page 596 of 720
Plan attainment demonstration for the Higley monitor, construction contributed 80% of the PM10

emissions on the design day and residential construction was responsible for 13.8% of PM10 emissions. 

To demonstrate attainment at the monitors, significant reductions in construction emissions whether 

from residential or other types of construction all of which are regulated by the same rule, are 

necessary; hence, the revisions to these rules. As stated earlier, government entities, utilities, and the 

private sector are subject to the same requirements. See the responses to comments #8, #24, #133, and 

#160. Unpermitted sources do have applicable requirements consistent with legal authority and 

feasibility analyses. See response to comment #6.

Comment #172:

Identify the emission reductions associated with each proposed change. To claim reductions in the Five 

Percent Plan and to comply with ARS §49-112 and 41-1055, the MCAQD must identify the emission 

reductions associated with each specific proposed measure, before this rule is adopted. The HBACA 

has been supportive of measures that increase compliancy and reduce dust. The reason we do not 

support the proposed revisions to Rule 310 is that we have yet to see the amount of dust reduced by 

these very costly measures. For example, what are the emission reductions associated with the 

following: changing the trackout length from 50 feet to 25 feet, changing the definition of unpaved 

parking lot to eliminate size threshold, adding new Section 302.2, imposing a property boundary 

standard that contains no exemptions for wind events or other causes that are beyond the control of a 

source; and imposing new recordkeeping requirements.

Response #172:

Neither A.R.S. § 49-112 nor § 41-1055 specifically requires quantification of emission reductions by 

these rule changes. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking does include Section 9 that contains the 

preliminary summary of the economic, small business, and consumer impact required by A.R.S. § 41-

1055. Further, the notice does provide a qualitative statement indicating that the measures are designed 

to improve compliance, thereby reducing emissions. The 5% Plan was released for public comment 

and finalized after the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was prepared. In the 5% Plan, MAG has made 

extensive efforts to show how all the adopted measures of the 5% Plan result in PM10 emission 

reductions. In particular, the actual emission reduction calculations for all adopted measures (including 

the impact of Rule 310 changes) can be found in the technical support document of the 5% Plan 

document. The MCAQD added the quantification included in the final 5% Plan in the Notice of Final 

Rulemaking for Board consideration. The response to comment #170 discusses the compliance rate 

and the rule revisions. As a note, however, the elimination of the unpaved parking lot size threshold 

was necessary to make the rule consistent with the new requirements for unpaved parking lots under 

SB 1552. This change implements that statute, and is therefore not subject to A.R.S. § 49-112.

Comment #173:

The HBACA is extremely concerned about the economic consequences to adopting these costly 

measures when the MCAQD has failed to quantify whether we will come into attainment or actual 

Page 597 of 720
reduction of dust benefited by the rules changes (other than the dust coordinator and training). We 

have estimated that, on average, these measures will cost $11,740 per residential unit. These are 

significant costs that WILL have an economic impact on the home building community while there is 

no proof that these additional costly measures are necessary for the 5% plan. We would like the 

County to identify one other sector of the regulated community that is in agreement on these types of 

large reductions in our mutual goal of compliance with the CAA? It is the other additional costly 

measures that the HBACA strongly believes are unnecessary to reach compliance with the 5% plan.

Response #173:

The analysis included with the comment overstates the costs associated the rule revisions. Generally, 

the calculations include avoided compliance costs, include costs for rule provisions that have been 

modified as a result of comments, do not analyze all control measure options available, and overstate 

the cost of control measures (e.g. frequency of application or consultant versus Dust Control 

Coordinator responsibility). The analysis also fails to consider any benefits from the rule changes from 

more effective application of controls such as avoiding the application of too much water leading to 

trackout. However, some of the costs are appropriate and are included in the economic analysis for this

rulemaking. To illustrate the points above, training on-site personnel and monitoring on-site dust 

control does not require additional watering. The appropriate costs are the training costs and time spent 

by the designated Dust Control Coordinator. If additional watering is necessary, then the site must not 

be fully implementing existing controls. Avoided compliance costs for existing requirements should 

not be included in the current analysis. Second, as noted in the response to comment #52, the property 

line standard has been modified. Third, trackout does not instantaneously become a problem, it builds 

up over time. The revision of the trackout cleanup trigger will require that the trackout control device 

and on-site set up be evaluated sooner. Corrective action should minimize the number of sweeps or 

amount of manual cleanup that will be necessary. However, constant sweeping and the weekly trackout 

control device maintenance frequency listed in the comment calculations overstate new incremental 

costs and continue to add-in avoided compliance costs with existing rule provisions. Fourth, the 

analysis of stabilization does not include an analysis of the barriers and watering option. Finally, Rule 

310 already requires owner/operators to conduct the compliance tests. The recordkeeping revision 

explains what the owner/operator should be doing to document the implementation of control 

measures. The provision requires the types and results of test methods conducted. This provision does 

not preclude the use of surrogates developed by the Dust Control Coordinator to evaluate control 

measure implementation daily (e.g. scuffing soil surface with boot). Many industries use simple 

surrogates to evaluate compliance in place of the more formal test methods. Further, since the rule and 

SB 1552 already require that a Dust Control Coordinator be present on-site at all times, that individual 

should be capable of performing any testing required. Adding consultant costs in addition to the Dust 

Control Coordinator cost overstates the cost.

Comment #174:

Page 598 of 720
Administrative due process is needed. While enforcement actions gain headlines and income for 

Maricopa County, they can also foster deep resentment and mistrust in the regulated community. The 

MCAQD believes: The apparent motivation for the desire to have an appeals board seems to be based 

on the assumption that such a board would dismiss or reduce penalties for NOVs more easily than the 

Enforcement Division does already. [MCAQD responses to the "Issues To Address In Rule 310"] The 

HBACA is disappointed that the MCAQD appears to have such a negative view of our industry. The 

MCAQD has acknowledged that its inspectors are not "fact finders". All the regulated community 

requests is an opportunity to be heard before a neutral arbiter before being subjected to their "choice" 

of either paying a fine determined by the MCAQD or being sued. The due process rights that the 

HBACA seeks are fundamental ones, and we believe that all should be supportive of this long-standing 

American tradition. As part of the Five Percent Plan development, Maricopa County has committed to 

hire dozens of new inspectors. With new inspectors comes the increased potential for inconsistent 

enforcement. Due process is needed to ensure that all inspectors enforce the laws equitably and 

consistently. As you are probably aware, this is a process that exists in Clark County and Pima County, 

two areas that are currently meeting the PM10 standards. We believe this is not an anomaly. Providing 

due process increases industry's belief in the fairness of the process and ultimately will increase 

compliance.

Response #174:

Nothing in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or in the Notice of Final Rulemaking affects the 

County’s enforcement policy or administrative due process.

Comment #175:

Subcontractors must be clearly identified. SB 1552 also included an important subcontractor 

registration program. Successful implementation depends on a clear identification system. First, the 

identification number issued to a contractor needs to be regulated just like the fonts on a dust control 

sign (e.g., 4" min. height, black block letters over a white background). Additionally, the MCAQD 

needs to mandate the placement of the ID numbers on contractor's vehicles and equipment. For 

example, pickup trucks-ID number is to be placed on the back-of each side of the truck bed just below 

the top of the bed; water trucks-ID number is to be placed on the top back corner of each door; 

earthmoving equipment-ID number is to be placed on each side in a conspicuous location. Rental 

equipment will need to be identified as well. Magnetic stickers will have to be used with the 

contractor's ID number. The contractor will have to install and remove the magnets as equipment is 

delivered and removed from job sites. Finally, the MCAQD needs to notify all registered contractors of 

the new process and the time frame to get registered and vehicles identified with their designated ID 

number. If a contractor is not registered a violation should be issued to the contractor not the permit 

holder.

Response #175:

Page 599 of 720
A.R.S. § 49-474.06 states, “The subcontractor shall have its registration number readily accessible on 

site while conducting any dust-generating operations.” The display of the registration number on a 

subcontractor’s vehicle is only one way of satisfying the requirement to have the number readily 

accessible. Rule 200, Section 306.2 describes three ways a subcontractor can satisfy the requirement to 

have the subcontractor registration number readily accessible. The MCAQD believes that restricting 

the display of the subcontractor’s registration number to a single method results in an overly restrictive 

interpretation of “readily available”. No change was made to the rule. The MCAQD agrees that all 

contractors need to be notified of the new subcontractor registration program and what’s required 

under that program. The MCAQD plans to notify subcontractors and will work with stakeholders to 

develop an outreach strategy and appropriate materials. The MCAQD intends to issue a Notice To 

Comply (NTC) to subcontractors for first-time violations of non-registration and to require 

subcontractors to register within 30 days of the NTC issuance.

Comment #176:

Changes during the stakeholder process should be identified. It appears that this rule proposal was 

predetermined, as there have been very few changes made during the stakeholder process. To address 

this concern, please identify all substantive changes from the MCAQD's original stakeholder draft and 

the rule as proposed on August 29, 2007.

Response #176:

The MCAQD provided a side-by-side comparison of changes during the informal workshop process

and identified rule changes in each draft rule via crossed-out and underlined text. The side-by-side 

comparison of changes and draft rules were available electronically in Word. As this rulemaking was 

initiated to address measures needed for a required SIP revision, the requirements for 5% per year 

reductions and to attain as expeditiously as practicable must be addressed. The Notice of Final 

Rulemaking contains a list of changes from the existing rule to the proposed rule in the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. Further, the Notice of Final Rulemaking always contains a section that 

discusses the changes between proposal and final action.

Comment #177:

Account for employee turnover – there should be a 90 day grace period for new employee hires to 

attend dust control training class.

Response #177:

Rule 310 has been written to be consistent with Senate Bill 1552 for dust control training.

Comment #178:

Rule 310.01, Section 100:

Unlike Rule 310, Rule 310.01 does not have any exemption for wind events. Since wind erosion may 

occur as a result of sustained high winds, even with good stabilizations, it seems that the same 

acknowledgement of wind events would be appropriate.

Response #178:

Page 600 of 720
Rule 310 does not contain an exemption from the stabilization standards for wind events. The limited 

affirmative defense for wind events applies only to the opacity standard.

Comment #179:

The term "any open area" is overly general without area threshold definition established. Conceivably, 

one foot square or less could be considered an open area. One reasonable suggestion may be to use 

0.10 acre as open area threshold before regulation.

Response #179:

"Open area" is defined in Rule 310.01, Section 221. The definition matches the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) definition used in the Federal Implementation Plan.

Comment #180:

Suggest the term "ceased" be used instead of "completed".

Response #180:

Rule 310.01, Section 103.4 was originally in the definition of "disturbed surface area". Rule 310.01, 

Section 103.4 is a new section intended to make it clear which activities are exempt from Rule 310.01. 

No change were made to the final rule.

Comment #181:

What is the scope of the term "commercial"? Does this include government owned property?

Response #181:

Commercial property refers to property used for the purposes of generating revenue or business 

transactions and does not include government owned property.

Comment #182:

Comments suggest that Rule 310, Section 103.7 be revised to accommodate the potential for 

trespassers, as follows: "An unpaved roadway (including alleys) is not a horse trail, hiking path, 

bicycle path, or other similar path for which the designated use is

Response #182:

used exclusively for purposes other 

than travel by motor vehicles." This change is necessary, as the owner/operator of the trail or path 

should not be held accountable for illegal activity beyond its control.

This exemption was originally part of the definition unpaved roadway and is already in the SIP. The 

MCAQD maintains that the current language of the exemption is necessary to make it clear that if an 

unpaved roadway is used in any way by motor vehicles (intentionally or unintentionally), the unpaved 

roadway is subject to the provisions of Rule 310. A blanket exemption for trespassing is not 

appropriate and relaxes the rule. The MCAQD has no way to distinguish the vehicles of trespassers 

from those driven for legitimate uses. The owner/operator is ultimately responsible for conditions and 

emissions coming from their properties. The owner/operator will need to investigate why illegal 

activity is occurring, take steps to minimize the activity and mitigate the effects of that activity. The 

owner/operator can present information regarding the circumstances leading to a Notice of Violation 

should the situation escalate to the enforcement stage.

Page 601 of 720
Comment #183:

Rule 310.01, Section 104 should be removed from the Table of Contents since it does not exist in this 

rule revision.

Response #183:

The MCAQD will make the requested change.

Comment #184:

Rule 310.01, Section 200

A clear definition of utilities should be added to the definitions. Throughout the regulations, whenever 

"utilities" are referenced a parenthetical definition follows. For consistency and clarity, all definitions 

should be contained in a Definitions section. An oil pipeline is not typically considered a "utility". 

Utilities should include interstate gas transmission and interstate gas transmission in addition to local 

gas distribution. Consider the definition of Utilities - Transmission or distribution of electricity, natural 

gas, oil and other petroleum products, water, gasoline including interstate natural gas transmission and 

intrastate natural gas transmission.

Response #184:

MCAQD maintains that the parenthetical definitions of utilities described in this rule best reflect the 

intended applicability of the Rule.

Comment #185:

The same comment provided under Rule 310, Section 202 “area accessible to the public applies here to 

Section 203 as well. 

Response #185:

See the response to comment #12.

Comment #186:

There are circumstances where a roadway may be primarily used by a utility for routine access to 

facilities but must be kept open (i.e. not gated) for use by emergency vehicles. Despite adequate 

signage, members of the public may use this roadway without authorization. The regulations should

recognize this and provide indemnification for the owner/operator of the roadway against misuse of the 

road.

Response #186:

A blanket exemption for trespassing is not appropriate and relaxes the rule. The MCAQD has no way 

to distinguish the vehicles of trespassers from those driven for legitimate uses. The owner/operator is 

ultimately responsible for conditions and emissions coming from their properties. The owner/operator 

will need to investigate why illegal activity is occurring, take steps to minimize the activity and 

mitigate the effects of that activity. The owner/operator can present information regarding the 

circumstances leading to a Notice of Violation should the situation escalate to the enforcement stage.

Comment #187:

Page 602 of 720
Suggest including “animal waste” in the listing of bulk material. Animal waste is often transported in 

large quantities. Animal waste when dried often can create fugitive dust.

Response #187:

While animal waste is not specifically listed in this definition, it is included in Section 302.8 that 

regulates the hauling of animal waste from livestock activities.

Comment #188:

Farmers must obtain a dust control permit if they leave a field fallow for economic consideration, or if 

they are hired to control weeds on another owner's small field. It is impractical and cost prohibitive for 

a farmer to obtain and meet all conditions of a dust control permit as stated in Section 403 Rule 310. If 

an owner/operator does not perform weed control the weeds become a fire hazard and, in some cities, 

can fall under nuisance ordinances.

Response #188:

A fallow field that is part of normal farm crop rotation schedule is exempted from Rule 310 under 

Section 103.1. However, if a field or portion of a previously designated agricultural land has been sold 

or designated for use as a commercial or residential property, the applicable provisions of Rule 310 

and Rule 310.01 do apply.

Comment #189:

How does “earthmoving” in Rule 310.01 differ from” earthmoving” in Rule 310?

Response #189:

There is no difference in definition of "earthmoving" between Rule 310.01 and Rule 310.

Comment #190:

Perhaps define palliative or strike the term in favor of "other approved dust control material".

Response #190:

For purposes of this rule, a palliative means a substance that treats or moderates the intensity of the 

process of dust creation. The dictionary definition will be adequate.

Comment #191:

Suggest including "nor controlled" after "capture". In either case the goal is met by preventing further 

transport of dust into the atmosphere or beyond property boundaries.

Response #191:

MCAQD used the definition found in EPA reference documents. The definition in this section remains 

unchanged from the existing rule adopted by EPA.

Comment #192:

The proposed language related to gravel pad design requirements (i.e., the last two sentences) should 

be moved to a more appropriate section of the draft rule, such as Section 302.6, as this language 

pertains to the requirements for trackout control. 

Response #192:

Page 603 of 720
Section 306 requires the installation and utilization of trackout control devices and does not address 

each possible type of device individually. The only reference to a gravel pad occurs in the definition of 

trackout control device in section 228, thus this definition for gravel pad is clarifying another 

definition. This additional language is necessary to define when the layer of gravel will qualify as a 

trackout control device.

Comment #193:

A "tract of land" needs to be clearly defined. There are many "tracts of land" that are adjoining to, and 

are considered an integral part of exempt farm cultural practices, and non-traditional sources of 

fugitive dust.

Response #193:

For purposes of this rule, the MCAQD recognizes tracts or lots of lands as identified through the 

Maricopa County Assessor’s Office.

Comment #194:

Rule 310.01: The old rule governing dust suppression “livestock areas”; the new rule reads “livestock 

activities”. I am concerned this will affect trail riding where an equestrian activity might generate dust. 

Please refer back to old statement.

Response #194:

Rule 310.01 does not apply to activities on horse trails, as exempted in Rule 310.01, Section 231-

Definition of Unpaved Roadway (Including Alleys). However, horse arenas are subject to the 

provisions of Rule 310.01 that apply to livestock activities.

Comment #195:

Suggest the MCAQD move this definition into the first paragraph of Rule 310.01. It appears the key 

distinction between Rules 310 and 310.01 is the expectation that Rule 310.01 and only Rule 310.01 

area sources will not require permits. 

Response #195:

Rule 310.01, Section 101 describes the purpose of Rule 310.01: To minimize the amount of fugitive 

dust entrained in the ambient air from non-traditional sources of fugitive dust by requiring measures to 

prevent, reduce, or mitigate fugitive dust emissions. The term “non-traditional source of fugitive dust” 

is defined in Rule 310.01, Section 218. It would be redundant to add the definition of the term “nontraditional source of fugitive dust” to Rule 310.01, Section 101. 

Comment #196:

Suggest MCAQD further refine this definition to emphasize the recreational nature of examples of list. 

Transportation system designed for non-road travel could fit into this list and are hardly recreational in 

nature.

Response #196:

The MCAQD will make note of the comment, but the definition of “off-road vehicle” is not being 

revised in this rulemaking.

Page 604 of 720
Comment #197:

Clarification is needed on the definition for an unpaved parking lot. There are unpaved areas associated 

with the agricultural industry, or exempt farm cultural practices and non-traditional sources of fugitive 

dust. Farm yards, plant nurseries, large alleyways (essential for fire control) between hay sheds, grain 

or feed storage facilities, chemical and fertilizer storage areas, animal pens, stalls and barns, animal 

staging areas, arenas and livestock showing areas are some examples of unpaved parking or unpaved 

work areas that are part of a farming operation. The rule should clarify that these are part of the 

agricultural operation.

Response #197:

Rule 310.01 exempts all activities that fall under normal farm cultural practices from Rule 310.01 

provisions including the vehicular parking and maneuvering areas associated with them. Therefore, 

there is no need to specifically exempt normal farm cultural practices within the definitions of open 

areas and vacant lots (Section 221) or unpaved parking lot (Section 230) or unpaved roadway (Section 

231). Further, Rule 310.01, Section 302.8 addresses unpaved areas associated with livestock activities.

Comment #198:

Suggest MCAQD insert "non-traditional" after "a" and before "fugitive"

Response #198:

The definition of “owner and/or operator” is not being revised in this rulemaking.

Comment #199:

There are circumstances where a roadway may by primarily used by a utility for routine access to 

facilities but must be kept open (i.e. not gated) for use by emergency vehicles. Despite adequate 

signage, members of the public may use this roadway without authorization. The regulations should 

recognize this and provide indemnification for the owner/operator of the roadway against misuse of the 

road.

Response #199:

See the response to comment #186. 

Comment #200:

Suggest that area threshold be established; 0.10 acre has been used within these draft rules as 

regulatory triggers. Such a threshold would clarify requirements. As this clause is written, one square 

foot could fall within this definition.

Response #200:

The MCAQD’s intent is to be consistent with Senate Bill 1552 in the definition. 

Comment #201:

Please further define "open trail system" with a few examples. Other comments request that the 

MCAQD provide better clarification in the rule with regards to what is encompassed in "designated or 

opened trail systems and service roads". As written, it is not clear what exactly would be considered an 

unpaved road under this definition.

Page 605 of 720
Response #201:

In response to stakeholder’s questions, the MCAQD clarified where designated and open trails fall. 

After a review of state statutes, the Code of Federal Regulations, the Maricopa County Zoning 

Ordinance, and meeting with a group of public and trust Land Managers, the following language was 

determined: Designated or Opened Trail System: Roads or routes that are part of a system of trails and 

that are designated or opened by a government land management agency by order, sign, and/or map 

approved by such agency.

Comment #202:

Commenters believe that all private and semi-private roads are sufficiently regulated under Maricopa 

County Rule 310. Therefore, we recommend that the term "Quasi-governmental" be removed from the 

definition of "Unpaved Roadway (Including Alleys)." 

Response #202:

MCAQD acknowledges the comment and will consider the suggestion the next time Rule 310.01 is 

reopened.

Comment #203:

As this paragraph, 301.2(b) is written, MCAQD could, without involvement of the judiciary, enter and 

conduct governmental action. Is this the authority MCAQD is asking for? What is the measure of 

appropriateness? Is there any opportunity for land owner to take action prior to MCAQD action? There 

is no discussion of possible emergency conditions which could prompt such governmental action. Is 

this what we want here?

Response #203:

A.R.S. § 49-474.01(11) enacted in SB 1552 requires Maricopa County to adopt rule provisions 

regarding the stabilization of disturbed surfaces of vacant lots by March 31, 2008. Rule 310.01, 

Section 301.2 contains the provisions to implement that statute. The land owner does have an 

opportunity to take action prior to County action. Under A.R.S. § 49-474.01(11), the County must give 

notice containing the information listed in the statute to the property owner that the disturbed surface is 

required to be stabilized. If the lot has not been stabilized by the day set for compliance, the statute 

authorizes the County to enter the property to stabilize the disturbed surfaces at the expense of the 

owner.

Comment #204:

State in the rule language a timeframe between issuing the owner/operator a notice of violation (NOV), 

and compliance enforcement from Maricopa County.

Response #204:

This request is more appropriate for the enforcement policy. The back of the current NOV provides the 

owner/operator with information regarding the enforcement process, appeals and timeframes. At the 

request of stakeholders, the MCAQD is in the process of designing a supplemental insert to be 

provided with the NOV to be more readily available to the owner/operator. 

Page 606 of 720
Comment #205:

Including this section 302.3 in the rule allows a source to receive multiple violations for what is 

actually (and legally) a single violation. For example, if a source does not implement the appropriate 

control measures for an unpaved parking lot, that source could be cited as violating Sections 302.6(b) 

and 302.3. MCAQD indicated in stakeholder meetings that this requirement was added to provide 

clarification regarding what actions would constitute a violation. If this is indeed the reasoning, it 

would make more sense to provide a guidance document that clarifies what constitutes a violation of 

the rule. This section of the rule could then be removed. 

Response #205:

The purpose of the changes in Rule 310.01, Sections 302.1—302.3 is to summarize general 

requirements for non-traditional sources of fugitive, not to increase the possible number of violations 

cited by the MCAQD. The explanation section in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and in the 

Notice of Final Rulemaking indicates that these requirements are intended to summarize and remind 

owners of all the various requirements contained in Rule 310.01. Following Clark County’s example, 

the MCAQD included a similar list in the rule itself as guidance documents that accompanied this rule 

in the past have not been widely read. The MCAQD confirms yet again that the Department will not 

reference Sections 302.1—302.3 when issuing a Notice to Comply or Notice of Violation.

Comment #206:

It is understood that an owner/operator is responsible for the actions of contractor, maintenance crews, 

and themselves, but Rule 310.01, Section 302.4 will make the owner/operator responsible for anyone 

trespassing on the property in question, even if adequate signage is present. It seems unjust to force an 

owner/operator to incur the expense of fencing off areas due to the criminal activities of the 

trespassers. It would be completely impractical to fence miles of ROW and it could be specifically 

forbidden in the contract granting for the ROW. The public in general would likely not tolerate miles 

of fencing running throughout Maricopa County if all users of ROWs suddenly began installing visible 

fencing everywhere.

Response #206:

See response to comment #186 regarding trespass. The MCAQD notes that ROWs are subject to Rule 

310.01, Section 302.10 not Section 302.4.

Comment #207:

The following comments apply to Rule 310.01, Sections 302.4(a), 302.5(a), and 302.6(a)(1). The 

referenced provision reads: “The owner and/or operator of a dust generating operation shall not cause 

or allow visible fugitive dust emissions to remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line.” 

At least two other jurisdictions have concluded that absolute prohibitions against visible emissions 

crossing a property line are unconstitutional. In Ross Neely Exp. v. ADE, the Alabama Supreme Court 

held that a state rule prohibiting visible emissions from crossing a property line: "is clearly overbroad, 

encompassing every situation in which visible fugitive dust emissions move across a lot line, without 

Page 607 of 720
regard to damage, injury, or inconvenience caused, reasonable attempts at control, etc. This invades the 

area of protected freedom, severely restricting the use of property, and creases [sic] a situation where 

discriminatory enforcement is almost inevitable." Ref: 437 So.2d 82, 85 (Ala. 1983); see also CF & U 

v. CAPCC, 640 P.2d 238 (Colo. App. 1981) (holding that property boundary standard “contravenes 

fundamental due process rights”). The Chamber respectfully requests this subsection be removed from 

the draft rule. Another commenter states that even if MCAQD can provide satisfactory answers to 

those questions, the provision should be reworded. In addition, it is inappropriate for this section to 

refer to "particulate matter, including fugitive dust". Any requirements contained in this rule should 

only pertain to fugitive dust, which is in keeping with the title and purpose of this rule. APS and SRP 

suggest the following revision: “The owner and/or operator of a non-traditional source of fugitive dust 

that involves vehicle use in open areas and vacant lots shall not cause or allow visible emissions of 

particulate matter, including fugitive dust beyond the property line within which the emissions are 

generated. The owner and/or operator shall be exempt from this requirement if it can demonstrate that 

it is implementing best available control measures, as defined by Section 302.4.b of this rule.

Response #207:

 “ 

Another comment requests that the rule language should state a time limit for visible fugitive dust 

emissions to remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line.

The EPA refined the national ambient air quality standard for particulate matter in 1987 to inhalable 

particulate matter 10 microns or less in aerometric diameter, since both court decisions. Unlike the two 

jurisdictions cited in the comment, the Phoenix PM10 Nonattainment Area failed to meet the 24 hour 

PM10 standard by December 31, 2006. As a result, residents still have the potential to be exposed to 

unhealthy levels of PM10. Exceedances are recorded under both stagnant and elevated wind conditions. 

Secondary aerosols are not significant contributors to the exceedances recorded in Maricopa County. 

Geologic material (e.g. dust) remains the dominant constituent of PM10. Locally generated PM10

significantly contributes to recorded exceedances of the PM10 standard and can be released from dust 

generating activities or any unstabilized surface exposing residents to unhealthy levels of particulates. 

The property line standard can serve as a simple visual technique to monitor the dust released by the 

non-traditional fugitive dust source. The MCAQD intends to issue a Notice to Comply for the first 

violation of the property line standard at sites that are applying controls. The MCAQD will modify its 

enforcement policy to address this new requirement. The MCAQD will develop a policy/guideline and 

train compliance staff to ensure consistent enforcement of the property line standard. The MCAQD 

disagrees that there is no credible link between opacity and particulate matter emissions. In fact the 

next sentence in the EPA notice cited by the comment states, “Nonetheless, because there is at least an 

indirect relationship between opacity and PM emissions, including the use of opacity to track the 

effectiveness of PM control equipment operation ...” The MCAQD’s goal with this change is to 

improve the monitoring of dust control measures by providing a simple visual tool that can be applied 

by employees as well as by the MCAQD to evaluate the effectiveness of the dust control measure. 

Page 608 of 720
Even though the MCAQD cannot derive a quantitative correlation between opacity and PM emissions 

for a general rule, improving the consistency of compliance will reduce emissions and reduce the 

concentrations measured at the monitors. The MCAQD has access the Assessor’s database and the 

inspectors carry GPS units and would be able to use those devices if necessary. However, the inspector 

only has to determine that emissions coming from the permitted site are present at a point that is 

beyond the property line. Once the inspector determines that the visible emission is generated from the 

permitted site and the visible emission reaches a point clearly beyond the property line (e.g. a nearby 

public road), described and documented by the inspector, then the exact location of the property line is 

moot. The MCAQD disagrees with the comment to restrict the property line standard to just fugitive 

dust, as fugitive dust can contain other particles deposited on the site surface as well as dust.

Comment #208:

What is a "virtual posting"? If this item refers to the internet website, perhaps a mention of a web

address or URL should be included here.

Response #208:

Virtual posting refers to the maps displayed online by a government, typically with large land 

holdings, that indicate designated travel routes. For example, federal agencies such as BLM and the 

Forest Service are required to develop transportation management plans that specifically designate 

open travel routes where vehicles can operate. Further, vehicle operators accessing those lands on the 

designated travel routes are responsible for knowing where they are allowed to drive. Currently, each 

agency maintains its own website.

Comment #209:

The opening paragraph of this section should be reworded as follows: “Prevent motor vehicle and/or 

off-road vehicle trespassing, parking, and/or access by posting that consists of one of the following:” 

Furthermore, APS and SRP request further clarification on how the items specified in paragraphs b, c, 

and d of this section would be used to prevent trespassing, parking, and access to restricted areas. 

Response #209:

Rule 310.01, Sections 302.4(b)(2)(b), (c), and (d) provide the vehicle operator several options to 

become informed of land use. The vehicle operator can look for a sign on the property posting the land 

open. The vehicle operator can look for an order, map, or virtual posting from a government land 

management agency or can obtain written permission from a private land owner. The vehicle operator 

will also have access to a forthcoming website about land availability for vehicle use. The 

responsibility for this website, data sharing, access and maintenance requirements still need to be 

defined.

Comment #210:

Suggest MCAQD adopt the following language. "Notify motor vehicle and/or off-road vehicle 

operators of trespassing, parking and/or access requirements by posting that consists of one of the 

following:". Signs merely notify; only physical actions can prevent access.

Page 609 of 720
Response #210:

Knowledge of permission or lack of permission provides information the vehicle operator may use to 

make an informed decision regarding where to operate the vehicle and may prevent vehicular access.

Comment #211:

APS and SRP recommend that this requirement be removed because this activity is already exempted 

under Section 103.5 of this rule.

Response #211:

This provision is not new and is not being revised in this rulemaking. Rule 310.01, Section 302.4(c)(6) 

is more specific than Rule 310.01, Section 103.5 and clarifies the application of that exemption to 

vehicle use in open areas and vacant lots.

Comment #212:

Suggest the time interval for the land owner and/or operator be triggered from the point of notification 

by MCAQD rather than discovery. Such a change would be in keeping with other regulatory 

notification practices adopted throughout the state.

Response #212:

The time interval in these provisions is already in the SIP and is not being revised in this rulemaking.

Comment #213:

Must the approval and subsequent implementation of an alternative control measure require both the 

Control Officer and the Administrator? Surely MCAQD could evaluate such a request.

Response #213:

Without Administrator approval, the section would grant the Control Officer discretion. The Control 

Officer’s discretion is grounds for disapproval by EPA. 

Comment #214:

Comments recommend that the wording of this section be revised because it implies that a source must 

meet all the requirements of Sections 302.5(b) of this rule. The following revision is suggested: "The 

owner and/or operator of a non-traditional source of fugitive dust that involves open areas and vacant 

lots shall be subject to the visible emissions requirements described in Section 302.5(a) of this rule 

and, unless otherwise specified and/or required, shall comply with at least one of the control measures 

described in Section 302.5(b) of this rule and the additional requirements described in Section 302.5(c) 

of this rule."

Response #214:

The MCAQD has revised the provision.

Comment #215:

It is unclear if Easements and Rights-of-Way would be considered an Open Area. If yes, it would be 

difficult to establish vegetative ground cover on all disturbed surface areas. The ROW is periodically 

driven via motor vehicles for maintenance activities.

Response #215:

Page 610 of 720
Easements and right-of-ways are not and have not been considered open areas and vacant lots. These 

accesses are specifically identified as subject to Section 302.10 that is titled, “Easements, Rights-ofWay, and Access Roads for Utilities (Transmission of Electricity, Natural Gas, Oil, Eater, and Gas)”.

Comment #216:

Is there a definition of "unoccupied"? As mentioned in above paragraphs, suggest the land 

owner/operator schedule for corrective actions be triggered from the point of written notification by 

MCAQD and not from the point of initial discovery in the field.

Response #216:

The dictionary definition will be applied. See the response to comment #212.

Comment #217:

Will compliance determinations conducted by the land owner/operator in accordance with Section 501 

be acceptable to MCAQD or will compliance determinations be the sole provenance of MCAQD?

Response #217:

As with any other rule, the MCAQD evaluates compliance at the time of inspection. The due diligence 

efforts to maintain compliance by a land owner/operator may be presented to the MCAQD, but do not 

supersede an inspector’s findings at the time of inspection.

Comment #218:

Suggest "prevent" be replaced with "minimizes" in Rule 310.01, Section 302.6(b)(2). It will be 

physically impossible to prevent trackout in total; there will always be some dust on the road. The term 

prevention implies there will be absolutely no trackout on the road and is thus an unreasonable 

condition.

Response #218:

Rule 310.01, Section 302.6(b)(2) requires the elimination of trackout. The MCAQD requires that every 

effort be made to prevent as much trackout as possible. The MCAQD has not changed the provision.

Comment #219:

This language in Section 302.6(b)(3) appears to be duplicative. Maintenance of the trackout device is 

called out in 302.6(b)(2)

Response #219:

Surface gravel listed in this section is not the same thing as a gravel pad, which would be a type of 

trackout control device. Surface gravel referred to here implies the use of gravel as a material used to 

cover all disturbed areas of an unpaved parking lot. In this way, this section is a unique control 

measure from the others listed in section 302.6(b). 

Comment #220:

This language in Section 302.6(b)(4) appears to be duplicative of 302.6(b)(2)

Response #220:

Page 611 of 720
This section concerns the combined use of water and a trackout control device, whereas Section 

302.6(b)(2) considers the combined use of a dust suppressant other than water with a trackout control 

device.

Comment #221:

The same comment provided under Rule 310, Section 306.2(a)(1) applies here. The proposed revisions 

include a 50 percent reduction in the amount of trackout allowed at a site. As such, MCAQD should 

provide a more reasonable amount of time to clean up trackout, carry-out, or spillage. In some cases, it 

is impossible to clean up an area immediately after the cumulative trackout extends more than 25 linear 

feet due to safety issues, particularly if the trackout is on roads accessible to the public. It may not be 

possible to divert traffic while the trackout is being cleaned up. If traffic cannot be diverted, employees 

who are trying to clean up are at significant risk. Furthermore, it was communicated in stakeholder 

meetings that the enforcement of the current trackout requirement is dependent on the inspector. Some 

inspectors provide a reasonable amount of time for cleanup, and some provide no leeway based on the 

requirement that it be cleaned up "immediately." In order to ensure fair and equitable treatment of all 

sources, MCAQD should provide a specific amount of time in the rule for cleanup that is more 

reasonable than "immediately."

Response #221:

The MCAQD trains its inspectors on trackout enforcement to ensure fair and equitable treatment. In 

the MCAQD’s experience, trackout builds up over time and the individual who can take action has a 

duty to monitor it and should be aware cleanup will soon be needed. The MCAQD inspectors place 

more importance on taking action to initiate cleanup of trackout than they do on counting minutes. No 

matter what time is selected, the MCAQD and owner/operators would still discuss grace periods. 

MCAQD does not believe the differences between inspectors are as significant as portrayed based on 

the reports prepared when Notices of Violations are referred for escalated enforcement. If a permittee 

believes that they have been treated unfairly, they may contact a supervisor or other department 

management.

Comment #222:

Suggest "developments" be replaced with "construction sites" in Section 302.6(c)(4). Suggest that 

"dustproof" be stricken. 

Response #222:

Rule 310.01 does not apply to construction sites. The test in Section 302.6(c)(4) is consistent with 

SB1552.

Comment #223:

Why was 3,000 square feet selected in Section 302.6(c)(5)? Why not use 0.10 acre as a threshold? 

Why is the "county" explicitly mentioned here? Could a Dust Control permit similar to a block permit 

be implemented here?

Response #223:

Page 612 of 720
This section was created to be consistent with language passed in SB 1552. Rule 310.01 does not apply 

to permitted sources.

Comment #224

With respect to the 150 vehicle trips/day threshold, is it MCAQD’s expectation that the land 

owner/operator would be responsible for developing a traffic count plan for all roads that fall within 

this requirement? Suggest here there be an implementation schedule for this type of traffic analysis and 

control measure implementation.

Response #224:

The owner/operator of a unpaved roadway has always been responsible for determining when 

provisions of this rule section apply to them, including traffic counts. The revisions to this section 

clarify who is responsible for conducting the traffic counts.

Comment #225:

Rule 310.01, Section 302.7(a) appears to have a mislaid dependent clause.

Response #225:

The MCAQD has removed the words “a non-traditional sources of fugitive dust that involves” from 

the first sentence in Rule 310.01, Section 302.7(a).

Comment #226:

Comments believe it is important that Rule 310.01, Section 302.7 account for the possibility of 

trespassers on unpaved haul and access roads. The limit on vehicle trips and vehicle speeds should be 

for authorized traffic. It is critical that the owner/operator not be penalized for illegal trespassing that 

occurs on its site. In addition, comments seek clarification on the terminology used in Section 

302.7(c)(2). This section requires that the "average vehicle counts/traffic counts on the highest 

trafficked days" be recorded and reported to the Control Officer. How is a company to choose which 

days would be the "highest trafficked days" and what are the repercussions if a day is found to have 

more traffic than what was recorded and reported? Furthermore, please fix the section reference in 

Section 302.7(c)(3)(a) so that it is "Section 501" rather than "Section 302.8(a)". 

Response #226:

See the response to comment #186 for a discussion of trespass. The term “highest trafficked days” was 

chosen in recognition of the fact that unpaved roads defined in Rule 310.01, Section 231 connect 

multiple properties and may have different use patterns depending on the destinations along a 

particular road. For example, a road providing access to recreational areas will bear more traffic on 

weekends and holidays. Other roads providing access to residential, industrial, or commercial 

destinations usually bear more traffic on weekdays. The owner/operator should base the selection of an

appropriate time period on the traffic patterns on the particular road in question. The owner/operator 

also has a responsibility to be aware of when traffic patterns change on the unpaved road. Usually this 

change accompanies additional development nearby. The reference in Section 302.7(c)(3)(a) has been 

corrected.

Page 613 of 720
Comment #227:

MCAQD’s proposed Rule 310.01 would relax the regulation of fugitive dust emissions from Countyowned unpaved roads, compared to the current air quality requirements for County-owned unpaved 

roads (Rule 310.01, Section 304) that have been in effect for several years and already are part of the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This unusual proposal to reduce the existing level of fugitive dust 

regulation for County-owned property stands in contrast to MCAQD’s efforts to increase the 

regulation of almost every other type of activity that emits fugitive dust within Maricopa County. The 

proposed rule provisions that relax the SIP provisions that apply to County-owned unpaved roads are 

summarized in the following table. [NOTE: See reference table in original letter.] The change in the 

proposed rule would be an impermissible relaxation of the SIP. Moreover, the concept of decreasing 

regulation of County-owned sources of fugitive dust while increasing the regulation of so many other 

categories of emitters is inequitable and illogical.

Response #227:

As noted earlier, the commenter confuses roads associated with conducting business that generates 

emissions and business conducting business that generates emissions the conduct of business that 

operates equipment and/or activities generating emissions, whether private or governmental, with 

roads managed and operated by government on behalf of the general public to provide access to 

multiple properties where the public generates the emissions. This provision does increase regulation 

of the public unpaved roads. It specifies a minimum number of miles to be paved each year. The 

legislature has not provided counties and municipalities lacking home rule with the authority to prevent 

the formation of some new unpaved roads. The formation of new unpaved roads through lot splits, 

wildcat subdivisions, or businesses exempt from planning and zoning requirements result in ever 

changing impacts that increase traffic on outlying roads in the existing public highway network. As a 

result traffic increases and additional unpaved roads are identified, evaluated and placed in 

transportation improvement plans. The legal authority governing public highways differs between 

government conducting business that generates emissions and business conducting business that 

generates emissions. This comment confuses roads associated with conducting business, which 

operates equipment and/or activities generating emissions, whether private or governmental, with 

roads managed and operated by government on behalf of the general public to provide access to 

multiple properties where the public generates the emissions.

Comment #228:

This language suggests that water cannot be applied as a dust suppressant; given certain soil types, 

water application alone can yield very effective dust control. To eliminate water in favor of another 

dust suppression techniques without determining whether it works seems questionable. Restriction of 

travel, speed limit enforcement, and rerouting traffic and be other control measures that could be 

included in this list.

Response #228:

Page 614 of 720
The roadways subject to this provision are not temporary. MCAQD maintains that unpaved roadways 

that are subject to this provision cannot be adequately controlled with water alone, and another control 

measure is necessary to ensure stabilization occurs over the repeated and consistent vehicle traffic on 

these roads. The control measures listed in the section are consistent with the control measures for 

unpaved roads in the federal implementation plan EPA promulgated for the Maricopa County PM10

Nonattainment Area. The list of control measures is not being revised at this time.

Comment #229:

Suggest the design, implementation of traffic studies be conducted upon notification by MCAQD for 

reasons mentioned above. Rule 310.01, Section 302.7(c)(2) could be split into two sub-paragraphs for 

ease of readability.

Response #229:

See the response to comment #224. The MCAQD maintains that it is the responsibility of the 

owner/operator of all unpaved roadways to determine traffic counts upon that roadway

Comment #230:

Comment does not believe that separate traffic counts should be required, as the cost is double that of 

doing one 48 hour count. We understand the purpose of averaging to avoid a single event skewing the 

results. We recommend either of the following 2 alternatives in lieu of the existing language: 

1. The language from this portion of Rule 242: “a. Each traffic count shall measure vehicular traffic 

over a 48-hour period, which may consist of two non-consecutive 24-hour periods. Vehicular traffic 

shall be measured continuously during each 24-hour period. b. The two distinct 24-hour traffic counts 

shall be conducted on two non-holiday weekdays - adding the phrase “and may include one or two

weekend days at the request of the Control Officer.”

2. Alternatively: “A person, who owns and/or is responsible for an unpaved road (including an alley) 

believed to carry 150 or more vehicle trips per day in the PM10 nonattainment area, shall be responsible 

for conducting vehicle counts to determine if 150 or more vehicle trips per day occur on said unpaved 

roadway (including an alley). At least 48 hours of traffic shall be counted. At the Control Officer’s 

request, some or all of the count may be required on weekend days. The average vehicle counts on the 

highest trafficked continuous 24 hour periods shall be recorded and provided to the Control Officer in 

writing 60 days of verbal or written request by the Control Officer.”

Response #230:

To address the commenter’s concerns, Rule 310.01, Section 302.7(c)(2) has been revised to read, " A 

person, who allows 150 vehicle trips or more per day on an unpaved roadway (including an alley) in 

the PM10 nonattainment area, shall be responsible for conducting vehicle counts/traffic counts to 

determine if 150 vehicle trips or more per day occur on an unpaved roadway (including an alley). A 

traffic count shall measure vehicular traffic over a 48-hour period, which may consist of two nonconsecutive 24-hour periods. Vehicular traffic shall be measured continuously during each 24-hour 

period. The average vehicle counts/traffic counts on the highest trafficked days shall be recorded and 

Page 615 of 720
provided to the Control Officer in writing within 60 days of verbal or written request by the Control 

Officer.”

Comment #231:

Similar comments regarding the prohibition of water use in favor of other dust suppressants. Water 

should be shown as ineffective before a potentially more expensive dust control technology is 

implemented.

Response #231:

The MCAQD lists a variety of control measures in this section to give the site flexibility in controlling 

visible emissions. For some of the control measures in this section, water is shown to have limited 

effectiveness. This section also allows the site to make their own cost/benefit decisions regarding 

which control measures to implement.

Comment #232:

Livestock owners currently perform control measure 'c' when hauling animal waste. Livestock owners 

cannot perform control measure 'c' when hauling or transporting bulk feed for livestock; it is not 

feasible to cover feed with tarps when dispensing to livestock.

Response #232:

The intent of this control measure is to prohibit bulk feed or animal waste from exiting haul trucks onto 

areas accessible to the public. If the haul truck will not cross an area accessible to the public (as is 

often the case when feeding animals) then tarping is not required. However, if the haul truck does cross 

onto an area accessible to the public, the MCAQD maintains that tarping is a reasonable and prudent 

measure.

Comment #233:

Suggest that "leave" be substituted for "traverse".

Response #233:

MCAQD maintains the current language of this section best describes the intent of the section as it 

includes crossing a paved area accessible to the public.

Comment #234:

It is impractical and cost prohibitive for the owner and/or operator of a feedlot and/or livestock area, to 

implement any one of the control measures described in Section 309.2 (Section 302.8(b), as 309.2 does 

not exist) of this rule. The control measures in this rule should be replaced with affordable and 

practical measures that the owner/operator could feasible do without being a detriment to the operation 

of the animals.

Response #234:

Most of the measures listed are found in the existing rule. The MCAQD did research conservation best 

management practices applied to similar livestock activities in California and added several additional 

options to provide additional flexibility. The MCAQD believes the control measures in this section are 

necessary, prudent, and feasible. The MCAQD understands that there may be costs associated with 

Page 616 of 720
these measures, but given the severity of the PM10 pollution problem, the control measures are a 

integral part of reducing PM10 emissions from significant sources.

Comment #235:

It is not a feasible measure to apply surface gravel to a feedlot and/or livestock areas (302.8(b)(1)—

(2)). Manure, once removed from animal operations, is often used as a field crop additive and nutrient. 

Manure containing gravel cannot be used as a field nutrient. Manure from feedlots and/or livestock 

areas, can be converted to a green energy in anaerobic digesters, (currently being implemented in 

Maricopa County). Manure containing gravel cannot be used in this technology. In addition, gravel is 

uncomfortable and possibly dangerous for hoofed animals to stand on for extended periods of time.

Response #235:

The application of gravel is only one option and is intended for those areas that do not come in 

frequent contact with livestock (unpaved roads and lanes). The provisions of Sections 302.8(b)(1) and 

302.8(b)(2) are not intended for areas such as corrals, pens or arenas where manure would accumulate 

and where livestock chiefly inhabit.

Comment #236:

If water is used as a dust suppressant at a feedlot and/or livestock area, it can cause a health concern for 

both the animals and residents who live nearby. A moist environment in feedlots and/or livestock area 

creates a fly and mosquito habitat. A damp environment can also harbor bacteria and mold. Wet 

manure also causes an odor concern to the local community. Manure has very little odor when dry. 

Many feedlots and/or livestock areas are very large and occasionally built on leased land. It becomes 

impractical and cost-prohibitive to install enough trees, and shrubs to surround the animals on the 

property. Many dairies in Maricopa County are surrounded by fields (corn, alfalfa) which could be 

considered an existing control measure to reduce dust.

Response #236:

It is not uncommon for the owner/operator of a roping arena to choose water as a control measure. To 

address the commenter’s concern regarding the limited number of control measures, the MCAQD is 

adding three additional control measure options for corrals, pens or arenas to Rule 310.01, Section 

302.8(b)(4). The first control measure is frequent scraping and/or manure removal. The second 

measure is adding a fibrous layer in working areas. The third measure is applying and maintaining an 

alternative control measure approved in writing by the Control Officer and the Administrator. This 

allows a permit holder some flexibility in choosing which option is best for their facility.

Comment #237:

Suggest that "activity" be inserted after "dust" in Rule 310.01, Section 302.9.

Response #237:

Adding the word “activity” to Rule 310.01, Section 302.9, pertaining to water and wind erosion from 

property, does not add clarity.

Comment #238:

Page 617 of 720
Suggest that "discovery and" be substituted for "identification or".

Response #238:

The MCAQD maintains the current language of this section best describes the intent of the section.

Comment #239:

Why were 130 vehicle trips selected instead of 150 vehicle trips identified in other areas of this rule? 

Other commenters request that the MCAQD revise this section so that it is consistent with the 

requirements for unpaved roadways (i.e., 150 vehicle trips or more per day in the PM10 nonattainment 

area). It is unclear why easements, rights-of-way, and access roads should have different requirements. 

By keeping the qualifiers consistent between unpaved roadways and easements, rights-of-way, and 

access roads, it will add clarity and eliminate confusion for sources affected by both sections.

Response #239:

The MCAQD will revise Section 302.10 to leave the 150 vehicle trips or more per day in the PM10

nonattainment area in place.

Comment #240:

Commenters believe it is important that this section 302.10 account for the possibility of trespassers on 

easements, right-of-ways, and access roads for utilities. The limit on vehicle trips and vehicle speeds 

should be for authorized traffic. It is critical that the owner/operator not be penalized for illegal 

trespassing that occurs on its site. 

Response #240:

See response to comment #186.

Comment #241:

The rule should also clarify, who determines if a non-traditional source of fugitive dust, has met the 

opacity limitation requirement.

Response #241:

The owner/operator of a non-traditional source of fugitive dust should ensure that the opacity standard 

has been met; however, the MCAQD evaluates compliance at the time of inspection. The due-diligence 

efforts to maintain compliance by an owner/operator may be presented to the MCAQD but do not 

supersede an inspector’s findings at the time of inspection.

Comment #242:

APS and SRP agree with the concerns regarding the legality of this change to the existing rule as stated 

in a letter from Mr. Roger Ferland, on behalf of the Business Coalition, to Mr. Robert Kard dated 

August 10, 2007. A copy of this letter has been attached for your convenience. “Under Method 9, the 

opacity is determined as the average of 24 consecutive observations recorded at 15-second intervals. 

As such, the opacity determination is based on a 6-minute average of 24 observations. In Method

203B, the number of observations above the applicable standard are counted and multiplied by 0.25 to 

determine the number of minutes a source is above the opacity standard. In essence, the Method 203B 

calculation methodology eliminates the averaging effect of readings below the standard...Obviously a 

Page 618 of 720
data reduction method that results in noncompliance is more stringent than one that does not. This 

increased stringency of the opacity limit rule is multiplied by the fact that your department has 

proposed to expand the applicability of Appendix C to include determining compliance with opacity 

limits applicable to point source emissions...” “Under the provisions of A.R.S. §49-112(A), the County 

may only adopt rules that are more stringent than those adopted by the Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) if all conditions of [A.R.S. §49-112(A)] are met...The ADEQ 

regulations pertaining to the measurement of visible emissions from nonpoint sources (A.A.C R18-2-

614) and point sources (A.A.C. R18-2-702(B)) rely solely upon EPA Test Method 9 and not Method 

203B to determine compliance with opacity limits. Thus, the MCAQD’s proposal to substitute Method 

203B for Method 9 is subject to the requirements of A.R.S. §49-112(A)...” “To date we have seen 

nothing to suggest the MCAQD intends to provide the evidence or can provide the evidence necessary 

to meet the statutory requirements.” It has been suggested that since the change in opacity test methods 

was bundled with a proposal for more stringent PM10 regulations that the “peculiar local condition” 

referred to in the statute was somehow connected to PM10. However, this cannot be the case. Visible 

emissions limits are intended to indicate the proper operation of particulate control technologies such 

as baghouses or dust suppression technologies. They are not intended to measure and cannot measure 

PM10 emissions or the emissions of any other pollutant. For this reason, source category specific rules 

typically specify both an opacity limit and an emission limit...” “Since there is no coincidence 

between PM10 emissions and opacity, there is no reason to believe that a more stringent opacity limit, 

particularly one of the kind at issue here, would result in lower PM10 (or any other) emissions...”

“Either the MCAQD must make the showings and provide the evidence required by statute (which we 

judge to be unlikely) or the proposal should be immediately withdrawn...”

Response #242:

The revision to the data reduction methodology associated with Maricopa County's general 20% 

opacity standard to EPA Method 203B is intended to further efforts to increase compliance. This form 

of data reduction for the 20% opacity standard limits the number of excursions over the 20% level of 

the standard resulting in more consistent compliance with the existing standard. A rule effectiveness 

study conducted 2006 through 2007 by MCAQD found that compliance with the existing rules is lower 

than anticipated. The commenter also states that the revision to the data reduction methodology makes 

the 20% opacity standard substantially more stringent that the current rule. The MCAQD disagrees and 

believes that the comment overstates the stringency of Method 203B. Throughout the informal and 

formal rulemaking process, the MCAQD repeatedly asked for examples of changes or modifications 

that would be necessary to comply with the Method 203B data reduction methodology but did not 

receive any additional information. Further, a 1983 study of opacity regulations by the EPA found that 

20 states, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and 5 local agencies had time aggregating form of opacity 

regulation with the most frequent opacity limit noted as 20% opacity with a 3 minute/hour time 

exceedence. Further, if Method 203B was substantially more stringent than Method 9, then the 

Page 619 of 720
MCAQD would have been required to include the measure in the most stringent measure 

demonstration contained in the MAG Serious Area PM10 Nonattainment Area Plan and Attainment 

Date Extension Request. The technical analysis associated with the Salt River Area PM10 SIP revision 

submitted in 2005 determined that stationary sources contribute significantly to exceedances of the 24-

hour PM10 standard that occur under stagnant conditions. That analysis characterized the specific types, 

number, and size of sources present in the modeling domain; land use; the topography of the area; and 

the design day specific meteorological conditions present at the monitor recording the exceedance. 

Attainment demonstrations for nonattainment areas required under the Clean Air Act must to the 

greatest extent practical depict the actual conditions present that cause exceedances in the 

nonattainment area. Therefore, the nonattainment area plans for the Phoenix Nonattainment Area for 

PM10 are required under the Clean Air Act, in effect, to address actual local conditions that are unique 

to a geographical area. Further, EPA’s latest particulate matter implementation rule, Clean Air Fine 

Particle Implementation Rule (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007), identifies “revised opacity standard” in a 

list of possible stationary sources measures. The rule also lists improved monitoring as a control 

measure. EPA notes that improved monitoring control measures would require facilities to pay more 

attention to the operations of add-on air pollution control devices, work practices, and other control 

measure activities. The additional attention will reduce periods during which control devices and other 

control measures do no operate as intended or required. The result would be increased emissions 

reductions from implementing existing and new rules. The MCAQD disagrees that there is no 

coincidence between PM10 emissions and opacity. Within an individual source, a change in opacity 

indicates a change in PM emissions. It is not necessary to demonstrate a correlation between mass 

emissions and opacity across all source categories, when a goal of the standard is to demonstrate 

compliance with BACT, BACM, and MSM levels of control. Opacity has also long been used as an 

indicator of visible particulate pollution. In the discussion on improved monitoring control measures in 

the proposal for the fine particle implementation rule referenced above, EPA states, “...visible 

emissions and the opacity of visible emissions are indicators of a change in PM emissions levels...” In 

EPA’s fact sheet on the rule finalizing Methods 203A, B, and C, EPA states, “Evaluating the opacity 

of emissions serves as a surrogate for particulate emissions. Numerous state and federal regulations 

require that opacity of emissions be measured or monitored.” In EPA’s Response to Comments on the 

Portland Cement Manufacturing NESHAP (page 227), EPA states, “An opacity limit was established 

to ensure effective PM control, but opacity is a separately enforced pollutant ...” In other NESHAPs, 

where EPA uses PM as a surrogate for HAPs, EPA consistently states that opacity limits are separately 

enforceable emissions limits which represent and demonstrate continuous compliance with the MACT 

floor of particulate HAP control.

Comment #243:

Suggest the term "Fugitive Dust from Open Area Sources" be substituted instead of "Fugitive Dust 

from Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive Dust".

Page 620 of 720
Response #243:

MCAQD does not believe that suggestion includes all sources that listed under non-traditional sources 

of Fugitive dust.

Comment #244: 

Define the term "immediately". This term needs a reasonable timeframe and consistency in Draft Rule 

300, 310, and 310.01.

Response #244:

See the response to comment #221

Comment #245:

Please advise if agricultural farmers are included in dust control rules.

Response #245:

Normal farm cultural practices are not regulated by this rule. However livestock activities are regulated 

by Rule 310.01.

Comment #246:

I have been on 5-150 horse trail rides and they don't stir up any dust, ATV ATV's, dirt bikes and quads 

stir up significantly more dust than horses on trails. Please don't change Rule 310.01. Why not enforce 

what we have instead of more rules. Why target us? Focus penalty on vehicles rather than horse 

activities. 

Response #246:

Rule 310.01 does not apply to activities on horse trails, as exempted in Rule 310.01, Section 103.8. 

However, horse arenas are subject to the provisions of Rule 310.01 that apply to livestock activities.

Comment #247:

Since the results of using EPA Reference Method 203B and the Appendix C method for assessing 

opacity can be quite different, explain why the less stringent Appendix C method is used at all. The 

County cannot have requirements that are less stringent than those of the EPA. Take out and replace all 

references to Appendix C. 

Response #247:

The opacity methods approved in Appendix C were modified specifically to address the listed 

activities and are more appropriate for evaluating those dust plumes than Method 203B. Neither EPA 

Reference Method 203B nor Appendix C methods are less stringent than the other.

Comment #248

There are not classes offered to agricultural producers or livestock owners to become qualified in EPA 

Reference Method 9, which includes determining black and white smoke opacity. Therefore producers 

should not be required to comply with a standard for which no training is available. For example a 

Maricopa County 4-H member (age 9-18) who is raising goats or a community member who keeps 

horses would be totally unfamiliar with this standard.

Response #248:

Page 621 of 720
At least two training providers in Maricopa County offer EPA Method 9 Visible Emissions 

Observation Certification Training to anyone required to complete periodic visible emissions 

observations: The ASU Environmental Technology Management (ETM) program offers EPA Method 

9 Certification training. Information on the ETM training can be found at 

http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/compliance/smoke.html or by calling (480) 727-1322. In addition, 

Arizona Smoke School offers Method 9 training. Information on Arizona Smoke School can be found 

at http://www.arizonasmokeschool.com/ or by calling (480) 226-0945.

Comment #249:

The last time we sent comments for a hearing with the Board of Supervisors; our comments were 

glossed over and not taken seriously. We hope that will not be the case this time.

Response #249:

The most recent time that the MCAQD responded to formal comments regarding fugitive dust was 

during the rulemaking process for Rule 316-Nonmetallic Mineral Processing. All formal comments 

received during such rulemaking were responded to in the Notice of Final Rulemaking (11 A.A.R. 

2799, July 29, 2005), which was distributed via email to all stakeholders, was posted on the MCAQD's 

webpage, and was distributed to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors for their review and 

consideration prior to adoption.

Comment #250:

If the EPA wants BACM and MSM implemented in this Plan, why do non-title V Permits only address 

BACT, if at all?

Response #250:

To address the BACM and MSM requirements, existing rules were revised and a new source specific 

rule adopted for specific source categories such as Rules 316 and 325. The Non-Title V permits for 

those types of sources must incorporate those BACM and MSM rule provisions in their permits and 

dust control plans as specified by the respective rule. Permitting BACT analyses are only performed 

for new and modified sources, but rule provisions apply to the specified sources including both new 

and existing sources.

14.

No

Any other matters prescribed by the statute that are applicable to the specific department or to 

any specific rule or class of rules:

15.

Incorporation By Reference Location

Incorporation by reference and their location in the rules:

ASTM Method C136-06 Rule 310, Section 223

Rule 310, Section 504.1

ASTM Method D2216-05 Rule 310, Section 303.2(a)(1)(a)(iii)

Page 622 of 720
Rule 310, Section 305.5(b)(2)

Rule 310, Section 305.11(b)(2)

Rule 310, Section 504.2

ASTM Method D1557-02e1 Rule 310, Section 303.2(a)(1)(a)(iii)

Rule 310, Section 305.5(b)(2)

Rule 310, Section 305.11(b)(2)

Rule 310, Section 504.3

Appendix C-Fugitive Dust Test Methods Rule 310, Section 303.2(c)

Rule 310, Section 304.3

Rule 310, Section 304.4

Rule 310, Section 501.1

Rule 310, Section 501.2

Rule 310.01, Section 501.1(b)

Rule 310.01, Section 501.2

Rule 310.01, Section 501.3

EPA Reference Method 203B Rule 310.01, Section 501.1(a)

16.

No

Was this rule previously an emergency rule?

17. The full text of the rules follows:

REGULATION II - PERMITS AND FEES

RULE 200

PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

INDEX

SECTION 100 – GENERAL

101 PURPOSE 

SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS (NOT APPLICABLE)

SECTION 300 – STANDARDS

301 PERMITS REQUIRED

302 TITLE V PERMIT

303 NON-TITLE V PERMIT

304 GENERAL PERMIT

305 EARTH MOVING DUST CONTROL PERMIT

306

306

SUBCONTRACTOR REGISTRATION

307

307

PERMIT TO BURN

308

308

EXEMPTIONS

309

309

STANDARDS FOR APPLICATIONS

310

310

PERMIT CONDITIONS

311

311

PROHIBITION – PERMIT MODIFICATION

312

312

PERMIT POSTING REQUIRED

313

313

TRANSITION FROM INSTALLATION AND OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAM TO 

UNITARY PERMIT PROGRAM

314 ACCELERATED PERMITTING

Page 623 of 720
SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

401 APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF PERMIT OR PERMIT REVISION

402 PERMIT REOPENINGS; REVOCATION AND REISSUANCE; TERMINATION

403 PERMIT RENEWAL AND EXPIRATION

404 PERMIT TRANSFERS

405 PERMITS CONTAINING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF FEDERAL 

DELAYED COMPLIANCE ORDERS (DCO) OR CONSENT DECREES

406 APPEAL

407 AIR QUALITY IMPACT MODELS

408 TESTING PROCEDURES

409 PERMIT FEES

410 PORTABLE SOURCES

411 PUBLIC RECORDS; CONFIDENTIALITY

SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS (NOPT APPLICABLE)

Page 624 of 720