### ______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix 13: Notice of Final Rulemaking for 310 and 310.01 (Adopted 2008)NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING
MARICOPA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
FIVE PERCENT PLAN RULEMAKING PROJECT

PREAMBLE

1. Sections affected
Rule 200 Amend Rulemaking a ction

Rule 310 Amend
Rule 310.01 Amend Appendix C Amend

2. Authorizing statutes: A.R.S. §§ 49

- 47 4, 49

- 47 9 , and 49

- 480 Statutory a uthority 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 Regist er addressing th e rulemaking :

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

5.

Na me: 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) revis ed Rules 200, 310, 310.01 and Appendix C to implement control measures and increase compliance with existing rules for the Five
Percent Plan for PM 10 . On June 6, 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized its finding that the Phoenix Nonattainment Area did not attain the 24

- hour PM 10 standard by the deadline mandated in the Clean Air Act (CAA), December 31, 2006. (72 FR 31183, June 6, 2007) Under Section 189(d) of the CAA, serious PM 10 nonattainment areas that fail to attain are required to submit An explanation of the rule, including the agency’s reasons for initiating the rulemaking:within 12 months of the applicable attainment date, “plan revisions which provide for attain ment of the
PM 10 air quality standard and, from the date of such submission until attainment, for an annual
reduction in PM 10 or PM 10 precursor emissions within the area of not less than 5 percent of t he amount of such emissions as reported in the most recent inventory prepared for such area.” In accord ance 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 practicabl e. The region submit ted a Five Percent Plan for PM 10 by December 31, 2007.

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

The Maricopa County moderate PM 10 nonattainment area, upon the EPA’s findings, failed to attain the NAAQS by December 31, 1994. Consequently, on May 10, 1996, the EPA reclassified Maricopa County a s a serious PM 10 nonattainment area. Maricopa County was then required to submit a serious
PM 10 nonattainment area plan, which had to include B est A vailable C ontrol M easures (BACM), measures designed to achieve the maximum degree of emissions reduction for PM 10 sources. Maricopa County had to show attainment of the PM 10 NAAQS by December 21, 2001.

Emission inventories and air quality modeling analysis of existing control measures showed that
attainment could not be reached by December 21, 2001

. A shortfall of a 16.4% reduction in PM 10 concentration was identified. The CAA allows states to request an extension of this attainment date for up to five years, providing the state demonstra tes that the plan includes the Most S tringent M easures (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 PM 10 nonattainment area plan was submit ted to the EPA on July 9, 1999

. The EPA approved the revised serious PM 10 nonattainment area plan in April 2002, contingent on the completion of three commitments by Maricopa County. The revisions to Rule 310 (adopted April 7, 2004) addressed the commitmen ts.

As a result of litigation on the moderate PM 10 nonattainment area plan, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ's) prepared and submitted a Plan for Attainment of The 24

- Hour PM 10 Standard

– Maricopa County PM 10 Nonattainment Area in May 1 997

. The EPA partially disapproved
the Arizona 24

- hour Standard PM 10 SIP revision triggering a federal implementation plan (FIP) obligation, which remains in place, related to the area’s PM 10 moderate area plan

. The obligation
resulted from EPA ’s disapprov al of those sections of the SIP addressing unpaved roads, unpavedshoulders, 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 cate gories 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 PM 10 nonattainment area that addresses those four categories of sources.

O n July 2, 2002, the EPA found the controls proposed in the Arizona 24

- hour Standard PM 10 SIP
revision were inadequate to ensure the attainment of the PM 10 NAAQS at the Salt River air quality monitoring sites. The finding of inadequacy included the State Im plementation Plan’s (SIP’s) attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstrations for the 24

- hour PM 10 standard at the Salt River monitoring sites and three other microscale sites in the Maricopa County PM 10 nonattainment area (Maryvale, Gilbert, and West Chandler).

Although the EPA approved Arizona's 1997 SIP revision and additional required controls proposed by Maricopa County on August 4, 1997, EPA's Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) con

tinued to show exceedances at the Maricopa County PM 10 nonattainment area Salt River site - recording expected exceedances in 1999, 2000, and through three quarters of 2001. Consequently, the EPA required Arizona to submit a SIP revision to identify and implement corrective PM 10 control provisions in the Salt River Study Area and for similar significant sources in the Maricopa County
PM 10 nonattainment area.

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 C ontrol M ea sures (BACM) test and the Most Stringent
M easures (MSM) test for significant sources and source categories.

The Final Revised PM 10 State Imple mentation Plan for The Salt River Area dated August 2004 contained Arizona’s revisions to the State Implementation Plan for the Maricopa County PM 10 serious nonattainment area and included the following State Implementation Plan requirements, as described by the EPA in its Federal Register notice of disapproval (67 FR 44369, July 2, 2002):

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

- MSM for all significant sources of PM 10 will result in attainment of th e 24

- hour NAAQS by December 31, 2006, at the Salt River PM 10 monitoring site, in accordance with CAA §189(b)(1)(A) and §188(e).

● Commitments to implement B est A vailable C ontrol Measures (BACM) -M ost S tringent
Me asures (MSM) for sources significantly contributing to exceedances of the 24

- hour PM 10 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 theSalt River Study Area will be applied to all similar sources throughout the Maricopa County
PM 10 serious nonattainment area.

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

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

Explanation for Current Rulemaking Proposals:
For the Five Percent Plan for PM 10 , 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
inclu ded in the rules in this notice

. The MCAQD re
- format ted the rule s and clarif ied text to address concerns and comments that arose in the enforcement process

. Finally, the MCAQD also include d 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 M CAQD conducted a rule effectiveness study for Rules 310, 310.01 and 316

. The results of the study were applied to the 2005 periodic emission s inventory
for PM 10 to estimate em issions from t he 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 r ate 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 demonstr ation 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 43 rd Avenue site) shows that construction activities contribute 11.39 ug/m 3 out of a total of 233.09 ug/m 3 . A source category that con tributes 5 ug/m 3 or more is considered to be a significant
contributor to a nonattainment area’s exceedances. Table 8

- 8 also indicates that a 48% reduction in
construction activities is needed in order for the monitor to achieve attainment. In terms of a h igh 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 sta ggering 80.43% of the PM 10 emissions around the
monitor , far outweighing any other source of emissions. Lastly, the emissions reductions from
construction activities , attributed to the control measures (see measures 2, 3, 8

- 10, 16, 36

- 38, 44) as
documented in the Technical Support Document , combine to total 16,373 tons per year by 2010.Windblown dust from vacant lots represent s a significant contribution to the attainment demonstration high wind days at the West 43 rd Avenue site. Table 8

- 13 on page 8

- 55 shows that windblown dust from vacant lots contributes 20.50 ug/m 3 out of a total of 202.22 ug/m 3 . A source category that contributes 5 ug/m 3 or more is considered to be a significant contributor to a nonattainment area’s exceedances.
Table 8

- 13 also indica tes 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 Technic al 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);

a nd San Joaquin Unified Air Pollution Control District, California (SJUAPCD) to identify difference s 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 e nvironment and Clark County did attain the PM 10 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 s ection that includes an extensive list s ummariz ing and remind ing owners and operators of all the various requirement s.

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 Governmen t ( MAG ) included this measure as a suggested measure in the Five Percent Plan

. The MCAQD is apply ing 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 e xtend beyond the property line. MAG also included this measure as a suggested measure in the Five Percent Plan

. The MCAQD include d this measure in Rules 310 and in 310.01 to improve compliance with the rules.

Clark County Sections 90 and 94 include requiremen ts 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 useof water where measures to prevent vehicular trespassing and movement are not effective. The MCAQD revis ed the long

- term stabilization control measures that reduce the period of inactivity to 30
d ays and linked the stabilization by water control measure wit h the requirement for barriers.

Rule 310 incorporate s the provisions of SB 1552 that mandate training and require a dust coordinator to be onsite at all times. This training requirement is desig ned 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 c larifies existing requirements. For example, the MCAQD has been receiving co mplaints 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 clarif ied the definition of “area accessible to the public” by r emoving the
word “retail” from the definition and adding “entered or used for public travel”

. The M CAQD also
extend ed the trackout clean up requirements to include curbs, gutters and sidewalks as well as paved
roads.

In Rule 310.01, the MCAQD a dd ed the re quirement to install a trackout control device to the subsection covering unpaved parking lots and the subsection covering off -s ite hauling of bulk materials by livestock operations

. The MCAQD also add ed control measures for other areas of a livestock oper ation beyon d 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 revise d the threshold for vehicle use in open areas and vacant lots to be consistent with the de minimis threshold in the open a reas and vacant lot subsection. In addition, the threshold for stabilizing an unpaved park ing lot mat ch es the requirements of SB 1552. The MCAQD also include d 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 se t 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 operat ions to register with the MCAQD

. The subcontractors will receive a registrati on 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 : C hange d “this rule” to “these rules” and add ed as last

sen tence “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 3 02 thru Section 305 and Section 307 of this rule. Additional standards, administrative requirements, and monitoring and records requirementsfor some of these permits are described in individual rules of these rules, as applicable/as specified in
Section 3 02 thru Section 305 and Section 307 of this rule. ”

Rule 200, Section 305

- Earth Moving Permit : C hange d heading “Earth Moving Permit ” to “Dust
Control Permit”. C hange d 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 ro ads, 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 respons ible 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 require ments of Rule 310 of these ru les, 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 other wise 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: D elete d “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 pla n as described in
Rule 310 of these rules.” This information is addressed in Rule 310.

Rule 200, Section 305.2: D elete d “Annual Block Permit: Any person responsible for more than one earth moving operation consisting of routine operation, maintenance, and expansion or extension of utilities, paved roads, unpaved roads, road shoulders and/or alleys, and public right of ways at non

contiguous sites may submit one permit application covering multiple sites at which construction will
commence within 12 months of permit issuance provided that: a. The control plan as described in Rule 310 of these rules applies to all sites; and b. The applicant submits a list of all sites, including the location and size of each site, with the application; and c. For any project not listed in the application, the applicant notifies the Control Officer in writing at least three working days prior to commencing the earth moving operation. The notice shall include the site location, size, type of activity, and start
date.” This info rmation is addressed in Rule 310.Rule 200, Section 305.3: D elete d “ 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: D elete d “ 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: D elete d “ 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, N ew Section 306

- Subcontractor Registration: A dd ed new Section 306 to comply with Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) § 4 9- 474.06: “ 306.1 A subco ntractor who is engaged in dust

generating operations at a site that is subject to a permit that is issued by a Control Officer and that requires control of PM 10 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 iss uance of a registration number. 306.2 The subcontractor shall have its registration number readily accessible

on
- site while conducting any d u st

- 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/pos ted 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 C orrect (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, R ule Ti tle: C hange d “Fugitive Du st” to “Fugitive Dust from Dust

- Generating Operations .”

Rule 310, Section 101: A dd ed “(PM 10 ).”

Rule 310, Section 102: A dd ed “of this rule.”

Rule 310, Section 103: C hange d format. A dd ed exemption f or non
- traditional sources. A dd ed exemptio n for emergency activities. D elete d “The following are exempt from the requirements of thisrule: normal farm cultural practices under Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) § 4 9- 457 and § 4 9- 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 add ed “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 pra ctices according to Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) § 4 9- 457 and A.R.S. § 4 9- 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 ( tra nsmission 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 . 1 03.5 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

- gener ating 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 piledri vers, 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: A dd ed “Area A – As defined in A.R.S. § 4 9- 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, R e- Numbered Section 202: D elete d “retail”. D ele te d “open” . In Notice of Proposed
Ru lemaking (NPR), “accessible” was proposed to replace “open” . In this Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR) i nstead

- of using the term in the definition of the term that’s being defined (“accessible”) , d elete d “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 n ot 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 includ ed, such as paved parking lots accessible to the publ ic. The MCAQD made this change on recommendation from enforcement/County Attorney.
The MC AQD was unable to proceed with enforcement, when a contractor claimed the shopping center driveway was a site’s tr ackout control device, instead of installing a device prior to the exit from the building site. The c hange close s 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 cont rol 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 implemen t 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, wa s 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
PM 10 plan. The exception for paved areas that have been designated as a trackout control device allow s 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 n ot 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 mainta ining 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, R e- Numbered Section 203: C hange d format of def inition of bulk material and list ed only once materials that are listed twice (i.e., earth and soil).

Rule 310, R e- Numbered Section 204: C hange d format. Unl oading applies to dumping activities.Rule 310, R e- Numbered Section 205.3: C hange d “pre

- wetting” to “pre

- watering.” M atch ed term used in Application for Dust Control Permit and Guidance for Application for Dust Control Permit - “pre

watering”.

Rule 310, Re- Numbered Section 206: M atched 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. § 4 9- 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 PM 10 nonattainment area or a maintenance area that was designated as a serious PM 10 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 modif ication. 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 PM 10 emissions
from dust

- generating operations. M ove d “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, R e- Numbered Sec tion 208: D elete d “fugitive dust” and add ed “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, R e- Numbered Section 209: C hange d format and change d definition to match Clark County’s
definition of “construction activities” in Section 94

- Permitting and Dust Control for Construction
Activities. M ove d “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 re design existing landscapes ” to
New Section 103.5

.
Rule 310, R e- Numbered Section 211: C hange d format.

Rule 310, New Section 212: A dd ed “Emergency – A situation arising from sudden and reasonably unforeseeable events beyond the control of the source, inclu ding 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. Anemergency 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: A dd ed “Emergency Activity – Repairs that are a result of an emergency
whic h 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 o r 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 t he Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR) ma d e 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. C hange d the definition of end of work day such that it reads as follows: “The end o f 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, R e- Numbered Section 216: M ove d “For the purpose of this rule, fugitive dust does not
inc lude 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 sour ces that are subject to other rules in Regulation III

- Control of Air Contaminants of these rules” to New Section 10 3.6

.
Rule 310, R e- 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 tr uck, whichever is greater.” A dd ed dimensions of gravel pad to the definition of gravel pad and remove d dimensions o f gravel pad from Rule 310 rega rding 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. D imensions of gravel pad are same dimensions required in Clark County’s Construction Activities Dust Control Handbook.

Rule 310, R e- Numbered Section 219: D elete d “Open Areas and Vacant Lots – Any of the following described in Section 219.1 through Section 219.4 of this rule. For the purpose of this rule, vacant portions of residential or commercial lots that are immediately adjacent and owned and/or operated by the same individual or entity are considered one open area or vacant lot. 219.1 An unsubdivided or undeveloped tract of land adjoining a developed or partially developed residential, industrial, institutional, governmental, or commercial area. 219.2 A subdivided residential, industrial, institutional, governmental, or commercial lot that contains no approved or permitted buildings or structures of a temporary or permanent nature. 219.3 A partially developed residential, industrial,institutional, governmental, or commercial lot. 219.4 A tract of land, in the nonattainment area, adjoining agricultural property.” 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 accu mulation 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 t o 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 d imensions 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 st orage pile, d elete d “which in any one point attains a height of three feet and covers a total surface area of 150 square feet or more” and add ed “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 pil e is of concern, rather than the footprint of the storage pile.

Rule 310, R e- Numbered Section 224: D elete d “responsible for obtaining an earthmoving permit under Rule 200, Section 305” and a dd ed “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 c ontractor, prime contractor, supervisor , management company .”

Rule 310, New Section 226: A dd ed “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 b oundaries dividing the areas of all sub

- tenancies.” Definition matches definition used in
South Coast’s Rule 403

- Fugitive Dust.

Rule 310, Section 230: D elete d “Urban or Suburban Open Area – The definition of urban or suburban open area is included in Sect ion 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: D elete d “Vacant Lot – The definition of vacant lot is included in Section 219

- D efinition 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 232: D elete d “Vacant Parcel – The definition of vacant parcel is included in Section
219

- Defi nition 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, R e- Numbered Section 233: D elete d “larger than 5,000 square feet” and add ed “material handling”, “and equ ipment”, 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 n ot include military maneuvers
or exercises conduc ted on federal facilities.” C hange d 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 an d Storage Yards; and Vehicle and Equipment Storage Yards.

Rule 310, R e- Numbered Section 234: M ove d “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 th an travel by moto r vehicles” to New Section 103.8

.
Rule 310, R e- Numbered Section 237: D elete d “and/or earthmoving operations ”, because the phrase is
incl uded in the definition of “dust

- generating operations.”

Rule 310, New Section 301: A dd ed general requ iremen ts 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

met hods. 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 enga ging 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 pro visions at a site that has dust

- generating operations. Also, added a statement that requi rements of Rule 310 must be complied

- with before, a fter, 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 Co rrect (NTC) or when issuing a Notice of Violation (NOV).

Rule 310, New Section 302: A dd ed permit requirements for dust

- generating operations from Rule 200

- Permit Require ments. The permit requirements are existing requirements and are not new or additiona l 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 a dd permit requirements for dust

- generating operations from Rule 200

- Permit Require ments; Permit requirements for earthmoving operations to be revised in Rule 200 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 stan dards section of Rule 310 to administrative requirements s ection of
Rule 310. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), revise d new Section 302.3 – permi t requirements
for routine dust

- generating operations at a site with a Title V permit, Non

- Title V permi t, or General permit - to be consistent with revised Section 402.1 – Dust Control Pla n requirements for routine dust

generating operations at a site with a Title V permit, Non

- Title V pe rmit, or General permit. In the NFR, add ed “that disturbs a surface area of 0.10 acre or greater” to new Sect ion 302.3. New Section
302.3 read s : “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, R e- Numbered Section 303: D elete d “ 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 a dd ed heading “Visible Emissions Requirements for Dust

Generating Operation.”

Rule 310, New Section 303.1: A dd ed 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

- Non metallic 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 dust

generating 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 a nd have obtained the appropriate permits, if permits are required.

Rule 310, R e- Numbered Section 303.2: A dd ed heading “Exemptions from Dust

- Generating Operation Opacity Limitation Requirement.”

Rule 310, R e- Numbered Section 303.2(a): In the Notice of Pro posed 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), change d “Exceedances of the opacity limit described i n 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% opacitylimitation and from the property line standard provided specific/specified control measures are implemented.

Rule 310, R e- Numbered Section 303.2(a)(1): D elete d “1” and add ed “one.” A dd ed “following.”
D elete d “in Tables 20 & 21 was” and add ed “were.” R emove d referen ce to Table 20 and Table 21 and
added control measures from Tabl e 20 and Table 21 ( regarding wind event s) to Rule 310, Section 303.2(a)(1).

Rule 310, R e- Numbered Section 303.2(a)(2): D elete d “T he 20% opacity exceedance” and added
“E xceedances of the opacity lim it described in Section 303.1 of this rule.” With this cha nge, 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, R e- Numbered Section 303.2(a)(4): D elete d “Maricopa County Environmental Services Department Air Q uality Division” and added “Maricopa County Air Quality Department.”

Rule 310, R e- Numbered Section 303.2(b): D elete d “No o pacity limitation shall” and add ed “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, R e- Numbered Section 303.2(c): D elete d “No o pacity limitation shall” and add ed “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 Append ix 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 additio n, vehicle test and development facilities may require a Dust Control permit in accordance with Section
302 of this rule.” A dd ed requirement that all areas used to test and validate design integrity, product quality, and/or commercial acceptance and all ar eas 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), add ed new Section 303.2(d), which add s an exemption from the property line standard when an owne r and/or operator
conducts dust

- generating operations within 25 feet of the propert y line. This addition was not in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR). This addition was made in response to formal comments
received d uring 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 induration 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, R e- Numbered Section 304: M ove d Dust Control Plan requirements from standards section to administrative requirements section.

Rule 310, R e- Numbered Section 304.1: A dd ed “Section 304.1(a) or Section 304.1(b) of this rule.”

Rule 310, R e- Numbered Section 304.2(a): A dd ed “Section 304.2(a)(1) or Section 304.2(a)(2) of this
rule.”

Rule 310, R e- Numbered Section 304.2(b): A dd ed “in Sect ion 304.2(a) of this r ule”. D elete d
“subsection” and add ed “section of this rule.” A dd ed “and a description of how vehicle speeds will be restricted to no more than 15 miles per hour.”

Rule 310, R e- Numbered Section 304.3: D elete d heading “Open Area and Vacant Lot.” D elete d “an

open area and/or vacant lot or.” D elete d “1” and add ed “one.” D elete d “Sections 302.3(a) through 302.3(g)” and add ed “Section 304.3(a) through 304.3(g).” D elete d “a disturbed open area and/or
vacant lot or.” D elete d “disturb ance” and add ed “visibly disti nguishable stab ilization characteristics.”
D elete d “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, R e- Numbered Section 304.3(a): D elete d “visible” and add ed “soil.”

Rule 310, R e- Numbered Section 304.3(g): D elete d “of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).”

Rule 310, R e- Numbered Section 304.4: A dd ed “However, all areas used to test and validate design integrity, product quality, and/or commercial acceptance shall be stabilized after s uch 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 T est 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.”
A dd ed requirement that all areas used to test and validate design integrity, product quality, a nd/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, R e- Numbered Section 305 : A dd ed heading “For Dust - Ge nerating Operations” and a dd ed

“ 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, a fter, and while conducting dust

- generating operations, including during weekends, after work hours, and on holidays. Con trol measures for specific dust

- gener ating operations are described in Section 305.1 through Section 305.12 of this rule. ” M ove d the general requirements for control meas ures to New Section 301 and r etain ed Section 305 requirements addressing specific control measures . General requirements fo r dust

- generating operations are intended to clarify the duties to which an owner and/or operator must comply and to distinguish between control measures, stabilizat ion s tandards, and test methods. D elete d Rule 310, Section 308 and added work practices to specific control measures described in re

- numbered Section 305.

Rule 310, R e- Numbered Section 305.1: D elete d Table 15 and add ed control measures from Table 15 to Rule 310, Section 305.1. C hange d heading to “Off

- Site Hauling Onto Paved Areas Accessible To The
Public .” A dd ed 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 alon g 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 Fina l Rulemaking (NFR), d elete d “the highest point at which the bulk material
contacts”. In the NFR , new Section 305.1(a)(2) read s : “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 f irst

- 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, R e- Numbered Section 305.2: D elete d Table 13 and Table 14 and add ed 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.Rule 310, New Section 305.3: D elete d 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 neede d
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 tha n 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 Fina l Rulemaking (NFR), d elete d “the highest point at whi ch the bulk material contacts”. In

t he NFR, new Section 305.3(b) read s : “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) wi ll 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: D elete d Table 11 and add ed control measures from Table 11 to Rule 310, Section 305.4.

Rule 310, New Section 305.5: D elete d Table 11 and Table 12 and added control measures from Table 11 and Table 12 to Rule 310, Section 305.5.

Rul e 310, New Section 305.6: A dd ed control measures for staging areas, parking areas, material storage areas, and/or access route s to and from a site. C ontrol measures address vehicle use and parking on sites that require a permit and match Clark County’s Sec tion 94

- Permitting and Dust
Control for Construction Activities.

Rule 310, New Section 305.7: D elete d Table 3 and add ed control measures from Table 3 to Rule 310,
Section 305.7.

Rule 310, New Section 305.8: D elete d Table 18 and add ed control measures fro m Table 18 to Rule 310, Section 305.8.

Rule 310, New Section 305.9: D elete d Table 9 and add ed 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 n ecessarily 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 ar e subject to more stringent requirement under Rule 312. Rule 310, Section 103.6 clarifies that the abrasive blasting process is covered by Rule312. However, vehicles hauling the equipment into the site or re

- stabilizing any soil surfaces surrounding the s tructure being blasted will be subject to Rule 310.

Rule 310, New Section 305.10: D elete d Table 10 and add ed control measures to Rule 310, Section
305.10.

Rule 310, New Section 305.11: D elete d Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, and Table 8 and add ed control

meas ures 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 tha n 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 t oo temporary in these instances. Permanent stabilization must be implemented within 10 days of finishing a dus t- 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 require ment. 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): A dd ed “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: D elete d Table 19 and add ed con trol measures from Table 19 to Rule 310, Section 305.12. C hange d “(electricity, natural gas, oil, water, and gas transmission)” to “(transmission of electr icity, natural gas, o il, water, and gas).” C hange d “inside the PM 10 nonattainment area and “outside the PM 10 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 si te in question already has a General, Non

- Title V, or Title V permit, in which case Rule 310, Section 305.12 applies.

Rule 310, R e- Numbered Section 306: D elete d Table 16 and Table 17 and add ed control measures from Table 16 and Table 17 to Rule 310, Secti on 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 theother options available to the site. If visible emissions are observed crossing over the property line,
then the site would be in violation o f that standard. Since trackout is already outside the property line, the property line standard will have no effec t 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 li near 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), add ed to the beginning
of new S ection 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).

R

ule 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 t o 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
Fina l Rulemaking (NFR), c orrected the reference to the definition of gravel pad in new Section 306.1(b)(2).

Re

- Numbere d Section 307: C hange d “visible crust” to “soil crust.”

Rule 310, R e- Numbered Section 308: M ove d project information sign requirements from standards
section to admini strative requirements section. Specific information required to be on the project
infor mation 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. T raining class es will include information regarding implem entation of control
measures and d iscussion of what opacity is . However , formal opacity certification training will not be part of the training class es . Opacity certification can only be done by the EPA

- approved or ADEQ

approved 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 formore than one acre of disturbed surface area. A Bas ic 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 dust

generating 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: A dd ed requirements for a Dust Control Coordinator to comply with
Senate Bill 1552. A Dust Control Coordinator must be on

- sit e at all times during primary dust

generating 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, S e ction 401: A dd ed requir ements 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 Fina l Rulemaking (NFR), d elete d the reference to Maricopa County’s “Application for Dust Control Permit” and revise d the introductory statement to

re ad 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: M ove d 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), delete d the second sentence in Section 402.2: “Applicants shall complete Maricopa County ’s “Application for Dust Control Permit”
and submit such infor mation as a Dust Control Plan.”

Rule 310, New Section 402.3(c): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), p roposed to m ove 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 Fin al 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 t he Dust Control Plan. New Section 402.3(c) r ead s : “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 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
N otice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), delete d these two sent ences 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 s tandards 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 Sectio n 305

- Control
Measures for Dust

- Generating Operations. In the Notice of Fin al 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

- Trackou t, Carry

- Out, Spillage, and / or Eros ion. New Section 402.3(c)(3) read s : “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 descr ibed 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 requiremen ts 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), add ed the word “roads” to new Section 40 2.3(e). New Sectio n 402.3(e)
read s : “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 -g enerating sources.” In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), delete d this sentenc e from new Section 402.6 and added this sentence to the
introduction in re

- numbered Sectio n 305

- Control Measures for Dust

- Generating Operations. The
introduct ion in re

- numbered Section 305 read s : “When engaged in a dus t- 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, a fter, and while conducting dust

- generatin g operations, including during weekends, after work hours, and on holidays. At least one primary control measure and one contingency measure must be identified in theDust 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, N ew S ection 403: M ove d Dust Control Plan revisions from standards section to administrative requirements section. A dd ed 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: A dd ed Dust Control p ermit

- Block permit requirements from Rule 200.
Deleted Dust Control permit

- Bloc k p ermit requirements from Rule 200 and reference d 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 wher e 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 requir ements 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 “c anal road grading”. In the
Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), change d “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 Rulemaki ng (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), delete d ne w Section 404.3 and re

- number ed 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; B lock 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 N otice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), revise d new re
numbered Section 404.3 to be consistent with new Section 404.1. In the NFR, change d “municipalities
and/or utilities” in new re

- numbered Section 404.3 such that it reads “municipalities, governmentalagencies , and utilities.” New re

- numbered Section 404.3 read s : “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: A dd ed 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 permit s and Dust Control Plans requirements have only been added to Rule 310 where they are more directly applicable.

Rule 310, New Section 406: A dd ed 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 Con trol permits and Dust Control Plans requirements have only been added to Rule 310 where they are more directly applicable.

Rule 310, New Section 407: A dd ed 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
di rectly applicable.

Rule 310, New Section 408: A dd ed 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: C larified 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: C larified c ompliance 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 a ddressed 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 fiveor more acres of disturbed surface area. A Compre hensive 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: A dd ed “the visible emissions requirements in Section 303 of” a nd “and with the stabilization requirements in Section 304 of this rule.” S pecif ied that test methods are for visible emissions requirements and stabilization requirements.

Rule 310, Section 501.1(a): A dd ed “of these rules.” In the Notice of Proposed Rule making (NPR), proposed to retain original text of Section 501.1(a): “Opacity observatio ns of a source engaging in
dust

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

- Time Averaged Methods of Visual Opacity Deter mination of Emissions from Dust

- Generating Op erations.”
In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), delete d “a source engaging in” to make Section 501.1(a) consistent with the introductory statements in Section 501.1(b) and Sectio n 501.1(c). Section 501.1(a)
read s : “Op acity observation s of dust

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

- Time Averaged Methods of Visual Opacity Deter mination 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 dust

generating operations, an unpaved parking lot, and an unpave d haul/access road. In the Notice of Fin al Rulemaking (NFR) , added new Section 501.1(d), which describe s the test method to determine compliance with the property line standard - by conducting observations in accordance with EPA
Reference Met hod 22. New Section 501.1(d) read s : “Visible Emissions Beyond The Propert y 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 l ine if dust

generating 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 s ites that are applying dust controls and have obtained the appropriate permits, if permits are required.Rule 310, Section 501.2(a): D elete d “constitutes” and add s “shall constitute.” D elete d “1” and add ed
“one.” Rule 310 already requires owners/operat ors 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 c hecks 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): D elete d “1” and add ed “one.” D elete d “constitutes” and add ed “shall
constitute.”

Rule 310, Section 501.2(c): D elete d “Open Area and Vacant Lot”. D elete d “subsection” and add ed
“Section.” D elete d “subsection 302.2” and add ed “Section 304.3.” “Open area and vacant lot” is used
in Rule 310.01

- Fugitive Dust from Non

- Traditional Sources of Fugitive Du st.

Rule 310, Section 501.2(c)(1): D elete d “visible” and add ed “soil.” D elete d “/Steel Ball.”

Rule 310, Section 501.2(c)(7): A dd ed “and equivalent” and delete d “of the EPA.”

Rule 310, Section 502.1: C larified when written records must be kept and what i nformation 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 dust

generating 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. T ext matches Clark County’s Section 94

- Permitting and Dust Cont rol for Construction
Acti vities . 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 m ethods 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 p lace, 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 31 0, S ection 502.3: D elete d “within” and add ed “as soon as possible but no later than.”Rule 310, Section 503: C larif ied who must ma intain 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: D elete d “Maricopa County Environmen tal Services Department” and added “Maricopa County Air Quality Department.”

Rule 310, Section 504.1: D elete d “C136

- 96A” and ad d ed “C136

- 06”. D elete d “1996” and add ed
“2006.”

Rule 310, Section 504.2: De lete d “D2216

- 98” and add ed “D2216

- 05 .” D elete d “1998” and add ed
“2005.”

Rule 310, Section 504.3: D elete d “D1557

- 91(1998)” and add ed “D1557

- 02e1”. D elete d “1998” and

a dd ed “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), add ed new Section 504.4, which list s and describe s the test method to det ermine compliance with the property line
standard - by conducting observations in accordance with EPA Reference Method 22. New Section
504.4 read s : “EPA Reference Method 22 (“Visual Determination of Fugitive Emissions from Material
Sources and Smoke Emissi ons 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 e missions 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

- Pe rmitting and Dust Control for Construction Activities, and the standard in Pima County 17.16. Visible emissions are allowed to cross the property line if dust

generating 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.

Rul e 310.01

- Fugitive Dust from Open Areas, Vacant Lots, Unpaved Parking Lots, and Unpaved Roadways:

Rule 310.01, R ule Title: C hange d “Fugitive Dust from Open Areas, Vacant Lots, Unpaved Parking Lots, and Unpaved Roadways” to “Fugitive Dust from Non

- Tradition al Sources of Fugitive Dust .”Rule 310.01, Section 101: D elete d “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 (PM 10 ) entrained into the ambient air as a result of the impact of human activities by requiring measures to prevent, redu ce, or mitigate parti culate 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.” Cl arif ied the purpose of Rule 310.01. I ntroduce d /use d the term “non

- traditional sources of fugitive dust”, in order to identify the types of activities that Rule 310.01 r egulate s . 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: D elete d “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 add ed “102.1 The provision s of this rule shall apply to non

traditional sources of fugitive dust that are conducted in Maricop a County, except for those dust

generating operations listed in Section 103 of this rule. 102.2 The provisions of this rule shall apply to

any open area or vacant lot that is not defined as agricultural land and is not used for agricultural purposes according to Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) § 42

- 12151 and A.R.S. § 42

- 12152.”
C larified the applicability of Rule 310.01. I ntroduce d /use d the term “non

- tradit ional sources of fugitive dust”, in order to identify the types of activities that Rule 310.01 regulate s . 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, 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. C hange d format. A dd ed Exemptions:

103.2 The provisions of th is ru le 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 activi ties 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.”10 3.4 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 la ndscape 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 Fugi tive 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 proce ss and combustion sources that are subject to other rules in Regulation III (Control of Air Con taminants) of these rules. To move this provision from re
- numbered Section 213.

Rule 310.01, New Section 201: A dd ed “Animal Waste - Any animal excretions and mi xtures containing animal excretions.” Definition matches definition used in San Joaquin’s Rule 4570

- Confined Animal Facilities.

Rule 310.01, New Section 202: A dd ed “A rea A - As defined in A.R.S. § 49

- 541(1), the area in Maricopa County delineated as follo ws: 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 thro ugh 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: A dd ed “Area Accessible To The Public - Any parking lot or p ublic roadway that can be entered or used for public travel primarily for purposes unrelated to the dust

generating 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

propose d 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, delete d “is
accessible to” and to add ed “can be entered or used for.” The definition of area acc essible to the publicread s : “Any parking lot or public roadway that can be entered or used for public travel primarily for

purposes un related to the dust

- generating operation.”

Rule 310.01, R e- Numbered Section 204: C hange d format of defi nition of bulk material and list ed only once materials that are listed twice (i.e., earth and soil).

Rule 310.01, Section 206: D elete d “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, u se d and define d the term “livestock activities .”

Rule 310.0 1, R e- Numbered Section 207: D elete d “(or material placed thereupon) which” and added “or material placed on the earth’s surface that”. D elete d “thereby increasing the potential for the

em ission of fugitive dust” and added “if the potential for the emission of fugitive dust is increased by the movement, destabilization, or modifi cation.” M ove d “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 disturbe d surface area meets the standards described in Section 300 of this rule” to
New Section 103.4

. M atched 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 PM 10 nonattainment area or a maintenance area that was designated as a se rious PM 10 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 followin g: “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 PM 10 emissions from dust

genera ting operations. ”

Rule 310.01, New Section 208: A dd ed “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 mechanize d 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 oper ations) 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 site208.12 Establishing and/or using unpaved haul/access roads to, from, and within a site 208.13
Disturbed surface areas associat ed 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: A dd ed “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.” I n the Notice of Propose d Rulemaking (NPR), the phrase “technology

- based emission limitation under the permit” was included in the proposed defin ition of emergency. In the Notice of
Fina l Rulemaking (NFR), d elete d the phrase “technology

- based emission limi t ation under the permit”
and added the phrase “limitation in this rule.” New Section 2 10 - definition of emergency read s : “ A situation arising from sudden and reasonably unforeseeable events beyond the control of the source, including acts of God, which sit uation 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 noncomplian ce due to improperly designed equipment, lack of preventative maintenance, careless or improper operation, or operator error.”

Rule 310.01, New Section 211: A dd ed “Emergency Activity - Repairs that are a result of an emergency which prevents or hinders th e 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 3 10.01, New Section 212: A dd ed “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 animal s.” Definition matches definition used in
South Coast’s Rule 1186

- PM 10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads and Livestock Operations.

Rule 310.01, R e- Numbered Section 213: M ove d “ For the purpose of this rule, fugitive dust does not include particulate m atter 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 subje ct to other rules in Regulation III (Control of A ir Contaminants) of these rules” to New Section 103.6

.
Rule 310.01, New Section 214: A dd ed “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 pavedarea 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 consi st 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: A dd ed “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, N ew Section 21 6: A dd ed “Livestock Activities - Any activity directly related to feeding animals, displaying animals, racing animals, exercising animals, and/or for any other such activit y, including but not limited to, livestock arenas, horse arenas, and feed lots.” Definition matches
definition used in South Coast’s Rule 1186

- PM 10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads and Livestock Operations.

Rule 310.01, N ew Section 218 : A dd ed “Non -T raditional 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 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: 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); 21 8.5 Live stock activities; 218 .6 Erosion

- caused deposition of
bulk ma terials onto paved surfaces; 218 .7 Easements, rights

- of

- way, and access roads for utilities (electricity, natural gas, oil, water, and gas trans mission).” I ntroduce d /use d the term “non

- traditional sources of fugitive dust”, in order to identify the types of activities that Rule 310.01 regulate s . 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, R e- Numbered Section 221 : D elete d “Sectio n 211.1” and add ed “Section 221 .1.” D elete d
“Section 211.4” and add ed “Section 221 .3.” D elete d “adjoining a developed or partially developed residential, industrial, institutional, go vernm ental, or commercial area.” D elete d “A tract of land, in the
PM 10 nonattainment area, adjoining agricultural property.”

Rule 310.01, N ew Section 225 : A dd ed “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 def inition used in
South Coast’s Rule 403

- Fugitive Dust.Rule 310.01, N ew Section 227 : A dd ed “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, N ew Section 22 8: A dd ed “T rackout C ontrol D evice - 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, N ew Section 229 : A dd ed Unpaved Access Connections - A ny unpaved road connection with a paved pubic road.” Definition matches definition used in South Coast’s Rule 1186

- PM 10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads and Livestock Operations.

Rule 310.01, R e- Numbered Section 230 : D elete d “larger than 5,000 squar e feet” and a dd ed “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 conduc ted on federal facilities.” C hange d 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, R e- Numbered Section 231 : A dd ed “An unpaved roadway (including alleys) includes designated or opened trail systems and service roads re gar dless 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. ” A dd ed to the definition of unpaved roadway (includ ing 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 rulesand ordinances in the Marico pa County Air Pollution Control Regulations, the definition of unpaved roadway (including alleys) in Rule 310.01 n ow read s : “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, R e- Numbered Section 232 : D elete d “Section 211” and add ed “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. A dd ed “General Requirements for Non

- Tradit ional 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 provision s regarding the stabilization of disturbed
surfaces of vacant l ots 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 no tice 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 fo r 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 s hall be reimbursed by the owner and/or operator of
such non

- traditional source of fugitive dust. ”
C larified the standards to which an o wne r and/or operator is subject. The new General Requirements section has been added to identify all of the applicable pr ovisions 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). M atch ed Clark County’s Section 94

- Permitting and Dust Cont rol 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 oftwo million or more persons or any portion of a county within an area designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as a serious PM 10 nonattainment area or a maintenance area that was designated as
a serious PM 10 nonattainment area, no later than March 31, 2008, adopt rule provisions, and, no later than October 1, 2008, commence enforceme nt 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, un covered, 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 PM 10 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 unpave d 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 stabiliza tion 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 mai led. (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: A dd ed “Control Measures for Non

- Traditional Sources of Fugitive
Dust.” C larified the standards for control measures to which an owner and/or operator is subject.

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.1: A dd ed “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 i mplement control measures as described in Section 302.4 through Section 302.10 of this rule, as applicable.”

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.2: A dd ed “Control measures shall be implemented to achieve the visible emissions requirements, as required for each a ctivity and the compliance determination in
Section 501 of this rule.”

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.3: A dd ed “Failure to implement control measures as required by this rule, as applicable, and/or failure to maintain stabilization of a non

- traditional sour ce 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.”Rule 310.01, R e- Numbered Section 302.4: C hange d format. A dd ed visible emissions requirements

. C hange d “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 measur es 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.” A dd ed posting provisions as a control measure for preventing

motor ve hicle 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 lo cal, 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, R e- Numbered Section 302.5: C hange d format. A dd ed visible emissions requirements.

Rule 310.01, R e- Numbered Section 302.5(c)(1): C hange d “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 o pen 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 m ore 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 t he 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, R e- Numbered Section 302.6: C hange d format. A dd ed visible emissions requ irements.
A dd ed tr ackout control device requirement and water as control measures. A dd ed control measures for cleaning

- up trackout.Rule 310.01, R e- Numbered Section 302.6(c)(1): C hange d “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 o f 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 d evice 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 co ntrol 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 rem oves 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 vehicl e access to only those areas upon which a control measure has been implemented.”

Rule 310.01, Re

- Numbered Section 302.6(c)(2): A dd ed “Control measure(s) shall be considered effectively implemented when the unpaved parking lot achieves the compliance deter minations described in Section 302.6(a) of this rule.”

Rule 310.01, R e- Numbered Section 302.6(c)(3): A dd ed “ If trackout occurs, the owner and/or operator shall repair and/or replace the control measure(s) and shall clean

- up immediately such trackout frompaved 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, R e- Numbered Section 302.6(c)(4): Ad ded “ Park ing, 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) Penetrati on 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. ” M atched Senate Bill 1552. Senate Bill 1552 reads, in part, as foll ows: 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 PM 10 nonattainment area or a maintenance area that was designate d as a serious PM 10 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 e gress 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 a nd seal coat of bituminous binder and a mineral aggregate. (d) A stabilization method approved by the county.

Rule 310.01, R e- Numbered Section 302.6(c)(5): A dd ed “ Parking, maneuvering, ingress, and egress areas 3,000 square feet or more in size at residen tial buildings with four or fewer units shall be maintained with a paving or stabilization method authorized by the county by code, ordinance, or permit. ” M atched 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 PM 10 nonattainment area or a maintenance area that was designated as a serious PM 10 nonattainment a rea, 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 mo re 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, R e- Numbered Section 302.7: C hange d format. A dd ed requirement to conduct vehicle
counts/traffic counts.

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.7(a): D elete d “a non

- traditional source of fugitive dust that involves” from new Section 302.7(a). New Section 302.7(a) read s : “The owner and/or operator of unpaved roadways (including alleys) sh all 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): A dd ed “If a person allows 150 vehicle trips or more per day on an unpaved roadway (including an alley) in the PM 10 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): A dd ed “A person , who allows 15 0 vehi cle t rips or more per day on an unpaved roadway (including an alley) in the PM 10 nonattainment area , shall be responsible for conducting vehicle counts/t raffic counts to determine if 15 0 vehicle trips or more per day occur on an unpaved roadway (including an al ley). 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.”
D elete d “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 c ontinuously during each 24

- hour period.” New Section 302.7(c)(2) read s : “A person, who allows 150 vehicle trips or more per day to use an unpaved roadway (including an alley) in the PM 10 nonattainment area, shall be responsible for conducting vehicle

count s/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): C hange d “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 alle ys) having
vehicle traffic of 15 0 vehicle trips or more per day within one calendar year beginning in calendar year

o f 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, R e- Numbered Section 302.8: C hange d format

. A dd ed visible emissions requirements.
A dd ed control measures for cleaning

- up trackout. C hange d “feedlots and/or livestock areas” to
“livestock activities.”

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.8(b): A dd ed “Control Measures: (1) For unpaved access connections: ( a) Apply and maintain dust suppressants other than water; or (b) Apply and maintain pavement, gravel (maintained to a depth of four inches), or asphaltic roadbase. (2) For unpaved feed lane access areas:(a) Apply and maintain dust suppressants other than water; or (b) Apply and maintain pavement, gravel (maintained to a depth of four inches), or asphaltic roadbase. (3) For bulk material hauling, including animal waste, off

- site and crossing and/or accessing a paved area accessible to the public: (a) Load a ll 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, sid es, 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 exteri or 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), a dd ed three control measures for corrals, pens, and aren as. T hree
control measures are similar to control measures included in “Handbook for Conservation Management Practices for San Joaquin Valley

- Minimizing Agricultural PM 10 from Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs)

- Dairie s and Feedlots” dated May 2004.

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.8(c)(2): A dd ed “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): A dd ed “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
cumul ative distance of 25 linear feet or more and at the end of the day for all other trackout.”

Rule 310.01, R e- Numbered Section 302.9: C hange d format.

Rule 310.01, R e- Numbered Section 302.9(b): D elete d “Opacity Limitation: For the purpose of this rule, cont rol 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 Met hods for Stabilization

- for Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots) of these rules” and add ed “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 desc ribed in Section 302.9(a) of this rule shall constitute a violation of this rule.”Rule 310.01, New Section 302.10: C hange d format. A dd ed requirement to conduct vehicle
counts/traffic counts. A dd ed control measure “install locked gates at each entry point ”. C hange d 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, a nd 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 PM 10 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), c hange d “130 vehicle trips or more per day in Area A” to “150 vehicle trips or more per day in the PM 10 nonattainment area.”

Rule 310.01, R e- Numbered Section 302.10(b)(2): C hange d “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): A dd ed “Control Measures: (4) Install locked gates at each entry point.”

Rule 310.01, R e- Numbered Section 302.10(c): C hange d “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 uti lities (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/ft 2 ; or b. Silt content does not exceed 6%” to “Additional Requirements: (1) If an owner and/or operator allows
15 0 vehicle trips or more per day to use an easement, right

- of

- way, and access road fo r utilities (transmission of electricity, natural gas, oil, water, and gas) in the PM 10 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 all ows 15 0 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
PM 10 nonattainment area, shall be responsible for conducting vehicle counts/traffic counts to determine
if 15 0 vehicle trips or more per day occur on an easement, right

- of

- way, and access road for utilities(transmission of electricity, natural gas, oil, water, and gas). Such person shall provide to the Control
Officer written results of such vehicle counts/traffic counts within 60 days of verbal or written request by the Control Officer. (3) Control measure(s) shall be considered effectively implemented when the easement, right

- of

- way, and access road for utilities (transmission of electricity, natural gas, oil, water, and gas) achieves the compliance determinations described in Section 302.10(a) of this rule.”

Rule 310.01, Section 501: A dd ed opacity observations. C hange d title of test method referenced in Appendix C, Section 2.3 to “Tes t Methods for Stabilization

- Soil Crust Determination

- The Drop Ball
Test. M atched Clark County’s Section 94

- Permitting and Dust Control for Construction Activities.
D elete d “Stabilization Observations” and add ed “Compliance Determination: To determine

comp liance with this rule, the following test methods shall be followed.”

Rule 310.01, New Section 501.1: A dd ed “Opacity Observations: a. Opacity observations to measure visible emissions shall be conducted in accordance with the techniques specified in EPA R eference Method 203B (Visual Determination of Opacity of Emissions from Stationary Sources for Time

Exception Regulations). Emissions shall not exceed the applicable opacity standards of this rule for a period aggregating more than three minutes in any 60

- minute period. b. Opacity observations to determine compliance with Sections 302.6, 302.7, 302.8(a)(1), 302.8(a)(2), and 302.10 of this rule shall be conducted in accordance with the techniques specified in Appendix C (Fugitive Dust Test Methods) of these rules.”

Rule 310.01, R e- Numbered Section 501.3(a): D elete d “visible” and a dd ed “soil.” D elete d “/Steel
Ball.”

Rule 310.01, Section 502: D elete d “within” and add ed “as soon as possible but no later than.”

Rule 310.01, Section 503: D elete d “one year” and added “two years.”

Appendix C

- Fugitive Dust Test Methods: Appendix C, S ection 2.2: D elete d “and include or eliminate it from the total size assessment of disturbed surface area(s) depending upon test method results.”

Appendix C, S ection 2.3: C hange d head ing “Visible Crust Determination” to “Soil Crust Determination (The Drop Ball Test).”

Appendix C, Section 2.3.1: D elete d “where a visible crust exists, drop” and add ed “drop”. A dd ed

“ (0.56

- 0.60 ounce).” D elete d “30 centimeters (one foot)” and add ed “one -f oot.” D elete d “visible crust
test method” and add ed “Drop Ball Test.” A dd ed “or project site”. D elete d “which” and add ed “that.”
D elete d “vacant lot.” A dd ed “Determination of Threshold Friction Velocity (TFV).”Appendix C, Section 2.3.3: A dd ed “Randomly s elect 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

s quare area.” D elete d “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 add ed “the one

- foot by one

- foot square survey area, using a consistent patte rn across the survey ar ea.” D elete d “Visible Crust Determination”
and add ed “Drop Ball Test.”

Appendix C, Section 2.3.4: D elete d “visible crust test” and add ed “Drop Ball Test.” D elete d “random.”
A dd ed “using the random selection method set forth in subsection 2.3.3 of this app endix.”

Appendix C, S ection 3: C hange d heading “Time Average Methods of Visual Opacity Deter mination of
Emissions from Dust

- Generating Operations” to “Visual Opacity Deter mination of Emissions from
Dust

- Generating Operations.”

Appendix C, S ection 3.1: D elete d “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: D elete d “Procedures for Emissions from Stationary Sour ces. These procedures are not applicable to this section.”

Appendix C, R e-N umbered Section 3.3.1(f): D elete d “with the opacity standard d escribed in Rule 310
of these rules.”

Appendix C, R e- Numbered Section 3.3.2(g )”: D elete d “with the opacity standard described in Rule
310 of these rules.”

Appendix C, S ection 4: A dd ed heading “Visual Opacity Determination of Emissions from Livestock
Activities

- Corrals, Pens, and Arenas.”

Appendix C, S ection 4.1: A dd ed “Applicability. This method is applicable for the determination of opacity of fugitive dust plumes from livestock activities

- corrals, pens, and arenas.”

Appendix C, S ection 4.2: A dd ed “Principle. The opacity of emissions from livestock activities

- corrals, pens, and arenas is determined visually by an obse rver qualified according to Section 3.4 of this appendix.”

Appendix C, S ection 4.3: A dd ed “Procedures. An observer qualified, in accordance with Section 3.4 of this appendix, shall use the following procedures for visually determining the opacity of emiss ions:”Appendix C, Section 4.3.1: A dd ed “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. Consis tent 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: A dd ed “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 obse rver'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 comple ted.”

Appendix C, Section 4.3.3: A dd ed “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: A dd ed “Recor ding 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 activity

corrals, pens, and arenas ceases operating, mark an “x” for the 15

- second interval reading. Readings identified as “x” shall be considered interrupted readings.”

Appendix C, Section 4.3.5: A dd ed “Data Reduction. Within any 60

- minute period, co unt 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 sha ll 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

ru les 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)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 revise d Rules 200, 310, 310.01 and Appendix C in order to address a peculiar local condition: EPA’s finding that the Phoenix Nonat tainment Area did not attain the 24

- hour PM 10 standard by the deadline mandated in the Clean Air Act (CAA), December 31, 2006. (72 FR 31183, June 6, 2007)

. The Phoenix Nonattainment Area is the only nonattainment area designated serious for
PM 10 in Arizona

. Consequently stronger regulations must be adopted in this area to address a serious
health threat

. Under Section 189(d) of the CAA, serious PM 10 nonattai nment areas that fail to attain are required to submit within 12 months of the applicable attainment date, “plan revisions which provide
for attainment of the PM 10 air quality standard and, from the date of such submission until attainment,
for an annual reduction in PM 10 or PM 10 precursor emissions within the area of not less than 5 percent
of the amount of such emissions as reported in the most recent inventory prepared 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 submit ted a Five
Percent Plan for PM 10 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 deser t environments. Because of this, the revision s compl y with A.R.S. § 49

- 112 (A)(1) and A.R.S. § 49

- 112 (A) (2).

In ad dition, several of the revisions are required to by A.R.S. § 49

- 474.01(A)(5, 6 and 11), 49

- 47 4 .05
and 49

- 47 4 .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 eachstudy, all data underlying each study, and any analysis of each study and other supporting
materia l:

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: Morbidi ty 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 (A LAPCO), 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 pr evious grant of authority of a political subdivision of this state :10

. 10 .1 Summary S ummary of the economic, small business, and consumer impact:

The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) revis ed 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 r ules, along
with a cost

- benefit analysis of the rules’ probable impact on t he 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 m ethods 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 na ture, 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 Va cant 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**•** 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 Acti vities: 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 re gistration 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/foo tings, 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, implementat ion, 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 t he r equirements 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 lives tock 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 Comprehens ive 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 implementingagency (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 t he 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: Visi ble 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 M CAQD will require four additional permit
technici ans 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 (includ ing 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

- square
foot 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 inspectio ns of unpaved parking
lots , because this was on the list of suggested county

- implemented measures (MAG measure 31) to
reduce PM 10 emissions

. As a result, the MCAQD committed to conduct proactive and complaint

- based inspections of existing parking lots loca ted within unincorporated areas of Maricopa County

. The MCAQD will hire four dust control vacant lot compliance inspectors to conduct proactive and complaint

- based inspection s of parking lots within the unincorporated areas

. The annual costs
associated wit h four additional dust control vacant lot inspectors are estimated to be $255,000

. One

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 reviewer s 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 additiona l 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 trai ning. 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 materia ls.

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 M aricopa 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 additiona l 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 point s under this rule should not yield any increased costs to MCAQD or any other agencies.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 politic al 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 affecte d 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 a verage 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 $87 5,000.

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 requ irements for unpaved parking lots under Rule 310 and
Rule 310.01

. C ontrol measures must be implemented to prohibit visible emissions beyond the property
line and trackout must be cleaned

- up immediately (including repairing or changing control measu res to

e liminate 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 prel iminary 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 pe r year with installation costs estimated to be approximately $11,400 for a three

- acre parcel of land (Sierra Research, 2007).The possible range of annualized control measure costs for unpaved parking lots (based on a 0.1 acre parking lot) for reducing vi sib le 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 , t h e rule contained req uirements 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 onl y 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 circumstan ces.

Rule 310, § 309.1: Basic Dust Control Training Class : T he 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 avera ge wage of $24.23/hour, the indirect costs of registering under this program would be $1 3 3.27, for a total cost per registrant of $1 83 .27. With an estimated 10,336 persons required to enroll for a basic dust control training class, the estimated total

cost s on businesses of all sizes impacted by this rule of $1, 894,227

.
Rule 310, § 309.1 Comprehensive Dust Control Training Class : T he MCAQD fee for the comprehensive dust c ontrol training class is $125 . Each attendee will spend 8 hours in class, plus an

est imated 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 im pacted 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 s ite s that are five acres or larger are expected to vary, depending on curr ent management practices at a site. For those sites that presently have supervisory management personnel on
- site wh enever dust

- generating operations are

o ccurring , this provision w ill impose no additional costs. As a most conserva tive estimate for a project lasting 6 months, this provision w ill 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 r oadway is used for 15 0vehicle 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

. T rackout 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 possi ble
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 Imp act 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 in dividually 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

cumu lative impacts on all permit holders, have been described and quantified, insofar as possible, in
section 10 .4.3 above.

Rule 200, § 306: Subcontractor Registra tion : 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.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 tracko ut 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 t he 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 busi nesses impacted by the rule s.

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 di rectly 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 ins pection 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/repa ired 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 the se training programs. The MCAQD is training and certifying third

party entities to conduct these training programs, so some additional private

- sector employment impact
is likel y.

Rule 310.01, § 302.7: Unpaved Roadways : Prior to these rule revisions, contr ol 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 ef fected by businesses required to bear the cost of implementinga 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, impleme nting 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

c ont rol 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 n ot 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 co nsidered; 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.). A ll 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 attem pt has been made to quantify the number of pro jects 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 ofless 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 PM 10 and PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) throughout Maricopa County

. A detailed description of the
b enefits 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 ad missions, 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 w ith 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, hospit al 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 asthmati cs

. 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 e mergency 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 visit s; 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, al though 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 beat 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
aft er 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 hel p 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 red uced

. 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 Effec t * Per Case Valuation (1990 dollars) Per Case Valua tion (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 asthm a $194 $299 Acute Bronchitis $45 $69 Asthma attack $32 $49 Moderate or worse asthma day $32 $49 Acute respiratory symptom $18 $28Upper respiratory symptom $19 $29 Lower respiratory symptom $12 $19 Shortness of breath, chest tightness, or whe eze $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

. S ome age cohorts are more susceptible to air pollution than others, i.e., children and elderly.

S ource: 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 eff ects

. 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 one

hundred thousand, then among 100,000 persons, one less person will b e 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 revis ed its fee schedule (under a separate rulemaking) in order to recoup the costs of designing, implementing and administering new progr ams contained within this rulemaking. A list of the p rograms, 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 Maki ng 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 statutor y objectives of the rulemaking. The MCAQD considered each of the methods prescribed in A.R. S. § 4 1- 1035 and A.R.S. § 4 1- 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 operat ional standards, or (3) institute reduced compliance or reporting requirements, such asestablishing 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
Th is economic impact statement was developed in accordance with A.R.S. § 41- 1055 to assess the potential e conomic 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. Centra l 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 o f 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, 3 10.01, and Appendix C have been made. These changes appear in the text of th e final rules published in this
Notice o f Final Rulemaking: Description of the changes between the proposed rules, including supplemental notices and final
rules:

Rule 200, Section 301: Co rrect ed the references made in this section. D elete d “Section 302 thru
Se ction 305 of this rule” and a dd ed “Section 302 thru Section 30 5 and Section 307 of this rule.”
Section 301 read s 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 applicab le/as specified in Section 302 thru Section 305 and Section
307 of this rule.”Rule 310, New Section 103.7: In the Notice o f 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 Fin al Rulemaking (NFR), d elete d new Section 103.7 and return ed 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 t o delete “retail” and to delete “open”; “accessible” was proposed to replace “open”. In th e Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR) in stead

- of using the term
“accessible” in the definition of area accessible to the public , delete d “accessible” and added “can be entered or used for.” The definition of area accessible to the public read s : “Any parking lot or public roadway that can be ente red or used for public travel primarily for purposes unrelated to the dust

generating operation.”

Rule 310, New Section 212: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), the phrase “technology

b ased emission limitation under the permit” was included in the proposed defin ition of emergency. In
the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), delete d the phrase “technology -b ased emission limitation
under the permit” and added the phrase “limitation in this rule.” New Section 212 - definition of emergency read s : “ A situa tion 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 thi s 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. ”

R

ule 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), mad e 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. C hange d the definition of end of work d ay such that it reads : “ The end of a working period that may i nclude 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 150square feet or more. Silt content shall be assumed to be 5% or greater unless a per son 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 pil e” from standards section to definitions section; t erm 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 ed 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, d elete d “which in an y one point attains a height of three feet and covers a total surface area of 150 square feet or more” and add ed “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), return ed the text to re
- numbered Section 234 and delete d new Section 103.7.

Rule 310, New Section 302.3: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), proposed new Section
302 - to a dd permit requirements for dust

- generating operations fro m Rule 200

- Permi t Require ments; 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), revise d new Section 302.3 - permi t requirements for routine dust

- generating operations at a site with a Title V permit, Non

- Title V permit, or General permit - to be co nsistent with revised Section
402. 1 - Dust Control Pla n requirements for routine dust

- generating operations at a site with a Title V permit, Non

- Title V permit, or General pe rmit. In the NFR, add ed “that disturbs a surface area of 0.10 acre or greater” to new Section 302.3

. New Section 302.3 read s : “No person shall commence any
routine dust

- generating operation that disturbs a surface area of 0.10 acre or greater at a site tha t 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 Ru lemaking (NPR), proposed new Section 303.1(b), which required owners and/or operato rs of a dust

- generating operation to not allow visible emissions of particulate matter, including fugitive dust, beyond the property line within which theemissions are gene rated

. This property line standard wa s a “presence” or “absence” limitation. To clarify tha t the MCAQD will not be enforcing on a single puff of dust, i n the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), add ed a second sentence to new Section 303.1(b). The second sent ence read s : “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 Propo sed 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 co ntrol measures were implemented. In the Notice of Fin al Rulemaking (NFR), change d “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) , change d “Exceedances of the opacity limit described in Section 303.1(a) of this rule” to “Exceedances of the opacity limit s described
in Section 303.1 o f t his 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 Rulem aking (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 Fin al Rulemaking (NFR), change d “The opacity limit described in Section 303.1(a) of this rul e 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 implemen ted.

Rule 310, New Section 303.2(d): In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), add ed new Section 303.2(d), which add s an exemption from the property line standard when an owner a nd/or operator
conducts dust

- generating operations with in 25 feet of the prope rt y line. New Section 303.2(d) read s :

“ Activities Near The Property Line: The opacity limit described in Section 303.1(b) of th is rule shall not apply to dust

- generating operations conducted within 25 feet of the property line .”

Rule 310, Re

- Numbered Sect ion 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 3 05.1. In

so doing, also proposed to change heading to “Off

- Site Hauling.” In the Notice of Final Rule making(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 r ead s : “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 Fin al Rulemaking (NFR ), delete d “the highest point at which the bulk material
contacts”. In the NFR, new Section 305.1(a)(2) read s : “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 cont ainer
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), delete d “the highest point at which the bulk material contacts”. In

t he NFR, new Section 305.3(b) read s : “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): A dd ed “as necessary” to the end of new Section 305.11(b)( 1). New Section 305.11(b)(1) read s : “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 1 6- Clean

- Up of Trackout, Carry

- Out, Spillage, and Erosion and T able 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 ne w Section 306.1(a). In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), add ed 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 t he 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 ofFin al 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), add ed “in accordance with Section 404 of this rule” and “Basic Dust Control Traini ng Class” to the introduction of new Section 310.7. Also in the NFR, delete d new Section 310.7(a) and added it
to the introduction of new Section 3 10.7 and delete d in its entirety new Section 310.7(b). New Section
310.7 read s : “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 Contro l 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 F inal Rulemaking (NFR), delete d the reference to Maricopa County’s “Application for Dust Control Permit” and revise d 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), delete d the second sentence in Section 402.2: “Applicants shall complete Maricopa County’s “Application for Dust Control Permit”
and submit such infor mation as a Dust Control Plan.”

Rule 310, New Section 402.3( c ): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemak ing (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), add ed Section 306

- Trackout, Carry

- Out, Spillage, and / or Erosion to new Section 402.3(c ), so that the control meas ures 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) read s : “Appropriate control measures, or a combination thereof, as
described in Section 305 and Section 306 of this r ule, for every ac tual 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) p roveineffective, 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) , d elete d the se 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 Rulemakin g (NPR), proposed to move the description of the required elements of a Dust Control Plan from standards section of Rule 310 to administrative requirements secti on 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 Sectio n 305

- Control
Measures for Dust

- Generating Operations. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), add ed Section
306

- Trackout, Carry

- Out, Spillage, and / or Erosion to new Section 402.3(c)(3), so that altern ative
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) read s : “A control measure that is not listed in Section 305 or in Section 306 of this rule may b e 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 “road s ” was inadvertently omitted from the description of one of the required elements of a Dust Control Plan. In the Notice of
Fin al Rulemaking (NFR), added the word “road s ” to new Section 402.3(e). New Section 402.3(e)
read s : “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 -g enerating sources.” In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR) , delete d this sentence from new Section 402.6 and add ed this sentence to the
introduction in re
- numbered Sectio n 305

- Control Measures for Dust

- Genera ting Operations. The
introduct ion in re

- numbered Section 305 read s : “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

- generati ng operation shall implement control measures before, a fter, 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.”Rule 310, New Section 404.1(a) and New Section 404.1(b): In the Noti ce 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), change d “canal road grading” to “canal bank and road grading”. New Section 404.1(a) and new Section 404.1(b) r ead in part as follows: “...including but not limited

to , w eed 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 com mence 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 r evisions proposed in Rule 310, replicating the text from Rule 200 makes new section 404.3
unclear. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR) , delete d new Section 404.3 and re

- number ed 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 fr om Rule 200

- Permit Requirements; Block permit requirements to be deleted from Rule 200 and to reference Rule 310 . In the NPR, new Section
40 4.4 referred to “municipalities and/or utilities ” while new Section 404.1 referred to “municipalities, governmental agenci es, and utilities”. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), revise d new re
numbered Section 404. 3 to be consistent with new Section 4 04.1. In the NFR, change d “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 read s : “The Dust Control permit

- Block permit
will cover cr ews 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 observatio ns of a source engaging in dust

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

- Time Averaged Methods of Vi sual Opacity Deter mination of Emissions from Dust

- Generating Operations.” In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR) , delete d “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) r ead s : “Opacity
observations of dust

- generating operations shall be conducted in accordance with Appendix C, Section3- Time Averaged Methods of Visual Opacity Deter mination of Emissions from Dust

- Generating Operations.”

Rule 310, New Section 501.1(d): In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), Section 501.1
d escribe d test methods to determine compliance with visible emissions requirements for dust

generating operations, an unpaved parking lot, and an unpaved haul/access road. In the Noti ce of Fin al Rulemaking (NFR), added new Section 501.1(d), which describe s the test method to determine compliance with the property line standard - by conducting observations in accordance with EPA
Reference Met hod 22. New Section 501.1(d) read s : “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), add ed new Section 504.4, which list s and describe s the test method to determine compliance with the property line
standard - by conducting observations in acc ordance with EPA Reference Method 22. New Section
504.4 read s : “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 P roposed 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 Fin al Rulemaking (NFR), delete d new Section 103.7 and return ed
the text to re

- numbered Section 221.

Rule 310.01, New Section 10 3.8: 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), d elete d new Section
103.8 and return ed the text to re

- numb ered 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, delete d “ is accessible to ” and add ed “can be entered or usedfor.” The definition of area accessible to the public read s : “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 Not ice of Propose Rulemaking (NPR), the phrase “technology

based emission limitation under the permit” was included in the proposed defin ition of emergency. In
the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), delete d the phrase “technology

- based emission limi tation
unde r the permit” and added the phrase “limitation in this rule.” New Section 21 0 - defin ition of

emergency read s : “ A situation arising from sudden and reasonably unforeseeable events beyond the control of the source, including acts of God, which situation req uires 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

- nu mbered 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

vacan t open area or vacant lot.” In the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR), return ed the text to re
numbered Section 221 and delete d new Secti on 103.7.

Rule 310.01, Re

- Numbered Section 231: A dd to the definition of unpaved roadway (including alleys) “any other p roperty 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 M aricopa 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 P ollution Control Regulations, the definition of unpaved roadway (including alleys) in Rule 310.01
is now read s : “ 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) includesdesignated 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): C hange d “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): C hange d “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): C hange d “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): D elete d “a non

- traditional source of fugitiv e dust that involves” from new Section 302.7(a). New Section 302.7(a) read s : “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): C hange d “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): A dd ed “A person, who allows 150 vehicle trips or more per day on an unpaved roadway (including an alley) in the PM 10 nonattainment area”.

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.7(c)(2): D elete d “t wo separate 24

- hour traffic co unts shall be
conducted” and added “A traffic co unt 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

- hou r period.” New S ection 302.7(c)(2) re ad s : “A person, who allows 150 vehi cle trips or more per day to use an unpaved roadway (including an alley) in the PM 10 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): C hange d “Section 302.8(a)” to “Section 302 .7(a).”Rule 310.01, New Section 302.8(b)(4): A dd ed three control measures for corrals, pens, and arenas. The

t hree control measures are similar to control measures included in “Handbook for Conservation Management Practices for San Joaquin Valley

- Minimiz ing Agricultural PM 10 from Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs)

- Dairies and Feedlots” dated May 2004. New Section 302.8(b)(4) read s : (a) Apply water; (b) Install shrubs and/or trees within 50 feet to 100 feet of corrals, pens, and arenas; ( c ) Scrape
and/or rem o ve 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): C hange d “achieve t he 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: C hange d “130 vehicle trips or more per day in Area A” to “150
vehi cle trips or more per day in the PM 10 nonattainment area.”

Rule 310.01, New Section 302.10(c)(3): C hange d “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): D elete d “302.4”.

13

. The Maricopa County Air Quality Department conducted six Public Workshops throughout the
rul emaking 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 (MC DOT), (4) Private Citizens, SCS Engineers, and Waste Management of Arizona, Inc. The formal comments and the MCAQD’s responses to such
formal comments are w ritten 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:Rule 200 describes the types of permits that the MCAQD issues. Requirements specific to each type of permit a re 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 Sec tion 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 MCAQ D 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 ope rational 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

con tractor 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 a s 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 ha s been obtained before any dust

- generating activities occur. Dust Cont rol 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 Depa rtment 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 theprevious 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 insp ect 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 complia nce that will result in emission reductions requires the efforts of all affected parties and all must step up to meet the challenge to reduce PM 10 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 PM 10 air quality standard in Maricopa County and, from the date of such submission until attainment, for an annual reduction in
PM 10 or PM 10 precursor emissions within the area o f no t less than 5% of such emissions as reported in the most recent inventory prepared for such area. PM 10 emissions from Rule 310 sources are significant and account for over 38% of the 2005 Periodi c Inventory. In order for the Five Percent P lan
to be eff ective, additional reductions from this source category are necessary. For the Five Percent Plan
for PM 10 , an analysis was again conducted to identify additional measures to reduce emissions and/or improve complian ce with existing requirements. In addition , the Arizona State Legislature enacted SB 1552 that also contains requirements for additional control measures tha t 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 ar ose 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 so urce categories.L and 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
addr essed 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 act ivities 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., protecti on 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 b een 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 p ath, or other similar path for
which th e 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 d riven 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: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 transmissio n 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 incl ude 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.” Th us, 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 reque sts 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 t o 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 p ublic travel during work hours. The revision is intended to clarify at what physical point trackout must be controlled and cleaned up. Based on the reco mmendations of the MCAQD Dust Compliance andEnforcement 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 e ncountered 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 purpose s 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

app lications

. 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

a pplied 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”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:
Rathe r 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 ti me. 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. Pre

watering is jus t one example of a control measure that may be required to reduce PM 10 . 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 Contro l 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 commenci ng a dust

generating 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 dust

generating activities occur when a permit is required

. Also, Section 405 s tates 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 applicatio n 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, incl uding the Dust
Control Plan.
Comment #18: Clearly define what the specifi c activities in "Dust

- Generating Ope ration" includes. For example what types of activities are included in “construction activities”? Clark County [NV] has a list of 16 types of
"construction activities".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 de finition.
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 propo sed 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 nea r an area in which fugitiv e dust could be generated. See S ections 209.9, 209.10 and 302.3. As another example, any "property ow ner" 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 activiti es 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

o ther 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 pur poses 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, operatin g 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.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 m achinery 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 no t 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 S ection 302 of Rule 310 provides the applicability of which s ources 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 are as 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 (operati on 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 S ections 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. T his 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 provisio ns 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 cla rify the in tent of the section. The dust

- generating operations delineated under Section 209 represent an illustrative, not exhaustiv e, list of possible activities. No further definition refinement is required.
Comment # 22: Earthmoving operations - Include reclamation in this category.Response #22: Categories were added to cla rify 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 b e 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
utili ty, 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 defin ition of a dust

- generating operation for which a permit is required. Also, concrete and tile cutting should be explicitly excluded. Response #26:MCAQD used the definition found in EPA reference documents

. The definition in this section remains unchanged from the existing rule adopted by EPA.
Com ment #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 langua ge 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 S ection 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 “Sectio n 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 -R oad 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 suggest ion under advisement. Rule 310, Section 222

- Definition of Off

- Road
Vehicle is a carry

- over from the ex isting r ule and is not a change or addition to R ule 310. T he MCAQD is not addressing previously approved r ule language in this rulemaking.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 co nducted 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 observatio n 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 spe cifications 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 activ ity, 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 prope rty owner may not have direct supervisory or op erational control over the dust

generating activity caused by a hired contractor or operator. Is MCAQD intending for property owners
to obtain the relevant dust contro l 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:
S ee th e 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/ope rator”.
Comment #35: Definition in Section 226 is unnecessary and unenforceable in the field. Response #35:
This definition cla rifies a standard in a rule. Further, permit applicants are required to include a site plan with project boundaries with the appl ication and Dust Control P lan.
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 asestablish ed 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:
T he 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 inspect or on what’s happening onsite. Typically , the MCAQD looks for parked ve hicles 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 P lan when questi ons 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 emissio ns? 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 PM 10 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 PM 10 emissions and overwhelm best available control measures (BACM)

. While lower speed winds can also generate PM 10 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 pra ctice 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 an d 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.Response #39: The purpose of the change was t o summariz e general requirements for dust

- generating operations, not to increase the possible numbe r of violations cited by MCAQD. The explanation section in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and in the Noti ce of Final Rulemaking indicates that the MCAQD i ntends the General Requirements Section t o be a list that summarize s and remind s owners of all the various

requ irements 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 no t necessarily been widely read. The MCAQD confirms yet again that the Department will not reference Section 301 when issuing a Notice to C omply 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 activitie s at the facility when the dust

- generating activity (storag e 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 acreshould not be required to obtain a dust control plan merely be cause 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 wi th S ection 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 d ue. 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, ofte n 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 contr ol permit. A property owner may not have direct supervisory

or op erational 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 dus tgenerating activity caused by a contractor or operator hired by the property owner? Or alternatively, does MCAQD intend the con tractor 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 vi olates 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

p arty 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 te rm itself in the section so that it reads asfollows: "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, supe rvisor, 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, pursuan t 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 Contr ol Permit revisions, rather than generic references to "permits," "permit applic ations", 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 f ound 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 lan guage 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 th e 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"for work that occurs exactly on the property line, such as building a block wall or maintaining an unpaved road shoulder. Response #49: The pro perty 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 S ection 303.1(b)

. The M CAQD 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 dust

generating activities withi n 25 feet of the property line. Further, the MCAQD also intends to iss ue a Notice To Comply for the first violation at sites that are applying controls and have obt ained 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 Ce rtification 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 Certif ication 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 fo und 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 para graph be enforced at night as well as during the da y. 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: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 instance s. 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 th e 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 require ment 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 opaci ty 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 det ermine 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

t his 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 inappropri ate 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

rev ision: "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 operato r 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 opaci ty requirement in Section 303.1( a) of

t his rule." Comment recommends 5%

- 10 % opacity at property boundary which is less than half of the
current standard.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 PM 10 Nonattainment Are a failed to
meet the 24 hour PM 10 standard by December 31, 200 6 . As a result, residents still have the potential to be exposed to unhealthy levels of PM 10 . Exceedances are recorded under both stagnant and elevated
wind conditions. Secondary aerosols are not significant contributors to the exceedances recorded in Maricopa County

. Geologic material (e.g. dust ) remains the dominant constituent of PM 10 . Locally generated PM 10 significantly contributes to recor ded exceedances of the PM 10 standard and can be released from dust generating activities or any unstabilized surface , exposing residents to unhealthy
level s 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, “Visibl e 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 affirmat ive 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 p erformed at the property line. The Department has added updated Rule 310,
Section 500 to in clude EPA Reference Method 22. Further, the MCAQD also intends to issue a Notice to Comply for the first vi olation 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 complianc e 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, “Nonethele ss, 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 con trol measures by providing a simple visual tool that can be applied by employees as well as by the MCAQD to evaluate the effectivenes s of the dust control measure. Even though the MCAQD can not derive a quantitative correlation between opacity and PM emiss ions for a general rule, improving the consistency of compliance will reduce emissions and reduce the concentrat ions 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 u se those devices if necessary. However, the inspector only has to determine that emissions coming from the permitted site are present at a point th at is beyond the property line. Once the inspector determines that the visible emission is generated from the permitted site and visible emissionreaches 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 l ine 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 obtai n 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, reasonab le 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. C APCC, 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.
Co mment #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
emi ssions...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:The direction and reflection of the sun determines opacity, so make clear to use EPA Method 9. Now the rule says "no visible emissions"(?) M any controls have to be implemented at property lines such as: street sweepers and facility entrances. Response #55: The pro perty 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 Rul e 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 Re ference 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 d eviation 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 c overed 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 moni toring 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.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 flexi bility 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 applie d 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 3 10, 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,
S ection 501.1.
Comment #61: Several comments suggest that MCAQD revise this requirement so that it extends the a ffirmative 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, exemp tions 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: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 it s 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 road s around agricultural fields and farm operations (non

livestock)? Response #65: The test methods for the stabilization requirements of Section 30 4.2 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 en forced. 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 cond itions 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 rega rdingthe circumstances leading to a Notice of Violation should the situation escal ate 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)

. Neithe r 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

- tradi tional 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 t o 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 theactivity 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 requiremen ts described in Section 304.3. The MCAQD does not
believe the sections are inconsistent.

It is not clear these sections would apply to proj ects 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 main tenance 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 i n 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 str icken. 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 vegetati on, gravel, or control method. The owner/operator is required to verify compliance with a stabilization standard appropriat e for each identified surface. The phrase “visibly dis tinguishable” 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 chose n control method)

. The phrase “visible crust” was changed to “ soil crust” to match changes in Appendix C.
Comment #74: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 poi nt 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 m inimize confusion the MCAQD revised the title to Section
305.1 from “Off

- Site Hauling” to “Bulk Material Hauling Off

- Site Onto Paved A reas Accessible To
The Public”. This title structure now parallels the titles of Sections 305.2 and 305.3 and matc hes 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 preven t spillage from the top of the hauling vehicle

. The MCAQD concurs the with stakeholders’ concern s regarding flat loads and revise d the requirement to read, "Load all haul trucks such that at no time shall the highest point of the bulk material be higher
th an 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 provisio ns of Rule 310, inclu ding 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. S e ction 305.3 (d) is redundant and should be removed to prevent confusion and possible duplic ative enforcement. Response #76: See response to comment #74

. Rule 310, Section 305.3 (b) has been revised.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, S ection 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 i n meeting this control measure.
Comment #79:
Insert "similar" before "material". Response #79:
The word "similar" does not add an y 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
visi ble 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 foun d 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 lim it 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 app ropriate and relaxes the rule. The MCAQD has no way to distinguish the vehicles of trespassers from those d riven 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 theactivity and mitigat e the effects of that activity. The owner/operator can present information regarding the circumstances leading to a No tice 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 blasti ng is included under the definition of earthmoving operation in Rule 310, the source would be regulated under Rule 310 in addition to Rule 3 12. 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 o perati ons" 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, vehicl es haul ing 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:
Demo lition 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 requir e 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. Reasonabl e 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 ch anges to current stabilization measures and none are warranted. Home Builders estimate this measure will cost $2,000/unit.Response #84: During the activity that disturbs a surface, a wind fence does not minimize the opacity generated by the activity. A wi nd 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 t he control measure requirements. The MCAQD has revised Section 305.11(b)(1) as follows: “Apply water o r other suitable dust suppressant, as necessary.” This change
will make this secti on consistent with the over subs ections in Section 305 that allow for the application of water while recognizing that continuous application of water may not be necessary suc h 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 S ection 305.11(c)(4) with regards to barriers to prevent trespass. The EPA has long held that the use o f the term “reasonable precautions” is vague and must be replaced with specific language i n order to be considered RACM. Unstabilized disturbed areas can contribute to large PM 10 emissions through vehicle travel on such surfaces and through windblown dust gener ated from such surfaces. On May 23, 2007, MAG recommended adding barriers to the stabilization requirements as part of the F ive P ercent Plan. These new stabilization methods are necessary in order to achieve the required PM 10 emission reductions of th e F ive Percent
P lan

. 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 operatio n 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.
Comme nt #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:The total time allo wed 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 b etween 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 t o 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 q uestion already has a General, Non

- Title V, or Title V permit, in which case Section 305.12 of Rule 310 applies.
Comme nt #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 a cross 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, t hen 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 stringentand 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, S ection 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.
I n this S ection 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 o ne of the largest sources of PM 10 in the region. This measure will contribute
to a reduction in PM 10 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 e xits

. 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 m aterial. 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 i n 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 t hose 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: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 Noti ce 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 alrea dy requires that contingency measures be implemented when the prima ry 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 doe s 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 devi ce

. 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 Non

Title V and Title V permit holders (their permits state they must follow Rule 310 as well), as well as Rule 310.01 sources, if the County is going to successfully achieve the 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 Vpermit holders are not exempted from these rules if they contain sources at their facilities that are

s ubject 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 shou ld 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 en forcement. 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 t he amount of cleanup necessary. The Dust Control Coordinato rs now required
under S enate B ill 1552 and R ule 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 h o urs 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, gutter s , and sidewalks are integral parts of paved areas accessible to the public

. Further, these areas are frequently overlooked during cleanup efforts, and con tinue 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 awa re 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 exi sting rule text moved from Table 16 as the MCAQD has attempted to streaml ine 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 requireme nts 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

r emoved from the text in this section. Response #99: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 mor e 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 or der 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 acti on 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 enforceme nt. 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 hav e 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 coul d 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 PM 10 , the Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) helped develop a PM 10 serious area nonattainment plan
for the Arizona State Im plementation Plan (SIP). The EPA approved the plan in April 2002 contingenton 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 en sure 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

. T he 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 chan ge if implemented
at this time - in this rulemaking. The MCAQD notes the comment and will consider the change ne xt 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 ho lder 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 p ublic 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:
Incre ase 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:Requirements fo r dust control training classes are being added to Rule 310 to comply with Senate Bill
1552. The MCAQD will consider inc reasing the training frequency for Dust Control C oordinators after we gain experience through implementation of the training program thi s 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 C oordinator 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 multi ple non

contiguous sites that is issued by a Control Officer and that requires control of PM 10 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 Ce rtified 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 t o 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 trainer s. 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 requireme nt to Section 309.2( a) and should be removed. Response #107: The requirement in this s ectio n 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 Coordina tor (Section 310.4)

. Rule 310 has been written to be consistent with Senate Bill 1552.

Comment #108: Rule 310 Section 400MCAQD should clearly identify where the primary responsibility resides for obtaining and maintaining compliance with a dust control pe rmit. 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 thu sly 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:
S ee the response to comment #4.
Comment #109:
Provision in Section 401.1 as crafted raises incorpora tion 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 read s 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 foll owing 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 Contro l 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 w ill be disapproved.
Comment #112: Permittee cannot ensure all persons, including trespassers and other unrelated third parties, comply with the permit.Response #112: Rule 310 contains specific requirements that must be followed to prevent fugitive dust em issions. 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

t heir properties. The owner/operator will need to investigate why illegal activity is occurring, take steps to minimize the activity , and mitigat e 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 site

specific, the permit holder needs to ensure that a ll individuals involved in dust

- generating operations
are aware of dust control plan specifics for that site. The subcontrac tor 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 suc h 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 d imensions. Response #116: The majority of si tes 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 sit es bou ndaries are not straight lines. The MCAQD uses a projectsite 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 30 4 - 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 th e general requirements for dust

- generating operations and have an effect similar the
BACM/MSM control m easures 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 provide d control measure requirements. This requirement lists the contents of an

app lication and Dust Control P lan. 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 inadver t ently left out the word roads. In the Notice of Final Rulemaking, Section 402.3(e) read s “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 dra fted, 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 ap prove 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 Contro l 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:Rule 310, Section 402.3 describes the e lements 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 re st 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 th e dust control plan with a Notice of Violation (NOV)

. The section already requires that the C ontrol 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
documen t 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 oper ant 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 e ven if a previous or existing Dust Control P lan is deficient. The previous approved Dust Control Plan
remains in effect until the proposed Dust Control Plan revisions are approved by the MCAQD. However, t he permittee will be allowed to operate under the pr oposed Dust Control Plan revisions provided they stay in compliance with the standard s 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 t ime to complete revisions of a
Dust Control Plan. If additional time is needed for sp ecial 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 a n optional requirement. Response #126: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 ap pl ication 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 hap pen on the additional acreage. A Dust Control Plan is specific to the layout and ident ified dust -g enerating activities on a site. A change of acreage can trigger many
differe nt requirements on an existing Dust Control Plan ( e.g., add itional 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 cha nge 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. T he language in the section is meant to convey that the reason for the re vision 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 re visions 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. T he 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: Multipl e parties are responsible for dust generating operations at various times. The phrase "and responsible for the dust generating operation change" should be deleted.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

- genera ting operations comply with all rule and permit requirements. Neith er 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 res ponsible 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 clari fy 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
substrat e 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 no tice by MCAQD" after "respectively" in Rule 310, Section 403.3(b). Response #132:
Since Ari zona State Statutes require the MCAQD to publicize rule revisions, such requirement is not included in Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations.
Comment #13 3: 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 discrim inate against

p rivate entities. Both public and private utilities that meet the requirements may apply f or a block permit. Rule 310, Section 404.4 addresses private entities under contr act 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: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 indicate s a project that has no connect ion to an issued block permit. The examples given by the commenter would fall under Rule 310, S ections
404.1 (a) through 404.1 (c ) as either routine operations, maintenance opera tions, 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 a n ex isting 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 revise d Rule 310, S ection s 404.1(a) and 404.1(b) to read “can al road and bank grading” instead of just “canal road grading”.
Comment #137: Consider revising Rule 310, S ection 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 f or 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 an d has deleted Rule 310, Section 404.3 . While Rule 310, Section 4 04

- Dust
Control Permit

- Block Permit Requirements may seem redundant with Rule 310, S ection 406

- Terms
for Permits for Dust

- Generating Operations , the purpose of S ection 406 is to make clear tostakeholders 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 insert ed “governmental agencies,” afte r 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 . O verall responsibility for work unde r 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 shoul d 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 r elationship
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 appro ving 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:Rule 316 specifically regulates san d 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. Ther efore, 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 submit ted. Response #143: The MCAQD treats timely renewal applications for Dust Control p ermits the same way as all other permits. Rule 200 still applies to Dust Control p ermits 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 statute s. The section recognizes that the permit and Dust Control P lan may be kept in on

- site equipment or in an on
- site vehic le. Like other air quality permits where the permit is not available to the MCAQD when the busine ss is not open, the permit and Dust C ontrol P lan 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 th e 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.
Res ponse #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?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 t hose 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 o f the night as a secondary dust

- generating activity.
Comment #147: Rule 310, Section 410.2

- Compliance Schedule

- Dust Control Coordinator as drafted is no t 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 requireme nts 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 dist urbed surface areas must implement control measures for all areas covered by the permit as described in the application and site plan. Proper ties that are not covered by a Dust C ontrol permit will be subject to the stabilization requirements contained in R ule 310.01.
Comment #149: Suggest that MCAQD require record keeping to be more clearly related to Dust C ontrol 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 P lans contain the specific identifica tion site layout, types
of dust

- generating operations to be performed and the selected control measures for each ty pe of dus tgenerating activity. Recordkeepin g requirements are tied to the Dust Control Plan because Dust
Control P lans vary based on the dust

- generat ing operation being performed. This allows the permit holder to keep accurate records of all activities that apply specifically to the site, while showing compliance wi th their approved Dust Control Plan. Additionally, Rule 310, Se ction 502.2 provides the recordkeepin g requirements placed upon dust

- generating activitie s that do not require a Dust Control
P lan.
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 theregulated community to invest a large amount of resourc es 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 applyi ng 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 ins pections 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 dust

generating 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 c ontrol measures may be required; therefore daily records are a necessary step in showing compliance with Rule 310 alon g 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, S ections 502.1 (g) and (h) are inconsistent with SB 1552. Response #151:
Th e 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 tes t methods required in
the rule. The MCAQD believes the language in Section 502.1 better clarifies the recordkeeping requirements . Se ct i ons 502.1 (g) and (h) document the implementation of the new programs requiredby 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 (concen tration) 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 proj ects 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
subcontracto rs that engage in d ust

- generating activities would be required to be listed in the self

inspection along with their registration numbers issued by the MCA QD under the new Section 306
added to Rule 200. If training is not required at a site subject to permit, then the permitt ee 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 retent ion 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 P lan 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 retenti on 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 ma intain records.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. Record keeping requirements are tied to the permit holder r equired to have a Dust Control Plan or to sources that are
sub ject 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 requ irements, 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 plume s generated on
construction sites than Method 203B.

Comment #157: General Comments :

Consider the use of advanced dus t 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, Section s 304, 305, and 306 and of Rule 310.01.
Comment #158: Why isn’t PM 2.5 considered? Response #158: Fugitive dust PM 2.5 is a subset of fugitive dust PM 10 . Control measures that reduce PM 10 will also reduce fugitive dust PM 2.5 . Therefore, a specific rule regulating the emissions of PM 2.5 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 fa ilures. 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 th e stabilization limits , then that exceedanceconstitutes a violation of the r ule 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.
Commen t #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 int ends 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 expl ain and support with facts its assertions summarized above and any others on this subject. Given the significant amount of the PM 10 problem attributed to fugitive dust fro m unpaved roads and shoulders - regardless of who owns them - the MCAQD should provid e 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 Count y 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 co ntinues 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 constructi on activities, equipment yard s, 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 bus iness that generates
emissions. This comment con fuses roads associated with conduct ing 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 p ublic 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
segme nt 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 frequen tly include utility easemen ts. The location/re

- location andaccess 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 ac tive 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

actua lly improving the road sur face. 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 t han applying dust s uppressants. 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 approv al 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. P re
- 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 C o ntrol 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 u nderneath 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, Ru le 200 Section 303.3.c states, “... any source that is exempt from obtaining a Non

- Title V permitaccording 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 ho mebuilder 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? Respons e #165: Nothing in the Notice of Proposed Rule making 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 consid er 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 PM 10 pollution in the nonattainment area (approximately 38% of the 2005 periodic emissions inventory)

. Reducing PM 10 emissions from this major contributor is a necessary component to achieving the required 5% reduction in PM 10 emissions as specified by an ap provable 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.Response #167: The 5% plan as current ly 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 PM 10 emission reductions achieved through these rule 310

r equirements
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 diff icult 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 PM 10 affecting that monitor comes from

constr uction on the design day. All of the new rule 310 requirements (including training programs)
contribute to the reduction of PM 10 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 preambl e 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 signi ficant 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 PM 10 standard and all associated requirements unde r the Clean Air Act. It included the appropriate le gal
ci tations. The explanation also laid out th e legal requirements for the Five Percent Plan

. The preamble
to this Notice of Final Rulemaking includes a substantial amount of information in various othersections that supplement the discussion in Item #6. Item # 5 in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
contain ed the explanation for initiating the rulemaking. It include d a background summary and
d iscusses the current revisions. It note d that under CAA requirements, the MCAQD rules were required to address sign ificant con tributors by imposing BACM/MSM. The explanation in this section notes that a low compliance rate was identified through a formal rule effectiveness study. It note d that the current rules are not working as effectively as predicted a nd more reduc tions are needed. Further
discussion describe d a review of measures from western areas that met the PM 10 attainment date to
id entify what else could be done. As noted, the County looked at measures that are al ready adopted and implemented. The Preamble als o include d Item # 7 that provide d a list of references to any studies relevant to this rulemaking that include d several refe rences to feasibility studies. Item #9 provide d 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 a sserts 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 y ear. 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 me asures 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 PM 10 emissions contributing to
exceedances of PM 10 standard at the Higley mo nitor 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 specific ally designed to improve on

- site management of dust control efforts adding
motivation to ef fective training and education. Some measures, such as the property line sta ndard and 25 feet trackout, are included to make these rules consistent and uniform wi th 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 re visions were made to this rule. These measures also provide visual clues to on

- site perso nnel that their control measures aren’t working as designedand corrective actions are necessary. The revisions also reorganize and streamli ne the rule improving clarity. A summary li st of all rule requirements is included to remind sour ces of rule require ments. Also, the recordkeeping section clarifies what’s necessary to document c ontrol measure implementation.
Comment #171: Government entities, utilities, and the private sector should be subject to the same requirements. According to the MCAQD's own esti mates, 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

con tinues 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 s ources are subject to many. And large

acreage 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 Ariz ona 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 cur rent unfairness more pronounced. This rule would impose steep financial burdens on our members, the individ uals 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 toward s 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 disa grees that residential homebuilding is one of the smallest sources. The 4%
contribution ment ioned above fails to include major site preparation and infrastructure installation performed before a homebuilder conducts local street s and houses installation . T he 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 , PM 10 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 t he Five PercentPlan attainment demonstration for the Higley monitor, construction contributed 80% of the PM 10 emissions on the design day and residential construction was responsible for 13.8% of PM 10 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; h ence , 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 comment s # 8, # 24, # 133 , and
# 160. Unpermitted sources do have applicable requirements consistent with legal authority and feasibility analyses

. See response to comment #6.
Comme nt #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 quant ification 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 do es provide a qualitative statement indicating that the measures are designed to improve complianc e, thereby reducing emissions. The 5% Plan was released for public comment and finalized after the Notice of Pro posed Rulemaking was prepared. In the 5% Plan, MAG has made extensive efforts to show how all the adopte d measures of the 5% P lan result in PM 10 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 tech nical support document of the 5% Plan
document. The MCAQD add ed the quantification included in the final 5% Plan in the Notice of Final
Rulem aking for Board consideration. The response to comment #170 discusses the compliance rate
and the rule revisions. As a note, however, the eliminat ion 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. Th is change implements that statute, and is there fore 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 actualreduction 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 associate d the rule revisions. Gene rally, 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 o r consultant versus Dust C ontro l
C oordinator 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

tra ckout. 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 no t require additional watering. The approp riate costs are the training costs and time spent by the desig nated Dust Control C oordinator. If additional watering is necessary, then the site must not be fully implementing existing controls. Avoided compliance costs for existing requirements should

not be in cluded in the current analysis. Second, as noted in the response to comment #52, the property
li ne standard has been modified. Third, trackout does not instantaneously become a problem, it bui lds up over time. The revision of the trackout cleanup tri gger will require that the trackout control device
and on

- si te 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 increm ental
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 barrie rs and watering option. Finally, Rule 310 already requires owner/operators t o conduct the compliance tests. The recordkeeping revision explains what the owner/operator should be doing to document the impl ementation of control measures. The provision requires the types and res ult s of test methods conducted. This provision does not preclude the use of surrogates develo ped by the Dust Control C oordinator to evaluate control measure implementation daily (e.g. scuf fing soil surface with boot). Many industries us e simple surrogates to evaluate compliance in place o f the more formal test methods. Further, since the rule and
SB 1552 alrea dy require that a Dust Control C oordinator be present on

- site at all times, that individual should be capable of pe rforming any te sting required. Adding consultant costs in addition to the Dust
Control C oordi nator cost overstates the cost.
Comment #174: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 t he 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 finde rs". 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 fundame ntal 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 potentia l 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 R ule m aking 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 mand ate 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 h ave 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:A.R.S. § 49

- 474.06 states, “The subcontractor shall have its registration number readily accessible on site while conducting a n y 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 de scribes three ways a subcontractor can satisf y 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 interpre tation of “readily av ailable”. No ch ange 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. T he MCAQD plans to notify subcontractors and will work with stakeholde rs to develop an outreach strategy and appropriate materials. The MCAQD intends to issue a Notice To Comply ( NTC ) to subcontractors for first

- time violation s of non

- registration and to require subcontractors to register within 30 day s 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 substanti ve changes from the MCAQD's original stakeholder draft and the rule as proposed on August 29, 2007. Response #176:
The MCAQD provide d a side

- by

- side comparison of changes during the informal workshop process and identified rule changes in each draft rule v ia crossed

- out and underlined text. The side

- by

- side comparison of changes and draft rules were av ailable electronically in Word. As this rulemaking was initiated to address measures needed for a required SIP revision, the requirements for 5% per year
redu ctions and to attain as expeditiously as practicable must be addressed

. The Notice of Final
R

ulemaking 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 ha s 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 wi nds, even with good stabilizations, it seems that the same acknowledgement of wind events would be appropriate. Response #178:Rule 310 does not contain an exemption from the stabilization standards for wind events. The limited
affirmative defense for wind events applie s 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:
S uggest 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,
Sec tion 103.4 is a new section intended to make it clear which activities are exem pt 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 rev enue 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 h orse 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 account able for illegal activity beyond its control.

This exemption was originally part of the definition unpaved road way and is already in the SIP. The MCAQD maintains that the current language of the exemption is necessary to make it clear that i f 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

ap propriate 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
emission s coming from their properties. The owner/operator will need to investigate why illegal activity is occurring, take steps to minimize the activity and mitigat e 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 #1 83: 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 appli cability 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 road way may b e 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 app ropriate and relaxes the rule. The MCAQD has no way to distinguish the vehicles of tr espassers from those driven for legitimate uses. The owner/operator is ultimately responsible for conditions and emission s coming from their properties. The owner/operator will need to investigate why illegal activity is occurring, take steps to minimize t he activity and mitigat e 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:Suggest including “animal w aste” 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 fie ld. 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 de signated 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 de finition 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 atmosp here 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: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 adjoini ng 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 tract s or lots of lands as identified through the Maricopa County Ass essor’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 bac k 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 a pply 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 wi ll 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, reduc e, 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 “non

traditional 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 MCA QD will make note of the comment, but the definition of “off

- road vehicle” is not being revised in this rulemaking.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 operat ion. 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 definit ion. Response #200:
The MCAQD’s intent is to be consistent with Senate Bill 1552 in the definition

. Comment #201: Please further define "open tra il 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 n ot clear what exactly would be considered an unpaved road under this definition.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 Regulat ions, 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 paragrap h, 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

re garding the stabilization of disturbed surfaces of vacant lots by March 31, 2008. Rule 310.01, Section 301.2 contains the provis ions to implement that statute. The land owner does have an opportunity to tak e 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
authorize s 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 Maricop a 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 MC AQD is in the process of designing a supplemental insert to be provided with the NOV to be more readily available to the owner/operator.Comment #205: Including this section 302.3 in the rule allows a source to receive multiple violations for what is

actu ally (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 tha t 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. Thi s section of the rule could then be removed. Response #205: The purpose of the changes in Rule 310.01, Sections 302.1

— 302.3 i s to summarize general requirements for non

- traditional sources of fugitive, not to increase the possible number of violations
cit ed 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 requirem ents contained in Rule 310.01. Foll owing Clark County’s example,
the MCAQD includ ed 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

— 30 2.3 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, main tenance crews, and themselves, but Rule 310.01, S ection 302.4 will make the owner/operator r esponsible 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 com plete ly 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 instal ling 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, withoutregard 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 prop erty 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 pro vision 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 pur pose 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 PM 10 Nonattainment Area failed to meet the 24 hour
PM 10 standard by December 31, 200 6. As a result, residents still have the potential to be ex posed to unhealthy levels of PM 10 . 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 PM 10 . Locally generated PM 10 significantly contributes to recorded exceedances of the PM 10 standard and can be released from dust generati ng activities or any unstabilized surface exposing residents to unhealthy levels of p articulates. The property line standard can serve as a simple visual technique to monitor the dust released by the

non
- traditional fugitive dust source . T he 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 dev elop a policy/guideline and train complia nce staff to ensure consistent enforcement o f the property line standard. The MCAQD disagrees that there is no credible link between opacity an d 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 meas ure

.Even though the MCAQD can not derive a quantitative correlation between opacity and PM emi ssions for a general rule, improving the consistency of compliance will reduce emissions and reduce the

concentrat ions measured at the monitors. The MCAQD has access the Assessor’s database and the inspectors carry GPS units and would be able to use th ose devices if necessary. However, the inspector only has to determine that emissions coming from the permitted site are present at a point th at is beyond the property line. Once the inspector determines that the visible emission is generated from the permitte d 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
Fores t Service are required to develop transpor tation management plans that specifically designate open travel rout es where vehicles can operate. Further, vehicle operators accessing those lands on the designated travel routes are responsible for knowing wh ere they are allowed to drive. Currently, each

age ncy 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 th at 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 th is 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.Response #210: Knowledge of permission or lack of permission provides information the ve hicle operator may use to make an informed decision rega rding 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 inter val 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 cou ld 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 thi s 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 an d 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 t o establish vegetative ground cover on all disturbed surface areas. The ROW is periodically
driven via motor vehicles for maintenance activities. Response #215:Easements and right

- of

- ways are not and have not been considered open areas and vacant lots

. Th ese accesses are specifically identified as subject to Section 302.10 that is titled, “Easements, Rights

- of

Way, and Access Roads for Utilities (Transmission of Electricity, Natural Gas, Oil, Eater, and Gas)”.
Comment #216:
Is there a definition of "unoccu pied"? 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 findi ngs 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 implie s 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 poss ible. 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 sam e 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

me asure 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:This section concerns the combined use of water and a trackout control device, whereas S ection
302 .6(b)(2) considers the combined use of a dust suppressant other than water with a trackout control
device.
Comment #221:
The sam e comment provided under Rule 3 10, Section 306.2(a)(1) applies here. The proposed revisions include a 50 percent reduction in th e 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." Respons e #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 awa re 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 refe rred for escalated enforcement. If a permittee believes that they have been treated unfairly, they may contact a sup ervisor 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 permi t be implemented here? Response #223: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 th at 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. Resp onse #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 termin ology 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 sec tion 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 #18 6 for a discussion of trespass. The term “highest trafficked days” was
chos en 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 tr affic on weekends and holidays. Other roads providing access to residential, industrial , or commercial
destination s usually bear more traf fic on weekdays. The owner/operator should base the selection of an appropriate time period o n the traffic patterns on t he 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.Comment #227: MCAQD’s proposed Rule 310.01 would relax the regulation of fugitive dust emissions from County

owned unpaved roads, compared to the current air quality requirements for County

- owne d unpaved roads (Rule 310.0 1, 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 e fforts 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 ta ble. [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 con duct 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 genera tes 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 preve nt the forma tion 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 t he ex isting public highway network. As a result traffic increases and additional unpaved roads are identified, evaluated and placed in

tr ansportation 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, wit h 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 cer tain 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: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

unpave d roads in the federal implementation plan EPA promulgated for the Maricopa County PM 10 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 upo n notification by MCA QD 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 tr affic 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 -h our 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 conduct ed on two non

- holiday weekdays - addi ng 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 PM 10 nonattain ment 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 th e 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.”
Re sponse #230:
To address the c ommenter’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 PM 10 nonattainment area, shall be respon sible 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 n on
conse cutive 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 andprovided 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 me asure '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 on to 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 a n 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 belie ves the control measures in this section are necessary, prudent, and feasible. The MCAQD understands that there may be costs associated withthese measures, but given the severity of the PM 10 pollution problem, the control measures are a integral part of r educing PM 10 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 a nd 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 can not 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
i mpractical 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. Resp onse #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 f or corrals, pens or arenas to Rule 310.01, Section 302.8(b)(4)

. The first control measure is frequent s craping and/or manure removal. The second measure is adding a fibr ous layer in working areas. The third measure is apply ing and maintain ing an alternativ e 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 31 0.01, 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:Suggest that "discovery and" be substituted for "identification or". Respo nse #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 th at 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 differen t 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 30 2.10 to leave the 150 vehicle trips or more per day in the PM 10 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 #2 41: 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 th e opacity standar d has been met; however, the MCAQD evaluates complia nce 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 findi ngs at the time of inspection.
C omment #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 h as 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 effec t of readings below the standard...Obviously adata 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 th e 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)) re ly 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 sugge st the MCAQD intends to provide the evidence or can provide the evidence necessary to meet the statutory requirements.” It has been suggested that since the change in opacity test methods was bundled with a proposal for more stringent PM 10 regulations that the “peculiar local condition”
referred to in the statute was somehow connected to PM 10 . However, this cannot be the case. Visible emissions limits are intended to indicate the proper operation of particulate control technologies such as baghouses or dust suppression technologies. They are not intended to measure and cannot measure
PM 10 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 PM 10 emissions and opacity, there is no reason to believe that a more stringent opacity limit, particularly one of the kind at issue here, would result in lower PM 10 (or any other) emissions...” “Either the MCAQD must make the s howings 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 stand ard 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 exist ing standard. A rule effectiveness study conducted 2006 through 2007 by MCAQD found that compliance with the existing ru les is lower than anticipated. The commente r also states that the revision to the data reduction methodology make s the 20% opacity stand ard substantially more stringent that the current rule. The MCAQD disagrees and believes that the comment overstates the stringenc y of Method 203B. T hroughout 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 th an Method 9, then theMCAQD wou ld have been required to include the measure in the most stringent measure
demonstration contained in the MAG Serious Area PM 10 Nonattainment Area Plan and Attainment
Date Extensio n Request. The technical analysis associated with the Salt River Area PM 10 S IP revision submitted in 2005 determined that stationary sources contribute significantly to exceedances of the 24

- hour PM 10 standard that occur under stagnant conditions. That analysis characterized the specific types, number, and size of sources present in 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
PM 10 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 device s, 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 imp l ementing existing and new rules. The MCAQD disagrees that there is no
coincidence between PM 10 emissions and opacity. Within an individual source, a change in opacity indicates a change in PM emissions. It is not necessary to demonstrate a correlation bet ween 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 disc ussion 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 fac t 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 surr ogate 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".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 rul es. 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 qua ds 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 App endix 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 a re 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 n ot 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:At l east 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.ht ml 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 comment s 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 distribute d to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors for their re view 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 th e 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)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 5 01.3
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 PURPOS E 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 EXEMPTIO NS 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 PERMITTINGS ECTION 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 CONDITION S 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)