United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Region
IX
Air
Division
Technical
Support
Document
for
EPA=
s
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
for
the
Arizona
State
Implementation
Plan
Submitted
by
the
Arizona
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
for
the
Pinal
County
Air
Quality
Control
District
EPA=
s
Analysis
of
Pinal
County
Air
Quality
Control
District=
s
Rule
4­
2­
020,
General
[
Fugitive
Dust]
Rule
4­
2­
030,
Definitions
[
Fugitive
Dust]
Rule
4­
2­
040,
Standards
[
Fugitive
Dust]
Rule
4­
2­
050,
Monitoring
and
Records
[
Fugitive
Dust]

May
9,
2006
Prepared
by
Francisco
Dóñez
AGENCY
NAME:
Pinal
County
Air
Quality
Control
District
(
PCAQCD)

SUBMITTED
RULES
$
Rule
4­
2­
020,
General
[
Fugitive
Dust]
(
adopted
June
29,
1993,
submitted
November
27,
1995,
complete
June
4,
1996).

$
Rule
4­
2­
030,
Definitions
[
Fugitive
Dust]
(
adopted
June
29,
1993,
submitted
November
27,
1995,
complete
June
4,
1996).

$
Rule
4­
2­
040,
Standards
[
Fugitive
Dust]
(
adopted
June
29,
1993,
submitted
November
27,
1995,
complete
June
4,
1996).

$
Rule
4­
2­
050,
Monitoring
and
Records
[
Fugitive
Dust]
(
amended
May
14,
1997,
submitted
October
7,
1998,
complete
April
24,
1999).

APPLICABLE
SIP
RULES
None
of
the
above
rules
has
been
previously
submitted
or
incorporated
into
the
Arizona
SIP.

SUMMARY
OF
RULES
PCAQCD
Rules
4­
2­
020,
4­
2­
030,
4­
2­
040,
and
4­
2­
050
regulate
various
operations
which
could
cause
fugitive
dust
emissions.
They
apply
to
construction,
agricultural,
transportation,
storage,
and
other
activities
taking
place
in
the
county.

EVALUATION
OF
RULES
PCAQCD
Rules
4­
2­
020,
4­
2­
030,
4­
2­
040,
and
4­
2­
050
were
evaluated
for
consistency
with
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA),
40
CFR
51,
and
EPA=
s
PM­
10
policy.
The
following
guidance
documents
were
used
for
reference:
PM­
10
Guideline
Document
(
EPA­
452/
R­
93­
008).

Sections
172(
c)(
1)
and
189(
a)
of
the
CAA
require
moderate
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas
to
implement
reasonably
available
control
measures
(
RACM),
including
reasonably
available
control
technology
(
RACT)
for
stationary
sources
of
PM­
10.
Section
189(
b)
requires
that
serious
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas,
in
addition
to
meeting
the
RACM/
RACT
requirements,
implement
best
available
control
measures
(
BACM),
including
best
available
control
technology
(
BACT).
In
the
northern
part
of
PCAQCD
is
the
Apache
Junction
portion
of
the
Phoenix
metropolitan
area,
which
is
a
serious
PM­
10
nonattainment
area.
In
the
northeastern
part
of
PCAQCD
is
Hayden­
Miami,
which
is
a
moderate
PM­
10
nonattainment
area.
PCAQCD
regulates
certain
sources
of
PM­
10
within
the
nonattainment
areas.

EPA=
s
guidance
for
both
moderate
and
serious
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas
provides
that
RACM/
RACT
and
BACM/
BACT
are
required
to
be
implemented
for
all
source
categories
unless
the
State
demonstrates
that
a
particular
source
category
does
not
contribute
significantly
to
PM­
10
levels
in
excess
of
the
NAAQS
(
i.
e.,
de
minimis
sources).
See
General
Preamble
for
the
Implementation
of
Title
I
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
of
1990,
57
FR
13498,
13540
(
April
16,
1992)
and
Addendum
to
the
General
Preamble
for
the
Implementation
of
Title
I
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
of
1990,
59
FR
41998,
42011
(
August
16,
1994).

The
potential
to
emit
of
the
emission
activities
subject
to
PCAQCD
Rules
4­
2­
020,
4­
2­
030,
4­
2­
040,
and
4­
2­
050
comprises
a
small
but
significant
portion
of
the
total
PM­
10
emissions
in
the
Phoenix
metropolitan
area
according
to
the
August
1999
Apache
Junction
Portion
of
the
Metropolitan
Phoenix
PM­
10
Serious
State
Implementation
Plan
(
PM­
10
Plan).
Therefore,
Rules
4­
2­
020,
4­
2­
030,
4­
2­
040,
and
4­
2­
050
must
meet
BACM/
BACT
control
levels.

The
incorporation
of
PCAQCD
Rules
4­
2­
020,
4­
2­
030,
4­
2­
040,
and
4­
2­
050
taken
in
combination
improves
the
SIP.
However,
the
rules
contain
several
deficiencies
that
preclude
full
approval.

DEFICIENCIES
Rules
4­
2­
020
and
4­
2­
030
contain
the
following
deficiency:

$
Rule
4­
2­
020,
Section
B
specifies
that
Article
4
"
shall
not
be
construed
so
as
to
prevent
normal
farm
cultural
practices
which
cause
fugitive
dust."
Normal
farm
cultural
practice
is
defined
in
Rule
4­
2­
030,
Definition
2,
as
"
all
activities 
conducted
on
any
facility
for
the
production
of
crops,
livestock,
poultry,
livestock
products
or
poultry
products."
As
written,
Rule
4­
2­
020,
Section
B
effectively
exempts
agricultural
activities
from
the
fugitive
dust
rules
without
justification.

Rules
4­
2­
030
and
4­
2­
040
contain
the
following
deficiency:

$
Rule
4­
2­
030,
Definition
3,
defines
"
reasonable
precaution"
in
highly
general
terms.
The
term
"
reasonable
precaution"
is
then
used
in
every
section
of
Rule
4­
2­
040,
to
define
what
actions
must
be
taken
to
mitigate
fugitive
dust
emissions
from
relevant
activities.
This
general
requirement
is
not
sufficiently
clear
or
enforceable.

Rule
4­
2­
050
contains
the
following
deficiency:

$
Rule
4­
2­
050
does
not
contain
recordkeeping
provisions.
The
absence
of
these
provisions
makes
the
all
of
the
submitted
rules
difficult
to
enforce.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION
I
recommend
limited
approval
and
limited
disapproval
of
the
following
PCAQCD
rules
for
incorporation
into
the
Arizona
Applicable
SIP:

$
Rule
4­
2­
020,
General
[
Fugitive
Dust]
(
adopted
June
29,
1993,
submitted
November
27,
1995,
complete
May
27,
1996).

$
Rule
4­
2­
030,
Definitions
[
Fugitive
Dust]
(
adopted
June
29,
1993,
submitted
November
27,
1995,
complete
May
27,
1996).

$
Rule
4­
2­
040,
Standards
[
Fugitive
Dust]
(
adopted
June
29,
1993,
submitted
November
27,
1995,
complete
May
27,
1996).

$
Rule
4­
2­
050,
Monitoring
and
Records
[
Fugitive
Dust]
(
amended
May
14,
1997,
submitted
October
7,
1998,
complete
April
24,
1999).
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Rules
4­
2­
020,
4­
2­
030,
4­
2­
040,
and
4­
2­
050.

2.
PM­
10
Guideline
Document
(
EPA­
452/
R­
93­
008)
(
cover
only).

3.
Apache
Junction
Portion
of
the
Metropolitan
Phoenix
PM­
10
Serious
State
Implementation
Plan
(
August,
1999)
(
cover
only).
