AZ-2016-005 REPORT TO BOS.PDF

Executive Summary
of the Report to the Board of Supervisors
Prepared by the Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Board Hearing Date: February 1, 2017
Case #/Title: AQ-2016-005-Rule 372 (Maricopa County Hazardous Air Pollutants
(HAPS) Program)
Agenda Item: Pending
Supervisor Districts: All Districts
The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (department) complied with all statutory and county policies
throughout this rulemaking process. Per the Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program (EROP) Policy: “In addition
to the required staff report, an executive summary of the report including an overview of stakeholder input and
staff responses will be provided to the Board of Supervisors at least one week prior to any Board of Supervisors’
public hearing.”
Overview of the Report to the Board of Supervisors: The purpose of this rulemaking is to rescind Rule 372
and associated Appendix H (Procedures for Determining Ambient Air Concentrations for Hazardous Air
Pollutants). Rule 372 and associated Appendix H implement/establish procedures for a Maricopa County program
for the regulation of de minimis amounts of federally listed HAPs. In 2007, Maricopa County had been given the
mandate to create a County HAPs program by A.R.S. § 49-480.04. On March 20, 2008, as a result of a final
judgment of the Maricopa County Superior Court, the superior court held that the State of Arizona does not have
authority to regulate de minimis amounts of federal HAPs. Consequently, the department is proposing to rescind
Rule 372 and associated Appendix H.
Overview of Stakeholder Input and Staff Responses: No comments were received concerning this rulemaking.

Return to list of attachments
Report to the Board of Supervisors
Prepared by the Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Board of Health Meeting Date: October 24, 2016
Board Hearing Date: February 1, 2017
Case #/Title: AQ-2016-005-Rule 372 (Maricopa County Hazardous Air Pollutants
(HAPS) Program)
Agenda Item: Pending
Supervisor Districts: All Districts
Applicant: Staff
Request: Approve rescission of Maricopa County Air Pollution Control
Regulations Rule 372 (Maricopa County Hazardous Air Pollutants
(HAPS) Program) and associated Appendix H (Procedures for
Determining Ambient Air Concentrations for Hazardous Air Pollutants).
The purpose of this rulemaking is to rescind Rule 372 and associated
Appendix H. Rule 372 and associated Appendix H implement/establish
procedures for a Maricopa County program for the regulation of de
minimis amounts of federally listed HAPs. In 2007, Maricopa County
had been given the mandate to create a County HAPs program by
Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 49-480.04. On March 20, 2008, as a
result of a final judgment of the Maricopa County Superior Court, the
superior court held that the State of Arizona does not have authority to
regulate de minimis amounts of federal HAPs. Consequently, the
department is proposing to rescind Rule 372 and associated Appendix H.
These rules are similar to and no more stringent than the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality’s (ADEQ’s) Arizona program for
the regulation of HAPs. ADEQ’s Arizona program for the regulation of
HAPs (rules R18-2-1701 through R18-2-1709) expired on August 26,
2016 and is no longer in effect.
The federal HAPs standards at 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 61
and Part 63, which are incorporated by reference in Maricopa County Air
Pollution Control Regulations Rule 370 (Federal Hazardous Air Pollutant
Program), are separate and independent from Maricopa County’s HAPs
program (Rule 372 and associated Appendix H) and remain fully
enforceable. Sources of federal HAPs in Maricopa County remain
obligated to comply with any applicable requirements of the federal
program.
Support/Opposition: No comments concerning the proposed rulemaking were received.
Staff
Recommendation: Approve
Board of Health
Recommendation: Approve per Staff recommended language

Additional
Comments: This regulatory change is following the Enhanced Regulatory Outreach
Program (EROP) Policy and workflow process. The County Manager
briefed the Board of Supervisors regarding this rulemaking on June 6,
2016. A Stakeholder workshop was held on June 30, 2016. A 30-day
comment period was held from August 19 through September 19, 2016;
no comments were received. On October 24, 2016, the Board of
Health approved this regulatory change for the Expedited Process. This
regulatory change will take effect immediately upon approval by the
Board of Supervisors.
Presented By: Philip A. McNeely, R.G., Director
Prepared By: Hether Krause
Attachments: Summary of the proposed regulatory change (See Item 6 of the Draft
Notice of Final Rulemaking)
Analysis of input received during the process and how that input was
responded to (No comments were received. See Item 13 of the Draft
Notice of Final Rulemaking)
Language of proposed regulatory change or amendment (See Item 17 of
the Draft Notice of Final Rulemaking)
Preamble required by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 49-471.05
(See Draft Notice of Final Rulemaking)
Minutes from Board of Health meeting
Copies of all written and electronic Stakeholder input (No
comments were received)
Signed copy of the Maricopa County Resolution “Moratorium on
Increased Regulatory Burdens”

DRAFT NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING
MARICOPA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION III - CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 372: MARICOPA COUNTY HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (HAPS) PROGRAM
PREAMBLE Return to list of attachments
1. Rule affected Rulemaking action
Rule 372: Maricopa County Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) Program Rescind
Appendix H: Procedures For Determining Ambient Air Concentrations Rescind
For Hazardous Air Pollutants
2. Statutory authority for the rulemaking:
Authorizing statutes: A.R.S. §§ 49-474, 49-479, and 49-480
Implementing Statute: A.R.S. § 49-112
3. The effective date of the rule:
Tentative date of adoption: February 1, 2017
4. List of public notices addressing the rulemaking:
Notice of Briefing to Maricopa County Manager: June 6, 2016
Notice of Stakeholder Workshop: June 30, 2016
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: 22 A.A.R. 2124, August 12, 2016
Notice of Maricopa County Board of Health Meeting: October 24, 2016
5. Name and address of department personnel with whom persons may communicate regarding the
rulemaking:
Name: Johanna M. Kuspert or Hether Krause
Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Planning and Analysis Division
Address: 1001 N Central Avenue, Suite 125
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Telephone: (602) 506-6010
Fax: (602) 506-6179
E-mail: aqplanning@mail.maricopa.gov Return to list of attachments
6. Explanation of the rule, including the department's reasons for initiating the rulemaking:
The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (department) is proposing to rescind Rule 372 (Maricopa
County Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) Program) and associated Appendix H (Procedures For
Determining Ambient Air Concentrations For Hazardous Air Pollutants). Rule 372 and associated
Appendix H were adopted on June 6, 2007 as required by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §49-480.04
(County Program For Control Of Hazardous Air Pollutants). The rules apply to new sources of HAPs or
1

modified sources of HAPs, when such existing sources increase the emissions of a HAP by more than a de
minimis amount. These rules regulate HAPs that are on the federal list of HAPs - Section 112(b) of the
Clean Air Act and:
• List de minimis levels for Maricopa County HAPs in Rule 372, Table 2-Maricopa County HAPs De
Minimis Levels
• List 24 minor source categories subject to the program in Rule 372, Table 1-Maricopa County HAPs
Minor Source Categories
The rules are similar to and no more stringent than the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality’s
(ADEQ’s) Arizona program for the regulation of HAPs. ADEQ’s Arizona program for the regulation of
HAPs was intended to replace the Arizona Ambient Air Quality Guidelines (AAAQG), which are health-
based guidelines/acceptable concentration levels for hazardous air pollutants that are regulated by the State
Of Arizona. The AAAQGs are not standards but residential screening values that help agencies make sound
environmental risk management decisions to protect human health. ADEQ’s Arizona program for the
regulation of HAPs (rules R18-2-1701 through R18-2-1709) expired on August 26, 2016 and is no longer
in effect.
On March 20, 2008 as a result of the final judgment of the Maricopa County Superior Court in Oak Canyon
Manufacturing et al. v. Arizona State Department of Environmental Quality, CV 2006-018439, ADEQ’s
Arizona program for the regulation of HAPs is unenforceable. The superior court held that ADEQ does not
have authority to regulate de minimis amounts of federal HAPs. Since Maricopa County’s HAPs program
(Rule 372 and associated Appendix H) is similar to and no more stringent than ADEQ’s Arizona program
for the regulation of HAPs and the superior court held that ADEQ does not have authority to regulate de
minimis amounts of federal HAPs, the department is proposing to rescind Rule 372 and associated
Appendix H.
The federal HAPs standards at 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 61 and Part 63, which are incorporated
by reference in Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations Rule 370 (Federal Hazardous Air
Pollutant Program), are separate and independent from Maricopa County’s HAPs program (Rule 372 and
associated Appendix H) and remain fully enforceable. Sources of federal HAPs in Maricopa County remain
obligated to comply with any applicable requirements of the federal program.
7. Demonstration of compliance with A.R.S. §49-112:
Under A.R.S. § 49-479(C), a county may not adopt a rule or ordinance that is more stringent than the rules
adopted by the Director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) for similar sources
unless it demonstrates compliance with the applicable requirements of A.R.S. §49-112.
§ 49-112 County regulation; standards
§ 49-112(A)
2

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 of 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 regulation.
3. Any fee or tax adopted under the rule, ordinance or other regulation will not exceed the reasonable
costs of the county to issue and administer that permit or plan approval program.
§ 49-112(B)
When authorized by law, a county may adopt rules, ordinances or other regulations in lieu of a state
program that are as stringent as 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 the county demonstrates that the cost of
obtaining permits or other approvals from the county will approximately equal or be less than the fee or
cost of obtaining similar permits or approvals under this title or any rule adopted pursuant to this title. If the
state has not adopted a fee or tax for similar permits or approvals, the county may adopt a fee when
authorized by law in the rule, ordinance or other regulation that does not exceed the reasonable costs of the
county to issue and administer that permit or plan approval program.
The department is in compliance with A.R.S. §§ 49-112(A) and (B). The department is proposing to
rescind Rule 372 and Appendix H.
8. Documents and/or studies referenced and/or reviewed for this rulemaking:
Not applicable
9. Showing of good cause why the rule is necessary to promote a statewide interest if the rule will
diminish a previous grant of authority of a political subdivision:
Not applicable
10. Summary of the economic, small business, and consumer impact:
The following discussion addresses each of the elements required for an economic, small business and
consumer impact statement under A.R.S. § 41-1055.
An identification of the rulemaking.
This rulemaking is proposing to rescind Rule 372 and associated Appendix H.
3

An identification of the persons who will be directly affected by, bear the costs of or directly benefit
from the rulemaking.
This rulemaking is proposing to rescind Rule 372 and associated Appendix H. The persons who will be
directly affected by and bear the costs of this rulemaking will be new sources of HAPs or modified sources
of HAPs, when such existing sources increase the emissions of a HAP by more than a de minimis amount.
The federal HAPs standards at 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 61 and Part 63, which are incorporated
by reference in Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations Rule 370 (Federal Hazardous Air
Pollutant Program), are separate and independent from Maricopa County’s HAPs program (Rule 372 and
associated Appendix H) and remain fully enforceable. Sources of federal HAPs in Maricopa County remain
obligated to comply with any applicable requirements of the federal program.
A cost benefit analysis of the following:
(a) The probable costs and benefits to the implementing agency and other agencies directly affected
by the implementation and enforcement of the rulemaking.
Because this rulemaking does not impose any new compliance burdens on permitted regulated entities
or introduce additional regulatory requirements, the department deemed that none of the revisions have
potentially significant economic impacts on permitted sources. In addition, the rulemaking will not
impose increased monetary or regulatory costs on other state agencies, political subdivisions of this
state, persons, or individuals so regulated.
(b) The probable costs and benefits to a political subdivision of this state directly affected by the
implementation and enforcement of the rulemaking
This rulemaking will not impose increased monetary or regulatory costs on other state agencies,
political subdivisions of this state, persons, or individuals so regulated.
(c) The probable costs and benefits to businesses directly affected by the rulemaking, including any
anticipated effect on the revenues or payroll expenditures of employers who are subject to the
rulemaking.
The department does not anticipate that this rulemaking will have a significant impact on a person's
income, revenue, or employment in this state related to this activity. This rulemaking will not impose
increased monetary or regulatory costs on individuals so regulated.
A general description of the probable impact on private and public employment in businesses,
agencies and political subdivisions of this state directly affected by the rulemaking.
The rulemaking will not impose increased monetary or regulatory costs on other state agencies, political
subdivisions of this state, persons, or individuals so regulated.
A statement of the probable impact of the rulemaking on small businesses.
4

This rulemaking will not impose increased monetary or regulatory costs on any permitted business,
persons, or individuals so regulated.
(a) An identification of the small businesses subject to the rulemaking.
This rulemaking is proposing to rescind Rule 372 and associated Appendix H. Small businesses
subject to this rulemaking include new sources of HAPs or modified sources of HAPs, when such
existing sources increase the emissions of a HAP by more than a de minimis amount. The federal
HAPs standards at 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 61 and Part 63, which are incorporated by
reference in Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations Rule 370 (Federal Hazardous Air
Pollutant Program), are separate and independent from Maricopa County’s HAPs program (Rule 372
and associated Appendix H) and remain fully enforceable. Sources of federal HAPs in Maricopa
County remain obligated to comply with any applicable requirements of the federal program.
(b) The administrative and other costs required for compliance with the rulemaking.
This rulemaking is proposing to rescind Rule 372 and associated Appendix H. The federal HAPs
standards at 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 61 and Part 63, which are incorporated by reference
in Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations Rule 370 (Federal Hazardous Air Pollutant
Program), are separate and independent from Maricopa County’s HAPs program (Rule 372 and
associated Appendix H) and remain fully enforceable. Sources of federal HAPs in Maricopa County
remain obligated to comply with any applicable requirements of the federal program.
(c) A description of the methods that the agency may use to reduce the impact on small businesses.
(i) Establishing less costly compliance requirements in the rulemaking for small businesses.
This rulemaking is proposing to rescind Rule 372 and associated Appendix H. The federal HAPs
standards at 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 61 and Part 63, which are incorporated by
reference in Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations Rule 370 (Federal Hazardous Air
Pollutant Program), are separate and independent from Maricopa County’s HAPs program (Rule
372 and associated Appendix H) and remain fully enforceable. Sources of federal HAPs in
Maricopa County remain obligated to comply with any applicable requirements of the federal
program.
(ii) Establishing less costly schedules or less stringent deadlines for compliance in the
rulemaking.
This rulemaking is proposing to rescind Rule 372 and associated Appendix H. The federal HAPs
standards at 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 61 and Part 63, which are incorporated by
reference in Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations Rule 370 (Federal Hazardous Air
Pollutant Program), are separate and independent from Maricopa County’s HAPs program (Rule
372 and associated Appendix H) and remain fully enforceable. Sources of federal HAPs in
5

Maricopa County remain obligated to comply with any applicable requirements of the federal
program.
(iii) Exempting small businesses from any or all requirements of the rulemaking.
This rulemaking is proposing to rescind Rule 372 and associated Appendix H. The federal HAPs
standards at 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 61 and Part 63, which are incorporated by
reference in Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations Rule 370 (Federal Hazardous Air
Pollutant Program), are separate and independent from Maricopa County’s HAPs program (Rule
372 and associated Appendix H) and remain fully enforceable. Sources of federal HAPs in
Maricopa County remain obligated to comply with any applicable requirements of the federal
program.
(d) The probable cost and benefit to private persons and consumers who are directly affected by the
rulemaking.
This rulemaking does not impose any new compliance burdens on regulated entities that are permitted
or introduce additional regulatory requirements and will not impose increased monetary or regulatory
costs on any permitted business, persons, or individuals so regulated. As such, there are no costs to
pass through to consumers, which means there are no impacts on consumers.
A statement of the probable effect on state revenues.
The rulemaking will not impose increased monetary or regulatory costs on other state agencies,
political subdivisions of this state, persons, or individuals so regulated. Without costs to pass through
to customers, there is no projected change in consumer purchase patterns and, thus, no impact on state
revenues from sales taxes.
A description of any less intrusive or less costly alternative methods of achieving the purpose of
the rulemaking.
This rulemaking is proposing to rescind Rule 372 and associated Appendix H. The federal HAPs
standards at 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 61 and Part 63, which are incorporated by reference
in Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations Rule 370 (Federal Hazardous Air Pollutant
Program), are separate and independent from Maricopa County’s HAPs program (Rule 372 and
associated Appendix H) and remain fully enforceable. Sources of federal HAPs in Maricopa County
remain obligated to comply with any applicable requirements of the federal program.
11. Name and address of department personnel with whom persons may communicate regarding the
accuracy of the economic, small business, and consumer impact:
Name: Johanna M. Kuspert or Hether Krause
Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Planning and Analysis Division
6

Address: 1001 N Central Avenue, Suite 125
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Telephone: (602) 506-6010
Fax: (602) 506-6179
E-mail: aqplanning@mail.maricopa.gov
12. Description of the changes between the proposed rule, including supplemental notices and final rule:
No additional changes are being proposed, since the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published on
August 12, 2016 (22 A.A.R. 2124).
Return to list of attachments
13. Summary of the comments made regarding the rule and the department response to them:
No comments were submitted during the 30-day comment period – August 19-September 19, 2016
14. Any other matters prescribed by statute that are applicable to the specific department or to any
specific rule or class of rules:
Not applicable
15. Incorporations by reference and their location in the rule:
Not applicable
16. Was this rule previously an emergency rule?
No
17. Full text of the rule follows:
REGULATION III - CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 372
MARICOPA COUNTY HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (HAPS) PROGRAM
INDEX
SECTION 100 - GENERAL
101 PURPOSE
102 APPLICABILITY
103 EXEMPTIONS
SECTION 200 - DEFINITIONS
201 ACUTE ADVERSE EFFECTS TO HUMAN HEALTH
202 ACUTE AMBIENT AIR CONCENTRATION (AAAC)
203 AFFECTED SOURCE
204 AMBIENT AIR CONCENTRATION (AAC)
205 ARIZONA MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (AZMACT)
7

206 CHEMICAL ABSTRACT SERVICE (CAS) NUMBER
207 CHRONIC ADVERSE EFFECTS TO HUMAN HEALTH
208 CHRONIC AMBIENT AIR CONCENTRATION (CAAC)
209 FEDERALLY LISTED HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT
210 HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT
211 MAJOR SOURCE OF MARICOPA COUNTY HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (HAPs)
212 MARICOPA COUNTY HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT (HAP)
213 MINOR SOURCE OF MARICOPA COUNTY HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (HAPs)
214 MODIFICATION / MODIFY
215 POTENTIAL TO EMIT / POTENTIAL EMISSION RATE
216 SIC CODE
217 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
SECTION 300 - STANDARDS
301 MARICOPA COUNTY LIST OF HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
302 NOTICE OF TYPES AND AMOUNTS OF HAPS
303 MODIFICATIONS; PERMITS; PERMIT REVISIONS
304 CASE-BY-CASE HAPRACT DETERMINATION
305 CASE-BY-CASE AZMACT DETERMINATION
306 RISK MANAGEMENT ANALYSES
SECTION 400 - ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
401 EFFECTIVE DATE
402 PERIODIC REVIEW
SECTION 500 - MONITORING AND RECORDS (NOT APPLICABLE) Return to list of attachments
Adopted 06/06/07
MARICOPA COUNTY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION III - CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 372
MARICOPA COUNTY HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (HAPS) PROGRAM
SECTION 100 - GENERAL
101 PURPOSE: To implement/establish procedures for a Maricopa County program for the regulation of
federally listed hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).
8

102 APPLICABILITY:
102.1 Unless otherwise noted, this rule applies to:
a. Minor sources of Maricopa County hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) that are in one
of the source categories listed in Table 1-Maricopa County HAPs Minor Source
Categories of this rule; and
b. Major sources of Maricopa County hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).
Table 1-Maricopa County HAPs Minor Source Categories
Primary SIC Code Source Category
2434 Wood Kitchen Cabinets
2451 Mobile Homes
2621 Paper Mills
2679 Converted Paper Products-Not Elsewhere Classified
2851 Paints And Allied Products
2911 Petroleum Refining
3086 Plastics Foam Products
3088 Plastics Plumbing Fixtures
3089 Plastics Products-Not Elsewhere Classified
3241 Cement-Hydraulic
3281 Cut Stone And Stone Products
3296 Mineral Wool
3312 Blast Furnaces And Steel Mills
3331 Primary Copper
3411 Metal Cans
3444 Sheet Metal Work
3451 Screw Machine Products
3479 Metal Coating And Allied Services
3585 Refrigeration And Heating Equipment
3672 Printed Circuit Boards
3999 Manufacturing Industries-Not Elsewhere Classified
4922 Natural Gas Transmission
5169 Chemicals And Allied Products-Not Elsewhere Classified
5171 Petroleum Bulk Stations And Terminals
102.2 If the Clean Air Act has established provisions including specific schedules for the
regulation of source categories under Section 112(e)(5) and Section 112(n) of the Act, those
provisions and schedules shall apply to the regulation of those source categories.
103 EXEMPTIONS: This rule shall not apply to:
103.1 An affected source for which a standard under 40 Code Of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part
61-National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) or 40 CFR Part
63-National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants For Source Categories
imposes an emissions limitation.
103.2 An affected source at a minor source of Maricopa County HAPs, if the minor source is in a
source category for which a standard under 40 CFR Part 63-National Emission Standards
For Hazardous Air Pollutants For Source Categories has been adopted and agrees to comply
with the emissions limitation under Rule 220-Non-Title V Permit Provisions, Section 304-
9

Permits Containing Voluntarily Accepted Emissions Limitations, Controls, Or Other
Requirements (Synthetic Minor) of these rules.
103.3 Sources for which the Administrator has made one of the following findings under Section
112(n) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(n)):
a. A finding that regulation is not appropriate or necessary, or
b. A finding that the source should apply alternative control strategies.
103.4 Any category or subcategory of facilities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The Control Officer shall not adopt or enforce any standard or limitation respecting
emissions of radionuclides, which is more stringent than the standard or limitation adopted
by the Administrator under Section 112 of the Act.
SECTION 200 - DEFINITIONS: See Rule 100-General Provisions And Definitions of these rules for definitions of
terms that are used but not specifically defined in this rule. For the purpose of this rule, the following
definition shall apply:
201 ACUTE ADVERSE EFFECTS TO HUMAN HEALTH - Those effects described in Arizona
Revised Statutes (ARS) §49-401.01(2)-Air Quality-General Provisions-Definitions that are of short
duration or rapid onset. In ARS 49-401.01(2)-Air Quality-General Provisions-Definitions, “Adverse
effects to human health” means those effects that result in or significantly contribute to an increase in
mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness, including adverse
effects that are known to be or may reasonably be anticipated to be caused by substances that are
acutely toxic, chronically toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, neurotoxic, or causative of
reproductive dysfunction.
202 ACUTE AMBIENT AIR CONCENTRATION (AAAC) - That concentration of a hazardous air
pollutant, in the ambient air, above which the general population, including susceptible populations,
could experience acute adverse effects to human health.
203 AFFECTED SOURCE - Notwithstanding the definition of “affected source” as defined in Rule
100-General Provisions And Definitions of these rules (a source that includes one or more emissions
units which are subject to emission reduction requirements or limitations under Title IV-Acid
Deposition Control of the Act), for the purpose of this rule “affected source” has the meaning of
“affected source” contained in 40 CFR 63.2-National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air
Pollutants For Source Categories-Definitions as of July 1, 2004 (and no future amendments or
editions) (the collection of equipment, activities, or both within a single contiguous area and under
common control that is included in a Section 112(c) source category or subcategory for which a
Section 112(d) standard or other relevant standard is established pursuant to Section 112 of the
Act. Each relevant standard will define the “affected source”, as defined in 40 CFR 63.2-National
Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants For Source Categories-Definitions unless a
different definition is warranted based on a published justification as to why this definition would
result in significant administrative, practical, or implementation problems and why the different
definition would resolve those problems. The term “affected source”, as used in 40 CFR 63.2-
National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants For Source Categories-Definitions, is
separate and distinct from any other use of that term in these rules such as those implementing
Title IV of the Act. Affected source may be defined differently for 40 CFR Part 63-National
Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants For Source Categories than affected facility and
stationary source in 40 CFR Part 60-Standards Of Performance For New Stationary Sources and
40 CFR Part 61-National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS),
respectively. This definition of “affected source”, and the procedures for adopting an alternative
definition of “affected source,'' shall apply to each Section 112(d) standard for which the initial
proposed rule is signed by the Administrator after June 30, 2002).
10

204 AMBIENT AIR CONCENTRATION (AAC) - That concentration of a hazardous air pollutant in the
ambient air, listed in Section 306- Risk Management Analyses of this rule or determined according
to Section 306.3(b)-Risk Management Analyses-Health Based Ambient Air Concentrations Of
Maricopa County HAPs of this rule or Section 306.3(c)-Risk Management Analyses-Health Based
Ambient Air Concentrations Of Maricopa County HAPs of this rule, above which the general
population, including susceptible populations, could experience adverse effects to human health.
205 ARIZONA MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (AZMACT) - An emission
standard that requires the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of hazardous air pollutants
subject to these rules, including a prohibition on the emissions where achievable, and that the Control
Officer, according to Section 305-Case-By-Case AZMACT Determination of this rule, has
determined to be achievable by an affected source to which the standard applies, through application
of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including measures that:
205.1 Reduce the volume of, or eliminate emissions of, the pollutants through process changes,
substitution of materials, or other modifications;
205.2 Enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions;
205.3 Collect, capture, or treat the pollutants when released from a process, stack, storage, or
fugitive emissions point;
205.4 Are design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards, including requirements for
operator training or certification; or
205.5 Are a combination of Section 205.1 thru Section 205.4 of this rule.
206 CHEMICAL ABSTRACT SERVICE (CAS) NUMBER - A unique, identifying number assigned by
the Chemical Abstract Service to each distinct chemical substance.
207 CHRONIC ADVERSE EFFECTS TO HUMAN HEALTH - Those effects described in ARS §49-
401.01(2)-Air Quality Generally-General Provisions-Definitions that are persistent, recurring, or
long-term in nature or that are delayed in their onset. ARS 49-401.01(2)-Air Quality Generally-
General Provisions-Definitions defines “adverse effects to human health” as those effects that result
in or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or
incapacitating reversible illness, including adverse effects that are known to be or may reasonably be
anticipated to be caused by substances that are acutely toxic, chronically toxic, carcinogenic,
mutagenic, teratogenic, neurotoxic, or causative of reproductive dysfunction.
208 CHRONIC AMBIENT AIR CONCENTRATION (CAAC) - That concentration of a hazardous air
pollutant, in the ambient air, above which the general population, including susceptible populations,
could experience chronic adverse effects to human health.
209 FEDERALLY LISTED HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT - Any pollutant adopted under Section
301-Maricopa County List Of Hazardous Air Pollutants of this rule.
210 HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT - Any federally listed hazardous air pollutant.
211 MAJOR SOURCE OF MARICOPA COUNTY HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
(HAPs) -
211.1 A stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit in the aggregate, including
fugitive emissions, 10 tons per year or more of any Maricopa County hazardous air
pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of Maricopa County hazardous air
pollutants.
11

211.2 Any change to a minor source of hazardous air pollutants that would increase its emissions
to the qualifying levels in Section 211.1 of this rule.
212 MARICOPA COUNTY HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT (HAP) - Any federally listed hazardous
air pollutant.
213 MINOR SOURCE OF MARICOPA COUNTY HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (HAPs) - A
stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit, including fugitive emissions, one ton or more
but less than 10 tons per year of any hazardous air pollutant or two and one-half tons or more but less
than 25 tons per year of any combination of hazardous air pollutants.
214 MODIFICATION / MODIFY
214.1 A physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a source that increases the
actual emissions of any Maricopa County hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emitted by the
source by more than any de minimis amount listed in Table 2-Maricopa County HAPs De
Minimis Levels, or which results in the emission of any HAP not previously emitted by the
source by more than any de minimis amount listed in Table 2- Maricopa County HAPs De
Minimis Levels.
Table 2-Maricopa County HAPs De Minimis Levels
Chemical De Minimis De Minimis
Lb/Hour Lb/Year
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (Methyl Chloroform) 117 14,247
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane N/A 0.20
1,3-Butadiene N/A 0.39
1,4-Dichlorobenzene N/A 1.9
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 51 N/A
2,4-Dinitrotoluene N/A 0.13
2-Chloroacetophenone N/A 0.19
Acetaldehyde N/A 5.3
Acetophenone 1.4 2,261
Acrolein 0.013 0.129
Acrylonitrile N/A 0.17
Antimony Compounds (Selected Compound: 0.71 9.0
Antimony)
Arsenic Compounds (Selected Compound: Arsenic) N/A 0.0027
Benzene N/A 1.5
Benzyl Chloride N/A 0.25
Beryllium Compounds (Selected Compound: 0.000707 0.0049
Beryllium)
Biphenyl 2.1 1,130
bis (2-Ethylhexy) Phthalate 0.71 3.0
Bromoform 0.42 11
Cadmium Compounds (Selected Compound: N/A 0.0065
Cadmium)
Carbon Disulfide 18 4,522
Carbon Tetrachloride N/A 0.78
Carbonyl Sulfide 1.7 N/A
Chlorobenzene 57 6,442
Chloroform N/A 2.2
Chromium Compounds (Selected Compound: N/A 0.0010
Hexavalent Chromium)
12

Cobalt Compounds (Selected Compound: Cobalt) N/A 0.0042
Cumene 53 2,583
Cyanide Compounds (Selected Compound: Hydrogen 0.22 19
Cyanide)
Dibenzofurans 1.4 45
Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride) 20 25
Dimethyl Formamide 9.3 194
Dimethyl Sulfate 0.018 N/A
Ethyl Benzene 14 6,442
Ethyl Chloride (Chloroethane) 71 64,420
Etylene Dibromide (Dibromoethane) N/A 0.020
Ethylene Dichloride (1,2-Dichloroethane) N/A 0.45
Ethylene Glycol 2.8 2,583
Ethylidene Dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane) 354 3,230
Formaldehyde N/A 0.90
Glycol Ethers (Selected Compound: Diethylene 14 19
Glycol, Monoethyl Ether)
Hexachlorobenzene N/A 0.026
Hexane 659 13,689
Hydrochloric Acid 0.93 129
Hydrogen Fluoride (Hydrofluoric Acid) 0.56 90
Isophorone 0.71 12,946
Manganese Compounds (Selected Compound: 0.14 0.32
Manganese)
Mercury Compounds (Selected Compound: Elemental 0.058 1.9
Mercury)
Methanol 53 25,830
Methyl Bromide 15 32
Methyl Chloride 67 582
Methyl Hydrazine N/A 0.0024
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (Hexone) 28 19,388
Methyl Methacrylate 18 4,522
Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether N/A 46
N, N-Dimethylaniline 1.4 45
Naphthalene N/A 0.35
Nickel Compounds (Selected Compound: Nickel N/A 0.049
Refinery Dust)
Phenol 3.3 1,295
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (Selected Compound: N/A 0.12
Aroclor 1254)
Polycyclic Organic Matter (Selected Compound: N/A 0.013
Benzo(a)pyrene)
Propionaldehyde N/A 5.3
Propylene Dichloride 14 26
Selenium Compounds (Selected Compound: 0.028 113
Selenium)
Styrene 31 6,442
Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene) N/A 2.0
Toluene 109 146,766
Trichlorethylene N/A 0.10
Vinyl Acetate 22 1,295
Vinyl Chloride N/A 1.3
Vinylidene Chloride (1,2-Dichloroethylene) 2.1 1,295
Xylene (Mixed Isomers) 98 644
13

214.2 A physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a source that increases the
actual emissions of any Maricopa County HAPs emitted by the source, if it results in total
source emissions that exceed one ton per year (tpy) of any individual HAP or 2.5 tpy of any
combination of HAPs.
214.3 A physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a source is not a
modification subject to this rule, if:
a. The change, together with any other changes implemented or planned by the
source, qualifies for an alternative emission limitation under Section 112(i)(5) of
the Act;
b. The Clean Air Act Section 112(d) or Section 112(f) imposes a standard requiring
the change that is implemented after the Administrator promulgates the standard;
c. The change is routine maintenance, repair, or replacement;
d. The change is the use of an alternative fuel or raw material by reason of an order
under Section 2(a) and (b) of the Energy Supply And Environmental Coordination
Act of 1974, 15 U.S.C. 792, or by reason of a natural gas curtailment plan under
the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 792-825r;
e. The change is the use of an alternative fuel by reason of an order or rule under
Section 125 of the Act;
f. The change is the use of an alternative fuel at a steam generating unit to the extent
that the fuel is generated from municipal solid waste;
g. The change is an increase in the hours of operation or in the production rate,
unless the change would be prohibited under an enforceable permit condition; or
h. The change is any change in ownership at a stationary source.
215 POTENTIAL TO EMIT / POTENTIAL EMISSION RATE - The maximum capacity of a stationary
source to emit a pollutant, excluding secondary emissions, taking into account controls that are
enforceable under any federal, state, or local law, rule, or regulation or that are inherent in the design
of the source.
216 SIC CODE - The standard industrial classification code number for a source category derived from
1987 Standard Industrial Classification Manual (U.S. Office Of Management And Budget, 1987).
217 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER - The process by which existing control technologies that have been
successfully applied in other source categories that have similar processes or emissions units are
reviewed for potential use in a different source category.
SECTION 300 - STANDARDS
301 MARICOPA COUNTY LIST OF HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS: The following federally
listed hazardous air pollutants listed in Section 112(b)(1) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(b)(1)) are
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) under this rule:
CAS No. HAPs
75070 Acetaldehyde
60355 Acetamide
75058 Acetonitrile
14

98862 Acetophenone
53963 2-Acetylaminofluorene
107028 Acrolein
79061 Acrylamide
79107 Acrylic acid
107131 Acrylonitrile
107051 Allyl chloride
92671 4-Aminobiphenyl
62533 Aniline
90040 o-Anisidine
1332214 Asbestos
71432 Benzene (Including benzene from gasoline)
92875 Benzidine
98077 Benzotrichloride
100447 Benzyl chloride
92524 Biphenyl
117817 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP)
542881 Bis(chloromethyl)ether
75252 Bromoform
106990 1,3-Butadiene
156627 Calcium cyanamide
133062 Captan
63252 Carbaryl
75150 Carbon disulfide
56235 Carbon tetrachloride
463581 Carbonyl sulfide
120809 Catechol
133904 Chloramben
57749 Chlordane
7782505 Chlorine
79118 Chloroacetic acid
532274 2-Chloroacetophenone
108907 Chlorobenzene
510156 Chlorobenzilate
67663 Chloroform
107302 Chloromethyl methyl ether
126998 Chloroprene
1319773 Cresols/Cresylic acid (Isomers and mixture)
95487 o-Cresol
108394 m-Cresol
106445 p-Cresol
98828 Cumene
94757 2,4-D, salts and esters
3547044 DDE
334883 Diazomethane
132649 Dibenzofurans
96128 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
84742 Dibutylphthalate
106467 1,4-Dichlorobenzene(p)
91941 3,3-Dichlorobenzidene
111444 Dichloroethyl ether (Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether)
542756 1,3-Dichloropropene
62737 Dichlorvos
111422 Diethanolamine
121697 N,N-Diethylaniline (N,N-Dimethylaniline)
64675 Diethyl sulfate
15

119904 3,3-Dimethoxybenzidine
60117 Dimethyl aminoazobenzene
119937 3,3’-Dimethyl benzidine
79447 Dimethyl carbamoyl chloride
68122 Dimethyl formamide
57147 1,1-Dimethyl hydrazine
131113 Dimethyl phthalate
77781 Dimethyl sulfate
534521 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol, and salts
51285 2,4-Dinitrophenol
121142 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
123911 1,4-Dioxane (1,4-Diethyleneoxide)
122667 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
106898 Epichlorohydrin (1-Chloro-2,3-epoxypropane)
106887 1,2-Epoxybutane
140885 Ethyl acrylate
100414 Ethyl benzene
51796 Ethyl carbamate (Urethane)
75003 Ethyl chloride (Chloroethane)
106934 Ethylene dibromide (Dibromoethane)
107062 Ethylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloroethane)
107211 Ethylene glycol
151564 Ethylene imine (Aziridine)
75218 Ethylene oxide
96457 Ethylene thiourea
75343 Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane)
50000 Formaldehyde
76448 Heptachlor
118741 Hexachlorobenzene
87683 Hexachlorobutadiene
77474 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
67721 Hexachloroethane
822060 Hexamethylene-1,6-diisocyanate
680319 Hexamethylphosphoramide
110543 Hexane
302012 Hydrazine
7647010 Hydrochloric acid
7664393 Hydrogen fluoride (Hydrofluoric acid)
123319 Hydroquinone
78591 Isophorone
58899 Lindane (All isomers)
108316 Maleic anhydride
67561 Methanol
72435 Methoxychlor
74839 Methyl bromide (Bromomethane)
74873 Methyl chloride (Chloromethane)
71556 Methyl chloroform (1,1,1-Trichloroethane)
60344 Methyl hydrazine
74884 Methyl iodine (Iodomethane)
108101 Methyl isobutyl ketone (Hexone)
624839 Methyl isocyanate
80626 Methyl methacrylate
1634044 Methyl tert butyl ether
101144 4,4-Methylene bis(2,chloroaniline)
75092 Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane)
101688 Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI)
16

101779 4,4-Methylenedianiline
91203 Naphthalene
98953 Nitrobenzene
92933 4-Nitrobiphenyl
100027 4-Nitrophenol
79469 2-Nitropropane
684935 N-Nitroso-N-methylurea
62759 N-Nitrosodimethylamine
59892 N-Nitrosomorpholine
56382 Parathion
82688 Pentachloronitrobenzene (Quintobenzene)
87865 Pentachlorophenol
108952 Phenol
106503 p-Phenylenediamine
75445 Phosgene
7803512 Phosphine
7723140 Phosphorus
85449 Phthalic anhydride
1336363 Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
1120714 1,3-Propane sultone
57578 beta-Propiolactone
123386 Propionaldehyde
114261 Propoxur (Baygon)
78875 Propylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloropropane)
75569 Propylene oxide
75558 1,2-Propylenimine (2-Methyl aziridine)
91225 Quinoline
106514 Quinone
100425 Styrene
96093 Styrene oxide
1746016 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
79345 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
127184 Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene)
7550450 Titanium tetrachloride
108883 Toluene
95807 2,4-Toluene diamine
584849 2,4-Toluene diisocyanate
95534 o-Toluidine
8001352 Toxaphene (Chlorinated camphene)
120821 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
79005 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
79016 Trichloroethylene
95954 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
88062 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
121448 Triethylamine
1582098 Trifluralin
540841 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
108054 Vinyl acetate
593602 Vinyl bromide
75014 Vinyl chloride
75354 Vinylidene chloride (1,1-Dichloroethylene)
1330207 Xylenes (Isomers and mixture)
95476 o-Xylenes
108383 m-Xylenes
106423 p-Xylenes
Antimony Compounds
17

Arsenic Compounds (Inorganic including arsine)
Beryllium Compounds
Cadmium Compounds
Chromium Compounds
Cobalt Compounds
Coke Oven Emissions
Cyanide Compounds
X’CN where X = H’ or any other group where a formal dissociation may occur. For example,
KCN or Ca(CN)2
Glycol Ethers
a. Glycol ethers include mono- and di- ethers of ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, and
triethylene glycol R-(OCH2CH2)[n]-OR’ where:
(1) n = 1, 2, or 3;
(2) R = alkyl C7 or less; or
(3) R = phenyl or alkyl substituted phenyl;
(4) R’= H or alkyl C7 or less; or
(5) OR’ consisting of carboxylic acid ester, sulfate, phosphate, nitrate, or sulfonate
b. Glycol ethers does not include ethylene glycol monobutyl ether
Lead Compounds
Manganese Compounds
Mercury Compounds
Fine Mineral Fibers (Including mineral fiber emissions from facilities manufacturing or processing
glass, rock, or slag or other mineral-derived fibers of average diameter 1 micrometer or less)
Nickel Compounds
Polycyclic Organic Matter (Including organic compounds with more than one benzene ring and
which have a boiling point greater than or equal to 100°C) Radionuclides (Including radon.
Radionuclide is a type of atom which spontaneously undergoes radioactive decay)
Selenium Compounds
302 NOTICE OF TYPES AND AMOUNTS OF HAPS: An owner and/or operator of a source subject to
this rule shall provide the Control Officer with notice, in a permit application, of the types and
amounts of HAPs emitted by the source. The notice shall include readily available data regarding
emissions from the source. The Control Officer shall not require the owner and/or operator to
conduct performance tests, sampling, or monitoring in order to fulfill the requirements of this section
of this rule.
303 MODIFICATIONS; PERMITS; PERMIT REVISIONS:
303.1 Any person who constructs or modifies a source that is subject to this rule must first obtain
a permit or significant permit revision that complies with:
a. Rule 210-Title V Permit Provisions of these rules or Rule 220-Non-Title V Permit
Provisions of these rules; and
b. Section 303.2 of this rule or Section 303.3 of this rule.
303.2 A permit or significant permit revision that the Control Officer issues to a new or modified
minor source of Maricopa County hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) that is in one of the
source categories listed in Table 1-Maricopa County HAPs Minor Source Categories of this
rule shall impose HAPRACT under Section 304 of this rule, unless the applicant
demonstrates, with a risk management analysis (RMA) under Section 306 of this rule, that
the imposition of HAPRACT is not necessary to avoid adverse effects to human health or
adverse environmental effects.
303.3 A permit or significant permit revision that the Control Officer issues to a new or modified
major source of Maricopa County hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) shall impose AZMACT
18

under Section 305 of this rule, unless the applicant demonstrates, with a risk management
analysis (RMA) under Section 306 of this rule, that the imposition of AZMACT is not
necessary to avoid adverse effects to human health or adverse environmental effects.
303.4 If the Control Officer establishes a general permit establishing HAPRACT according to
Rule 230-General Permits of these rules, the following apply:
a. The owner and/or operator of a source covered by that general permit may obtain a
variance from HAPRACT by complying with a risk management analysis (RMA)
under Section 306 of this rule when the source applies for the general permit;
b. If the owner and/or operator makes the applicable demonstration required by a risk
management analysis (RMA) under Section 306 of this rule and otherwise
qualifies for the general permit, the Control Officer shall approve the application
according to ARS §49-480-County Air Pollution Control-Permits; Fees and issue
an authorization-to-operate granting a variance from the specific provisions of the
general permit relating to HAPRACT; and
c. Except as modified by a variance, the general permit governs the source.
303.5 When determining whether HAP emissions from a new source or modification exceed the
thresholds prescribed in Section 211-Definition Of Major Source Of Maricopa County
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) of this rule and Section 213-Minor Source Of Maricopa
County Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) of this rule or a de minimis amount described in
Table 2-Maricopa County HAPs De Minimis Levels in Section 214.1 of this rule, the
Control Officer shall exclude particulate matter emissions that consist of natural crustal
material and that are produced either by natural forces, such as wind or erosion, or by
anthropogenic activities, such as agricultural operations, excavation, blasting, drilling,
handling, storage, earthmoving, crushing, grinding, or traffic over paved or unpaved roads,
or other similar activities.
303.6 In addition to the requirements of Appendix B-Standard Permit Application Form And
Filing Instructions of these rules, an application for a permit or a permit revision required
under this section of this rule shall include one of the following:
a. The applicant’s proposal and documentation for HAPRACT under Section 304 of
this rule;
b. The applicant’s proposal and documentation for AZMACT under Section 305 of
this rule; or
c. A risk management analysis (RMA) submitted under Section 306 of this rule.
303.7 Any applicant for a permit or a permit revision under this rule may request accelerated
permit processing under Rule 200-Permit Requirements.
304 CASE-BY-CASE HAPRACT DETERMINATION:
304.1 The applicant shall include in the application sufficient documentation to show that the
proposed control technology or methodology meets the requirements of ARS §49-480.04-
County Air Pollution Control-County Program For Control Of Hazardous Air Pollutants
and of this section of this rule.
304.2 An applicant subject to Section 303.2-Modifications; Permits; Permit Revisions of this rule
shall propose HAPRACT for the new source or modification, to be included in the
19

applicant’s permit or significant permit revision. The applicant shall document each of the
following steps:
a. The applicant shall identify the range of applicable control technologies,
including:
(1) A survey of similar emission sources to determine the emission
limitations currently achieved in practice in the United States;
(2) Controls applied to similar source categories, emissions units, or gas
streams through technology transfer; and
(3) Innovative technologies that are demonstrated to be reliable, that reduce
emissions for HAP under review at least to the extent achieved by the
control technology that would otherwise have been proposed and that
meets all the requirements of ARS §49-480.04-County Air Pollution
Control-County Program For Control Of Hazardous Air Pollutants and
this section of this rule.
b. The applicant shall propose as HAPRACT one of the control technologies
identified under Section 304.2(a)-Case-By-Case HAPRACT Determination of this
rule and shall provide:
(1) The rationale for selecting the specific control technologies from the
range identified in Section 304.2(a)-Case-By-Case HAPRACT
Determination;
(2) Estimated control efficiency, described as percent HAP removed;
(3) Expected emission rates in tons per year and pounds per hour;
(4) Expected emission reduction in tons per year and pounds per hour;
(5) Economic impacts and cost effectiveness of implementing the proposed
control technology;
(6) Other environmental impacts of the proposed control technology; and
(7) Energy impact of the proposed technology.
c. The applicant shall identify rejected control technologies identified in Section
304.2(a)-Case-By-Case HAPRACT Determination of this rule and shall provide
for each rejected control technology:
(1) The rationale for rejecting the specific control technologies identified in
Section 304.2(a)-Case-By-Case HAPRACT Determination of this rule;
(2) Estimated control efficiency described as percent HAP removed;
(3) Expected emission rates in tons per year and pounds per hour;
(4) Expected emission reduction in tons per year and pounds per hour;
(5) Economic impact and cost effectiveness of implementing the rejected
control technologies;
20

(6) Other environmental impact of the rejected control technology; and
(7) Energy impact of the rejected control technologies.
304.3 The Control Officer shall determine whether the applicant’s HAPRACT selection complies
with ARS §49-480.04-County Air Pollution Control-County Program For Control Of
Hazardous Air Pollutants and this section of this rule based on the documentation provided
in Section 304.2-Case-By-Case HAPRACT Determination of this rule:
a. If the Control Officer finds that the applicant’s proposal complies with ARS §49-
480.04-County Air Pollution Control-County Program For Control Of Hazardous
Air Pollutants and this section of this rule, the Control Officer shall include the
applicant’s proposed HAPRACT selection in the permit or permit revision.
b. If the Control Officer finds that the applicant’s proposal fails to comply with ARS
§49-480.04-County Air Pollution Control-County Program For Control Of
Hazardous Air Pollutants and this section of this rule, the Control Officer shall:
(1) Notify the applicant that the proposal fails to meet requirements;
(2) Specify the deficiencies in the proposal; and
(3) State that the applicant shall submit a new HAPRACT proposal
according to the provisions regarding permit application processing
procedures in Rule 210-Title V Permit Provisions or Rule 220-Non-Title
V Permit Provisions of these rules.
c. If the applicant does not submit a new proposal, the Control Officer shall deny the
application for a permit or permit revision.
d. If the Control Officer finds that the new proposal fails to comply with ARS §49-
480.04-County Air Pollution Control-County Program For Control Of Hazardous
Air Pollutants and this section of this rule, the Control Officer shall deny the
application for a permit or permit revision.
304.4 If the Control Officer finds that a reliable method of measuring HAP emissions is not
available, the Control Officer shall require, in the permit, the applicant to comply with a
design, equipment, work practice or operational standard, or combination of these, but shall
not impose a numeric emissions limitation upon the applicant.
304.5 The Control Officer shall not impose a control technology that would require the
application of measures that are incompatible with measures required under Rule 370-
Federal Hazardous Air Pollutant Program of these rules or 40 CFR Part 63-National
Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants For Source Categories. An applicable
control technology for a source or source category that is promulgated by the Administrator
shall supersede control technology imposed by the Control Officer for that source or source
category.
305 CASE-BY-CASE AZMACT DETERMINATION:
305.1 The applicant shall include in the application sufficient documentation to show that the
proposed control technology meets the requirements of ARS §49-480.04-County Air
Pollution Control-County Program For Control Of Hazardous Air Pollutants and of this
section of this rule.
21

305.2 An applicant subject to Section 303.3-Modifications; Permits; Permit Revisions of this rule
shall propose AZMACT for the new source or modification, to be included in the
applicant’s permit or permit revision. The applicant shall document each of the following
steps:
a. The applicant shall identify all available control options, taking into consideration
the measures cited in Section 205-Definition Of Arizona Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (AZMACT) of this rule. The analysis shall include a survey
of emission sources to determine the most stringent emission limitation currently
achieved in practice in the United States. The survey may include technologies
employed outside of the United States and may include controls applied through
technology transfer to similar source categories and gas streams.
b. The applicant shall eliminate options that are technically infeasible because of
source-specific factors. The applicant shall clearly document the demonstration of
technical infeasibility and shall base the demonstration upon physical, chemical,
and engineering barriers that would preclude the successful use of each control
option that the applicant has eliminated.
c. The applicant shall list the remaining control technologies in order of overall
removal efficiency for the HAP under review, with the most effective at the top of
the list. The list shall include the following information, for the control technology
proposed and for any control technology that is ranked higher than the proposed
technology:
(1) Estimated control efficiency described by percent of HAP removed;
(2) Expected emission rate in tons per year and pounds per hour;
(3) Expected emission reduction in tons per year and pounds per hour;
(4) Economic impact and cost effectiveness;
(5) Other environmental impact; and
(6) Energy impact.
d. The applicant shall evaluate the most effective controls, listed according to Section
305.2(c)-Case-By-Case AZMACT Determination of this rule and document the
results as follows:
(1) For new major sources, the applicant shall consider the factors described
in Section 305.2(c)-Case-By-Case AZMACT Determination of this rule
to arrive at the final control technology proposed as AZMACT.
(a) The applicant shall discuss the beneficial and adverse economic,
environmental, and energy impacts and quantify them where
possible, focusing on the direct impacts of each control
technology.
(b) If the applicant proposes the top alternative in the list as
AZMACT, the applicant shall consider whether other
environmental impacts mandate the selection of an alternative
control technology. If the applicant does not propose the top
alternative as AZMACT, the applicant shall evaluate the next
most stringent technology in the list. The applicant shall
22

continue the evaluation process until the applicant arrives at a
technology that the applicant does not eliminate because of
source-specific, economic, environmental, or energy impacts.
(2) For a modification, the applicant shall evaluate the control technologies
according to Section 305.2(d)(1)-Case-By-Case AZMACT
Determination of this rule. AZMACT for a modification may be less
stringent than AZMACT for a new source in the same source category
but shall not be less stringent than:
(a) In cases where the applicant has identified 30 or more sources,
the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing
12% of the existing similar sources, which the applicant shall
include in the permit application; or
(b) In cases where the applicant has identified fewer than 30 similar
sources, the average emission limitation achieved by the best
performing five sources, which the applicant shall include in the
permit application.
e. The applicant shall propose as AZMACT for the HAP under review:
(1) The most effective control technology or methodology not eliminated in
the evaluation described in Section 305.2(d)-Case-By-Case AZMACT
Determination of this rule; or
(2) An innovative technology that reduces emissions to the extent achieved
by the control technology that the applicant otherwise would have
proposed under Section 305.2(e)(1)-Case-By-Case AZMACT
Determination of this rule and that meets all the requirements of ARS
§49-480.04-County Air Pollution Control-County Program For Control
Of Hazardous Air Pollutants and this section of this rule.
305.3 The Control Officer shall not approve a control technology or methodology less stringent
than any applicable federal new source performance standard (NSPS) at 40 CFR Part 60 or
national emission standard for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) at 40 CFR Part 61.
305.4 The Control Officer shall determine whether the applicant’s AZMACT proposal complies
with ARS §49-480.04-County Air Pollution Control-County Program For Control Of
Hazardous Air Pollutants and this section of this rule.
a. If the Control Officer determines that the applicant’s proposal complies with ARS
§49-480.04-County Air Pollution Control-County Program For Control Of
Hazardous Air Pollutants and this section of this rule, the Control Officer shall
include the applicant’s proposed AZMACT selection in the permit or permit
revision.
b. If the Control Officer determines that the applicant’s proposal does not comply
with ARS §49-480.04-County Air Pollution Control-County Program For Control
Of Hazardous Air Pollutants and this section of this rule, the Control Officer shall:
(1) Notify the applicant that the proposal does not meet the requirements;
(2) Specify the deficiencies; and
23

(3) State that the applicant shall submit a new AZMACT proposal according
to permit application processing procedures in Rule 210-Title V Permit
Provisions or Rule 220-Non-Title V Permit Provisions of these rules.
c. If the applicant does not submit a new proposal, the Control Officer may deny the
application for permit or permit revision.
d. If the Control Officer determines that the new proposal fails to comply with ARS
§49-480.04-County Air Pollution Control-County Program For Control Of
Hazardous Air Pollutants and this section of this rule, the Control Officer shall
deny the application for a permit or permit revision.
305.5 If a reliable method of measuring HAP emissions is not available, the Control Officer shall
require the applicant to comply with a design, equipment, work practice, or operational
standard, or combination of these, to be included in the applicant’s permit, but shall not
impose a numeric emissions limitation.
305.6 The Control Officer shall not impose a control technology that would require the
application of measures that are incompatible with measures required under Rule 370-
Federal Hazardous Air Pollutant Program of these rules or 40 CFR Part 63-National
Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants For Source Categories. An applicable
control technology for a source or source category that is promulgated by the Administrator
shall supersede control technology imposed by the Control Officer for that source or source
category.
306 RISK MANAGEMENT ANALYSES:
306.1 Applicability:
a. An applicant seeking to demonstrate that HAPRACT or AZMACT is not
necessary to prevent adverse effects to human health or the environment by
conducting a risk management analysis (RMA) shall first apply for a permit or a
significant permit revision that complies with Rule 210-Title V Permit Provisions
or Rule 220-Non-Title V Permit Provisions of these rules.
b. An applicant seeking to demonstrate that HAPRACT or AZMACT is not
necessary to prevent adverse effects to human health or the environment shall
conduct a risk management analysis (RMA) according to this section of this rule.
c. The risk management analysis (RMA) for a new source shall apply to:
(1) The source’s annual total potential to emit Maricopa County HAPs for
evaluation of chronic exposure; or
(2) The source’s hourly total potential to emit Maricopa County HAPs for
evaluation of acute exposure.
d. The risk management analysis (RMA) for a modified source shall apply to:
(1) The source’s annual total potential to emit Maricopa County HAPs, after
the modification, for evaluation of chronic exposure; or
(2) The source’s hourly total potential to emit Maricopa County HAPs, after
the modification, for evaluation of acute exposure.
24

e. An applicant shall conduct a risk management analysis (RMA) for each Maricopa
County HAP emitted by the source in greater than de minimis amounts.
306.2 The applicant may use any of the following methods for conducting a risk management
analysis (RMA):
a. Tier 1-Equation:
(1) For emissions of a HAP included in a listed group of hazardous
compounds, other than those HAPs identified in Table 3-Acute And
Chronic Ambient Air Concentrations of this rule as selected compounds,
the applicant shall determine a health-based ambient air concentration,
under Section 306.3(c)-Risk Management Analyses-Health Based
Ambient Air Concentrations Of Maricopa County HAPs of this rule.
(2) The applicant shall determine the potential maximum hourly exposure
resulting from emissions of the HAP by applying the following equation:
MHE = PPH * 17.68, where:
(a) MHE = maximum hourly exposure in milligrams per cubic
meter, and
(b) PPH = hourly potential to emit the HAP in pounds
per hour.
(3) The applicant shall determine the potential maximum annual exposure
resulting from emissions of the HAP by applying the following equation:
MAE = PPY * 1/MOH * 1.41, where:
(a) MAE = maximum annual exposure in milligrams per cubic
meter,
(b) PPY = annual potential to emit the HAP in pounds
per year, and
(c) MOH = maximum operating hours for the source, taking into account
any enforceable operational limitations.
(4) The Control Officer shall not require compliance with HAPRACT for the
HAP under Section 304-Case-By-Case HAPRACT Determination of this
rule or with AZMACT for the HAP under Section 305-Case-By-Case
AZMACT Determination of this rule, if both of the following are true:
(a) The maximum hourly concentration determined under Section
306.2(a)(2)-Risk Management Analyses-Tier 1-Equation of this
rule is less than the acute ambient air concentrations determined
under Section 306.3(c)-Risk Management Analyses-Health
Based Ambient Air Concentrations Of Maricopa County HAPs
of this rule; and
(b) The maximum annual concentration determined under Section
306.2(a)(3)-Risk Management Analyses-Tier 1-Equation of this
rule is less than the chronic ambient air concentrations
determined under Section 306.3(c)-Risk Management Analyses
-Health Based Ambient Air Concentrations Of Maricopa
County HAPs of this rule.
25

(5) If either the maximum hourly concentration determined under Section
306.2(a)(2)-Risk Management Analyses-Tier 1-Equation of this rule or
the maximum annual concentration determined under Section
306.2(a)(3)-Risk Management Analyses-Tier 1-Equation is greater than
or equal to the relevant ambient air concentration:
(a) The Control Officer shall require compliance with HAPRACT
under Section 304-Case-By-Case HAPRACT Determination of
this rule or with AZMACT under Section 305-Case-By-Case
AZMACT Determination of this rule; or
(b) The applicant may use the Tier 2-SCREEN model method
under Section 306.2(b) of this rule, the Tier 3-Modified
SCREEN Model method under Section 306.2(c) of this rule, or
the Tier 4-Modified SCREEN Model Or Refined Air Quality
Model method under Section 306.2(d) of this rule for
conducting a risk management analysis (RMA) under Section
306-Risk Management Analyses of this rule.
b. Tier 2-SCREEN Model:
(1) The applicant shall use the SCREEN model performed in a manner
consistent with the Guideline specified in Rule 240-Permit Requirements
For New Major Sources And Major Modifications To Existing Major
Sources, Section 308.1(f)(1)-Permit Requirements For Sources Located
In Attainment And Unclassifiable Areas-Air Quality Models of these
rules. The applicant shall compare the maximum concentration that is
predicted in the ambient air with the relevant ambient air concentration
determined under Section 306.3-Risk Management Analyses-Health
Based Ambient Air Concentrations Of Maricopa County HAPs of this
rule.
(2) If the predicted maximum concentration is less than the relevant ambient
air concentration, the Control Officer shall not require compliance with
HAPRACT under Section 304-Case-By-Case HAPRACT Determination
of this rule or AZMACT under Section 305-Case-By-Case AZMACT
Determination of this rule.
(3) If the predicted maximum concentration is greater than or equal to the
relevant ambient air concentration:
(a) The Control Officer shall require compliance with HAPRACT
under Section 304-Case-By-Case HAPRACT Determination of
this rule or AZMACT under Section 305-Case-By-Case
AZMACT Determination of this rule; or
(b) The applicant may use the Tier 3-Modified SCREEN Model
method under Section 306.2(c) of this rule or the Tier 4-
Modified SCREEN Model Or Refined Air Quality Model
method under Section 306.2(d) of this rule for determining
maximum public exposure to Maricopa County HAPs under
Section 306.2(c)-Risk Management Analyses-Tier 3-Modified
SCREEN Model of this rule.
c. Tier 3-Modified SCREEN Model:
26

(1) The applicant shall use the SCREEN model performed in a manner
consistent with the Guideline specified in Rule 240-Permit Requirements
For New Major Sources And Major Modifications To Existing Major
Sources, Section 308.1(f)(1)-Permit Requirements For Sources Located
In Attainment And Unclassifiable Areas-Air Quality Models of these
rules.
(2) For evaluation of acute exposure, the applicant shall assume exposure in
the ambient air.
(3) For evaluation of chronic exposure:
(a) The applicant may use exposure assumptions consistent with
institutional or engineering controls that are permanent and
enforceable outside the permit.
(b) The applicant shall notify the Control Officer of these controls.
If the Control Officer does not approve of the proposed controls
or if the controls are not permanent and enforceable outside of
the permit, the applicant shall not use the method specified in
Section 306.2(c)(3)-Risk Management Analyses-Tier 3-
Modified SCREEN Model of this rule to determine maximum
public exposure to the Maricopa County HAP.
(4) If the predicted maximum concentration is less than the relevant ambient
air concentration, the Control Officer shall not require compliance with
HAPRACT under Section 304-Case-By-Case HAPRACT Determination
of this rule or AZMACT under Section 305-Case-By-Case AZMACT
Determination of this rule.
(5) If the predicted maximum concentration is greater than or equal to the
relevant ambient air concentration:
(a) The Control Officer shall require compliance with HAPRACT
under Section 304-Case-By-Case HAPRACT Determination of
this rule or AZMACT under Section 305-Case-By-Case
AZMACT Determination of this rule; or
(b) The applicant may use the Tier 4-Modified SCREEN Model Or
Refined Air Quality Model method under Section 306.2(d) of
this rule for determining maximum public exposure to Maricopa
County HAPs, under Section 306.2(d) of this rule.
d. Tier 4-Modified SCREEN Model Or Refined Air Quality Model:
(1) The applicant shall employ either the SCREEN model or a refined air
quality model performed in a manner consistent with the Guideline
specified in Rule 240-Permit Requirements For New Major Sources And
Major Modifications To Existing Major Sources, Section 308.1(f)(1)-
Permit Requirements For Sources Located In Attainment And
Unclassifiable Areas-Air Quality Models of these rules.
(2) For evaluation of acute exposure, the applicant shall assume exposure in
the ambient air.
27

(3) For evaluation of chronic exposure:
(a) The applicant may use exposure assumptions consistent with
institutional or engineering controls that are permanent and
enforceable outside the permit.
(b) The applicant shall notify the Control Officer of these controls.
If the Control Officer does not approve of the proposed controls
or if the proposed controls are not permanent and enforceable
outside of the permit, the applicant shall assume chronic
exposure in the ambient air.
(4) The applicant may include in the Tier 4 risk management analysis
(RMA) documentation of the following factors:
(a) The estimated actual exposure to the HAP of persons living in
the airshed of the source;
(b) Available epidemiological or other health studies;
(c) Risks presented by background concentrations of hazardous air
pollutants;
(d) Uncertainties in risk assessment methodology or other health
assessment techniques;
(e) Health or environmental consequences from efforts to reduce
the risk; or
(f) The technological and commercial availability of control
methods beyond those otherwise required for the source and the
cost of such methods.
(5) The applicant shall submit a written protocol for conducting a risk
management analysis (RMA), consistent with the requirements of
Section 306.2(d)-Risk Management Analyses-Tier 4-Modified SCREEN
Model Or Refined Air Quality Model of this rule, to the Control Officer
for the Control Officer’s approval. If the Control Officer does not
approve the written protocol, the applicant may:
(a) Submit a revised protocol to the Control Officer;
(b) Propose HAPRACT under Section 304-Case-By-Case
HAPRACT Determination of this rule or AZMACT under
Section 305-Case-By-Case AZMACT Determination of this
rule; or
(c) Refuse to submit a revised protocol, in which case the Control
Officer shall deny the application.
(6) If the predicted maximum concentration is less than the relevant ambient
air concentration or if warranted under the factors listed in Section
306.2(d)(4)-Risk Management Analyses-Tier 4-Modified SCREEN
Model Or Refined Air Quality Model of this rule, the Control Officer
shall not require compliance with HAPRACT under Section 304-Case-
28

By-Case HAPRACT Determination of this rule or AZMACT under
Section 305-Case-By-Case AZMACT Determination of this rule.
(7) Except as provided in Section 306.2(d)(6)-Risk Management Analyses-
Tier 4-Modified SCREEN Model Or Refined Air Quality Model of this
rule, if the predicted maximum concentration is greater than or equal to
the relevant ambient air concentration, the Control Officer shall require
compliance with HAPRACT under Section 304-Case-By-Case
HAPRACT Determination of this rule or AZMACT under Section 305-
Case-By-Case AZMACT Determination of this rule.
306.3 Health Based Ambient Air Concentrations Of Maricopa County
HAPs:
a. For Maricopa County HAPs for which the Control Officer has already determined
an ambient air concentration, the applicant shall use the acute and chronic values
listed in Table 3-Acute And Chronic Ambient Air Concentrations of this rule.
Table 3-Acute And Chronic Ambient Air Concentrations
Chemical Acute Ambient Chronic
Air Ambient Air
Concentrations Concentrations
(mg/m3) (mg/m3)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (Methyl Chloroform) 2,075 2.30E+00
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 18 3.27E-05
1,3-Butadiene 7,514 6.32E-05
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 300 3.06E-04
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 900 NA
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 5.0 2.13E-05
2-Chloroacetophenone NA 3.13E-05
Acetaldehyde 306 8.62E-04
Acetophenone 25 3.65E-01
Acrolein 0.23 2.09E-05
Acrylonitrile 38 2.79E-05
Antimony Compounds (Selected Compound: 13 1.46E-03
Antimony)
Arsenic Compounds (Selected Compound: Arsenic) 2.5 4.41E-07
Benzene 1,276 2.43E-04
Benzyl Chloride 26 3.96E-05
Beryllium Compounds (Selected Compound: 0.013 7.90E-07
Beryllium)
Biphenyl 38 1.83E-01
bis (2-Ethylhexy) Phthalate 13 4.80E-04
Bromoform 7.5 1.72E-03
Cadmium Compounds (Selected Compound: 0.25 1.05E-06
Cadmium)
Carbon Disulfide 311 7.30E-01
Carbon Tetrachloride 201 1.26E-04
Carbonyl Sulfide 30 NA
Chlorobenzene 1,000 1.04E+00
Chloroform 195 3.58E-04
Chromium Compounds (Selected Compound: 0.10 1.58E-07
Hexavalent Chromium)
29

Cobalt Compounds (Selected Compound: Cobalt) 10 6.86E-07
Cumene 935 4.17E-01
Cyanide Compounds (Selected Compound: 3.9 3.13E-03
Hydrogen Cyanide)
Dibenzofurans 25 7.30E-03
Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride) 347 4.03E-03
Dimethyl Formamide 164 3.13E-02
Dimethyl Sulfate 0.31 NA
Ethyl Benzene 250 1.04E+00
Ethyl Chloride (Chloroethane) 1,250 1.04E+01
Etylene Dibromide (Dibromoethane) 100 3.16E-06
Ethylene Dichloride (1,2-Dichloroethane) 405 7.29E-05
Ethylene Glycol 50 4.17E-01
Ethylidene Dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane) 6,250 5.21E-01
Formaldehyde 17 1.46E-04
Glycol Ethers (Selected Compound: Diethylene 250 3.14E-03
Glycol, Monoethyl Ether)
Hexachlorobenzene 0.50 4.12E-06
Hexane 11,649 2.21E+00
Hydrochloric Acid 16 2.09E-02
Hydrogen Fluoride (Hydrofluoric Acid) 9.8 1.46E-02
Isophorone 13 2.09E+00
Manganese Compounds (Selected Compound: 2.5 5.21E-05
Manganese)
Mercury Compounds (Selected Compound: 1.0 3.13E-04
Elemental Mercury)
Methanol 943 4.17E+00
Methyl Bromide 261 5.21E-03
Methyl Chloride 1,180 9.39E-02
Methyl Hydrazine 0.43 3.96E-07
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (Hexone) 500 3.13E+00
Methyl Methacrylate 311 7.30E-01
Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether 1,444 7.40E-03
N, N-Dimethylaniline 25 7.30E-03
Naphthalene 75 5.58E-05
Nickel Compounds (Selected Compound: Nickel 5.0 7.90E-06
Refinery Dust)
Phenol 58 2.09E-01
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (Selected Compound: 2.5 1.90E-05
Aroclor 1254)
Polycyclic Organic Matter (Selected Compound: 5.0 2.02E-06
Benzo(a)pyrene)
Propionaldehyde 403 8.62E-04
Propylene Dichloride 250 4.17E-03
Selenium Compounds (Selected Compound: 0.50 1.83E-02
Selenium)
Styrene 554 1.04E+00
Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene) 814 3.20E-04
Toluene 1,923 5.21E+00
Trichlorethylene 1,450 1.68E-05
Vinyl Acetate 387 2.09E-01
Vinyl Chloride 2,099 2.15E-04
Vinylidene Chloride (1,2-Dichloroethylene) 38 2.09E-01
Xylene (Mixed Isomers) 1,736 1.04E-01
30

b. For Maricopa County HAPs for which an ambient air concentration has not
already been determined, the applicant shall determine the acute and chronic
ambient air concentrations according to the process in Appendix H-Procedures For
Determining Ambient Air Concentrations For Hazardous Air Pollutants of these
rules.
c. For specific compounds included in Maricopa County HAPs listed as a group
(e.g., arsenic compounds), the applicant may use an ambient air concentration
developed according to the process in Appendix H-Procedures For Determining
Ambient Air Concentrations For Hazardous Air Pollutants of these rules.
306.4 As part of the risk management analysis (RMA), an applicant may voluntarily propose
emissions limitations under Rule 220-Non-Title V Permit Provisions, Section 304-Permits
Containing Voluntarily Accepted Emissions Limitations, Controls, Or Other Requirements
(Synthetic Minor) of these rules, in order to avoid being subject to HAPRACT under
Section 304-Case-By-Case HAPRACT Determination of this rule or to avoid being subject
to AZMACT under Section 305-Case-By-Case AZMACT Determination of this rule.
306.5 Documentation Of Risk Management Analysis (RMA): The applicant shall document each
risk management analysis (RMA) performed for each Maricopa County HAP and shall
include the following information:
a. The potential maximum public exposure of the Maricopa County
HAP;
b. The method used to determine the potential maximum public
exposure:
(1) For Tier 1-Equation, the calculation demonstrating that the emissions of
the Maricopa County HAP are less than the health-based ambient air
concentration, determined under Section 306.3(c)-Risk Management
Analyses-Health Based Ambient Air Concentrations Of Maricopa
County HAPs of this rule.
(2) For Tier 2-SCREEN Model, the input files to and the results of the
SCREEN Modeling.
(3) For Tier 3-Modified SCREEN Model:
(a) The input files to and the results of the SCREEN
Modeling; and
(b) The permanent and enforceable institutional or engineering
controls approved by the Control Officer under Section
306.2(c)(3)-Risk Management Analyses-Tier 3-Modified
SCREEN Model of this rule.
(4) For Tier 4-Modified SCREEN Model Or Refined Air Quality Model:
(a) The model the applicant used;
(b) The input files to and the results of the modeling;
(c) The modeling protocol approved by the Control Officer under
Section 306.2(d)(3)-Risk Management Analyses-Tier 4-
31

Modified SCREEN Model Or Refined Air Quality Model of
this rule; and
(d) The permanent and enforceable institutional or engineering
controls approved by the Control Officer under Section
306.2(d)(5)-Risk Management Analyses-Tier 4-Modified
SCREEN Model Or Refined Air Quality Model of this rule;
c. The health-based ambient air concentrations determined under Section 306.3-Risk
Management Analyses-Health Based Ambient Air Concentrations Of Maricopa
County HAPs of this rule; and
d. Any voluntary emissions limitations that the applicant proposes under Section
306.4-Risk Management Analyses of this rule.
306.6 An applicant may conduct a risk management analysis (RMA) for any alternative operating
scenario, requested in the application, consistent with the requirements of Section 306.6-
Risk Management Analyses of this rule. The alternative operating scenario may allow a
range of operating conditions if the Control Officer concludes that the risk management
analysis (RMA) demonstrates no adverse effects to human health or adverse environmental
effects from operations within that range. Modifications to a source consistent with the
alternative operating scenario are not subject to this rule.
SECTION 400 - ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
401 EFFECTIVE DATE: The provisions of this rule shall be effective June 6, 2007 and shall not apply to
permits or significant permit revisions for which the Control Officer receives the first application
component before the effective date of this rule.
402 PERIODIC REVIEW:
402.1 Within one year after the Administrator adds or deletes a pollutant to the federal list of
hazardous air pollutants, under Section 112(b)(2) or Section 112(b)(3) of the Clean Air Act,
the Control Officer shall adopt those revisions for the Maricopa County list of HAPs in
Section 301-Maricopa County List Of Hazardous Air Pollutants of this rule, unless the
Control Officer finds that there is no scientific evidence to support the revision.
402.2 The Control Officer shall review the Maricopa County list of HAPs and the ambient air
concentrations once every three years.
402.3 Based upon the review, the Control Officer may revise:
a. The Maricopa County list of HAPs. The Control Officer shall add any HAP to or
delete any HAP from the Maricopa County list of HAPs in Section 301-Maricopa
County List Of Hazardous Air Pollutants of this rule according to Section
112(b)(1) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(b)(1)).
b. The acute and chronic health-based ambient air concentrations for Maricopa
County HAPs; and
c. The acute and chronic de minimis levels for Maricopa County HAPs.
d. The list of included minor source categories in Section 102-Applicability of this
rule.
SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS (NOT APPLICABLE)
32

Adopted 06/06/07
APPENDIX H
PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING AMBIENT AIR CONCENTRATIONS
FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
INDEX
SECTION 1 – APPLICABILITY
SECTION 2 – CHRONIC AMBIENT AIR CONCENTRATIONS
SECTION 3 – ACUTE AMBIENT AIR CONCENTRATIONS
MARICOPA COUNTY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
APPENDIX H
PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING AMBIENT AIR CONCENTRATIONS
FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
1. APPLICABILITY: The procedure described in Appendix H of these rules shall be used to develop chronic
ambient air concentrations (CAACs) and acute ambient air concentrations (AAACs) for hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) for the following:
a. Any HAP not included in Rule 372-Maricopa County Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS) Program-
Table 3-Acute And Chronic Ambient Air Concentrations of these rules; and
b. Any compound included in a group of HAPs listed in Rule 372-Maricopa County Hazardous Air
Pollutants (HAPS) Program-Table 3-Acute And Chronic Ambient Air Concentrations of these
rules, other than those identified in the group listing as the “selected” compound.
2. CHRONIC AMBIENT AIR CONCENTRATIONS:
a. The applicant shall review the following data sources and, except as otherwise provided, shall give
them the priority indicated in the development of chronic ambient air concentrations (CAACs):
(1) Tier 1 Data Sources: Reference Concentrations (RfCs) and air Unit Risk Factors (URFs)
as presented in the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
(2) Tier 2 Data Sources:
(a) Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) developed by Region 9 of the EPA.
(b) Risk-Based Concentrations (RBCs) developed by Region 3 of the EPA.
(3) Tier 3 Data Sources:
(a) Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) developed by the Agency For Toxic Substances
And Disease Registry (ATSDR).
33

(b) Reference Exposure Levels (RELs) and Unit Risk Factors (CalURFs) developed
by the California Environmental Protection Agency.
b. Evaluation Of Tier 1 Values:
(1) Calculation Of Concentrations:
(a) Reference Concentrations (RfCs) shall be multiplied by 1.04 to reflect an
assumed exposure of 350 rather than 365 days per year.
(b) Unit Risk Factors (URFs) shall be transformed into concentrations in milligrams
per cubic meter (mg/m3) by applying the following equation:
TR x ATc/(EF x IFA adj x [URF x BW/IR])
Where: TR = 1E-06
ATc = 25,550 days
EF = 350 days/year
IFA adj = 11m3-year/kg-day
BW = 70 kg
IR = 20 m3/day
(2) Comparison To Tier 2 And Tier 3 Concentrations:
(a) The concentration developed in accordance with Section 2(b)(1) of this
appendix shall be compared to the Tier 2 and Tier 3 concentrations for the
compound, if any.
(b) Unit Risk Factor (URF)-based concentrations shall be compared only to
concentrations based on Unit Risk Factors (CalURFs) developed by the
California Environmental Protection Agency.
(c) Reference Concentrations (RfCs)-based concentrations shall be compared to
concentrations based on Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs), Risk-Based
Concentrations (RBCs), Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs), and Reference Exposure
Levels (RELs).
(d) If there is reasonable agreement between Tier 1 concentration and the other
concentrations for the compound, the Tier 1 concentration shall be selected as
the chronic ambient air concentration (CAAC).
(e) If the Tier 1 concentration is not in reasonable agreement with the other
concentrations and one of the other concentrations is based on more recent or
relevant studies that concentration shall be selected as the chronic ambient air
concentration (CAAC). Otherwise, the Tier 1 concentration shall be selected.
(3) If both a Reference Concentration (RfC)-based and a Unit Risk Factor (URF)-based Tier
1 concentration is selected under Section 2(b)(2) of this appendix, the more stringent of
the two shall be used as the chronic ambient air concentration (CAAC).
(4) If a Tier 1 value is selected in accordance with this section of this appendix, no further
evaluation of Tier 2 or Tier 3 concentrations is required.
c. Evaluation Of Tier 2 Concentrations:
(1) Selection Of Tier 2 Values For Further Evaluation:
34

(a) If there is only a Preliminary Remediation Goal (PRG) or Risk-Based
Concentrations (RBCs) for the compound, it shall be selected for further
evaluation in accordance with Section 2(c)(2) of this appendix.
(b) If there is both a Preliminary Remediation Goal (PRG) and a Risk-Based
Concentration (RBC) for the compound, the concentrations shall be compared.
If the concentrations are similar, the Preliminary Remediation Goal (PRG) shall
be selected for further evaluation. If the concentrations are not similar and the
Risk-Based Concentration (RBC) is based on more relevant or more recent
studies, it shall be selected for further evaluation. Otherwise, the Preliminary
Remediation Goal (PRG) shall be selected.
(2) Comparison To Tier 3 Concentrations:
(a) The concentration developed in accordance with Section 2(c)(1) of this appendix
shall be compared to the Tier 3 concentrations for the compound, if any. For
purposes of this comparison, only Minimal Risk Level (MRL)-based or
Reference Exposure Level (REL)-based concentrations shall be considered.
(b) If there is reasonable agreement between the Tier 2 concentrations and the Tier
3 concentrations for the compound, the Tier 2 concentration shall be selected as
the chronic ambient air concentration (CAAC).
(c) If the Tier 2 concentration is not in reasonable agreement with the Tier 3
concentrations and one of the Tier 3 concentrations is based on more recent or
relevant studies, that concentration shall be selected as the chronic ambient air
concentration (CAAC). Otherwise, the Tier 2 concentration shall be selected.
(d) If the Tier 2 concentration is selected in accordance with Section 2(c) of this
appendix, no further evaluation of Tier 3 concentrations is required.
d. Evaluation Of Tier 3 Values:
(1) Calculation Of Concentrations:
(a) Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) and Reference Exposure Levels (RELs) shall be
multiplied by 1.04 to reflect an assumed exposure of 350 rather than 365 days
per year.
(b) Unit Risk Factors (CalURFs) developed by the California Environmental
Protection Agency shall be transformed into concentrations in milligrams per
cubic meter (mg/m3) by applying the following equation:
TR x ATc/(EF x IFA adj x [CalURF x BW/IR])
Where: TR = 1E-06
ATc = 25,550 days
EF = 350 days/year
IFA adj = 11m3-year/kg-day
BW = 70 kg
IR = 20 m3/day
(2) Selection Of Concentration:
35

(a) If both a Minimal Risk Level (MRL) and a Reference Exposure Level (REL)
exist for the compound, the most appropriate shall be selected after considering
the relevance and timing of the studies on which the levels are based.
(b) If there is both a Unit Risk Factors (CalURFs) developed by the California
Environmental Protection Agency-based concentration and a concentration
based on a Minimal Risk Level (MRL) or a Reference Exposure Level (REL)
for the compound, the more stringent of the two shall be selected.
e. No Available Data: If there is no data available in any of the sources identified in Section 2(a) of
this appendix for the compound, the applicant must perform a Tier 4 risk management analysis
(RMA) under Rule 372-Maricopa County Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS) Program-Section
306-Risk Management Analysis (RMA) of these rules or forego the risk management analysis
(RMA) option.
3. ACUTE AMBIENT AIR CONCENTRATIONS:
a. Selection Of Concentration:
(1) The first concentration identified by evaluating the following data sources in the order
listed shall be adjusted, where required, and used as the acute ambient air concentration
(AAAC) for the compound:
(a) The level 2 four-hour average Acute Exposure Guideline Level developed by
the EPA Office Of Prevention-Pesticides And Toxic Substances.
(b) The level 2 Emergency Response Planning Guideline (ERPG) developed by the
American Industrial Hygiene Association. The acute ambient air concentration
(AAAC) shall be the Emergency Response Planning Guideline (ERPG) divided
by two.
(c) The level 2 Temporary Emergency Exposure Limit (TEEL) developed by the
United States Department Of Energy’s Emergency Management Advisory
Committee’s Subcommittee On Consequence Assessment And Protective
Action. The acute ambient air concentration (AAAC) shall be the Temporary
Emergency Exposure Limit (TEEL) divided by two.
(2) No Available Data: If there is no data available in any of the sources identified in Section
3(a) of this appendix, the applicant must perform a Tier 4 risk management analysis
(RMA) under Rule 372-Maricopa County Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS) Program-
Section 306-Risk Management Analysis (RMA) of these rules or forego the risk
management analysis (RMA) option.
36

MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MEETING MINUTES
Monday, October 24, 2016
301 W. Jefferson Street, 10th Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Return to list of attachments
Board of Supervisors Conference Room
Vice President Kip Steill called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Members Excused:
Don Cassano Francisca Montoya
Dr. Scott Somers Supervisor Kunasek
Robert MacMillan
Nedra Halley
Dr. Debra Baldauff
Kip Steill
Michael Mills, M.D.
Don Hughes
Ex-Officio: Bob England, M.D.
CALL TO THE PUBLIC:
Mr. Kip Steill announced it was time for a call to the public and requested public comment forms for
those who wanted to speak or who wanted to address any action items.
DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS
1. Approval of Minutes: President Steill asked for a motion to approve the minutes from the BOH
Meeting held on April 25, 2016. Motion was made by Mr. Don Cassano to approve the BOH
minutes as presented. Motion was seconded by Ms. Nedra Halley and all were in favor. The
motion passed unanimously.
2. Fee Waiver Applications Ms. Jeannie Taylor
Ms. Jeannie Taylor presented fifty- five (55) fee waivers for review and consideration of approval.
A summary sheet document was provided.
Motion to approve the 55 Fee Waiver applications was made by Mr. Don Cassano, seconded by
Dr. Michael Mills and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously.
3. Approval of the Expedited Process for two (2) Air Quality Department Mr. Philip A. McNeely
rulemakings AQ-2016-003-Rule 280 and AQ-2016-005-Rule 372
Mr. Robert MacMillan voluntarily chose to refrain from voting or participating in this item.
Mr. Philip McNeely explained that AQ Rule 280 establishes fees charged to owners and operators
of sources of air pollution subject to air quality rules. The new rulemaking will not result in an
increase in fees. Fees support operations in the following areas: permit engineering, compliance
& enforcement, planning & analysis, air monitoring, and travel reduction. The proposed rule
revisions include accelerated permit processing for dust control permit applications, expanded
general permit options to include crematories, wastewater treatment plants, and asphalt day
1

tankers/tar kettles. The proposed rule revisions also include refunds for asbestos notification
fees, fee table modifications and changes to the annual adjustment of fees.
Motion to approve AQ-2016-003-Rule 280 was made by Mr. Don Cassano, seconded by Dr.
Debra Balduaff and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously.
Rule 372 is the Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) Program and Appendix H is the procedures for
determining ambient air concentrations for HAPs. Both of these establish procedures for
Maricopa County to regulate de minimis amounts of federally listed HAPs, similar to Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality’s (ADEQ) program for regulation of HAPs. The Maricopa
County Superior Court ruled on March 20, 2008 that ADEQ’s regulation of de minimis amounts of
federal HAPs was unenforceable and that ADEQ does not have the authority to regulate this. Due
to this, the department is proposing to rescind Rule 372 and Appendix H. Federal HAPs standards
are incorporated into Rule 370 and sources of federal HAPs in Maricopa County remain obligated
to comply with the federal program.
Motion to approve AQ-2016-005-Rule 372 was made by Ms. Nedra Halley, seconded by Dr.
Michael Mills and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously.
4. Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program (EROP) – Proposed Revision Mr. Ken Conklin
to the Maricopa County Environmental Health Code (MCEHC)
ES-2016-011/Mobile Food
Mr. Ken Conklin explained that proposed revision to ES-2016-011/Mobile Food is to expand
mobile food and increase business opportunities, while keeping public health factors such as food
safety in sight. The revision will define terms like food peddlers and push carts in more detail and
will change some terminology. The revision and organizing of this code will permit operators to
read and understand this rule better. Environmental Services would ideally like this revision
expedited. On August 10th, there was a stakeholder meeting regarding this revision and no one
was opposed; the industry in fact desires these revisions.
Motion to approve ES-2016-011/Mobile Food and its expedited process was made by Dr.
Michael Mills, seconded by Mr. Robert MacMillan and all were in favor. The motion passed
unanimously.
5. Appointment of Finance Committee member by the President Mr. Kip Steill
Mr. Kip Steill proposed to appoint Mr. Robert MacMillan as a member of the Finance Committee.
Motion to approve Mr. Robert MacMillan as a member of the Finance Committee was made by
Ms. Nedra Halley, seconded by Mr. Don Cassano and all were in favor. The motion passed
unanimously.
Discussion Items: Dr. Bob England
1. Public Health Report:
i. Human Resources
ii. Communication
iii. Infrastructure
iv. Strategic Planning
v. Programs
vi. Disease Update
2

vii. Future Topics
viii. NACCHO Conference Discussion
Dr. Bob explained to the board that there are three significant grants that are in trouble with funding or
governance. Currently, there is a reduction in force for the WIC grant. This is due to perpetual funding
woes due to inability to meet target numbers for the grant, which continually results in a decrease in
funding. The refugee screening program traditionally receives a mixed form of funding, including
federal funds and billing AHCCCS plans. All refugees are eligible for AHCCCS but are not yet enrolled in
it. Now, the federal funding is being dropped. There is concern because it is unknown how much money
this will be, and covering lab testing fees may no longer be feasible. Sonora Quest requires that if
patients are not enrolled in AHCCCS when their lab testing is completed, that MCDPH pay the bill. A
community partner may be necessary to continue this work, like Maricopa Integrated Health System
(MIHS) since they have the entire lab testing in house and can bill AHCCCS for past lab work that was
done. The Healthcare for the Homeless grant is suffering due to governance confusion from HRSA.
They prefer at least 9 members for the governing board, which our Board of Supervisors cannot fulfill.
MCDPH is actively exploring other partners for the end of the grant cycle in calendar year 2017. One
option is to support a community partner, like Circle the City. Circle the City targets high utilizers of
emergency care and attempts to decrease this use. Dr. Somers asked about working with other cities,
like the City of Phoenix to assist with this work.
The cost of the zika virus surveillance is significant. MCDPH is up to 594 case reports that have been
ruled out. 26 cases have been confirmed in travelers. This effort requires a significant response from
Public Health & Environmental Services (to secure local mosquito population data). There have been 71
pregnant unaccompanied minors from Central America that have traveled thorough zika endemic
areas. The Director of Refugee Women at MIHS is involved in the situation. The follow up on the case
reports can take anywhere from 20-40 hours each. The issue is funding, and that MCDPH does not have
back up staff to do this type of follow up. Other routine work has been re-prioritized. All federal funds
will expire June 30th, of which MCDPH uses to pay 8-10 staff for zika work. There is local transmission of
zika in Sonora, Mexico. Previously, zika was endemic is most southern states of Mexico. The Sonoran
Health Director did issue a press release, and when this information becomes more widely known, it
may result in an increase in case report follow ups. Mr. Cassano asked about eradication of mosquitos;
Dr. Bob explained that zika virus is transmitted by Aedes Aegypti mosquitos, very different from the
culex species which can be knocked down by fogging. Aedes Aegypti require backpack style spraying in
backyards and around homes.
Other outbreaks to be aware of are Acute Flaccid Myelitis (AFM) and tuberculosis (TB). AFM is
debilitating, like polio, and caused by an enterovirus. There are 11 possible cases in Maricopa County.
The CDC Infectious Disease Neurologist is in Maricopa County now to do work. There is not much
known about AFM; the last outbreak was in Colorado. There is a TB case associated with ASU.
Supervisor Kunasek expressed desire to use the board more deeply and having the board members
weigh in more on policy and other issues. Dr. Bob would like to use the board’s time and talents and
was wondering if members of the board would be interested in participating in subcommittees or
workgroups, specifically in regards to health equity. Dr. Debra Baldauff and Ms. Nedra Halley expressed
their thoughts on attending the Health Equity conference by NACCHO in July. Dr. Bob was hoping that
members of the board could assist with advising the department on strategies revolving around health
equity. This item will be on a future Board of Health meeting.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CURRENT EVENTS
 Next meeting is January 23, 2016
3

ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Ms.
Nedra Halley, seconded by Mr. Don Cassano and motion was passed unanimously. The meeting was
adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
4

Return to list of attachments