Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 49-464
A. A person who knowingly releases into the ambient air any extremely hazardous substance listed pursuant to 42 United States Code section 11002(a)(2) or any hazardous air pollutant and who knows at the time that he thereby places another person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury shall be guilty of a class 2 felony. For any air pollutant for which the administrator or director has established a standard by regulation or in a permit, a release of such pollutant in accordance with that standard shall not constitute a violation of this subsection. For purposes of determining whether a defendant who is an individual knew that the violation placed another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury both of the following shall apply:
2. Knowledge possessed by another person but not by the defendant may not be attributed to the defendant.
Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2 of this subsection, circumstantial evidence, including evidence that the defendant took affirmative steps to be shielded from relevant information, may be used to prove knowledge.
G. A person who operates a source that is required to have a permit issued pursuant to this article and that is subject to a material permit condition other than an emission standard identified in subsection C of this section, and who knowingly violates such permit condition is guilty of a class 6 felony. For purposes of this subsection a material permit condition means a permit condition determined by the director by rule to be material after considering the following criteria:
4. The effect of the permit condition on the director's ability to determine a source's compliance status.
The director shall adopt the rules required by this subsection and section 49-514, subsection G by November 1, 1993.
L. A person who acting with criminal negligence does any of the following is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor:
O. In determining the amount of a fine under this section, the court shall consider all of the following:
P. It shall be an affirmative defense to any prosecution under subsection A of this section that the conduct charged was freely consented to by the person endangered and that the danger and conduct charged were reasonably foreseeable hazards of either of the following:
Q. It shall be an affirmative defense to any prosecution for violation of an emission standard or opacity standard under subsection C or G or subsection L, paragraph 1, 2 or 4 of this section that both of the following conditions were satisfied:
2. The owner or operator of the source provided written notification to the director containing all of the following information within seventy-two hours following the verbal or facsimile notification:
(b) Identification of the practicable corrective measures that have been undertaken or will be undertaken to control and minimize emissions until compliance with the applicable standard is achieved.
In the case of continuous or recurring violations, the notification requirement shall be satisfied if the source provides the required notification after violations are first detected and includes in such notification an estimate of the time the violations will continue. Violations occurring after the estimated time period shall require additional notification pursuant to the first sentence of this paragraph.