AQ-2017-010 RULE510 BOS REPORT.PDF

Executive Summary
of the Report to the Board of Supervisors
Prepared by the Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Board Hearing Date: December 11, 2019
Case Number/Title: AQ-2017-010-Rule 510 (Air Quality Standards)
Agenda Item: (Pending)
Supervisor Districts: All Districts
The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) 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 revise Rule 510 (Air Quality Standards). If the revised rule is adopted by
the Board of Supervisors, the revised rule will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) for approval into the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP).
Rule 510 lists primary and secondary ambient air quality standards that are applicable within Maricopa
County. This updated list of primary and secondary ambient air quality standards aligns Rule 510 with the
portions of A.A.C. R18-2-201 through 206 (Ambient Air Quality Standards) and 40 CFR 50 (National
Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards) that are applicable within Maricopa County.
Permit fees are not changing due to this action.
Overview of Stakeholder Input and Staff Responses:
The MCAQD has not received any written comments from stakeholders regarding this rulemaking.
1

Report to the Board of Supervisors
Prepared by the Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Board of Health Meeting Date: October 28, 2019
Board Hearing Date: December 11, 2019
Case #/Title: AQ-2017-010-Rule 510 (Air Quality Standards)
Agenda Item: (Pending)
Supervisor Districts: All Districts
Applicant: Staff
Request: Approve revision of Maricopa County Air Pollution Control
Regulation Rule 510 (Air Quality Standards) and approve submission
of the amended rule as a revision to the Arizona State
Implementation Plan (SIP).
Rule 510 lists primary and secondary ambient air quality standards
that are applicable within Maricopa County. This updated list of
primary and secondary ambient air quality standards aligns Rule 510
with the portions of A.A.C. R18-2-201 through 206 (Ambient Air
Quality Standards) and 40 CFR 50 (National Primary and Secondary
Ambient Air Quality Standards) that are applicable within Maricopa
County; some sections of these regulations are not applicable within
Maricopa County because Maricopa County has been designated as
attainment or unclassifiable and the standards have been revoked for
areas with those designations. This list of air quality standards will be
used by businesses and the public to determine when Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements are applicable to a
proposed source or a proposed modification. PSD is a permitting
program that applies to new major sources and to major
modifications at existing major sources that are located within areas
that are designated as attainment or unclassifiable with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Maricopa County has
been designated as attainment or unclassifiable with the NAAQS for
particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), sulfur oxides (SOX),
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and lead (Pb).
If adopted, the revised rule will be submitted to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency for approval into the Arizona SIP.
Rule 510 is needed to support the Maricopa County portion of
Arizona’s infrastructure SIP. Each time a new NAAQS is
promulgated, each state is required to submit an infrastructure SIP
revision demonstrating that the state has the legal authority and
resources to implement the NAAQS. Among other things, the
2

infrastructure SIP must demonstrate that state and local agencies
have adequate permitting, compliance, and enforcement programs.
Permit fees are not changing due to this action.
Support/Opposition: The Maricopa County Air Quality Department has not received any
written comments from stakeholders regarding this rulemaking.
Staff
Recommendation: Approve
Board of Health
Recommendation: Approve
Additional Comments: This regulatory change is following the Enhanced Regulatory
Outreach Program Policy (EROP) and workflow process. The
County Manager briefed the Board of Supervisors regarding this
rulemaking in December 2017. Stakeholder Workshops were held on
March 29, 2018, June 11, 2018, and December 12, 2018. The Board
of Health approved initiation of regulatory change for Rule 510 on
July 23, 2018 and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was posted on
the EROP website on June 3, 2019. On October 28, 2019, the Board
of Health voted to recommend approval of Rule 510 to the Board of
Supervisors.
A newspaper notice of the Board of Supervisors public hearing will
be published in the Arizona Business Gazette on November 7th and
14th. This regulatory change will take effect immediately upon
approval by the Board of Supervisors.
Presented By: Philip A. McNeely, R.G., Director
Prepared By: Planning and Analysis Division
Attachments: Preamble required by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 49-471.07
(See the Draft Notice of Final Rulemaking)
Summary of the proposed regulatory change (See Item 4 of the Draft
Notice of Final Rulemaking)
Analysis of input received during the process and how that input was
responded to (See Item 9 of the Draft Notice of Final Rulemaking)
Language of proposed regulatory change or amendment (See Draft
Rule in Draft Notice of Final Rulemaking)
Minutes from Board of Health meeting
Copies of all written and electronic Stakeholder input
(no comments were received for this rulemaking)
3

DRAFT NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING
MARICOPA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION V – AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND AREA CLASSIFICATION
RULE 510: AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Return to list of attachments
The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) is proposing to amend Rule 510 (Air
Quality Standards). The Control Officer is posting this Draft Notice of Final Rulemaking on the
Maricopa County Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program (EROP) website as part of the Report to
the Board of Supervisors. This notice includes the preamble, as prescribed in A.R.S. § 49-471.05,
and the full text of the rule, including the intended actions to make new sections or amend, repeal,
or renumber the sections of the rule. This notice also includes a list of all previous notices posted on
the Maricopa County EROP website addressing the proposed rule and the concise explanatory
statement prescribed in A.R.S. § 49-471.07, subsection B.
PREAMBLE
1. Statutory authority for the rulemaking:
A.R.S. §§ 49-112, 49-474, 49-479 and 49-480
2. Name and address of department personnel with whom persons may communicate
regarding the rulemaking:
Name: Kristi Beck or Kimberly Butler
Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Planning and Analysis Division
Address: 3800 N Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Telephone: 602-506-6010
Fax: 602-506-6179
Submit Comments At: http://maricopa.gov/FormCenter/Regulatory-Outreach-17/Citizen-
Comments-94
3. Rulemaking process:
This rulemaking is following procedures identified in state statutes and the Maricopa County
Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program (EROP) Policy.
County Manager Briefing: December 2017
4

Stakeholder Workshops: March 29, 2018
June 11, 2018
December 12, 2018
Board of Health Meeting to Initiate Regulatory Change: July 23, 2018
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: June 3, 2019
Board of Health Meeting to Recommend Approval to
the Board of Supervisors: October 28, 2019
Board of Supervisors Formal Meeting to Set the
Public Hearing: November 6, 2019
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: December 11, 2019
4. Explanation of the rule, including the control officer's reasons for initiating the
rulemaking: Return to list of attachment
The MCAQD is proposing to amend Rule 510 (Air Quality Standards) to provide the public
with an updated list of primary and secondary ambient air quality standards that are
applicable within Maricopa County. This updated list of primary and secondary ambient air
quality standards aligns Rule 510 with the portions of A.A.C. R18-2-201 through 206
(Ambient Air Quality Standards) and 40 CFR 50 (National Primary and Secondary Ambient
Air Quality Standards) that are applicable within Maricopa County; some sections of these
regulations are not applicable within Maricopa County because Maricopa County has been
designated as attainment or unclassifiable and the standards have been revoked for areas
with those designations. This list of air quality standards will be used by businesses and the
public to determine when Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements are
applicable to a proposed source or a proposed modification. PSD is a permitting program
that applies to new major sources and to major modifications at existing major sources that
are located within areas that are designated as attainment or unclassifiable with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Maricopa County has been designated as
attainment or unclassifiable with the NAAQS for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns
(PM2.5), sulfur oxides (SOX), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and lead (Pb).
Rule 510 is needed to support the Maricopa County portion of Arizona’s infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP). Each time a new NAAQS is promulgated, each state is required
to submit an infrastructure SIP revision demonstrating that the state has the legal
5

authority and resources to implement the NAAQS. Among other things, the infrastructure
SIP must demonstrate that state and local agencies have adequate permitting programs and
provisions prohibiting emissions of any air pollutants in amounts which will interfere with
measures for the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.
5. Studies relied on in the control officer's evaluation of or justification for the rule and
where the public may obtain or review the studies, all data underlying the studies,
any analysis of the studies and other supporting material.
Not applicable.
6. An economic, small business and consumer impact statement:
The following discussion addresses each of the elements required for an economic, small
business and consumer impact statement, as prescribed by A.R.S. §§ 41-1055, subsections A,
B and C, and 41-1035:
An identification of the proposed rulemaking, including all of the following:
This rulemaking is proposing to amend Rule 510.
(a) The conduct and its frequency of occurrence that the rule is designed to change.
Not Applicable. This rule is being updated to reflect changes to the NAAQS.
(b) The harm resulting from the conduct the rule is designed to change and the
likelihood it will continue to occur if the rule is not changed.
Not Applicable. This rule is being updated to reflect changes to the NAAQS.
(c) The estimated change in frequency of the targeted conduct expected from the
rule change.
Not Applicable. This rule is being updated to reflect changes to the NAAQS.
A brief summary of the information included in the economic, small business and
consumer impact statement.
This rulemaking should not have an economic impact on small business or consumers in
Maricopa County. Rule 510 does not impose any new compliance burdens on businesses.
Name and address of agency employees who may be contacted to submit or request
additional data on the information included in the economic, small business and
consumer impact statement.
Name: Kristi Beck or Kimberly Butler
Maricopa County Air Quality Department
6

Planning and Analysis Division
Address: 3800 N Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Telephone: 602-506-6010
Fax: 602-506-6179
Submit Comments At: http://maricopa.gov/FormCenter/Regulatory-Outreach-17/Citizen-
Comments-94
An identification of the persons who will be directly affected by, bear the costs of or
directly benefit from the proposed rulemaking.
This rulemaking should not impose any new costs on Maricopa County residents or
businesses. Maricopa County residents and businesses will benefit from this rulemaking
because Rule 510 is one of the required elements for Maricopa County’s portion of the
Arizona infrastructure SIP.
In addition, Rule 510 provides a concise list of ambient air quality standards that are
applicable within Maricopa County, which will benefit any business that wishes to obtain a
new major source permit or obtain a major modification of an existing major source permit.
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 proposed
rulemaking.
This rulemaking should not impose any significant costs on the Maricopa County Air
Quality Department. This rulemaking will not directly affect any other agencies.
(b) The probable costs and benefits to a political subdivision of this state directly
affected by the implementation and enforcement of the proposed rulemaking.
This rulemaking will not directly affect any political subdivisions of the state.
(c) The probable costs and benefits to businesses directly affected by the proposed
rulemaking, including any anticipated effect on the revenues or payroll
expenditures of employers who are subject to the proposed rulemaking.
This rulemaking will not directly affect any businesses.
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
proposed rulemaking.
7

This rulemaking should not have any impact on private and public employment in
businesses, agencies, or political subdivisions of this state. This rulemaking will not directly
affect any businesses, agencies, or political subdivisions of this state.
A statement of the probable impact of the proposed rulemaking on small businesses.
The statement shall include:
(a) An identification of the small businesses subject to the proposed rulemaking.
This rulemaking should not affect any small businesses.
(b) The administrative and other costs required for compliance with the proposed
rulemaking.
There are no administrative costs required for compliance with the proposed rule.
(c) A description of the methods that the agency may use to reduce the impact on
small businesses.
i. Establish less stringent compliance or reporting requirements in the rule for
small businesses.
There are no compliance or reporting requirements in Rule 510.
ii. Establish less stringent schedules or deadlines in the rule for compliance or
reporting requirements for small businesses.
There are no schedules or deadlines for compliance or reporting in Rule 510.
iii. Consolidate or simplify the rule's compliance or reporting requirements for
small businesses.
There are no compliance or reporting requirements in Rule 510.
iv. Establish performance standards for small businesses to replace design or
operational standards in the rule.
There are no design standards or operational standards in Rule 510.
v. Exempt small businesses from any or all requirements of the rule.
There are no compliance or reporting requirements in Rule 510.
(d) The probable cost and benefit to private persons and consumers who are directly
affected by the proposed rulemaking.
Private persons and consumers should not be directly affected by Rule 510.
A statement of the probable effect on state revenues.
Rule 510 will have no effect on state revenues.
8

A description of any less intrusive or less costly alternative methods of achieving the
purpose of the proposed rulemaking, including the monetizing of the costs and
benefits for each option and providing the rationale for not using nonselected
alternatives.
This rulemaking should not impose any new costs on Maricopa County residents or
businesses.
A description of any data on which a rule is based with a detailed explanation of how
the data was obtained and why the data is acceptable data.
This rule is not directly based on any data. This rule is being updated to reflect changes to
the NAAQS.
7. The proposed effective date of the rule:
The proposed effective date of this rulemaking is December 11, 2019.
8. Such other matters as are prescribed by statute and that are applicable to the county
or to any specific rule or class of rules:
Under A.R.S. § 49-479(C), a county may adopt or amend a rule, emission standard, or
standard of performance that is as stringent or more stringent than a rule, emission standard
or standard of performance for similar sources adopted by the director only if the county
complies with the applicable provisions of section 49-112.
§ 49-112 County regulation; standards
§ 49-112(A)
When authorized by law, a county may adopt a rule, ordinance or 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
requirements are met:
1. The rule, ordinance or regulation is necessary to address a peculiar local condition.
2. There is credible evidence that the rule, ordinance or 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
9

or regulations if the county rule, ordinance or regulation is equivalent to federal
statutes or regulation.
3. Any fee or tax adopted under the rule, ordinance or regulation does not exceed the
reasonable costs of the county to issue and administer the permit or plan approval
program.
§ 49-112(B)
When authorized by law, a county may adopt rules, ordinances or 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 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). This rulemaking is
required under § 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act, which requires States to submit an
infrastructure SIP within three years after the promulgation or revision of any NAAQS.
Each infrastructure SIP must contain adequate permitting programs and provisions
prohibiting emissions of any air pollutants in amounts which will interfere with measures for
the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.
9. List of all previous notices posted to the Maricopa County EROP website addressing
the proposed rule and a concise explanatory statement, as prescribed by A.R.S. § 49-
471.07, subsection B:
(a) List of all previous notices posted to the Maricopa County EROP website
addressing the proposed rule:
Briefing Notification to County Manager January 26, 2018 (Date of Posting)
Notice of Stakeholder Workshops March 14, 2018 (Date of Posting)
May 23, 2018 (Date of Posting)
November 21, 2019 (Date of Posting)
Notice of Board of Health Meeting July 6, 2018 (Date of Posting)
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking June 3, 2019 (Date of Posting)
10

Notice of Board of Health Meeting October 14, 2019 (Date of Posting)
(b) The following discussion addresses each of the elements required for a concise
explanatory statement, as prescribed by A.R.S. § 49-471.07, subsection B:
i. A description of any change between the proposed rule or ordinance, the final
rule or ordinance or notice of final supplemental rule or ordinance.
No changes were made after the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published on
June 3, 2019. Return to list of attachments
ii. A summary of the comments and arguments for and against the notice and
the county’s response to the comments and arguments.
The MCAQD has not received any written comments from stakeholders.
11

AQ-2017-010-Rule 510 (Air Quality Standards) Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Draft Rule 510 for Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: Planning & Analysis Division
December 11, 2019 3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Submit Comments on EROP Phoenix, AZ 85012
MARICOPA COUNTY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION V - AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND AREA CLASSIFICATION
Return to list of attachments
RULE 510
AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
INDEX
SECTION 100 - GENERAL
101 PURPOSE
102 AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
SECTION 200 - DEFINITIONS
201 PRIMARY AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
202 SECONDARY AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
SECTION 300 - STANDARDS
301 PARTICULATE MATTER - 2.5 MICRONS OR LESS (PM2.5)
302 PARTICULATE MATTER - 10 MICRONS OR LESS (PM10)
303 SULFUR OXIDES (SULFUR DIOXIDE)
304 OZONE
305 CARBON MONOXIDE
306 NITROGEN OXIDES (NITROGEN DIOXIDE)
307 LEAD
308 POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION DETERMINATIONS
309 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
310 INCORPORATIONS BY REFERENCE
SECTION 400 - ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
401 REPORTING OF AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA
SECTION 500 - MONITORING AND RECORDS (NOT APPLICABLE)
12

AQ-2017-010-Rule 510 (Air Quality Standards) Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Draft Rule 510 for Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: Planning & Analysis Division
December 11, 2019 3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Submit Comments on EROP Phoenix, AZ 85012
Revised 07/13/1988; Revised 11/01/2006; Revised 02/03/2016; Revised MM/DD/YYYY
MARICOPA COUNTY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION V - AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND AREA CLASSIFICATION
RULE 510
AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
SECTION 100 - GENERAL
101 PURPOSE: To establish maximum limiting levels for pollutants existing in the ambient air
quality standards which are necessary to protect human health and public welfare.
102 AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION: Copies of materials referenced in Sections 310,
401.1, and 401.2 of this rule currently enforced by the department are available electronically
at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsy/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR
www.ecfr.gov; or at the Maricopa County Air Quality Department.
SECTION 200 - DEFINITIONS: For the purpose of this rule, the following definitions shall
apply, in addition to those definitions found in Rule 100 (General Provisions and Definitions) of
these rules. In the event of any inconsistency between any of the Maricopa County Air Pollution
Control rules, the definitions in this rule take precedence.
201 PRIMARY AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS - The ambient air quality
standards which define levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to
protect the public health, as determined by the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality and United States Environmental Protection Agency, and specified in this rule.
202 SECONDARY AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS - The ambient air quality
standards which define levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any
known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant, as determined by the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality and United States Environmental Protection Agency,
and specified in this rule.
SECTION 300 - STANDARDS: The following are established as the primary and secondary
ambient air quality standards for Maricopa County:
301 PARTICULATE MATTER - 2.5 MICRONS OR LESS (PM2.5):
301.1 Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM2.5 Annual
Arithmetic Mean Concentration: The annual arithmetic mean concentration primary
ambient air quality standards for PM2.5 shall be 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter
(µg/m3) annual arithmetic mean concentration and 35 µg/m3 24-hour average
concentration. The primary annual PM2.5 standard shall be considered attained when
the annual arithmetic mean concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR
50, Appendix N, is less than or equal to 12.0 µg/m3. The primary 24-hour PM2.5
13

AQ-2017-010-Rule 510 (Air Quality Standards) Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Draft Rule 510 for Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: Planning & Analysis Division
December 11, 2019 3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Submit Comments on EROP Phoenix, AZ 85012
standard shall be considered attained when the 98th percentile 24-hour concentration,
as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50, Appendix N, is less than or equal to 35
µg/m3.
301.2 Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM2.5 24-hour Average
Concentration: The 24-hour average concentration shall be 35 µg/m3 . The standard
shall be considered attained when the 98th percentile 24-hour concentration, as
determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50, Appendix N, is less than or equal to 35
µg/m3. Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM2.5: The secondary
ambient air quality standard for PM2.5 shall be 15.0 µg/m3 annual arithmetic mean
concentration and 35 µg/m3 24-hour average concentration. The secondary annual
standard shall be considered attained when the annual arithmetic mean
concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50, Appendix N, is less
than or equal to 15.0 µg/m3. The secondary 24-hour PM2.5 standard shall be
considered attained when the 98th percentile 24-hour concentration, as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR 50, Appendix N, is less than or equal to 35 µg/m3.
302 PARTICULATE MATTER - 10 MICRONS OR LESS (PM10):
Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standard for PM10 24-hour Average
Concentration: The 24-hour average concentration primary and secondary ambient air
quality standards for PM10 shall be 150 µg/m3 24-hour average concentration. This
concentration shall not be exceeded more than once per calendar year at any one location.
The standard standards shall be considered attained when the expected number of days per
calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3, as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR 50, Appendix K, is less than or equal to one.
303 SULFUR OXIDES (SULFUR DIOXIDE):
303.1 Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards for Sulfur Oxides (Measured as Sulfur
Dioxide): The primary ambient air quality standard for sulfur oxides (measured as
sulfur dioxide) shall be 75 parts per billion (ppb) 1-hour average concentration. The
standard shall be considered attained when the three-year average of the annual 99th
percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations is less than or equal
to 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50, Appendix T.
a. Annual Arithmetic Mean Concentration: The annual arithmetic mean
concentration shall be 0.030 parts per million (ppm) (80 g/m3). This
concentration shall not be exceeded more than once in a calendar year. The
annual arithmetic mean shall be rounded to three decimal places (fractional parts
equal to or greater than 0.0005 ppm shall be rounded up).
b. 24-hour Concentration: The maximum 24-hour concentration shall be 0.14 ppm
(365 g/m3). This concentration shall not be exceeded more than once per
calendar year at any one location. The 24-hour averages shall be determined from
successive nonoverlapping 24-hour blocks starting at midnight each calendar day
and shall be rounded to two decimal places (fractional parts equal to or greater
than 0.005 ppm shall be rounded up).
14

AQ-2017-010-Rule 510 (Air Quality Standards) Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Draft Rule 510 for Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: Planning & Analysis Division
December 11, 2019 3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Submit Comments on EROP Phoenix, AZ 85012
c. 1-hour Concentration: The maximum 1-hour concentration shall be 75 parts per
billion (ppb) 75 parts per billion (ppb). The one-hour primary standard is met at
an ambient air quality monitoring site when the three-year average of the annual
99th percentile of the daily maximum one-hour average concentrations is less
than or equal to 75 parts per billion, as determined according to 40 CFR 50,
Appendix T.
d. The standards in Sections 303.1(a) and (b) of this rule shall apply:
(1) In an area designated nonattainment for the standard in Sections 303.1(a) and
(b) of this rule as of August 23, 2011, and areas not meeting a state
implementation plan call for a standard in Sections 303.1(a) and (b) of this
rule until the state submits pursuant to section 191 of the Act, and the
Administrator approves, a state implementation plan providing for
attainment of the standard in Section 303.1(c) of this rule in that area.
(2) In areas other than those identified in Section 303.1(d) of this rule, until the
effective date of the designation of that area, pursuant to section 107 of the
Act, for the standard in Section 303.1(c) of this rule.
303.2 Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Oxides (Measured as Sulfur
Dioxide) 3-Hour Concentration: The maximum 3-hour concentration secondary
ambient air quality standard for sulfur oxides (measured as sulfur dioxide) shall be
0.5 ppm (1300 g/m3) 3-hour average. This concentration shall not be exceeded more
than once per calendar year at any one location. The 3-hour averages shall be
determined from successive non-overlapping 3-hour blocks starting at midnight each
calendar day and shall be rounded to 1 decimal place (fractional parts equal to or
greater than 0.05 ppm shall be rounded up). The standard shall be considered
attained when the second-highest valid 3-hour average concentration, as determined
in accordance with 40 CFR 50.5, is less than 0.5 ppm.
304 OZONE:
Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone Eight-hour
Average Concentration:
The daily maximum eight-hour average concentration primary and secondary ambient air
quality standards for ozone shall be 0.075 0.070 ppm, daily maximum 8-hour average. The
standard standards shall be considered attained at an ambient air quality monitoring site
when the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum eight-hour average
ozone concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50, Appendix P U, is less
than or equal to 0.075 0.070 ppm.
305 CARBON MONOXIDE:
305.1 Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards for Carbon Monoxide: The primary
ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide shall be:
a. One-hour Average Concentration: The maximum one-hour average
concentration shall be 35 ppm (40 mg/m3). This maximum one-hour average
15

AQ-2017-010-Rule 510 (Air Quality Standards) Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Draft Rule 510 for Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: Planning & Analysis Division
December 11, 2019 3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Submit Comments on EROP Phoenix, AZ 85012
concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.8, shall not be
exceeded more than once per year at any one location.
b. Eight-hour Average Concentration: The maximum eight-hour average
concentration shall be 9 ppm (10 mg/m3). This maximum eight-hour average
concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.8, shall not be
exceeded more than once per year at any one location. An eight-hour average
shall be considered valid if at least 75% of the hourly averages for the eight-hour
period are available. In the event that only six or seven hourly averages are
available, the eight-hour average shall be computed on the basis of the hours
available using 6 or 7 as the divisor.
305.2 When summarizing data for comparison with the standards, averages shall be
stated to one decimal place. Comparison of the data with the levels of the
standards in ppm shall be made in terms of integers with fractional parts of 0.5
or greater rounding up.
306 NITROGEN OXIDES (NITROGEN DIOXIDE):
306.1 Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Oxides: The primary
ambient air quality standards for oxides of nitrogen, measured in the ambient air as
nitrogen dioxide, are:
a. Annual Average Concentration: 53 parts per billion ppb. The annual primary
standard is met when the annual average concentration in a calendar year is less
than or equal to 53 ppb, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50, Appendix
S for the annual standard.
b. One Hour Average Concentration: 100 parts per billion ppb. The one-hour
primary standard is met when the three-year average of the annual 98th
percentile of the daily maximum one-hour average concentration is less than or
equal to 100 parts per billion ppb, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50,
Appendix S.
306.2 Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Oxides: The secondary
ambient air quality standard for oxides of nitrogen, measured as nitrogen dioxide, is
0.053 parts per million (ppm) (100 micrograms per cubic meter µg/m3), – annual
arithmetic mean. The standard shall be considered attained when the annual
arithmetic mean concentration in a calendar year, as determined in accordance with
40 CFR 50.11, is less than or equal to 0.053 ppm
a. The standard shall be considered attained when the annual arithmetic mean
concentration in a calendar year is less than or equal to 0.053 ppm, rounded to
three decimal places, with fractional parts equal to or greater than 0.0005 ppm
rounded up.
b. To demonstrate attainment, an annual mean shall be based upon hourly data that
is at least 75% complete, or upon data derived from the manual methods, that is
at least 75% complete for the scheduled sampling days in each calendar quarter.
16

AQ-2017-010-Rule 510 (Air Quality Standards) Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Draft Rule 510 for Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: Planning & Analysis Division
December 11, 2019 3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Submit Comments on EROP Phoenix, AZ 85012
307 LEAD:
Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead: The primary and
secondary ambient air quality standards for lead and its compounds shall be 0.15 µg/m3. The
standards shall be considered attained when the maximum arithmetic three-month mean
concentration for a 3-year period, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50, Appendix R,
is less than or equal to 0.15 µg/m3.
307.1 The primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for lead and its compounds,
measured as elemental lead, is 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter – maximum
arithmetic mean averaged over a three-month period. The level of the standards shall
be measured by a reference method based on 40 CFR 50, Appendix G and
designated in accordance with 40 CFR 53, or by an equivalent designated in
accordance with 40 CFR 53.
307.2 The national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for lead are met
when the maximum arithmetic three-month mean concentration for a three-year
period, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50, Appendix R, is less than or
equal to 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter.
307.3 The former primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for lead of 1.5
micrograms per cubic meter averaged over a calendar quarter shall apply to an area
until one year after the effective date of the designation of that area, pursuant to
section 107 of the Act, for the standards in Section 307.1 of this rule.
308 POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION DETERMINATIONS: Pollutant concentrations
shall be measured by the following methods:
308.1 Reference Methods: Appendices to 40 CFR 50: Pollutant concentrations shall be
measured by the following appendices to 40 CFR 50:
Pollutant 40 CFR 50
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Appendix L
Appendix N
Particulate Matter (PM10) Appendix J
Appendix K
Sulfur Oxides (Sulfur Dioxide) Appendix A
Appendix A-1
Ozone Appendix D
Appendix P
Carbon Monoxide Appendix C
Nitrogen Dioxide Appendix F
Appendix S
Lead Appendix G
Appendix R
a. The concentration of PM2.5 in the ambient air shall be measured by a reference
method based on 40 CFR 50, Appendix L.
b. The concentration of PM10 in the ambient air shall be measured by a reference
method based on 40 CFR 50, Appendix J.
17

AQ-2017-010-Rule 510 (Air Quality Standards) Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Draft Rule 510 for Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: Planning & Analysis Division
December 11, 2019 3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Submit Comments on EROP Phoenix, AZ 85012
c. The concentration of sulfur oxides (measured as sulfur dioxide) in the ambient
air shall be measured by a reference method based on 40 CFR 50, Appendix A-1
or A-2.
d. The concentration of ozone in the ambient air shall be measured in accordance
with 40 CFR 50, Appendix D.
e. The concentration of carbon monoxide in the ambient air shall be measured in
accordance with 40 CFR 50, Appendix C.
f. The concentration of nitrogen dioxide in the ambient air shall be measured in
accordance with 40 CFR 50, Appendix F.
g. The concentration of lead in the ambient air shall be measured in accordance
with 40 CFR 50, Appendix G.
308.2 Reference or Equivalent Methods and Approved Regional Methods: Pollutant
concentrations shall may also be measured by:
a. A An equivalent method of measurement that has been designated as a reference
or equivalent method by the Administrator acting pursuant to in accordance with
40 CFR 53; or
b. A An approved regional method of measurement that, though not designated as
a reference or equivalent method, has been approved for use by the
Administrator acting pursuant to 40 CFR 58, Appendix C. Such method shall be
subject to any restrictions placed on its use by the Administrator.
308.3 Method Withdrawal: The cancellation or supersession of designation of a reference
or equivalent method by the Administrator acting pursuant to 40 CFR 53.11 or
53.16, shall also amount to a withdrawal of the authorization for use of that method
for purposes of this regulation rule.
309 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS:
309.1 Quality assurance, monitor siting, and sample probe installation procedures shall be
in accordance with the procedures described in the Appendices to 40 CFR 58.
309.2 Unless otherwise specified, interpretation of all ambient air quality standards
contained in this rule shall be in accordance with 40 CFR 50.
309.3 The evaluation of air quality data in terms of procedure, methodology, and concept
is to be consistent with methods described in 40 CFR 50.
310 INCORPORATIONS BY REFERENCE: The CFR references listed below are
incorporated by reference in Appendix G of these rules:
310.1 40 CFR 50 – National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards;
40 CFR 50, Appendices A through N;
310.2 40 CFR 53 – Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods; and
40 CFR 58.26 and 40 CFR 58.50; and
18

AQ-2017-010-Rule 510 (Air Quality Standards) Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Draft Rule 510 for Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: Planning & Analysis Division
December 11, 2019 3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Submit Comments on EROP Phoenix, AZ 85012
310.3 40 CFR 58 – Ambient Air Quality Surveillance, all appendices.
SECTION 400 - ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
401 REPORTING OF AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA:
401.1 Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report Network Plan: The Control Officer shall
submit to the Administrator an annual summary report monitoring network plan that
at a minimum meets the requirements of 40 CFR 58.26 58.10 and 40 CFR 58,
Appendix F. The annual report will be made available to the public at the Maricopa
County Air Quality Department at least 30 days prior to submission to the
Administrator at the address listed in Section 102 of this rule.
401.2 Daily Air Quality Index (AQI) Report: The Control Officer shall report to the
general public on a daily basis an AQI that at a minimum meets the requirements of
40 CFR 58.50 and 40 CFR 58, Appendix G. The AQI will also be made available to
the public at the address listed in Section 102 of this rule Maricopa County Air
Quality Department.
SECTION 500 - MONITORING AND RECORDS (NOT APPLICABLE)
19

MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MEETING MINUTES
Monday, July 23, 2018 at 3:00 pm
205 W. Jefferson Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Board of Supervisors Auditorium
Vice President Hughes called the meeting to order at 1:39 p.m. Return to list of attachments
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Members Not Present:
Don Cassano Bill Gates
Henri Cournand
Kristen Acton (via phone)
Robert MacMillan
Nedra Halley (via phone)
Don Hughes
Debra Baldauff
Ex-Officio: Max Porter
CALL TO THE PUBLIC:
Vice President Hughes announced that we have speaker slips for anyone wishing to speak on any action items.
Speakers will be called after the item is heard. Each speaker will have 2 minutes to speak.
DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS
1. Approval of Minutes: Vice President Hughes asked for a motion to approve the minutes from the BOH Meeting
held on April 23, 2018. Motion was made by Mr. Cassano to approve the BOH minutes as presented. Motion
was seconded by Mr. MacMillan and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously.
2. Election for Board of Health president/vice president
Mr. Don Hughes was nominated as President of the Board of Health. A motion was made by Mr.
Don Cassano and seconded by Mr. Cournand and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Robert MacMillan was nominated as Vice President of the Board of Health. A motion was made by Mr.
Don Cassano and seconded by Dr. Baldauff and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously.
3. Appointment for Finance Committee vacancies
Mr. Henri Cournand and Ms. Kristen Acton were appointed to the Finance Committee.
4. Fee Waiver Applications Ms. Jeannie Taylor
Ms. Jeannie Taylor presented thirty-eight (38) fee waivers for review and consideration of approval. A summary
sheet document was provided.
Motion to approve the thirty-eight (38) fee waiver applications was made by Mr. Cassano, seconded by Mr.
Cournand and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously.
20

5. Approval of initiation of regulatory change for Rule 352 (Gasoline Cargo Tank Testing and Use)
and the New Source Review (NSR) rules Mr. Philip A. McNeely
Gregory Verkamp
AQ-2017-009-Rule 352 (Gasoline Cargo Tank Testing and Use): The Maricopa County Air Quality Department
(MCAQD) is proposing to revise Rule 352 to address Environmental Protection Agency comments to ensure the
revised rule meets Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements as required by the Clean Air
Act.
AQ-2017-010-NSR (New Source Review): The MCAQD is revising the NSR rules in order to secure their approval as
part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) under the Federal Clean Air Act.
Mr. Philip A. McNeely director of Air Quality introduced Gregory Verkamp, supervisor of the rules division of the
department.
Mr. Verkamp presented on item number 5. He explained that this is air quality departments request for approval
of the initiation of the regulatory change. Rule 352 (Gasoline Cargo Tank testing and Use) rule and the New Source
Review (NSR) rules. Both rule makings have been before this board before and they’ve also been before the Board
of Supervisors. Both these rules have been submitted to the EPA for inclusion in the Arizona State implementation
plan. The EPA has reviewed the rules and they have some comments they would like us to address in the rules.
We are here today requesting the initiation of the rule makings so we can address the EPA comments so they can
be incorporated into the Arizona State implementation plan. They have had stake holder workshops previous to
this meeting today and they will have more in the future after this meeting, will have future stake holder
workshops and then they’ll come back later after they’ve gone through stakeholder workshops. This is just the
first step requesting these rule makings today.
President Hughes asked we’re just responding to the comments from the EPA and are those are the only changes?
Mr. Verkamp explain that yes they are responding to the EPA comments and there are some smaller changes from
our internal department, rule improvements, but the major changes are EPA. The changes will be going before
our stakeholders for review and comment and this just initiates the process.
Vice President MacMillan asked if as far as the purpose of the rule making is it because of trying to address RACT
for the EPA. Mr. Verkamp explained that is correct, with RACT there’s the control technique guidelines that we
use and the EPA uses to determine RACT. They also look at the GAP rules and the NESHAP rules and the NSPS
rules (New Source Performance Standard Rules) and then they also look at other air districts that have the same
non-attainment status as ourselves. The EPA will look at non-attainment, particularly in region nine, most of the
California districts, they’ll look at those districts and see what their rules look like for districts that are in moderate
non-attainment for ozone such as ours.
Motion was made by Mr. MacMillan for approval of the initiation of regulatory change for Rule 352 (Gasoline
Cargo Tank Testing and Use) and for approval of the New Source Review (NSR) rules. Motion was seconded by
Mr. Cournand and the motion passed unanimously.
6. Make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on the proposed revisions to Rule 316 (Nonmetallic Mineral
Processing) and Rule 320 (Odors and Gaseous Air Contaminants) Mr. Philip A. McNeely
Gregory Verkamp
AQ-2013-001-Rule 316 (Nonmetallic Mineral Processing): The MCAQD is proposing to revise Rule 316 to make the
rule more clear for the regulated community by incorporating alternative control measures and information from
department guidance documents and consolidating all applicable requirements for control of particulate matter
emissions from nonmetallic mineral processing and related operations in a single rule.
21

Mr. Philip A. McNeely presented on Rule 316. He explained that they put all the standards into one rule,
streamlining the rule to make it easier to understand for better compliance.
Mr. McNeely commented that he thinks we should take these rules, 316 and 320 separately. They are two
separate rules.
President Hughes asked what Rule 316 deals with exactly? Mr. McNeely replied sand and gravel, asphalt plants
and concrete plants. It’s a PM-10 Rule. 320 is an odor rule, hydrogen sulfide rule, stack height.
Mr. Cassano clarified that they can make a motion on these rules separately.
Rule 316
There was 1 request for public comment received.
- 1st speaker Linda Butler
Vice President MacMillan asked that you mentioned that 316 was not a loosening of the standard, it was just a
consolidation of different rules, right? Mr. McNeely replied yes, federal standards, 310 and 316 plus some safety
issues. Plus this is in the SIP so this will be approved by EPA, we’ll have to submit this to EPA for approval.
Motion to approve recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on the proposed revisions to Rule
316 (Nonmetallic Mineral Processing) was made by Mr. Cassano, seconded by Ms. Halley and all
were in favor. Roll call vote was requested.
Vice President MacMillan – AYE
Mr. Cassano – AYE
Ms. Halley – AYE
Ms. Acton – AYE
Mr. Cournand – AYE
Dr. Baldauff – AYE
President Hughes - AYE
Motion passed unanimously.
AQ-2016-004-Rule 320 (Odors and Gaseous Air Contaminants): The MCAQD is proposing to revise Rule 320 to
update and enhance the rule and to clarify MCAQD’s authority so that it is consistent with the intent of the
Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations and the general air pollution prohibition standard in Rule 100.
Mr. Philip A. McNeely presented on Rule 320.
He explained that they had an oral proceeding at the request of the residents and stakeholders on April 4th and
they’ve revised the rule and made some changes to it. The rule was about 40 years old so the intent was to
enhance it, to clarify the language and to bring it in line with intent of rule 100. There’s nothing in this rule that
prevents us from responding to odor complaints. We have that authority completely in rule 100. There’s nothing
in this rule that’s going to change the way we do our procedures. We’re trying to make it consistent with our
other rules.
Mr. McNeely reviewed the various changes and explained that with the changes they’ve tried to be responsive to
the stakeholder concerns.
 Added definition of odor tied to regulated air pollutant back in.
 Section 305 Titled Odors from Regulated Air Pollutants (Added the word Odor).
 Returned stack height, how high you can put stacks.
 Hydrogen sulfide standard.
22

 Adding in for reduction animal matter.
 Added a monitoring and record keeping section.
There were 18 request for public comment received.
- 1st speaker Jackie Avilla (deferred time to Dan Blackson)
- 2nd speaker Dan Blackson
- 3rd speaker Sonia Lopez
- 4th speaker Billie Fidlin
- 5th speaker Paul Burton
- 6th speaker Sandy Larson
- 7th speaker Carolyn Burton
- 8th speaker Rhonda Mack
- 9th speaker Dan Mack
- 10th speaker Scott Manka
- 11th speaker Timothy Avilla
- 12th speaker Linda Butler
- 13th speaker Lorna Proper
- 14th speaker Steve Love
- 15th speaker Tom Martinez
- 16th speaker Leslie Saunders
- 17th speaker Brent Backus
- 18th speaker Linda Kinman
After all the discussion and all the public comments Mr. President stated that he’s concerned about a number of
things that were discussed today. The fact that you’ve made some major changes in the rule and the community
doesn’t seem to have had the opportunity to review those rule to see if they address the concerns that they have.
I’m bothered by a number of other things and at this point I would like to either deny or table this for further
study.
Mr. Cournand stated that he thinks there’s a lot of questions still within the community that need to be answered.
He doesn’t think there’s a major driving need to try to force this through either way. At this point I think further
study and review make the most sense.
Motion to table the initiation of the rulemaking for proposed revisions to Rule 320 was made by
Mr. Cournand seconded by Dr. Baldauff. Roll call vote was requested.
Vice President MacMillan – AYE
Mr. Cassano – AYE
Ms. Halley – AYE
Ms. Acton – AYE
Mr. Cournand – AYE
Dr. Baldauff – AYE
President Hughes - AYE
23

Discussion Items:
1. Public Health Report Max Porter and Dr. Rebecca Sunenshine
i. Human Resources
ii. Communication
iii. Infrastructure
iv. Strategic Planning
v. Programs
vi. Disease Update
vii. Future Topics
Max Porter stated that as far as the Director’s report we have several initiative, several grants that are new, but I
think we can cover all of that in our next meeting. There’s two issues that have a medical bearing that I’d like you
to hear about from Dr. Sunenshine. They have to do with us. We are critically pushing our herd immunity with
childhood immunization. It’s something that you’ll hear about in the news, especially as we hit our back to
school rush.
Dr. Sunenshine presented on the following (Review attached handouts for details):
 Immunizations
o Maricopa County immunization rates in Kindergarteners have dropped below the threshold for
herd immunity
o We just got our numbers back from Arizona Department of Health Services from 2017.
From 2016 to 2017, the nonmedical immunization exemption rates have risen from five
point four percent to five point nine percent. The reason why that's important is because
94 to 95 percent of the population being immunized is that critical threshold for Herd
Immunity to measles. Measles is the most contagious disease. While we worry about all
the vaccine preventable diseases, Measles is the one we use as a marker. And so right
now if we've got almost six percent of our population who are exempted from receiving
vaccines, we have now crossed the 95 percent threshold. Combined with medical
exemptions, we are just below 94 percent. And this has shown a downward trend for the
last several years.
o There are already six countries in Europe that have lost herd immunity to measles and these are
not developing countries. Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Romania have already lost
herd immunity. If we lose that threshold for herd immunity, it means that the measles will spread
rapidly through our population. Whereas when we're above that threshold, it exposes a couple of
people but then stops. So because we're at this critical point, we are going to work with Maricopa
County and try to do an educational campaign within Maricopa County employees and all the
different departments as well as with the public.
o We're working closely with Arizona Department of Health Services who developed an educational
module, which is an evidence based intervention. Basically anyone who wants to exempt their
child from vaccines would be required to take a five minute educational course online for each
vaccine they want to exempt, and then obtain a certificate so that they could exempt their child.
And what this has been shown to do is make it less convenient to exempt your child. So it's equally
as challenging to go get an appointment at the doctor's office as it is to exempt their children from
vaccines. Whereas now all they have to do is take a form, sign it and fill it out. We have reason to
believe that some folks are actually being handed the form and think that it's their only option for
their children to continue to go to school. We're working with schools to let them know, to give
parents some lead time that they need to go get their kids immunized and not tell them the day
before it's due. So we're trying to get at these convenience exemptions with this module. This
module was developed two years ago. We piloted it in Maricopa County at about 10 schools. It was
really successful. But they have not implemented it yet. They're doing another pilot this year and
our understanding is that there is some push back from certain folks in implementing the module
and we know it's effective, it worked in 24 Michigan and in several other states, so we want you to be

aware of this. If you're hearing about pushback, please know that this module could be the
difference between having these diseases spreading again in our community or not.
Mr. President commented that losing herd immunity is pretty scary. To have measles and some of
these other diseases that really have not been a threat for since I was a kid or before and to have
them come back is just pretty scary.
Dr. Sunenshine commented that Max pointed out that Pima County already has a similar system in
place and they have one of the highest rates of immunizations in the State and we are one of the
lower.
Max commented that one reason Dr. Sunenshine is bringing that to your intention is we're getting
a little bit of pushback and it's not from the individual schools were also getting pushback from the
Department of Education who doesn’t want to add another item for their schools to do. This is of
vital importance and we need you to be aware of the situation as it develops.
Mr. President commented would the Department of Education prefer schools dealing with a big
outbreak of measles.
Max replied No, they are worried about education and the piece and health aspect is not foremost
on their plate. We try to put it foremost on their plate. That’s our job and that’s what we’re trying
to do. So as Dr. Sunenshine goes through these things, we’re doing our best to do that, but if
we're not successful you need to understand that, that might be something that we will have to
bring back before you in order to take action that will get them on board with us. But right now
we're trying to work with them so they see the importance as you do.
Mr. President stated Thank you, I don't want to belabor this, but I would simply point out for the
record that a kid who has measles is not getting educated because he’s at home.
Mr. Cournand asked just a quick question you mentioned, 95 percent is kind of the threshold for
herd immunity. If you were to break apart that five percent, that's not getting the vaccine, could
you either separate between, a tourist coming in from even developed countries that haven't been
vaccinated, that can be an issue. How much of it is really in the schools versus some of the other
ways that I'm anti vaccinated folks can come in. Is it, if we get there, if we got the school situated,
we're at 98. If we got the school situated, we're at 99 or if we got the school situated, it's at 96 and
they're still 4 percent out there for tourists and what have you.
Dr. Sunenshine replied if we're above that threshold of 95 percent, then if someone in a school is
exposed, what we would do is we would remove everyone who is unvaccinated who is exempt
from school so that they couldn't spread it and they would have to stay home for a minimum of 21
days, but then it would not spread efficiently in the school. If we drop below that threshold of 94
and 95 percent, then there's nothing we can do. It will just spread through the population
regardless of who we keep on. We keep them home anyway, but it would spread efficiently.
Mr. Cournand responded Thanks. For what it's worth, the sooner that we can help you in any way
please let us know. Not having Herd Immunity is a non-option, that can't happen.
Dr. Sunenshine continued with her remaining items.
 STDs going up nationwide. Specifically syphilis.
 Maricopa County is the third highest rate of syphilis and gonorrhea in the entire nation. And one of the
tragic pieces of having one of the highest rates of syphilis is that we also have one of the highest rates of
25

congenital syphilis or babies born with syphilis or born deceased, (still birth). The numbers went from 16
babies with syphilis in 2016 and it nearly doubled in 2017 to 30. Nineteen of those were in Maricopa
County. Of the 16 babies with congenital syphilis in 2018, 12 of them are in Maricopa County. What are
we doing about that? Jeanene Fowler can talk to you more about an ad campaign that was rolled out in
the last couple of weeks. We’ve already seen a near doubling of users on our STD site which is a good
thing. We still have some other things to do with Provider Education. They are required to test pregnant
women twice during pregnancy rather than the standard recommendation of just once because of our
high congenital syphilis rates. So we have some education to do with our healthcare providers.
 Those are the two things that we're working right now with the state. We also have some issues in our
tribal areas across the state and we need to be focused on a comprehensive approach.
Max stated we tried to keep it brief. We’re very busy in public health, so we have a lot of things that we
could tell you. We, we're tired just like you so if you do have questions, we're not trying to avoid the
questions, so if you have anything you would like to know, we'll be glad to answer anything.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CURRENT EVENTS
 Next meeting is October 22, 2018
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Ms. Halley, seconded
by Mr. MacMillan and motion was passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 3:56p.m.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Ms. Halley, seconded
by Mr. MacMillan and motion was passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 5:23p.m.
26