AQ 2019-002-P26 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: October 23, 2019
Case #/Title: AQ-2019-002-Ordinance P-26 (Residential Woodburning Restriction)
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:
Fires emit nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (which are precursors to ozone formation), carbon
monoxide, particulate matter, and a variety of hazardous air pollutants. Ordinance P-26 restricts residential
burning when monitoring or forecasting indicates that air quality standards are likely to be exceeded.
Maricopa County residents and visitors ignite fires in fireplaces, chimineas, and fire pits for a variety of reasons,
including warmth, recreation, ambiance, and even for cooking. Unfortunately, residential woodburning is a
significant source of air pollution in Maricopa County. Because Maricopa County has a history of
nonattainment with several National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the Arizona State Legislature has adopted several statutes related to burning in
Maricopa County.
A.R.S. § 11-871 required Maricopa County to adopt and implement a residential woodburning restriction
when monitoring or forecasting indicates that the carbon monoxide or particulate matter standards are likely
to be exceeded. This statute outlines several exemptions that must be included in the ordinance and specifies
violations for persons who violate the ordinance.
A.R.S. § 49-501 states that it is unlawful for any person to ignite, cause to be ignited, permit to be ignited, or
suffer, allow, or maintain any open outdoor fire, except for fires that are specifically listed in A.R.S. § 49-
501(B).
Based on these statutes, the MCAQD revised Ordinance P–26 and Rule 314 (Open Outdoor Fires and Indoor
Fireplaces at Commercial and Institutional Establishments) in 2008. Over the last ten years, as the MCAQD
has been implementing and enforcing Ordinance P–26 and Rule 314, the MCAQD has found some situations
where there are overlaps and contradictions between Ordinance P–26 and Rule 314. In addition, the MCAQD
has determined that there are some inconsistencies between Ordinance P–26 and the relevant state statutes.
As a result, the MCAQD is proposing to revise Ordinance P–26 for the following reasons:
 Clarify which fires at residential locations are subject to Ordinance P–26;
 Exempt fires and appliances used for cooking from Ordinance P–26 (because A.R.S. § 49-501(B)
specifies that open outdoor fires used for cooking shall be allowed at any time);
 Clarify the ordinance by removing definitions of terms that are not used in the ordinance;
1

 Rephrase the ordinance to clarify the requirements that are applicable during restricted burn periods
and the requirements that are applicable at all times;
 Reference the air quality standards in Rule 510 (so that Ordinance P–26 does not have to be revised
each time the EPA revises a NAAQS);
 Update the methods that the MCAQD will use to notify the public when a restricted burn period has
been declared;
 Delete the provision which stated that only violations of the ordinance which occurred within one
year of a present offense shall be considered as prior violations (because the statute that specifies the
consequences for violating this ordinance does not include that provision);
 Update the names of low income assistance programs (that are used to determine when low income
residents may qualify for a temporary exemption) and the name of the implementing agency; and
 Make other changes to ensure the revised ordinance can be approved into the Arizona State
Implementation Plan (SIP).
Overview of Stakeholder Input and Staff Responses:
During the rulemaking process, the MCAQD received written feedback from one resident and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Neither stakeholder expressed support for or opposition to the
proposed changes. The resident commented on the challenges associated with implementing and enforcing
the ordinance, rather than providing substantive comments on the draft ordinance. In response to these
comments, the MCAQD highlighted how the revised ordinance will continue to prohibit the activities the
stakeholder mentioned in their comments and improve the ability of the MCAQD to enforce the ordinance.
In addition, comments regarding the implementation of the ordinance have been forwarded to the
Compliance and Enforcement Division of the MCAQD. The EPA provided recommendations on
improvements and changes that may be necessary in order for the ordinance to be approved into the Arizona
SIP.
2

Report to the Board of Supervisors
Prepared by the Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Board of Health
Meeting Date: April 22, 2019
Board Hearing Date: October 23, 2019
Case #/Title: AQ-2019-002-Ordinance P-26 (Residential Woodburning Restriction)
Agenda Item: (Pending)
Supervisor Districts: All Districts
Applicant: Staff
Request: Approve revision of Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulation
Ordinance P-26 (Residential Woodburning Restriction) and approve
submission of the amended ordinance as a revision to the Arizona State
Implementation Plan (SIP).
Ordinance P-26 was adopted in response to A.R.S. § 11-871, which
required Maricopa County to adopt and implement a residential
woodburning restriction when monitoring or forecasting indicates that the
carbon monoxide or particulate matter standards are likely to be exceeded.
The MCAQD is proposing to revise Ordinance P-26 for the following
reasons:
• Clarify which fires at residential locations are subject to Ordinance P–
26;
• Exempt fires and appliances used for cooking from Ordinance P–26
(because A.R.S. § 49-501(B) specifies that open outdoor fires used for
cooking shall be allowed at any time);
• Clarify the ordinance by removing definitions of terms that are not
used in the ordinance;
• Rephrase the ordinance to clarify the requirements that are applicable
during restricted burn periods and the requirements that are applicable
at all times;
• Reference the air quality standards in Rule 510 (so that Ordinance P–
26 does not have to be revised each time the EPA revises a NAAQS);
• Update the methods that the MCAQD will use to notify the public
when a restricted burn period has been declared;
• Delete the provision which stated that only violations of the ordinance
which occurred within one year of a present offense shall be
considered as prior violations (because the statute that specifies the
consequences for violating this ordinance does not include that
provision);
• Update the names of low income assistance programs (that are used to
determine when low income residents may qualify for a temporary
exemption) and the name of the implementing agency; and
3

• Make other changes to ensure the revised ordinance can be approved
into the Arizona SIP.
Support/Opposition: During the rulemaking process, the MCAQD received written feedback
from one resident and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Neither stakeholder expressed support for or opposition to the proposed
changes. The resident commented on the challenges associated with
implementing and enforcing the ordinance, rather than providing
substantive comments on the draft ordinance. In response to these
comments, the MCAQD highlighted how the revised ordinance will
continue to prohibit the activities the stakeholder mentioned in their
comments and improve the ability of the MCAQD to enforce the
ordinance. In addition, comments regarding the implementation of the
ordinance have been forwarded to the Compliance and Enforcement
Division of the MCAQD. The EPA provided recommendations on
improvements and changes that may be necessary in order for the
ordinance to be approved into the Arizona SIP.
Staff
Recommendation: Approve
Board of Health
Recommendation: Approve
Additional Comments: This regulatory change is following the Enhanced Regulatory Outreach
Program Policy and workflow process. The County Manager briefed the
Board of Supervisors regarding this rulemaking in January 2019. A
stakeholder workshop was held on March 28, 2019.
The Board of Health approved an expedited rulemaking process for
Ordinance P-26 on April 22, 2019 and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
was posted on the EROP website on June 19, 2019.
A newspaper notice of the Board of Supervisors public hearing will be
published in the Record Reporter on September 11, 2019 and September
18, 2019. 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 the Draft
Notice of Final Rulemaking)
Minutes from Board of Health meeting
Copies of all written and electronic Stakeholder input
4

Return to list of attachments
DRAFT NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING
MARICOPA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS ORDINANCES
P–26: RESIDENTIAL WOODBURNING RESTRICTION ORDINANCE
The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) is proposing to amend Ordinance P–26
(Residential Woodburning Restriction Ordinance). 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, in accordance with the Maricopa County
EROP Policy. This notice includes the preamble, as prescribed in A.R.S. § 49-471.05, and the full
text of the rules, including the intended actions to make new sections or amend, repeal, or renumber
the sections of the rules. 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 Return to list of attachments
1. Statutory authority for the rulemaking:
A.R.S. §§ 11-871, 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
EROP Policy.
5

County Manager Briefing: January 2019
Stakeholder Workshops: March 28, 2019
Board of Health Meeting to Approve Expedited Rulemaking: April 22, 2019
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: June 19, 2019
Board of Supervisors Formal Meeting to Set the Public Hearing: September 4, 2019
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: October 23, 2019
4. Explanation of the rule, including the control officer's reasons for initiating the
rulemaking: Return to list of attachments
Fires emit nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (which are precursors to ozone
formation), carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and a variety of hazardous air pollutants.
Ordinance P-26 restricts residential burning when monitoring or forecasting indicates that
air quality standards are likely to be exceeded.
Maricopa County residents and visitors ignite fires in fireplaces, chimineas, and fire pits for a
variety of reasons, including warmth, recreation, ambiance, and even for cooking.
Unfortunately, residential woodburning is a significant source of air pollution in Maricopa
County. Because Maricopa County has a history of nonattainment with several National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the Arizona State Legislature has adopted several statutes related to burning in
Maricopa County.
A.R.S. § 11-871 required Maricopa County to adopt and implement a residential
woodburning restriction when monitoring or forecasting indicates that the carbon monoxide
or particulate matter standards are likely to be exceeded. This statute outlines several
exemptions that must be included in the ordinance and specifies violations for persons who
violate the ordinance.
A.R.S. § 49-501 states that it is unlawful for any person to ignite, cause to be ignited, permit
to be ignited, or suffer, allow, or maintain any open outdoor fire, except for fires that are
specifically listed in A.R.S. § 49-501(B).
Based on these statutes, the MCAQD revised Ordinance P–26 and Rule 314 (Open Outdoor
Fires and Indoor Fireplaces at Commercial and Institutional Establishments) in 2008. Over
the last ten years, as the MCAQD has been implementing and enforcing Ordinance P–26
6

and Rule 314, the MCAQD has found some situations where there are overlaps and
contradictions between Ordinance P–26 and Rule 314. In addition, the MCAQD has
determined that there are some inconsistencies between Ordinance P–26 and the relevant
state statutes. As a result, the MCAQD is proposing to revise Ordinance P–26 for the
following reasons:
 Clarify which fires at residential locations are subject to Ordinance P–26;
 Exempt fires and appliances used for cooking from Ordinance P–26 (because A.R.S.
§ 49-501(B) specifies that open outdoor fires used for cooking shall be allowed at any
time);
 Clarify the ordinance by removing definitions of terms that are not used in the
ordinance;
 Rephrase the ordinance to clarify the requirements that are applicable during
restricted burn periods and the requirements that are applicable at all times;
 Reference the air quality standards in Rule 510 (so that Ordinance P–26 does not
have to be revised each time the EPA revises a NAAQS);
 Update the methods that the MCAQD will use to notify the public when a restricted
burn period has been declared;
 Delete the provision which stated that only violations of the ordinance which
occurred within one year of a present offense shall be considered as prior violations
(because the statute that specifies the consequences for violating this ordinance does
not include that provision);
 Update the names of low income assistance programs (that are used to determine
when low income residents may qualify for a temporary exemption) and the name of
the implementing agency; and
 Make other changes to ensure the revised ordinance can be approved into the
Arizona State Implementation Plan.
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:
7

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 revise Ordinance P–26.
(a) The conduct and its frequency of occurrence that the rule is designed to change.
Every year, the MCAQD receives hundreds of citizen complaints regarding residential
woodburning. Some complaints indicate that neighbors are burning trash and other
prohibited materials. Other complaints indicate that neighbors are burning wood during
a restricted burn period.
(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.
If Ordinance P–26 is not revised and clarified, it is likely that Maricopa County will
continue measuring air pollution concentrations that exceed the following NAAQS:
 1987 NAAQS for particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10
micrometers (PM10);
 2008 NAAQS for ozone; and
 2015 NAAQS for ozone.
If Maricopa County fails to attain these standards, the MCAQD will be required to
implement additional regulations to reduce emissions of PM10 and/or ozone precursors.
In addition, if Maricopa County is classified as a serious nonattainment area for either
the 2008 or 2015 ozone NAAQS, the MCAQD will be required to lower the Title V
permitting thresholds for ozone precursors, which would increase the number of
facilities requiring Title V permits. Title V permits are more expensive to obtain and
require the source to pay an annual fee based on their emissions of particulate matter
and ozone precursors.
If this ordinance is not changed, it is also possible that Maricopa County may exceed the
2012 NAAQS for PM2.5. If Maricopa County is designated as nonattainment for the
PM2.5 NAAQS, the MCAQD would have to develop a plan to reduce PM2.5 emissions.
In addition, emissions offsets would be required for the construction of any new major
8

source of PM2.5 emissions or for any major modification at an existing major source of
PM2.5. There are currently six major sources of PM2.5 in Maricopa County (one
semiconductor manufacturer and five power plants).
If Ordinance P-26 is not revised, sensitive groups (such as children, the elderly, and
people with pre-existing cardiovascular disease) will continue to experience health effects
associated with elevated concentrations of air pollutants. Elevated concentrations of
PM2.5 are associated with increases in serious health effects, such as asthma attacks and
heart attacks. In addition, historical data has demonstrated that an increased
concentration of PM2.5 is associated with increased hospital admissions during the
pollution event and for several days after the pollution event ends.
(c) The estimated change in frequency of the targeted conduct expected from the
rule change.
The MCAQD is proposing to revise Ordinance P–26. As with other rules, the MCAQD
will use education, outreach, and other compliance assurance tools to increase the
number of people in compliance with the revised ordinance. The MCAQD strives to
achieve the highest possible compliance rates.
A brief summary of the information included in the economic, small business and
consumer impact statement.
This ordinance making should not have an economic impact on small businesses and
consumers in Maricopa County.
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
Planning and Analysis Division
Address: 3800 N Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Telephone: (602) 506-6010
Fax: (602) 506-6179
9

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 ordinance making will directly affect residents and visitors that want to burn wood.
This ordinance should not impose any significant new costs on businesses or individuals.
This rule will benefit children, senior citizens, and anyone with a preexisting health condition
that makes them more susceptible to harm caused by air pollution. This ordinance will also
benefit businesses by helping to ensure that the NAAQS are attained in Maricopa County.
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 ordinance making should not impose any new costs on the MCAQD or on any
other agencies affected by the proposed ordinance.
(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 ordinance making should not impose any new costs on political subdivisions of this
state affected by the proposed ordinance.
(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 ordinance making should not increase costs for any businesses in Maricopa County
and should not have any effect on revenues or payroll expenditures for businesses
affected by the proposed rulemaking. This ordinance making should benefit businesses
by improving the health of employees and their families, thus improving employee
productivity.
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.
10

This ordinance making should have no impact on private or public employment in
businesses, agencies, and 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.
There are no small businesses subject to the proposed ordinance.
(b) The administrative and other costs required for compliance with the proposed
rulemaking.
There are no small businesses subject to the proposed ordinance.
(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 small businesses subject to the proposed ordinance.
ii. Establish less stringent schedules or deadlines in the rule for compliance or
reporting requirements for small businesses.
There are no small businesses subject to the proposed ordinance.
iii. Consolidate or simplify the rule's compliance or reporting requirements for
small businesses.
There are no small businesses subject to the proposed ordinance.
iv. Establish performance standards for small businesses to replace design or
operational standards in the rule.
There are no small businesses subject to the proposed ordinance.
v. Exempt small businesses from any or all requirements of the rule.
There are no small businesses subject to the proposed ordinance.
(d) The probable cost and benefit to private persons and consumers who are directly
affected by the proposed rulemaking.
11

This rulemaking should not result in any significant costs for private persons and
consumers. Very minor costs may be incurred to purchase seasoned wood for use during
residential woodburning.
However, seasoned wood combusts more completely so it produces more heat than
unseasoned wood. Any costs associated with the purchase of seasoned wood will likely
be offset by a reduction in the amount of wood needed to achieve a similar heat output.
A statement of the probable effect on state revenues.
The ordinance making 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 proposed rulemaking, including the monetizing of the costs and
benefits for each option and providing the rationale for not using nonselected
alternatives.
The proposed changes do not include any intrusive or costly methods for reducing
emissions from outdoor fires.
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.
Not applicable.
7. The proposed effective date of the rule:
The proposed effective date of this rulemaking is October 23, 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 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)
12

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
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 MCAQD is in compliance with A.R.S. §§ 49-112(A) and (B). The State of Arizona does
not have any residential woodburning restrictions. Ordinance P–26 is allowed in lieu of a
state program because Maricopa County contains a maintenance area for the 1971 NAAQS
for carbon monoxide, and nonattainment areas for the following NAAQS:
 1987 NAAQS for PM10;
 2008 NAAQS for ozone; and
13

 2015 NAAQS for ozone.
There are no permits required by this ordinance.
9. List of all previous notices posted on 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: Return to list of attachments
(a) List of all previous notices posted on the Maricopa County EROP website
addressing the proposed rule:
Notice of Stakeholder Workshop: March 12, 2019 (Date of Posting)
Notice of Board of Health Meeting: April 4, 2019 (Date of Posting)
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: June 19, 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:
No changes were made after the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published on June
19, 2019.
The following discussion evaluates the arguments for and against the rule and includes
responses to comments received on the proposed ordinance or the preamble in the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The MCAQD received written comments from two
stakeholders. The comments were reviewed and evaluated by the MCAQD.
Comment #1: I have a pyromaniac inconsiderate neighbor who likes to burn green
logs started with gasoline and left to burn and smolder all night long
dozens of times per year. Many of these fires have been on no burn
days. Myself and several other neighbors have reported these fires
over and over again and not once has this person ever been cited! My
home and business are completely contaminated by soot from these
fires and I have suffered numerous sleepless nights coughing and
choking on smoke that has filled the entire area. I have asthma and I
also now have to sleep with supplemental oxygen being pumped into
my face through a mask all night long. I smell musty smoke in my
home every day and sometimes I can't even tell if there is another fire
next door or not. The inspectors are completely unable to do their
jobs. They cannot even get out of their vehicles, or go to an adjacent
14

property with invitation, or go down an alley on foot. This is
completely unacceptable for an enforcement arm of your agency to
be so incapable of doing absolutely anything to confirm these crimes.
I'm attaching a list of calls to an address that is a pervasive open fire
burner that has NEVER BEEN CITED ONCE!
Attached Spreadsheet
Response #1: Thank you for your comment. The MCAQD has retained restrictions
on burning of green logs and gasoline. The langage of the ordinance
has been revised to strengthen and clarify these restrictions.
To prevent burning of green logs and gasoline, draft ordinance
prohibits burning of any material other than seasoned wood which
contains no more than 20 percent moisture. This prohibition is
applicable to residential woodburning devices, chimineas, outdoor
fireplaces, and other outdoor devices that burn solid fuel. This
prohibition is also applicable to fire pits and similar outdoor fires at
residential locations. In addition, this prohibition is applicable at all
times and not just during restricted burn periods.
The draft ordinance retains restrictions on residential woodburning
during a restricted burn period. The revised ordinance prohibits the
use of chimineas, outdoor fireplaces, outdoor devices that burn solid
fuel, fire pits, and similar outdoor fires during restricted burn periods.
The revised ordinance also prohibits the use of residential
woodburning devices, unless the Control Officer has issued an
exemption for the residential woodburning device.
The MCAQD understands your concerns and is taking action to
reduce air pollution from residential woodburning in manner that is
consistent with the statutory authority granted to the MCAQD. We
appreciate your feedback regarding implementation of Ordinance P-
26. We have forwarded comments regarding implementation of the
15

ordinance to the Compliance and Enforcement Division of the
MCAQD.
Comment #2: I’ve attached comments on your proposed revisions to Maricopa
County P-26 Ordinance. Sorry for the delay in getting these
comments to you. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Attached Comments
Response #2: Thank you for your comments. Below is a response to each comment
provided in the attached comment sheet.
2.1: The MCAQD does not have statutory authority to require the
removal of uncertified woodburning stoves upon home resale,
to restrict the use of woodburning devices in new construction,
to restrict the installation of woodburning fireplaces, or to
require that all wood burning stoves sold or transferred meet
current NSPS certification standards. However, some similar
requirements have previously been incorporated into Arizona
Revised Statutes and are implemented by other regulatory
agencies.
2.2: The MCAQD revised Section B.1 of the ordinance to clarify
that devices certified to meet the new Standards of
Performance for Residential Wood Heaters, which were
finalized on March 16, 2015, are also approved woodburning
devices.
2.3: The MCAQD revised Section B.4 to clarify the types of devices
that can be approved by the Control Officer and the
Administrator of the EPA. This option is specifically for
masonry heaters and other types of solid fuel burning devices
that are not subject to the particulate matter standards in 40
CFR 60, Subpart AAA.
16

2.4: The MCAQD adopted Ordinance P-26 to comply with A.R.S. §
11-875, which states that “the ordinance shall prohibit the
installation or construction of a fireplace or wood stove in Area
A.” If the statutory definition of Area A is revised, the
MCAQD will evaluate the relevant statutes to determine if
revisions to Ordinance P-26 are necessary.
2.5: The MCAQD defined pellet fuel and added pellet fuel to the
definition of seasoned wood.
2.6: The MCAQD revised the definition of “sole source of heat” to
ensure the definition is clear and enforceable.
2.7: The MCAQD removed the reference to Rule 318 which is
outdated.
2.8: The MCAQD did not remove the reference to the primary
ambient air quality standard for ozone in Rule 510 of these
rules. The MCAQD is updating Rule 510 to include the 2015
ozone standard and the revised rule will be submitted as a
revision to the Arizona SIP.
2.9: The MCAQD has noted that Section 3.E of the Ordinance
should not be submitted for approval into the Arizona SIP.
2.10: The MCAQD removed the reference to Rule 318 which is
outdated.
EXACT WORDING OF THE ORDINANCE
MARICOPA COUNTY ORDINANCE
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
Return to list of attachments
P-26
RESIDENTIAL WOODBURNING RESTRICTION BURNING RESTRICTIONS
INDEX
SECTION 1 – GENERAL
A. PURPOSE
17

B. APPLICABILITY
C. EXEMPTIONS
SECTION 2 – DEFINITIONS
A. ADEQUATE SOURCE OF HEAT
B. APPROVED WOODBURNING DEVICE
C. AREA A
D. BURN-DOWN PERIOD CHARCOAL
E. CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) STANDARD
E. CHIMINEA
F. CHIMNEY
G. FLUE
G. INAPPROPRIATE FUEL
H. NONATTAINMENT AREA
H. MANUFACTURED FIRELOGS
I. OUTDOOR FIRE PITS AND SIMILAR OUTDOOR FIRES
J. OUTDOOR FIREPLACES AND OTHER OUTDOOR DEVICES
J. OZONE STANDARD
K. PARTICULATE MATTER NO-BURN STANDARD
L. PARTICULATE MATTER STANDARDS
K. PELLET FUEL
L. PROHIBITED MATERIAL
M. RESIDENTIAL WOODBURNING DEVICE
N. RESTRICTED-BURN PERIOD
O. SEASONED WOOD
O. P. SOLE SOURCE OF HEAT
P. WOODBURNING CHIMINEA
Q. SOLID FUEL
SECTION 3 – BURNING RESTRICTIONS
A. RESTRICTED OPERATION DURING RESTRICTED-BURN PERIODS
B. UNLAWFUL OPERATION WHEN RESIDENTIAL BURNING IS ALLOWED
C. LAWFUL OPERATION ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS
D. DECLARATION OF A RESTRICTED-BURN PERIOD
18

E. VIOLATIONS, NOTICES, AND PENALTIES
SECTION 4 – PARTIAL EXEMPTIONS THAT REQUIRE CONTROL OFFICER
APPROVAL
A. RESIDENTIAL SOLE SOURCE OF HEAT EXEMPTION
B. TEMPORARY SOLE SOURCE OF HEAT EXEMPTION
C. EMERGENCY EXEMPTION
D. INADEQUATE ALTERNATE SOURCE OF HEAT EXEMPTION
E. APPLICATION FOR AN A PARTIAL EXEMPTION
F. ACTION ON AN A PARTIAL EXEMPTION APPLICATION
Adopted 10/05/94
Revised 04/21/99
Revised 11/17/99
Revised 03/26/08
Adopted 10/05/94; Revised 04/21/99; Revised 11/17/99; Revised 03/26/08; Revised 10/23/2019
MARICOPA COUNTY ORDINANCE
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
P-26
RESIDENTIAL WOODBURNING RESTRICTION BURNING RESTRICTIONS
SECTION 1 – GENERAL
A. PURPOSE: The Residential Woodburning Restriction Ordinance This ordinance restricts
residential woodburning in a non-approved device, outdoor fire pits, woodburning
chimineas, and similar outdoor fires burning when monitoring or forecasting indicates that
air quality standards are likely to be exceeded and restricts residential burning of prohibited
materials.
B. APPLICABILITY: The Residential Woodburning Restriction Ordinance This ordinance
applies to: any residential woodburning device, outdoor fire pits, woodburning chimineas,
and similar outdoor fires that are within Maricopa County or within incorporated cities and
towns in such sections. The Residential Woodburning Restrictions Ordinance does not apply
to barbecue devices and mesquite grills.
1. Any residential woodburning device that is located within sections of Area A that are
within Maricopa County;
2. Any chiminea, outdoor fireplace, or other outdoor device that is located at a residence
and burns solid fuel; and
3. Any outdoor fire pit or similar outdoor fire that is located at a residence, burns solid fuel,
and is used exclusively for recreation or ambiance, or to provide warmth for human
19

beings. However, any outdoor fire pit or similar outdoor fire that is not used exclusively
for these purposes must comply with Rule 314 of these rules.
C. EXEMPTIONS: This ordinance does not apply to:
1. Appliances, including but not limited to, grills, ovens, and smokers, that are used
exclusively for the cooking, smoking, or flavoring of food; however any appliance that is
exempt from this ordinance must comply with all applicable requirements in Rule 314 of
these rules.
2. Devices or equipment, including fire pits and fireplaces, that are designed and used to
burn natural gas, propane, or liquefied petroleum gas exclusively.
SECTION 2 – DEFINITIONS: For the purpose of this ordinance, the following definitions shall
apply:
A. ADEQUATE SOURCE OF HEAT: A permanently installed furnace or heating system,
connected to or disconnected from its energy source, designed to heat utilizing oil, natural
gas, electricity, or propane, and designed to maintain a minimum of 70° Fahrenheit at a point
three feet above the floor in all normally inhabited areas of a residence.
B. APPROVED WOODBURNING DEVICE: The following residential devices shall be
approved woodburning devices, even though such devices may burn a solid fuel other than
wood:
1. A device that has been certified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as
conforming to Phase II EPA Standards of Performance for Wood Heaters in 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) 60, Subpart AAA as amended through July 1, 2006.
2. A device that has been certified by the EPA as conforming to the particulate matter
standards in 40 CFR 60, Subpart AAA, §60.532(a)-(c), as amended through [insert date
of rule adoption].
2. 3. Any pellet stove.
3. Any gas burning hearth appliances, including a dedicated gas logset permanently installed
in any kind of indoor or outdoor woodburning fireplace which is designed to burn
exclusively natural gas or propane.
4. Any masonry heater or any other solid fuel burning device that meets all of the following
requirements: performance standards that are equivalent to the standards in 40 CFR 60,
Subpart AAA as amended through July 1, 2006, and that is approved by the Control
Officer and the Administrator of EPA.
a. Is not subject to the particulate matter standards in 40 CFR 60, Subpart AAA, as
amended through [insert date of rule adoption];
b. Meets performance standards that are equivalent to the standards in 40 CFR 60,
Subpart AAA as amended through July 1, 2006; and
c. Is approved by the Control Officer and the Administrator of the EPA.
C. AREA A: As defined in Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 49-541(1), the area in Maricopa
County delineated as follows:
20

Township 8 North, Range 2 East and Range 3 East
Township 7 North, Range 2 West through Range 5 East
Township 6 North, Range 5 West through Range 6 East
Township 5 North, Range 5 West through Range 7 East
Township 4 North, Range 5 West through Range 8 East
Township 3 North, Range 5 West through Range 8 East
Township 2 North, Range 5 West through Range 8 East
Township 1 North, Range 5 West through Range 7 East
Township 1 South, Range 5 West through Range 7 East
Township 2 South, Range 5 West through Range 7 East
Township 3 South, Range 5 West through Range 1 East
Township 4 South, Range 5 West through Range 1 East
D. BURN-DOWN PERIOD: That period of time, not to exceed three hours after declaring a
restricted-burn period, required for the cessation of combustion within any residential
woodburning device, outdoor fire pit, woodburning chiminea, or similar outdoor fire by
withholding fuel or by modifying the air-to-fuel ratio.
E. CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) STANDARD: The maximum allowable eight-hour
concentration that is nine parts of contaminant per million parts of air by volume (ppm).
D. CHARCOAL: The carbon and hydrocarbon residue that remains after water and other
volatile constituents of wood have been removed by pyrolysis.
E. CHIMINEA: A device made from clay, aluminum, steel, or another non-combustible
material, that is designed to burn solid fuel, and that is used outside to provide warmth or
for aesthetic purposes.
F. CHIMNEY: A passage for smoke that is usually made of bricks, stone, or metal and often
rises two feet above the roof of a building. An approved, factory-built chimney will have a
label on each chimney connector and gas vent specifying that such chimney can be used for
all fuels and will show the minimum safe clearances to combustibles.
G. FLUE: Any duct or passage for air or combustion gases, such as a stack or chimney.
G. INAPPROPRIATE FUEL: Includes, but is not limited to: leaves, grass clippings, green
plants, refuse, paper, rubbish, books, magazines, fiberboard, packaging, rags, fabrics, animal
waste, animal carcasses, coal, waste oil, liquid or gelatinous hydrocarbons, tar, asphalt
products, waste petroleum products, paints and solvents, chemically soaked wood, wood
with a moisture content of greater than 20 percent, treated wood, plastic or plastic products,
rubber or rubber products, office records, sensitive or classified wastes, or any substance
which normally emits dense smoke or obnoxious odors other than paper to start the fire or
properly seasoned wood.
H. NONATTAINMENT AREA: An area so designated by the Administrator of the EPA,
acting pursuant to Section 107 of the Clean Air Act, as exceeding national primary or
secondary ambient air standards for a particular pollutant or pollutants.
21

H. MANUFACTURED FIRELOG: A log that is made from recycled wood, such as sawdust,
that is compressed to form a log or mixed with a binder and extruded into a log shape.
I. OUTDOOR FIRE PITS AND SIMILAR OUTDOOR FIRES: Any combustion of
material outdoors, where solid fuels including wood or any other non-gaseous or non-liquid
fuels are burned in the fuel bed, and the products of combustion are not directed through a
flue or chimney.
J. OUTDOOR FIREPLACES AND OTHER OUTDOOR DEVICES: Any combustion
of solid fuels in an outdoor fuel bed where the products of combustion are directed through
a flue or chimney.
J. OZONE STANDARD: The maximum allowable eight-hour concentration within a 24-hour
period (midnight to midnight) that is 0.08 parts of contaminant per million parts of air by
volume (ppm).
K. PARTICULATE MATTER NO-BURN STANDARD: If either of the following maximum
allowable 24-hour concentrations is forecast for particulate matter:
PM10-120 micrograms per cubic meter;
PM2.5-30 micrograms per cubic meter.
L. PARTICULATE MATTER STANDARDS: The maximum allowable 24-hour
concentration that is:
PM10-150 micrograms per cubic meter;
PM2.5-35 micrograms per cubic meter.
K. PELLET FUEL: Refined and densified fuel shaped into small pellets or briquettes that are
uniform in size, shape, moisture, density and energy content.
L. PROHIBITED MATERIAL: Aerosol spray cans; animal carcasses; animal waste;
antifreeze; asbestos; asphalt, asphalt shingles and other asphalt products; batteries;
chemically treated or soaked wood; cleaners; coal; counter tops; electrical wire insulation;
explosives or ammunition; fabrics; fiberboard; flammable liquids; flooring; furniture;
garbage; grass clippings; green plants; hazardous material containers, including those that
contain lead, cadmium, mercury, and arsenic compounds; hazardous waste; insulation;
landscape waste; painted wood; paper and paper products, including books, magazines, and
office records; leaves; liquid or gelatinous hydrocarbons; oleanders; packaging; paints;
pesticides, pesticide bags, and pesticide containers; plastic, including plastic bags and other
plastic products; polyester products; rags; refuse; rubbish; solvents; stains; tar and tar paper;
tires; transformer oils; tree trimmings; varnishes; waste petroleum products, including waste
crankcase oil, transmission oil, and oil filters; any substance that emits dense smoke or
obnoxious odors; and any material other than seasoned wood.
M. RESIDENTIAL WOODBURNING DEVICE: A woodburning device designed for
solid fuel combustion so that generates usable heat is derived for the interior of inside a
residence. These devices can be used for aesthetic or space-heating purposes.
22

N. RESTRICTED-BURN PERIOD: A condition declared by the Control Officer whenever
meteorological conditions are conducive to an accumulation of CO, ozone and/or
particulate matter in exceedance of the standards or when air quality reaches other limits
established by the Control Officer.
O. SEASONED WOOD: Wood with a moisture content less than or equal to 20 percent, as
determined using a moisture meter that is operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s
recommendations. For the purposes of this rule, seasoned wood includes charcoal, pellet
fuel, and manufactured firelogs.
O. P. SOLE SOURCE OF HEAT: One or more residential woodburning devices which
constitute the only source of heat in a residence and/or the sole source of fuel heat for
cooking for a residence. No residential woodburning device shall be considered the sole
source of heat if the residence is equipped with a permanently installed furnace or heating
system which utilizes oil, natural gas, electricity, or propane and which is designed to heat the
residence whether or not such furnace or heating system is connected to or disconnected
from its energy source. However, this definition shall not supersede municipal or County
Building Code requirements as per authority of A.R.S. §§ 9-499.01, 9-240(B)(7), 9-
276(A)(13)–(A)(15), A.R.S. § 9-801 et seq. Nothing in this definition shall relieve the owner or
operator of a residential woodburning device from complying with all applicable laws, rules,
and regulations, including municipal or county building codes and public safety
requirements.
P. WOODBURNING CHIMINEA: Chimineas are burning devices made from clay,
aluminum, or steel and are used for warmth and aesthetics outside in yards and patios.
Chimineas are designed to burn solid fuels.
Q. SOLID FUEL: Any fuel that is in a solid state prior to combustion.
SECTION 3 – BURNING RESTRICTIONS:
A. RESTRICTED OPERATION DURING RESTRICTED-BURN PERIODS: During a
declared restricted-burn period, a person shall be restricted from operating a residential
woodburning device, an outdoor fire pit, a woodburning chiminea, or similar outdoor fire, in
sections of Area A that are within Maricopa County or within incorporated cities and towns
in such sections. Exemptions to this requirement are described in Section 3(C) and Section 4
of this ordinance.
B. A. UNLAWFUL OPERATION: A person shall: RESTRICTED-BURN PERIODS: During
a restricted-burn period declared by the Control Officer, a person shall:
1. Not operate a residential woodburning device, an outdoor fire pit, a woodburning
chiminea, or similar outdoor fire such that emissions to the atmosphere are visible
during a restricted-burn period declared by the Control Officer. Not operate a residential
woodburning device, unless one of the following exemptions applies:
a. During a declared restricted-burn period, a person may operate a residential
woodburning device if the Control Officer has issued an exemption for such device
according to Section 4 of this ordinance, the device is installed according to the
23

instructions and restrictions specified by the manufacturer, only seasoned wood is
ignited, and no visible emissions to the atmosphere are produced after 20
consecutive minutes immediately following an ignition of, or a refueling of, such
residential woodburning device.
b. During a declared restricted-burn period, a person may operate an approved
woodburning device if the device is installed according to the instructions and
restrictions specified by the manufacturer, only seasoned wood is ignited, and no
visible emissions to the atmosphere are produced after 20 consecutive minutes
immediately following an ignition of, or a refueling of, such residential woodburning
device.
2. Not operate a residential woodburning device, an outdoor fire pit, a woodburning
chiminea, or similar outdoor fire unless such residential woodburning device, outdoor
fire pit, woodburning chiminea, or similar outdoor fire has been installed according to
the instructions and restrictions specified by the manufacturer. Not operate a chiminea,
outdoor fireplace, or any other outdoor device that burns solid fuel.
3. Not use a fuel in a residential woodburning device, an outdoor fire pit, a woodburning
chiminea, or similar outdoor fire except those fuels that are recommended by the
manufacturer. Not operate a fire pit or similar outdoor fire.
4. Not burn inappropriate fuel in a residential woodburning device, an outdoor fire pit, a
woodburning chiminea, or similar outdoor fire.
B. WHEN RESIDENTIAL BURNING IS ALLOWED: When the Control Officer has
not declared a restricted burn period, a person shall not:
1. Operate a residential woodburning device, unless such residential woodburning device
has been installed according to the instructions and restrictions specified by the
manufacturer.
2. Ignite any fuel other than seasoned wood.
C. LAWFUL OPERATION: ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS: At any time, a person shall
not:
1. During a declared restricted-burn period, a person may operate a residential
woodburning device if the Control Officer has issued an exemption for such device
according to Section 4 of this ordinance and if no visible emissions to the atmosphere
are produced after 20 consecutive minutes immediately following an ignition of or a
refueling of such residential woodburning device. Burn or attempt to burn any
prohibited material in a residential woodburning device.
2. During a declared restricted-burn period, a person may operate a residential
woodburning device if such device meets the requirements of Maricopa County Air
Pollution Control Regulations Rule 318 (Approval of Residential Woodburning Devices)
and if no visible emissions to the atmosphere are produced after 20 consecutive minutes
immediately following an ignition of, or a refueling of, such residential woodburning
device. Burn or attempt to burn any prohibited material in a chiminea, an outdoor
fireplace, or any other outdoor device that burns solid fuel.
24

3. During a declared restricted-burn period, a person may operate a residential
woodburning device, an outdoor fire pit, woodburning chiminea, or similar outdoor fire,
if such device is designed to burn exclusively natural gas or propane. Burn or attempt to
burn any prohibited material in a fire pit or similar outdoor fire.
D. DECLARATION OF A RESTRICTED-BURN PERIOD:
1. The Control Officer shall declare a restricted-burn period if, after reviewing available
meteorological data, atmospheric conditions, and ambient temperatures, the Control
Officer determines that air pollution levels could exceed: the carbon monoxide (CO)
standard, the ozone standard, and/or the particulate matter no-burn standard.
a. The primary ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide, eight-hour average,
in Rule 510 of these rules;
b. The primary ambient air quality standard for ozone, eight-hour average, in Rule 510
of these rules; or
c. Either of the following 24-hour average concentrations for particulate matter:
(1) PM10 – 120 micrograms per cubic meter; or
(2) PM2.5 – 30 micrograms per cubic meter.
2. A person responsible for any a residential woodburning device, outdoor fire pit,
woodburning chiminea, or similar outdoor fire or device listed in Section 1(B) of this
ordinance, excluding those devices described in Section 3(C) Sections 3(A)(1)(a) and
3(A)(1)(b) of this ordinance, already in operation at the time a restricted-burn period is
declared shall withhold new fuel from the residential woodburning device, outdoor fire
pit, woodburning chiminea, or similar outdoor fire or device for the duration of the
restricted-burn period.
3. Any person operating or in control of a residential woodburning device, outdoor fire pit,
woodburning chiminea, or similar outdoor fire in sections of Area A that are within
Maricopa County or within incorporated cities and towns in such sections fire or device
listed in Section 1(B) of this ordinance has a duty to know when a restricted-burn period
has been declared.
4. Notice of a restricted-burn period shall be distributed over the wire service to electronic
and print media and/or announced by a recorded telephone message at least three hours
before initiating any enforcement action for a violation of this ordinance. Notice of a
restricted-burn period shall be distributed and/or announced using one or more of the
following methods:
a. Press releases to electronic and print media;
b. Email and/or text messages;
c. Social media;
d. The Maricopa County Air Quality Department website;
e. The Clean Air Make More website and mobile application;
f. By a recorded telephone message.
25

E. VIOLATIONS, NOTICES, AND PENALTIES: For purposes of this ordinance, and in
accordance with A.R.S. §11-871(D):
1. When the Control Officer has reasonable cause to believe that any person has violated
or is in violation of any provision of this ordinance, the Control Officer shall issue, for
the first violation of this ordinance, a warning notice which includes a summary of the
Maricopa County Residential Woodburning Restriction Ordinance Burning Restrictions
ordinance and information on proper woodburning techniques.
2. The Control Officer may shall impose a civil penalty of $50 to any person who violates
this ordinance for the second violation within a one year period time after having been
issued a warning notice for the first violation of this ordinance.
3. For the third violation of this ordinance, the Control Officer may shall impose a civil
penalty of $100. The Control Officer may shall impose a civil penalty of $250 for the
fourth or any subsequent violation of this ordinance. After having been issued a citation
for a violation of this ordinance, the violation may be refuted by demonstration that the
smoke was not caused by a residential woodburning device, an outdoor fire pit, a
woodburning chiminea, or similar outdoor fire or a device listed in Section 1(B) of this
ordinance or by proof of an exemption pursuant to Section 4 of this ordinance.
4. Only those violations of this ordinance which have occurred within one year of a present
offense shall be considered as prior violations. No person shall be cited for a violation of
this ordinance more than once in any calendar day. Each day of violation constitutes a
separate offense.
SECTION 4 – PARTIAL EXEMPTIONS THAT REQUIRE CONTROL OFFICER
APPROVAL
A. RESIDENTIAL SOLE SOURCE OF HEAT EXEMPTION: The Control Officer may
grant a residential sole source of heat exemption if the Control Officer determines that a
residential woodburning device meets the criteria of sole source of heat as described in
Section 2(O) of this ordinance. The recipient of a residential sole source of heat exemption
must apply annually to the Control Officer for renewal of such exemption, if such
exemption is still necessary. The Control Officer shall not issue a residential sole source of
heat exemption after December 31, 1995. However, the Control Officer may renew a
residential sole source of heat exemption if such exemption was issued before December 31,
1995 and if the residential woodburning device meets the criteria of sole source of heat as
described in Section 2(O) of this ordinance.
B. TEMPORARY SOLE SOURCE OF HEAT EXEMPTION: The Control Officer may
issue a temporary sole source of heat exemption for economic or health reasons if the
Control Officer determines that the applicant qualifies for financial assistance, according to
the economic guidelines established under the Food Stamps Nutrition Assistance, Medicaid
Medical Assistance, or low income home energy assistance programs, as administered by the
Income Support Division Arizona Department of Economic Security, or if the Control
Officer determines that failure to grant a temporary sole source of heat exemption would
endanger the health of the applicant. A temporary sole source of heat exemption shall not be
issued for more than 150 days.
26

C. EMERGENCY EXEMPTION: The Control Officer may issue an emergency exemption
if the Control Officer determines that an emergency situation exists. An emergency
exemption shall be valid for a period determined by the Control Officer, but shall not exceed
one year from the date it is issued. An emergency situation shall include, but is not limited
to, the following:
1. A situation where a person demonstrates that his heating system, other than a residential
woodburning device, is inoperable for reasons other than his own actions; or
2. A situation where a person demonstrates that his heating system has been involuntarily
disconnected by a utility company or other fuel supplier.
D. INADEQUATE ALTERNATE SOURCE OF HEAT EXEMPTION: The Control
Officer may issue an inadequate alternate source of heat exemption if the Control Officer
determines:
1. That there is a heat source other than a residential woodburning device available to the
residence;
2. That such heat source is not a sole source of heat, as defined in Section 2(O) of this
ordinance, and that such heat source is used in conjunction with a residential
woodburning device;
3. That such heat source is not an approved woodburning device, as defined in Maricopa
County Air Pollution Control Regulations Rule 318 (Approval of Residential
Woodburning Devices); and
4. That such heat source is not an adequate source of heat, as defined in Section 2(A) of
this ordinance.
The recipient of an inadequate alternate source of heat exemption must comply with
municipal or County Building Code requirements (as per authority of A.R.S. §§ 9-499.01,
9-240(B)(7), 9-276(A)(13)–(A)(15), A.R.S. § 9-801 et seq.) and must apply annually to the
Control Officer for renewal of such exemption, if such exemption is still necessary. The
Control Officer shall not issue an inadequate alternate source of heat exemption after
December 31, 1995. However, the Control Officer may renew an inadequate alternate
source of heat exemption, if such exemption was issued before December 31, 1995 and
if the residential woodburning device meets the criteria of this ordinance.
E. APPLICATION FOR AN A PARTIAL EXEMPTION: Any person seeking an
exemption shall do so by submitting an acceptable written application to the Control
Officer. An application shall state:
1. The applicant's name and mailing address;
2. The address for which the exemption is sought; and
3. The reasons for seeking the exemption.
F. ACTION ON AN A PARTIAL EXEMPTION APPLICATION: Following the receipt
of an exemption application, the Control Officer shall either grant the exemption, grant the
exemption subject to conditions, or deny the exemption. The Control Officer shall notify, in
writing, the applicant of such decision.
27

MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MEETING MINUTES
Monday, April 22, 2019 at 3:00 pm
301 W. Jefferson Street, 10th Floor, Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Board of Supervisors Conference Room
President Hughes called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. Return to list of attachments
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Members Not Present:
Don Cassano
Henri Cournand
Robert MacMillan
Kristen Acton
Andrew Rascón (via phone)
Nedra Halley
Don Hughes
Debra Baldauff
Bill Gates
Ex-Officio: Max Porter
CALL TO THE PUBLIC:
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.
No speaker slips were received.
DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS
1. Approval of Minutes: President Hughes asked for a motion to approve the BOH minutes from the BOH Meeting
held on February 25, 2019. 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. Fee Waiver Applications Ms. Jeannie Taylor
Ms. Jeannie Taylor presented 27 fee waivers for review and consideration of approval. A summary sheet document was
provided.
Motion to approve the 27 fee waivers applications was made by Ms. Halley, seconded by Mr. Cassano and all were in
favor. The motion passed unanimously.
3. Approval of expedited process rulemaking for the following rules: Gregory Verkamp
Kimberly Butler
A. AQ-2017-012
Rule 314 (Open Outdoor Fires and Indoor Fireplaces at Commercial and Institutional Establishments)
The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) is proposing to revise Rule 314 to clarify what types of open
outdoor fires are allowed in Maricopa County, when each type of fire is allowed, and which requirements are associated
with each type of fire, to incorporate MCAQD policies related to agricultural flame cultivation and firefighter training
during restricted burn periods and to make other changes to improve and clarify the rule.
28
1

B. AQ-2019-002
Ordinance P-26 (Residential Woodburning Restriction Ordinance)
The MCAQD is proposing to revise Ordinance P-26 to clarify the types of fires and woodburning devices that are subject
to Ordinance P-26, to prohibit the use of any fuel other than seasoned wood and to make other changes to improve and
clarify the rule.
Gregory Verkamp and Kimberly Butler presented 2 rules for approval of expedited process. Mr. MacMillan was
concerned because this is impacting so many people. President Hughes spoke up stating that Air Quality has done
everything in they can do to get the word out. This is the beginning of the process and EPA will ultimately have to
approve the rule. They want to get this process completed before our no burn season starts.
Motion to approve expedited process rulemaking for AQ-2017-012, Rule 314 (Open Outdoor Fires and Indoor
Fireplaces at Commercial and Institutional Establishments) and AQ-2019-002, Ordinance P-26 (Residential Wood
burning Restriction Ordinance) was made by Mr. Cournand, seconded by Ms. Halley. The motion passed with 8 votes
in favor and 1 (Mr. MacMillan) against.
4. Approval of expedited process for the following Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Process (EROP) Case:
Ken Conklin
EROP Case ES-2019-001/Maricopa County Transfer Station Fee Revisions
Ken Conklin and Brian Kehoe presented EROP Case ES-2019-001/Maricopa County Transfer Station Fee Revisions for
approval of expedited process.
Approve the proposed Maricopa County Environmental Health Code (MCEHC) revision for the Enhanced Regulatory
Outreach Program (EROP) Expedited Process.
The Department has not received comments either for or against this EROP case. In addition, no stakeholders attended
the April 3, 2019 stakeholder meeting. Approximately 175 flyers were handed out at the transfer stations for about 2
weeks informing citizens about the stakeholder meeting.
Staff recommends the Board of Health approves this MCEHC revision proposal for the EROP Expedited Process.
Transfer station operational expenses have increased as a result of additional citizen demand, which in turn has caused
a revenue deficit for Maricopa County Waste Resources and Recycling (MCWRR). To maintain compliance with A.R.S §
49-741, which requires providing or ensuring solid waste public facility services are available for citizens, MCWRR fee
changes are proposed.
This MCEHC proposal is following the EROP policy and workflow process. In accordance with the Maricopa County
Resolution, “Moratorium on Increased Regulatory Burdens,” the County Manager authorized the Department to proceed
with this case in early February 2019. Also, the Board of Supervisors were briefed by March 2019.
Handouts included County Manager Case Approval Memo and the Presentation from the Stakeholder Meeting on April
3, 2019.
County Manager Case Approval Memo states: County Manager Approval – Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Process
(EROP) Case ES-2019-001 – Fee Proposal for Transfer Stations Located within Maricopa County.
In accordance with the “Moratorium on Increased Regulatory Burdens” Resolution C-44-13-104-M-02 adopted by the
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors on January 10, 2018, the Environmental Services Department is seeking your
approval to initiate changes to the Maricopa County Waste Resources and Recycling fees charged to citizens for the use
of waste transfer stations.
29
2

This proposal qualifies for County Manager approval under the moratorium, as these changes will increase fees to use
transfer stations within Maricopa County. The new EROP case would be ES-2019-001 – Fee Proposal for Transfer Stations
Located within Maricopa County, and will follow the EROP policy and workflow.
Maricopa County has more than 72,502 citizens that rely on our six transfer stations located in the more rural areas of
the county because they have no access to municipal trash services. Increases in costs associated with disposal of trash,
economic impacts and increased demand have caused a deficit in revenues and expenses for the county. In an effort to
continue to comply with A.R.S. § 49-741, Environmental Services is proposing a change in the Waste Resources and Recycling fees.
Maricopa County Internal Audit has recommended that the department review its current budget and fee structure in order to fully or partially
recover the county’s cost in the transfer activity (TRAN). The current fees have not been adjusted for more than 10 years and have caused an
imbalance of more than $408,000 in expenses and revenues for the past 3 fiscal years.
This adoption is necessary to provide adequate and timely services to the citizens of Maricopa County and recover the County’s cost at its transfer
stations. We are requesting your approval to move this proposed revision forward in accordance with the Maricopa County Resolution,
“Moratorium on Increased Regulatory Burdens.”
30
3

https://www.maricopa.gov/3366/accepted-items-fees
The proposed fees will be implemented over two years.
Mr. Cournand asked if they could quantify the shortfall. Mr. Kehoe responded that they currently take in approximately $290,000 in revenue
and costs to operate the 6 transfer stations is over $700,000 per fiscal year. The shortfall is $400,000 - $450,000 per fiscal year. Mr. Cournand
asked by adding the additional fees how much does that close the gap? Mr. Kehoe responded that the cost recovery would be about 51%. Mr.
Cournand asked what the increase fees would be to get to a full cost recovery. Mr. Kehoe responded that for a full cost recovery all at once they
would have to increase costs by over 200%. They didn’t want to increase the fees by that much, they didn’t think it would sit well with people so
they went with the phased approach.
President Hughes asked after the second fee increase goes into effect you’re still going to be $250,000 short. Who makes up the $250,000, the
County? Mr. Kehoe replied the County General Fund.
Ms. Acton stated this proposed plan is good in theory, was there another proposed plan that included a fee increase over the next 3-4 years that
covered all your costs instead of a partial band-aide? No, we did 3 different scenarios. We do full cost recovery, one with about 75% and one
with 51% and the one that seemed to get the most traction was the one with 51%. Ms. Acton asked in two years we’ll have to adjust again? Mr.
Kehoe replied in two years we can review and see where we’re at, if our costs have reduced or it’s possible that we could operate at less of a loss
than we do currently. Unless we close facilities down which we don’t intend to do I don’t see our costs going down.
Mr. Cassano stated that it’s important to provide the services at a cost that people will use it. It’s a balance, you don’t want the fees to be too
high. If they’re too high you run the risk of illegal dumping that cause other issues and potential health hazards.
Mr. Kehoe mentioned that it is hard to bench mark against as compared to other municipalities (counties and cities) as most have scales and
when someone brings in two tons they pay for two tons. They do not have scales so it’s harder to figure out.
Darcy Kober the Director of Environmental Services added that the 51% increase was 100% because of what you said. In looking at what we
thought was palatable but would also not create a problem for folks and cause an illegal dumping issue in the area or folks keeping it in their
property and then potentially having other public health implications as a result of that.
Darcy also explained that as part of this evaluation I want to also add that we are also looking at a more sophisticated POS (Point of Sale) System.
A system that could potentially give us some of that additional information in the next couple years. Currently it’s a pretty basic accounting system
that they have at these transfer stations. We don’t have scales and we have looked at the investment of scales and it was $100,000 per location.
We have to weigh that level of investment also but we are looking at increasing the Point of Sale System to start to characterize the waste a little
bit more. Even if it is still by car or truck or whatever but to look at what type of waste is in the vehicles so when we look at this in the future we
have additional information on the type of waste.
Mr. Cournand brought up that this is consumer buying. If I asked you to pay a dollar more for an apple you’re going to have a bigger reaction
than if ask you to pay a dollar more per car. When looking at the numbers, on year two for example when you are changing it to nine dollars why
not change it to a flat ten dollars and the six dollars why not make it seven or eight. If I’m going there and I know that it’s over five dollars I will
more than likely bring a ten dollar bill. If the charges are six dollars vs. seven or eight and if I get back three vs. four it’s not really that big of a
difference. Don’t tag them right now but on year two get a little more. I know you can’t look at every scenario but if you change the numbers
31
4

some you can get closer to where you need. I’m really uncomfortable with knowing your just kicking the can and in a couple years you’ll still be
a quarter of a million to the bad. If you ease into it on year one and get a little more aggressive on year two it can help get you where you need
to be. Last I checked we are having more population so I’m assuming that’s going to exacerbate the issue that much more.
Motion to approve expedited process for the EROP Case ES-2019-001/Maricopa County Transfer Station Fee
Revisions was made by Mr. Cassano, seconded by Dr. Baldauff. The motion passed with 5 votes in favor and 3 (Mr.
Cournand, Mr. MacMillan and Ms. Acton) against.
Discussion Items:
1. Public Health Report Max Porter
Dr. Rebecca Sunenshine
I. Human Resources
II. Communication
III. Infrastructure
IV. Strategic Planning
V. Programs
VI. Disease Update
VII. Future Topics
Max Porter and Dr. Rebecca Sunenshine presented the Director’s Public Health Report.
Max passed out the press release from April 16, 2019 announcing the appointment of the new Public Health Director.
Maricopa County is pleased to announce the appointment of Marcy Flanagan, DBA, MPH, MA as its new Public Health
Director effective June 10, 2019. Flanagan currently serves as the director of Pima County Department of Public Health.
Marcy will be here to present the Public Health Report at our next meeting in July.
President Hughes thanked Max and Rebecca for all the hard work they have done to step up over the past year and a half
transition period. It’s been greatly appreciated.
Max went over the Shared Use Facility RFP
(https://www.bidsync.com/bidsync-app-web/vendor/links/BidDetail.xhtml?bidid=2037686&roundId=null)
Maricopa County Department of Public Health (MCDPH) is seeking partnerships with schools, hospitals, local
governments, community-based organizations, private employers, faith-based organizations, and other property owners
who would like to share their facilities for the purpose of increasing access to spaces where community residents are
able to:
- play, exercise, and take part in recreational activities; and/or
- grow healthy food and/or participate in nutrition-related activities
The total amount of funding for this project is $90,000. MCDPH will accept proposals on an open and continuous basis
until the available amount has been reached. MCDPH expects that applicants will submit proposals, attend a planning
workshop, submit action plans for approval, and that invoices will be submitted and dated no later than June 28, 2019.
However, the implementation of the project is expected to take place beyond June 28, 2019. Respondents may submit
proposals with project budgets of up to $5000 per host site (not per entity).
Full details and a copy of the request for quote (RFQ) are attached or can received by contacting Cheryl Rentscheler,
Procurement Officer @ (602) 506-6886 or at Cheryl.rentscheler@maricopa.gov
Interested candidates must submit their response to Cheryl Rentscheler as soon as possible but no later than May
31, 2019. Responses may be submitted either by mail or email.
32
5

In the Finance meeting Scot mentioned the OPIOID grant that we’re applying for. This is a little different than most things.
Most of the time when we apply for a grant we are going up against the entire nation which is approximately 3141
counties and county equivalents. When you think about competing for an open grant like that it gets very difficult. This
is not quite like that, it’s a non-competitive grant. This is a cooperative agreement. The federal government did a
research study to see where the hot spots were with OPIOID deaths, OPIOID use and with other struggles with OPIOIDs.
It will go to each State and to the largest Local Health Department. For Arizona they funded the State for all of the rural
counties and they also funded Maricopa County separately. This cooperative agreement will bring in another 2.5 million
dollars to us at the start of September.
We’re excited about this, because we know there is a problem and we currently don’t have funding to address it. It’s a
struggle to know there is a problem that you need to do something with and not have the ability to touch it. This will
allow us to work in that area. The main focal points of this cooperative agreement is that you have to be working with
other organizations. They don’t want us to create a program that will eat up funding on administration. They want us to
work with organizations that already exist, to augment them, to support them and to help their programs to grow. As
the grant is awarded we will be able to tell you about the 5 areas we will be working in.
President Hughes brought up the fact that other potential monies will start coming in from all the OPIOID lawsuits.
Oklahoma has already settled and it will probably be spread. There will be lots of money available coming in from
different sources. As part of this grant we may want to be thinking about what do we do when additional money comes
in whenever it comes in.
Max said we are aware that should be happening and that’s one of the reasons we’re excited about this. It will allow us
to establish a foot print of what we want to do when the money comes in. You’ve heard it often that our department is
not funded like a lot of others throughout the country. I like that and the reason is it makes us utilize and think about
where we’re spending our money and do it effectively and efficiently. The last thing you want to do is have a large influx
of money and then spend it stupidly or not have a plan moving forward. That’s why we’re excited about this program
coming in so that we can establish a footprint and a direction that we want to go when the larger funding comes in.
There are 5 different areas that you have to hit with this agreement, you have to address how you will address each one
and who you will be working with in each one. Once that’s approved we will have a presentation for the board on the
OPIOID grant itself so you understand it and what we’re doing. When you see programs popping up perhaps not with
the Counties name or our name you’ll know that you have a hand in it and why we’re doing it.
Mr. Cournand asked if you only work with not for profit or for profit organizations for the grant. Max explained that
everything we do is through an RFP (request for proposal) process and the result of that process any organization could
be awarded, they could be not for profit or for profit. There is a scoring criteria and it’s who fits the criteria the best.
Max continued to the next topic, WIC. Scot mentioned we had a decrease last year with our WIC program. This next
year we will have static funding. They set our case load at 48,000 a month and I feel we can hit that. How I feel we can
hit that is last week we had a meeting with the NOAH organization. NOAH (Neighborhood Outreach Access to Health) is
the Honor Health’s FQHC (Federally Qualified Health Center) provider system, they have 5 locations. What we struggle
with, with WIC is all of our money is going to rent at different places, brick and mortar locations. We’re dealing with
mothers today that don’t really care about going someplace, they are fine with meeting with you virtually, they’re fine
with meeting with you on their IPhone. With WIC you have to have a touch point with the child, you have to be able to
hold the child. For WIC they need to get length/height, weight, and finger stick – hemoglobin/hematocrit levels. Our
feeling is these Moms have to take their families into primary care and that’s hard enough for them. We feel if we use
the doctors to do the touch point and then they connect with us virtually. Then the rest of the enrollment for the WIC
program can be done virtually with the Mom. The Mom wins, the FQHC wins and so does the WIC program. This isn’t
done anywhere else in the Country and this is something we are trying to pilot here. NOAH is excited about it. We are
hoping to have this in place by June. The State is on the fence about it but they will get off of it because they will see that
it will work. We need to be able to address the Mothers of today and we’re excited about this so we can increase our
numbers and our impact in the community. By our next meeting in July it will have started so we will be able to show
you how it’s working. 33
6

Dr. Rebecca Sunenshine went over the current Hepatitis A outbreak. A little over a year ago we had a Hepatitis A outbreak
we were able to stop it in about three months. It was predominately among individuals experiencing homelessness.
Since that time San Diego had a massive outbreak with over 5 or 600 cases. Which they managed to quell. Different
areas have had outbreaks. Pima County started in 2018 and they’re up to well over 100 cases at this point. So we have
been watching for an outbreak to start here. In just the last couple of months we started seeing a pickup in cases here.
Predominately among individuals experiencing homelessness and use illicit drugs and it’s also stretched to those that
have been incarcerated. 77% both use illicit drugs and have an unstable housing situation. There are a total of 35 cases
to date in Maricopa County. Hospitalization rate is 94%, I’ve never seen an outbreak with a hospitalization rate like that.
Even nationally the hospitalization rate is 60 something percent so we’re clearly just capturing the tip of the iceberg.
There’s something that’s keeping these people from coming in to seek care earlier so we’re getting the sickest ones.
What have we done about the outbreak? We are working closely with Correctional Health who is integrating screening
for homelessness and illicit drug use into their process. We’re giving them Hepatitis A vaccine and they’re vaccinating
this population.
The cases are very hard to reach so actually trying to vaccinate contacts has not been effective. The strategy that CDC
(Centers for Disease Control) recommends and that we have also found to be the most useful is to get the population at
risk vaccinated. That’s a national strategy. Correctional Health is doing that.
We are working with other harm reduction partners (people who are routinely working with individuals with substance
use). Partnering with them and offering Hepatitis A vaccine. Recently we’ve had meetings with Banner, St. Luke’s, Honor
Health and Dignity. Banner is already planning to implement screening and vaccination of all those at risk individuals
starting the 24th, which is huge. St. Luke’s, Honor Health and Dignity have agreed to integrate that screening process into
their Emergency Departments (ED’s). Which is a big deal because ED’s don’t usually vaccinate except for tetanus. We
have a meeting with MIHS next week. We’re also planning to reach out to Abrazo so we’ll have all of the major hospital
systems.
We’re also having a partners meeting on the 24th to meet with everybody that currently works with individuals with
homelessness and substance use to try to figure out the best way to get to these programs. A lot of them live in homeless
encampments and they don’t necessarily go somewhere to seek services. We don’t have the infrastructure to go out to
them so we’re hoping to latch on to existing infrastructure and get out there, maybe give them vaccine. We have a
couple fire departments are really excited about going out there. They are already EMS so they’re trained to vaccinate,
the doctors are willing to give standing orders and they routinely go to these homeless encampments.
Mr. Cournand asked if anyone has given any push back, have any hospitals said “No”.
Dr. Sunenshine responded that she has never had an easier sell in her entire life, the answer has been yes every single
time. We have spent a fair amount of money on vaccine. What we’ve offered to all of them was 100 doses to get them
started. We did a financial case and we looked at 2017 Hepatitis A hospitalization among adults. There were 25 inpatient
and 6 ED visits. The charges range from $2700 for ED visits to over $68,000 for hospitalization with an average of $21,000.
The cost of a Hepatitis A vaccine is $42 per dose. I made the business argument. For some folks they need to hear the
business argument to push them over and for some folks it’s in their mission. Like Dignity, it’s in their mission to support
this population. We have had no push back, it’s really great. We’re excited about the community response.
Question was asked, is Steward on board? Dr. Sunenshine responded, yes they were actually the first. They are the ones
that are affiliated with Mesa and Chandler Fire. They are coming to our partners meeting and they’re the ones who
talked about going out into the Community. Which is great because we have to EPI centers one is in Central Phoenix,
around St. Joe’s and the other one is out in the East Valley along the light rail in East Mesa and Chandler area. We’re
very excited, it’s not a good thing but we’re excited about the Community response.
Max Porter added our expenditure rates right now are about $15,000 per month. We expect that to continue for a while.
34
7

Dr. Sunenshine stated that right now a lot of people have not had the vaccine demand so we’re holding back on ordering
more. When they get their programs up and running they may need help with vaccine. Correctional Health has been
our biggest one that we’ve needed to give vaccine to. Also Native Health has mobile units that go out into the Community.
We’re just trying to keep everyone supplied.
President Hughes asked if you already have Hepatitis A, does the vaccine help them?
Dr. Sunenshine responded, Hepatitis A is really an acute illness and if they’ve had Hepatitis A in the past they don’t need
the vaccine. That’s one of the questions that we’re asking them to ask in the screening. Have you ever had Hepatitis A
before and have you ever been vaccinated for Hepatitis A. All of them are entering the data into ASIIS which is our
immunization registry so that everyone can look them up to see if they’ve been vaccinated.
Ms. Acton asked is there a booster that you recommend after?
Dr. Sunenshine responded, there’s no booster necessary. The first dose of Hepatitis A vaccine is 95% effective at
preventing disease. So we’re just trying to get one dose into these people. Our biggest push back has been with the
individuals themselves. This particular population is not fond of government and they’re somewhat resistant to medical
care in general so that’s been the most challenging part.
Immunization update. Our numbers are down again, we are at 92.7% of Maricopa County kindergarteners are up to date
on their MMR vaccine. That’s compared with 93.1% last year. We lose about ½ of a percent per year. 95% of the
population needs to be immune to have that extra layer of protection that is herd immunity. So we are well below that
and we’re continuing to fall below it. It is definitely due to an increase in personal belief exemptions. We are one of only
about 17 states that allow you to sign a piece of paper to get that exemption. We have gone from 5.9% last year up to
6.5 % this year of parents that have at least one personal belief exemption for a vaccine. This is the fourth consecutive
year that our personal belief exemption rate has increased.
The good news is that they did implement that vaccine education module. Public Health has enlisted a bunch of volunteer
schools and we’ve gotten whole school systems to participate. That started at the beginning of this past school year.
We’re hoping that by requiring parents to at least be educated with science based education about vaccines that we can
bring that number down. This is the first year for the implementation of the education module and we should have those
results in November.
Mr. Cournand asked when you’re saying immunizations are you saying measles, mumps immunizations or are you saying
flu vaccine?
Dr. Sunenshine responded I’m talking about school required immunizations which are measles, mumps, rubella, chicken
pox but not flu, flu is not required for school. They are very specific to what the Advisory Committee on Immunization
Practices (ACIP) requires. It’s the absolute minimum, ACIP recommends a few more immunizations that are not included
in the Arizona school requirements.
Mr. Cournand asked at what point, at what number do you become exceptionally concerned?
Dr. Sunenshine responded that she has been there for a year and a half now. There was an article that came out that
looked at all of the major cities I the US and they took are percentages of unvaccinated kindergartners and multiplied it
by the sheer number of kindergartners and it named Phoenix as the number one hot spot for a measles outbreak. So
we’ve just been lucky. CNN asked us to do a press interview two weeks ago on why we haven’t had a measles outbreak.
Mr. Cournand asked, is there somewhere in between we haven’t had an outbreak so we don’t have to go overly draconian
or do we need to have an outbreak before there are stipulations put in place. Max Porter responded, honestly I think
we’ll have to have an outbreak before anything is truly done here. This last legislative session that is still going on there
were I believe 8 immunization bills dropped. The majority of them would make our situation worse. The severity of this
I don’t believe has been grasped by everyone that needs to understand it. So yes I do believe we’re going to need to
have an outbreak before anything changes here.
35
8

Mr. Cournand asked, how confident are you in how well these measles cases or what have you are reported? Aren’t
there communities that don’t necessarily or won’t necessarily hit your reporting radar?
Dr. Sunenshine responded no. We will never miss a measles case because if it gets diagnosed it has to go through a
laboratory. All labs are automatically forwarded to the State Health Department which comes to us and we investigate
every single one. So we’re not going to miss an outbreak for sure. If I had to predict what’s going to happen and this is
similar to what happened in New York. There are certain populations that tend to co-locate and there are certain schools
that have 50-60% vaccination rates. It tends to be the charter schools and the private schools so we’re going to have
someone who goes to Europe, there’s tons of measles in Europe, that will come back and expose one of these charter
schools or private schools that have terrible immunization rates and it will happen that way or it will be someone who
has traveled to another location. I think it will happen in the next year or two.
President Hughes asked wasn’t that the cause in the State of Washington?
Dr. Sunenshine responded yes, it’s always a traveler. Measles has been eradicated from the United States since the year
2000 so all of our cases are travel associated.
Measles is the most infectious disease there is. It has the highest household, if the whole household is unimmunized
there is a 95% chance of getting infected.
Pima County had a confirmed measles case that exposed 100 people in Maricopa County just in the last month or two.
The good news is we haven’t had a single measles case from that. We’re had a lot of suspected case that we’ve been
testing but be haven’t identified one, we’ve gotten lucky. We’re up to 555 cases in the United States this year, worldwide
it’s going up. If you just look at Europe, it’s tripled from that same time last year. It’s exploding exponentially.
Madagascar is leading and has had 800 deaths since September of 2018.
Pima County has implemented the phenomenal program based on some legislation that was passed in 2017, the stock
inhaler program. It’s legislation that says that every school can get people trained to administer albuterol inhalers to any
child who is having difficulty breathing regardless of whether they have an asthma diagnosis or regardless of whether
they brought their own inhaler. Asthma has an incredible incident rate in schools. A lot of kids are undiagnosed and a
lot of parents don’t bring a separate inhaler to school, it’s very expensive to do that and kids leave their inhaler behind
all the time. Pima County has a really successful program that lead to 20% reduction rate in 911 calls for respiratory
distress, a 40% reduction in emergency transports for not breathing to hospitals and it decreased absenteeism overall.
We went ahead and started implementing the program. It’s basically training two school personnel, it can be school
nurses but they don’t have to be health trained at all. There has to be at least two per school and they go through and
on-line training program on how recognize respiratory distress and it’s a very clear protocol on how many puffs of
albuterol to give. All they have to do is report to the Health Department that they administered it and we’re good to go.
This is similar to 2013 there was an epinephrine bill so we’re also throwing in training on epinephrine and we’re getting
them certified for both at the same time. We’ve identified grants from Banner to give lower income schools inhalers and
spacers. A spacers is a device that makes it easier for the kids so all they have to do is inhale. A local company created a
cardboard reusable spacer that’s just a couple dollars each and they’re donating them to schools. We’re really excited
about the program. University of Arizona has done an estimate that this will result in a State wide $900,000 cost savings.
Due to reduced transports to the Emergency Room and school absenteeism. We’ve so far implemented it in 34 schools,
19 public, 12 charter and 3 private.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Ms. Halley, seconded
by Mr. Cassano and motion was passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned.
36
9

Copies of All Written and Electronic Stakeholder Input
Stakeholder Comment #1
From: noreply@civicplus.com Return to list of attachments
To: Regulatory
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Citizen Comments
Date: Friday, May 3, 2019 8:15:42 PM
Citizen Comments
Each Regulatory Department is committed to providing opportunities for
stakeholder input regarding the adoption and amendment of all regulatory
requirements. Your input will be collected and forwarded to the appropriate
department. You will receive a written response from the applicable department
within two business days. We appreciate your comments and your time.
Case Number/Rule AQ-2019-002 P-26 Residential Woodburning Ordinance
Department Air Quality
I would like to Other
First Name Allen
Last Name Patrou
Organization Apatrou Photography
City Phoenix
Zip 85021
Email allendpat@earthlink.net
Phone Number 6028215307
Phone Type Mobile
Would you like No
someone to contact
you?
Comments I have a pyromaniac inconsiderate neighbor who likes to burn
green logs started with gasoline and left to burn and smolder all
night long dozens of times per year. Many of these fires have
been on no burn days. Myself and several other neighbors have
reported these fires over and over again and not once has this
person ever been cited! My home and business are completely
contaminated by soot from these fires and I have suffered
numerous sleepless nights coughing and choking on smoke that
has filled the entire area. I have asthma and I also now have to
sleep with supplemental oxygen being pumped into my face
37

through a mask all night long. I smell musty smoke in my home
every day and sometimes I can't even tell if there is another fire
next door or not. The inspectors are completely unable to do their
jobs. They cannot even get out of their vehicles, or go to an
adjacent property with invitation, or go down an alley on foot.
This is completely unacceptable for an enforcement arm of your
agency to be so incapable of doing absolutely anything to
confirm these crimes. I'm attaching a list of calls to an address
that is a pervasive open fire burner that has NEVER BEEN
CITED ONCE!
If applicable, attach 9325 4th Ave.xlsx
supporting
documentation
associated with your
comment.
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
38

Stakeholder Comment #1 Attachment
Return to Comment #1 Response
39

40

41

Stakeholder Comment #2
From: Vineyard, Christine
To: Kimberly Butler (AQD)
Cc: Lo, Doris; Gregory Verkamp (AQD); Kristi Beck (AQD); Withey, Charlotte
Subject: RE: Comments on Maricopa County Draft P-26 Ordinance
Date: Thursday, May 16, 2019 11:14:00 AM
Attachments: AQ-2019-002-P26-WorkingDraft_cw comments 5.16.19.docx
AQ-2019-002-P26-WorkingDraft_cw comments 5.16.19.docx
Hello Kim and all,
I sent you the wrong comments. Please use these for our discussion on Monday.
Thanks
Christine
From: Vineyard, Christine
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 1:49 PM
To: Kimberly Butler (AQD) <Kimberly.Butler@Maricopa.gov>
Cc: Lo, Doris <Lo.Doris@epa.gov>; Gregory Verkamp (AQD) <Gregory.Verkamp@Maricopa.gov>;
Kristi Beck - AQDX <KristiBeck@mail.maricopa.gov>; Withey, Charlotte <Withey.Charlotte@epa.gov>
Subject: Comments on Maricopa County Draft P-26 Ordinance
Hello Kim,
I’ve attached comments on your proposed revisions to Maricopa County P-26
Ordinance. Sorry for the delay in getting these comments to you. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thanks
Christine
Christine Vineyard
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Rulemaking Office, Air Division
US EPA (AIR 3-2) | 75 Hawthorne St. | San Francisco, CA 94105
P: 415.947.4125 | F: 415.947.3579
Vineyard.christine@epa.gov
42

Attachment to Comment #2
Return to Comment #2 Response
AQ-2019-002-Ordinance P-26 (Residential Woodburning Restriction) Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Draft Ordinance P-26 for Board of Health Meeting: April 22, 2019 Planning & Analysis Division
Submit Comments on EROP 3800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
MARICOPA COUNTY ORDINANCE
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
Comment 2.1
P-26
RESIDENTIAL WOODBURNING RESTRICTION BURNING RESTRICTIONS Commented [WC1]:
•removal of uncertified wood burning stoves upon home resale
INDEX •restrictions on wood burning devices in new construction,
•restrictions on the installation of wood burning fireplaces
•requirement that all wood burning stoves sold or transferred
SECTION 1 – GENERAL meet current NSPS certification standards
A. PURPOSE
B. APPLICABILITY
C. EXEMPTIONS
SECTION 2 – DEFINITIONS
A. ADEQUATE SOURCE OF HEAT
B. APPROVED WOODBURNING DEVICE
C. AREA A
D. BURN-DOWN PERIOD CHARCOAL
E. CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) STANDARD
E. CHIMINEA
F. CHIMNEY
G. FLUE
G. INAPPROPRIATE FUEL
H. NONATTAINMENT AREA
H. MANUFACTURED FIRELOGS
I. OUTDOOR FIRE PITS AND SIMILAR OUTDOOR FIRES
J. OUTDOOR FIREPLACES AND OTHER OUTDOOR DEVICES
J. OZONE STANDARD
K. PARTICULATE MATTER NO-BURN STANDARD
L. PARTICULATE MATTER STANDARDS
K. PROHIBITED MATERIAL
M. L. RESIDENTIAL WOODBURNING DEVICE
N. M. RESTRICTED-BURN PERIOD
N. SEASONED WOOD
P-26.1
43

AQ-2019-002-Ordinance P-26 (Residential Woodburning Restriction) Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Draft Ordinance P-26 for Board of Health Meeting: April 22, 2019 Planning & Analysis Division
Submit Comments on EROP 3800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
O. SOLE SOURCE OF HEAT
P. WOODBURNING CHIMINEA
P. SOLID FUEL
SECTION 3 – BURNING RESTRICTIONS
A. RESTRICTED OPERATION DURING RESTRICTED-BURN PERIODS
B. UNLAWFUL OPERATION WHEN RESIDENTIAL BURNING IS ALLOWED
C. LAWFUL OPERATION ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS
D. DECLARATION OF A RESTRICTED-BURN PERIOD
E. VIOLATIONS, NOTICES, AND PENALTIES
SECTION 4 – PARTIAL EXEMPTIONS THAT REQUIRE CONTROL OFFICER
APPROVAL
A. RESIDENTIAL SOLE SOURCE OF HEAT EXEMPTION
B. TEMPORARY SOLE SOURCE OF HEAT EXEMPTION
C. EMERGENCY EXEMPTION
D. INADEQUATE ALTERNATE SOURCE OF HEAT EXEMPTION
E. APPLICATION FOR AN A PARTIAL EXEMPTION
F. ACTION ON AN A PARTIAL EXEMPTION APPLICATION
P-26.2
44

AQ-2019-002-Ordinance P-26 (Residential Woodburning Restriction) Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Draft Ordinance P-26 for Board of Health Meeting: April 22, 2019 Planning & Analysis Division
Submit Comments on EROP 3800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Adopted 10/05/94
Revised 04/21/99
Revised 11/17/99
Revised 03/26/08
Adopted 10/05/94; Revised 04/21/99; Revised 11/17/99; Revised 03/26/08; Revised
XX/XX/XXXX
MARICOPA COUNTY ORDINANCE
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
P-26
RESIDENTIAL WOODBURNING RESTRICTION BURNING RESTRICTIONS
SECTION 1 – GENERAL
A. PURPOSE: The Residential Woodburning Restriction Ordinance This ordinance restricts
residential woodburning in a non-approved device, outdoor fire pits, woodburning
chimineas, and similar outdoor fires burning when monitoring or forecasting indicates that
air quality standards are likely to be exceeded and restricts residential burning of prohibited
materials.
B. APPLICABILITY: The Residential Woodburning Restriction Ordinance This ordinance
applies to: any residential woodburning device, outdoor fire pits, woodburning chimineas,
and similar outdoor fires that are within Maricopa County or within incorporated cities and
towns in such sections. The Residential Woodburning Restrictions Ordinance does not apply
to barbecue devices and mesquite grills.
1. Any residential woodburning device that is located within sections of Area A that are
within Maricopa County;
2. Any chiminea, outdoor fireplace, or other outdoor device that is located at a residence
and burns solid fuel; and
3. Any outdoor fire pit or similar outdoor fire that is located at a residence, burns solid fuel,
and is used exclusively for recreation or ambiance, or to provide warmth for human
beings. However, any outdoor fire pit or similar outdoor fire that is not used exclusively
for these purposes must comply with Rule 314 of these rules.
C. EXEMPTIONS: This ordinance does not apply to:
1. Appliances, including but not limited to, grills, ovens, and smokers, that are used
exclusively for the cooking, smoking, or flavoring of food; however any appliance that is
exempt from this ordinance must comply with all applicable requirements in Rule 314 of
these rules.
2. Devices or equipment, including fire pits and fireplaces, that are designed and used to
burn natural gas, propane, or liquefied petroleum gas exclusively.
P-26.3
45

AQ-2019-002-Ordinance P-26 (Residential Woodburning Restriction) Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Draft Ordinance P-26 for Board of Health Meeting: April 22, 2019 Planning & Analysis Division
Submit Comments on EROP 3800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
SECTION 2 – DEFINITIONS: For the purpose of this ordinance, the following definitions shall
apply:
A. ADEQUATE SOURCE OF HEAT: A permanently installed furnace or heating system,
connected to or disconnected from its energy source, designed to heat utilizing oil, natural
gas, electricity, or propane, and designed to maintain a minimum of 70° Fahrenheit at a point
three feet above the floor in all normally inhabited areas of a residence.
B. APPROVED WOODBURNING DEVICE: The following residential devices shall be
approved woodburning devices, even though such devices may burn a solid fuel other than
wood:
1. A device that has been certified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as Comment 2.2
conforming to Phase II EPA Standards of Performance for Wood Heaters in 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) 60, Subpart AAA as amended through July 1, 20062018. Commented [WC2]: Recommend updating this to the latest
version of the NSPS
2. Any pellet stove.
3. Any gas burning hearth appliances, including a dedicated gas logset permanently installed
in any kind of indoor or outdoor woodburning fireplace which is designed to burn
exclusively natural gas or propane.
4. 3. Any masonry heater or any other solid fuel burning device that meets performance
standards that are equivalent to the standards in 40 CFR 60, Subpart AAA as amended Comment 2.3
through July 1, 2006, and that is approved by the Control Officer and the Administrator
of EPA. Commented [WC3]: Recommend deleting to avoid director’s
discretion issue. Also, EPA probably would not be able to “approve”
C. AREA A: As defined in Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 49-541(1), tThe area in any devices that do not meet current (2015) NSPS.
Maricopa County delineated as follows: Commented [WC4]: Suggest deleting in case the statutory
definition is subsequently revised
Township 8 North, Range 2 East and Range 3 East
Township 7 North, Range 2 West through Range 5 East Comment 2.4
Township 6 North, Range 5 West through Range 6 East
Township 5 North, Range 5 West through Range 7 East
Township 4 North, Range 5 West through Range 8 East
Township 3 North, Range 5 West through Range 8 East
Township 2 North, Range 5 West through Range 8 East
Township 1 North, Range 5 West through Range 7 East
Township 1 South, Range 5 West through Range 7 East
Township 2 South, Range 5 West through Range 7 East
Township 3 South, Range 5 West through Range 1 East
Township 4 South, Range 5 West through Range 1 East
D. BURN-DOWN PERIOD: That period of time, not to exceed three hours after declaring a
restricted-burn period, required for the cessation of combustion within any residential
woodburning device, outdoor fire pit, woodburning chiminea, or similar outdoor fire by
withholding fuel or by modifying the air-to-fuel ratio.
P-26.4
46

AQ-2019-002-Ordinance P-26 (Residential Woodburning Restriction) Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Draft Ordinance P-26 for Board of Health Meeting: April 22, 2019 Planning & Analysis Division
Submit Comments on EROP 3800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
E. CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) STANDARD: The maximum allowable eight-hour
concentration that is nine parts of contaminant per million parts of air by volume (ppm).
D. CHARCOAL: The carbon and hydrocarbon residue that remains after water and other
volatile constituents of wood have been removed by pyrolysis.
E. CHIMINEA: A device made from clay, aluminum, steel, or another non-combustible
material, that is designed to burn solid fuel, and that is used outside to provide warmth or
for aesthetic purposes.
F. CHIMNEY: A passage for smoke that is usually made of bricks, stone, or metal and often
rises two feet above the roof of a building. An approved, factory-built chimney will have a
label on each chimney connector and gas vent specifying that such chimney can be used for
all fuels and will show the minimum safe clearances to combustibles.
G. FLUE: Any duct or passage for air or combustion gases, such as a stack or chimney.
G. INAPPROPRIATE FUEL: Includes, but is not limited to: leaves, grass clippings, green
plants, refuse, paper, rubbish, books, magazines, fiberboard, packaging, rags, fabrics, animal
waste, animal carcasses, coal, waste oil, liquid or gelatinous hydrocarbons, tar, asphalt
products, waste petroleum products, paints and solvents, chemically soaked wood, wood
with a moisture content of greater than 20 percent, treated wood, plastic or plastic products,
rubber or rubber products, office records, sensitive or classified wastes, or any substance
which normally emits dense smoke or obnoxious odors other than paper to start the fire or
properly seasoned wood.
H. NONATTAINMENT AREA: An area so designated by the Administrator of the EPA,
acting pursuant to Section 107 of the Clean Air Act, as exceeding national primary or
secondary ambient air standards for a particular pollutant or pollutants.
H. MANUFACTURED FIRELOG: A log that is made from recycled wood, such as sawdust,
that is compressed to form a log or mixed with a binder and extruded into a log shape.
I. OUTDOOR FIRE PITS AND SIMILAR OUTDOOR FIRES: Any combustion of
material outdoors, where solid fuels including wood or any other non-gaseous or non-liquid
fuels are burned in the fuel bed, and the products of combustion are not directed through a
flue or chimney.
J. OUTDOOR FIREPLACES AND OTHER OUTDOOR DEVICES: Any combustion
of solid fuels in an outdoor fuel bed where the products of combustion are directed through
a flue or chimney.
J. OZONE STANDARD: The maximum allowable eight-hour concentration within a 24-hour
period (midnight to midnight) that is 0.08 parts of contaminant per million parts of air by
volume (ppm).
P-26.5
47

AQ-2019-002-Ordinance P-26 (Residential Woodburning Restriction) Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Draft Ordinance P-26 for Board of Health Meeting: April 22, 2019 Planning & Analysis Division
Submit Comments on EROP 3800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
K. PARTICULATE MATTER NO-BURN STANDARD: If either of the following maximum
allowable 24-hour concentrations is forecast for particulate matter:
PM10-120 micrograms per cubic meter;
PM2.5-30 micrograms per cubic meter.
L. PARTICULATE MATTER STANDARDS: The maximum allowable 24-hour
concentration that is:
PM10-150 micrograms per cubic meter;
PM2.5-35 micrograms per cubic meter.
K. PROHIBITED MATERIAL: Aerosol spray cans; animal carcasses; animal waste;
antifreeze; asbestos; asphalt, asphalt shingles and other asphalt products; batteries;
chemically treated or soaked wood; cleaners; coal; counter tops; electrical wire insulation;
explosives or ammunition; fabrics; fiberboard; flammable liquids; flooring; furniture;
garbage; grass clippings; green plants; hazardous material containers, including those that
contain lead, cadmium, mercury, and arsenic compounds; hazardous waste; insulation;
landscape waste; painted wood; paper and paper products, including books, magazines, and
office records; leaves; liquid or gelatinous hydrocarbons; oleanders; packaging; paints;
pesticides, pesticide bags, and pesticide containers; plastic, including plastic bags and other
plastic products; polyester products; rags; refuse; rubbish; solvents; stains; tar and tar paper;
tires; transformer oils; tree trimmings; varnishes; waste petroleum products, including waste
crankcase oil, transmission oil, and oil filters; any substance that emits dense smoke or
obnoxious odors; and any material other than seasoned wood.
M. L. RESIDENTIAL WOODBURNING DEVICE: A woodburning device designed for
solid fuel combustion so that generates usable heat is derived for the interior of inside a
residence. These devices can be used for aesthetic or space-heating purposes.
N. M. RESTRICTED-BURN PERIOD: A condition declared by the Control Officer whenever
meteorological conditions are conducive to an accumulation of CO, ozone and/or
particulate matter in exceedance of the standards or when air quality reaches other limits
established by the Control Officer.
N. SEASONED WOOD: Wood with a moisture content less than or equal to 20 percent, as
determined using a moisture meter that is operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s Comment 2.5
recommendations. For the purposes of this rule, seasoned wood includes charcoal and
manufactured firelogs. Commented [WC5]: What about pellets?
O. SOLE SOURCE OF HEAT: One or more residential woodburning devices which
constitute the only source of heat in a residence and/or the sole source of fuel for cooking
for a residence. No residential woodburning device shall be considered the sole source of
heat if the residence is equipped with a permanently installed furnace or heating system
which utilizes oil, natural gas, electricity, or propane and which is designed to heat the
residence whether or not such furnace or heating system is connected to or disconnected
P-26.6
48

AQ-2019-002-Ordinance P-26 (Residential Woodburning Restriction) Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Draft Ordinance P-26 for Board of Health Meeting: April 22, 2019 Planning & Analysis Division
Submit Comments on EROP 3800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
from its energy source. However, this definition shall not supersede municipal or County Comment 2.6
Building Code requirements as per authority of A.R.S. §§ 9-499.01, 9-240(B)(7), 9-
276(A)(13)–(A)(15), A.R.S. § 9-801 et seq. Commented [WC6]: MCAQD should explain what these
provisions are and how they will not interfere with enforceability of
P. WOODBURNING CHIMINEA: Chimineas are burning devices made from clay, the rule
aluminum, or steel and are used for warmth and aesthetics outside in yards and patios.
Chimineas are designed to burn solid fuels.
P. SOLID FUEL: Any fuel that is in a solid state prior to combustion.
SECTION 3 – BURNING RESTRICTIONS:
A. RESTRICTED OPERATION DURING RESTRICTED-BURN PERIODS: During a
declared restricted-burn period, a person shall be restricted from operating a residential
woodburning device, an outdoor fire pit, a woodburning chiminea, or similar outdoor fire, in
sections of Area A that are within Maricopa County or within incorporated cities and towns
in such sections. Exemptions to this requirement are described in Section 3(C) and Section 4
of this ordinance.
B. A. UNLAWFUL OPERATION: A person shall: RESTRICTED-BURN PERIODS: During
a restricted-burn period declared by the Control Officer, a person shall:
1. Not operate a residential woodburning device, an outdoor fire pit, a woodburning
chiminea, or similar outdoor fire such that emissions to the atmosphere are visible
during a restricted-burn period declared by the Control Officer. Not operate a residential
woodburning device, unless one of the following exemptions applies:
a. During a declared restricted-burn period, a person may operate a residential
woodburning device if the Control Officer has issued an exemption for such device
according to Section 4 of this ordinance, the device is installed according to the
instructions and restrictions specified by the manufacturer, only seasoned wood is
ignited, and no visible emissions to the atmosphere are produced after 20
consecutive minutes immediately following an ignition of, or a refueling of, such
residential woodburning device.
b. During a declared restricted-burn period, a person may operate an approved
residential woodburning device if such device meets the requirements of Maricopa Comment 2.7
County Air Pollution Control Regulations Rule 318 (Approval of Residential
Woodburning Devices), the device is installed according to the instructions and Commented [WC7]: Recommend deleting the reference to Rule
restrictions specified by the manufacturer, only seasoned wood is ignited, and no 318, which is outdated (relies on old NSPS and has director’s
discretion issues) and instead just use “approved residential
visible emissions to the atmosphere are produced after 20 consecutive minutes woodburning device” (already defined in this ordinance)
immediately following an ignition of, or a refueling of, such residential woodburning
device.
2. Not operate a residential woodburning device, an outdoor fire pit, a woodburning
chiminea, or similar outdoor fire unless such residential woodburning device, outdoor
fire pit, woodburning chiminea, or similar outdoor fire has been installed according to
P-26.7
49

AQ-2019-002-Ordinance P-26 (Residential Woodburning Restriction) Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Draft Ordinance P-26 for Board of Health Meeting: April 22, 2019 Planning & Analysis Division
Submit Comments on EROP 3800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
the instructions and restrictions specified by the manufacturer. Not operate a chiminea,
outdoor fireplace, or any other outdoor device that burns solid fuel.
3. Not use a fuel in a residential woodburning device, an outdoor fire pit, a woodburning
chiminea, or similar outdoor fire except those fuels that are recommended by the
manufacturer . Not operate a fire pit or similar outdoor fire.
4. Not burn inappropriate fuel in a residential woodburning device, an outdoor fire pit, a
woodburning chiminea, or similar outdoor fire.
B. WHEN RESIDENTIAL BURNING IS ALLOWED: When the Control Officer has
not declared a restricted burn period, a person shall not:
1. Operate a residential woodburning device, unless such residential woodburning device
has been installed according to the instructions and restrictions specified by the
manufacturer.
2. Ignite any fuel other than seasoned wood.
C. LAWFUL OPERATION: ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS: At any time, a person shall
not:
1. During a declared restricted-burn period, a person may operate a residential
woodburning device if the Control Officer has issued an exemption for such device
according to Section 4 of this ordinance and if no visible emissions to the atmosphere
are produced after 20 consecutive minutes immediately following an ignition of or a
refueling of such residential woodburning device. Burn or attempt to burn any
prohibited material in a residential woodburning device.
2. During a declared restricted-burn period, a person may operate a residential
woodburning device if such device meets the requirements of Maricopa County Air
Pollution Control Regulations Rule 318 (Approval of Residential Woodburning Devices)
and if no visible emissions to the atmosphere are produced after 20 consecutive minutes
immediately following an ignition of, or a refueling of, such residential woodburning
device. Burn or attempt to burn any prohibited material in a chiminea, an outdoor
fireplace, or any other outdoor device that burns solid fuel.
3. During a declared restricted-burn period, a person may operate a residential
woodburning device, an outdoor fire pit, woodburning chiminea, or similar outdoor fire,
if such device is designed to burn exclusively natural gas or propane. Burn or attempt to
burn any prohibited material in a fire pit or similar outdoor fire.
D. DECLARATION OF A RESTRICTED-BURN PERIOD:
1. The Control Officer shall declare a restricted-burn period if, after reviewing available
meteorological data, atmospheric conditions, and ambient temperatures, the Control
Officer determines that air pollution levels could exceed: the carbon monoxide (CO)
standard, the ozone standard, and/or the particulate matter no-burn standard.
P-26.8
50

AQ-2019-002-Ordinance P-26 (Residential Woodburning Restriction) Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Draft Ordinance P-26 for Board of Health Meeting: April 22, 2019 Planning & Analysis Division
Submit Comments on EROP 3800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
a. The primary ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide, eight-hour average,
in Rule 510 of these rules;
Comment 2.8
b. The primary ambient air quality standard for ozone,An eight-hour average, in Rule
510 of these rules; orozone concentration of 0.070 parts per million; Commented [WC8]: SIP-approved version of 510 uses the 1997
ozone standard (0.08 ppm.) and current Maricopa county version
c. Either of the following 24-hour average concentrations for particulate matter: uses the 2008 standard (0.075 ppm).
(1) PM10 – 120 micrograms per cubic meter; or
(2) PM2.5 – 30 micrograms per cubic meter.
2. A person responsible for any a residential woodburning device, outdoor fire pit,
woodburning chiminea, or similar outdoor fire or device listed in Section 1(B) of this
ordinance, excluding those devices described in Section 3(C) Sections 3(A)(1)(a) and
3(A)(1)(b) of this ordinance, already in operation at the time a restricted-burn period is
declared shall withhold new fuel from the residential woodburning device, outdoor fire
pit, woodburning chiminea, or similar outdoor fire or device for the duration of the
restricted-burn period.
3. Any person operating or in control of a residential woodburning device, outdoor fire pit,
woodburning chiminea, or similar outdoor fire in sections of Area A that are within
Maricopa County or within incorporated cities and towns in such sectionsfire or device
listed in Section 1(B) of this ordinance has a duty to know when a restricted-burn period
has been declared.
4. Notice of a restricted-burn period shall be distributed over the wire service to electronic
and print media and/or announced by a recorded telephone message at least three hours
before initiating any enforcement action for a violation of this ordinance. Notice of a
restricted-burn period shall be distributed and/or announced using one or more of the
following methods:
a. Press releases to electronic and print media;
b. Email and/or text messages;
c. Social media;
d. The Maricopa County Air Quality Department website;
e. The Clean Air Make More website and mobile application;
f. By a recorded telephone message.
Comment 2.9
E. VIOLATIONS, NOTICES, AND PENALTIES: For purposes of this ordinance, and in
accordance with A.R.S. §11-871(D): Commented [WC9]: Should not be submitted into the SIP.
1. When the Control Officer has reasonable cause to believe that any person has violated
or is in violation of any provision of this ordinance, the Control Officer shall issue, for
the first violation of this ordinance, a warning notice which includes a summary of the
Maricopa County Residential Woodburning Restriction Ordinance Burning Restrictions
ordinance and information on proper woodburning techniques.
P-26.9
51

AQ-2019-002-Ordinance P-26 (Residential Woodburning Restriction) Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Draft Ordinance P-26 for Board of Health Meeting: April 22, 2019 Planning & Analysis Division
Submit Comments on EROP 3800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
2. The Control Officer may shall impose a civil penalty of $50 to any person who violates
this ordinance for the second violation within a one year period time after having been
issued a warning notice for the first violation of this ordinance.
3. For the third violation of this ordinance, the Control Officer may shall impose a civil
penalty of $100. The Control Officer may shall impose a civil penalty of $250 for the
fourth or any subsequent violation of this ordinance. After having been issued a citation
for a violation of this ordinance, the violation may be refuted by demonstration that the
smoke was not caused by a residential woodburning device, an outdoor fire pit, a
woodburning chiminea, or similar outdoor fire or a device listed in Section 1(B) of this
ordinance or by proof of an exemption pursuant to Section 4 of this ordinance.
4. Only those violations of this ordinance which have occurred within one year of a present
offense shall be considered as prior violations. No person shall be cited for a violation of
this ordinance more than once in any calendar day. Each day of violation constitutes a
separate offense.
SECTION 4 – PARTIAL EXEMPTIONS THAT REQUIRE CONTROL OFFICER
APPROVAL
A. RESIDENTIAL SOLE SOURCE OF HEAT EXEMPTION: The Control Officer may
grant a residential sole source of heat exemption if the Control Officer determines that a
residential woodburning device meets the criteria of sole source of heat as described in
Section 2(O) of this ordinance. The recipient of a residential sole source of heat exemption
must apply annually to the Control Officer for renewal of such exemption, if such
exemption is still necessary. The Control Officer shall not issue a residential sole source of
heat exemption after December 31, 1995. However, the Control Officer may renew a
residential sole source of heat exemption if such exemption was issued before December 31,
1995 and if the residential woodburning device meets the criteria of sole source of heat as
described in Section 2(O) of this ordinance.
B. TEMPORARY SOLE SOURCE OF HEAT EXEMPTION: The Control Officer may
issue a temporary sole source of heat exemption for economic or health reasons if the
Control Officer determines that the applicant qualifies for financial assistance, according to
the economic guidelines established under the Food Stamps Nutrition Assistance, Medicaid
Medical Assistance, or low income home energy assistance programs, as administered by the
Income Support Division Arizona Department of Economic Security, or if the Control
Officer determines that failure to grant a temporary sole source of heat exemption would
endanger the health of the applicant. A temporary sole source of heat exemption shall not be
issued for more than 150 days.
C. EMERGENCY EXEMPTION: The Control Officer may issue an emergency exemption
if the Control Officer determines that an emergency situation exists. An emergency
exemption shall be valid for a period determined by the Control Officer, but shall not exceed
one year from the date it is issued. An emergency situation shall include, but is not limited
to, the following:
P-26.10
52

AQ-2019-002-Ordinance P-26 (Residential Woodburning Restriction) Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Draft Ordinance P-26 for Board of Health Meeting: April 22, 2019 Planning & Analysis Division
Submit Comments on EROP 3800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
1. A situation where a person demonstrates that his heating system, other than a residential
woodburning device, is inoperable for reasons other than his own actions; or
2. A situation where a person demonstrates that his heating system has been involuntarily
disconnected by a utility company or other fuel supplier.
D. INADEQUATE ALTERNATE SOURCE OF HEAT EXEMPTION: The Control
Officer may issue an inadequate alternate source of heat exemption if the Control Officer
determines:
1. That there is a heat source other than a residential woodburning device available to the
residence;
2. That such heat source is not a sole source of heat, as defined in Section 2(O) of this
ordinance, and that such heat source is used in conjunction with a residential
woodburning device;
3. That such heat source is not an approved woodburning device, as defined in Maricopa Comment 2.10
County Air Pollution Control Regulations Rule 318 (Approval of Residential
Woodburning Devices); and Commented [WC10]: Suggest removing reference to rule 318
and just using definition of “approved woodburning device” in this
4. That such heat source is not an adequate source of heat, as defined in Section 2(A) of ordinance.
this ordinance.
The recipient of an inadequate alternate source of heat exemption must comply with
municipal or County Building Code requirements (as per authority of A.R.S. §§ 9-499.01,
9-240(B)(7), 9-276(A)(13)–(A)(15), A.R.S. § 9-801 et seq.) and must apply annually to the
Control Officer for renewal of such exemption, if such exemption is still necessary. The
Control Officer shall not issue an inadequate alternate source of heat exemption after
December 31, 1995. However, the Control Officer may renew an inadequate alternate
source of heat exemption, if such exemption was issued before December 31, 1995 and
if the residential woodburning device meets the criteria of this ordinance.
E. APPLICATION FOR AN A PARTIAL EXEMPTION: Any person seeking an
exemption shall do so by submitting an acceptable written application to the Control
Officer. An application shall state:
1. The applicant's name and mailing address;
2. The address for which the exemption is sought; and
3. The reasons for seeking the exemption.
F. ACTION ON AN A PARTIAL EXEMPTION APPLICATION: Following the receipt
of an exemption application, the Control Officer shall either grant the exemption, grant the
exemption subject to conditions, or deny the exemption. The Control Officer shall notify, in
writing, the applicant of such decision.
P-26.11
53