AQ-2017-005_REPORTTOBOARDOFSUPERVISORS_2017-10-03.PDF

Go to list of attachments
Executive Summary
of the Report to the Board of Supervisors
Prepared by the Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Board Hearing Date: December 13, 2017
Case #/Title: AQ-2017-005-Rule 334 (Rubber Sports Ball Manufacturing)
Agenda Item: (Pending)
Supervisor Districts: All Districts
The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (department) complied with all statutory and county policies
throughout this rulemaking process. Per the Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program (EROP) Policy: “In addition
to the required staff report, an executive summary of the report including an overview of stakeholder input and staff
responses will be provided to the Board of Supervisors at least one week prior to any Board of Supervisors’ public
hearing.”
Overview of the Report to the Board of Supervisors: The purpose of this rulemaking is to rescind Rule 334
(Rubber Sports Ball Manufacturing). The purpose of the rule is to limit emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) from natural and synthetic rubber adhesives used in the manufacture of non-inflatable rubber balls. There
has been only one source subject to the rule since it was adopted in 1993 and that source ceased operations in 2009.
Due to the uniqueness of this type of manufacturing and the lower costs of labor and raw materials in the Far East,
the department does not anticipate any new rubber sports ball manufacturers will locate to Maricopa County.
Overview of Stakeholder Input and Staff Responses: No comments were received concerning this rulemaking.

Go to list of attachments
Report to the Board of Supervisors
Prepared by the Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Board of Health Meeting Date: July 24, 2017
Board Hearing Date: December 13, 2017
Case #/Title: AQ-2017-005-Rule 334 (Rubber Sports Ball Manufacturing)
Agenda Item: Pending
Supervisor Districts: All Districts
Applicant: Staff
Request: Approve rescission of Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulation
Rule 334 (Rubber Sports Ball Manufacturing). The purpose of the rule is
to limit emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from natural and
synthetic rubber adhesives used in the manufacture of non-inflatable
rubber balls. There has been only one source subject to the rule since it
was adopted in 1993 and that source ceased operations in 2009. Due to
the uniqueness of this type of manufacturing and the lower costs of labor
and raw materials in the Far East, the department does not anticipate any
new rubber sports ball manufacturers will locate to Maricopa County.
Support/Opposition: No comments concerning the proposed rulemaking were received.
Staff
Recommendation: Approve
Board of Health
Recommendation: Approve per Staff recommended language
Additional
Comments: This regulatory change is following the Enhanced Regulatory Outreach
Program (EROP) Policy and workflow process. The County Manager
briefed the Board of Supervisors regarding this rulemaking in May 2017.
A Stakeholder workshop was held on June 15, 2017. A Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking was published in the Arizona Administrative Register on
August 18, 2017 and a 30-day comment period was held from August 18
through September 18, 2017; no comments were received. On July 24,
2017, the Board of Health approved this regulatory change for the
Expedited Process. A newspaper notice of the Board of Supervisors public
hearing will be published on November 1st, 2nd, 8th and 9th in the Arizona
Business Gazette and the Record Reporter. 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 Divsion
Attachments: Summary of the proposed regulatory change (See Item 6 of the Draft
Notice of Final Rulemaking)
1

Analysis of input received during the process and how that input was
responded to (No comments were received. See Item 13 of the Draft
Notice of Final Rulemaking)
Language of proposed regulatory change or amendment (See Item 17 of
the Draft Notice of Final Rulemaking)
Preamble required by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 49-471.05 (See
Draft Notice of Final Rulemaking)
Minutes from Board of Health meeting
Copies of all written and electronic Stakeholder input (No comments were
received)
Signed copy of the Maricopa County Resolution “Moratorium on
Increased Regulatory Burdens”
2

Return to list of attachments
DRAFT NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING
MARICOPA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION III – CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 334: RUBBER SPORTS BALL MANUFACTURING
PREAMBLE
1. Rule affected Rulemaking action
Rule 334: Rubber Sports Ball Manufacturing Rescind
2. Statutory authority for the rulemaking:
Authorizing statutes: A.R.S. §§ 49-474, 49-479, and 49-480
Implementing Statute: A.R.S. § 49-112
3. The effective date of the rule:
Tentative date of adoption: December 13, 2017
4. List of public notices addressing the rulemaking:
Notice of Briefing to Maricopa County Manager: May 15, 2017
Notice of Stakeholder Workshop: June 15, 2017
Notice of Maricopa County Board of Health Meeting: July 24, 2017
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: 23 A.A.R. 2229, August 18, 2017
5. Name and address of department personnel with whom persons may communicate regarding the
rulemaking:
Name: Greg Verkamp or Hether Krause
Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Planning and Analysis Division
Address: 1001 N Central Avenue, Suite 125
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Telephone: (602) 506-6010 Return to list of attachments
Fax: (602) 506-6179
Submit Comments At: http://maricopa.gov/FormCenter/Regulatory-Outreach-17/Citizen-Comments-94
6. Explanation of the rule, including the department's reasons for initiating the rulemaking:
The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (department) is proposing to rescind Rule 334 (Rubber
Sports Ball Manufacturing). Rule 334 was originally adopted on August 2, 1993. The purpose of the rule
is to limit emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from natural and synthetic rubber adhesives
used in the manufacture of non-inflatable rubber balls. Maricopa County currently has no sources subject
to the rule and will unlikely have any sources in the future.
Rule 334 was adopted as a result of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) which required ozone
nonattainment areas such as Maricopa County to fix their deficient reasonably available control technology
(RACT) rules for ozone. Also known as the RACT “Fix-Up”, Section 182 (a)(2)(A) of the 1990 CAAA
required ozone nonattainment areas classified as marginal or above to adopt and correct RACT rules as
3

previously requested by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before the Clean Air Act was
amended in 1990. The RACT Fix-Up included the adoption of rules for sources emitting over 100 tons of
VOCs per year for which a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) had not been issued. At the time the
1990 CAAA were enacted, Maricopa County had one rubber sports ball manufacturer that was emitting
over 100 tons of VOCs per year, Penn Racquet Sports. There was no rule nor CTG specific to rubber
sports ball manufacturing at the time; therefore, the department adopted Rule 334 to comply with the
RACT Fix-Up.
Penn Racquet Sports, later acquired by Head Racquet Sports, ceased manufacturing operations in 2009 and
moved their operations to the Far East. There have not been any other rubber sports ball manufacturers in
Maricopa County since that time. Due to the uniqueness of this type of manufacturing and the lower costs
of labor and raw materials in the Far East, the department does not anticipate any new rubber sports ball
manufacturers will locate to Maricopa County and is proposing to rescind Rule 334.
7. Demonstration of compliance with A.R.S. §49-112:
Under A.R.S. § 49-479(C), a county may not adopt a rule or ordinance that is more stringent than the rules
adopted by the Director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) for similar sources
unless it demonstrates compliance with the applicable requirements of A.R.S. §49-112.
§ 49-112 County regulation; standards
§ 49-112(A)
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
4

the rule, ordinance or regulation that does not exceed the reasonable costs of the county to issue and
administer that permit or plan approval program.
The department is in compliance with A.R.S. §§ 49-112(A) and (B). The department is proposing to
rescind Rule 334.
8. Documents and/or studies referenced and/or reviewed for this rulemaking:
Not applicable
9. Showing of good cause why the rule is necessary to promote a statewide interest if the rule will
diminish a previous grant of authority of a political subdivision:
Not applicable
10. Summary of the economic, small business, and consumer impact:
The following discussion addresses each of the elements required for an economic, small business and
consumer impact statement under A.R.S. § 41-1055.
An identification of the rulemaking.
This rulemaking is proposing to rescind Rule 334 (Rubber Sports Ball Manufacturing).
An identification of the persons who will be directly affected by, bear the costs of or directly benefit
from the rulemaking.
This rulemaking is proposing to rescind Rule 334. There are currently no sources subject to Rule 334 in
Maricopa County and the department does not anticipate any new sources will come to Maricopa County
that would potentially be subject to Rule 334.
A cost benefit analysis of the following:
(a) The probable costs and benefits to the implementing agency and other agencies directly affected
by the implementation and enforcement of the rulemaking.
Because this rulemaking does not impose any new compliance burdens on permitted regulated entities
or introduce additional regulatory requirements, the department does not anticipate this rulemaking
will have an economic impact on either the department or any other agency.
(b) The probable costs and benefits to a political subdivision of this state directly affected by the
implementation and enforcement of the rulemaking
Because this rulemaking does not impose any new compliance burdens on permitted regulated entities
or introduce additional regulatory requirements, the department does not anticipate this rulemaking
will have an economic impact on any political subdivision of this state.
(c) The probable costs and benefits to businesses directly affected by the rulemaking, including any
anticipated effect on the revenues or payroll expenditures of employers who are subject to the
rulemaking.
Because this rulemaking does not impose any new compliance burdens on permitted regulated entities
or introduce additional regulatory requirements, the department does not anticipate this rulemaking
will have an economic impact on any businesses.
5

A general description of the probable impact on private and public employment in businesses,
agencies and political subdivisions of this state directly affected by the rulemaking.
Because this rulemaking does not impose any new compliance burdens on permitted regulated entities
or introduce additional regulatory requirements, the department does not anticipate this rulemaking
will have an impact on private and public employment for any businesses, agencies or political
divisions.
A statement of the probable impact of the rulemaking on small businesses.
Because this rulemaking does not impose any new compliance burdens on permitted regulated entities
or introduce additional regulatory requirements, the department does not anticipate this rulemaking
will have an economic impact on any small businesses.
(a) An identification of the small businesses subject to the rulemaking.
There are no small businesses subject to Rule 334.
(b) The administrative and other costs required for compliance with the rulemaking.
This rulemaking is proposing to rescind Rule 334; there are no costs required for compliance. There
are no sources subject to Rule 334.
(c) A description of the methods that the agency may use to reduce the impact on small businesses.
(i) Establishing less costly compliance requirements in the rulemaking for small businesses.
This rulemaking is proposing to rescind Rule 334 and there are no compliance costs required for
small businesses.
(ii) Establishing less costly schedules or less stringent deadlines for compliance in the
rulemaking.
This rulemaking is proposing to rescind Rule 334 and there are no compliance costs required for
small businesses.
(iii) Exempting small businesses from any or all requirements of the rulemaking.
This rulemaking is proposing to rescind Rule 334 and there are no compliance costs required for
small businesses.
(d) The probable cost and benefit to private persons and consumers who are directly affected by the
rulemaking.
This rulemaking does not impose any new compliance burdens on regulated entities that are permitted
or introduce additional regulatory requirements and will not impose increased monetary or regulatory
costs on any permitted business, persons, or individuals so regulated. As such, there are no costs to
pass through to consumers, which means there are no impacts on consumers.
A statement of the probable effect on state revenues.
The rulemaking will not impose increased monetary or regulatory costs on other state agencies,
political subdivisions of this state, persons, or individuals so regulated. Without costs to pass through
to customers, there is no projected change in consumer purchase patterns and, thus, no impact on state
revenues from sales taxes.
6

A description of any less intrusive or less costly alternative methods of achieving the purpose of
the rulemaking.
This rulemaking is proposing to rescind Rule 334 and there are no compliance costs associated with
this rulemaking.
11. Name and address of department personnel with whom persons may communicate regarding the
accuracy of the economic, small business, and consumer impact:
Name: Greg Verkamp or Hether Krause
Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Planning and Analysis Division
Address: 1001 N Central Avenue, Suite 125
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Telephone: (602) 506-6010
Fax: (602) 506-6179
Submit Comments At: http://maricopa.gov/FormCenter/Regulatory-Outreach-17/Citizen-Comments-94
12. Description of the changes between the proposed rule, including supplemental notices and final rule:
No additional changes are being proposed, since the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published on
August 18, 2017 (23 A.A.R. 2229).
13. Summary of the comments made regarding the rule and the department response to them:
No comments were submitted during the 30-day comment period – August 18-September 18, 2017.
14. Any other matters prescribed by statute that are applicable to the specific department or to any
specific rule or class of rules:
Not applicable
15. Incorporations by reference and their location in the rule:
Not applicable
16. Was this rule previously an emergency rule?
No
Return to list of attachments
17. Full text of the rule follows:
REGULATION III – CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 334
RUBBER SPORTS BALL MANUFACTURING
INDEX
SECTION 100 – GENERAL
101 PURPOSE
102 APPLICABILITY
SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS
201 ADHESIVE
202 APPROVED EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM
7

203 DAY
204 PRODUCTION DAY
205 RUBBER SPORTS BALL
206 VAPOR PROCESSING DEVICE
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS
301 LIMITATION-ADHESIVES
302 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) PLAN
303 MAINTENANCE
304 STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF VOC
305 EXEMPTIONS
SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
401 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE
SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS
501 PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING MONITORING DEVICES
502 RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING
503 COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION-TEST METHODS
Adopted 08/02/93
Revised 09/20/94
Revised 06/19/96
Revised 09/25/13
MARICOPA COUNTY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION III – CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 334
RUBBER SPORTS BALL MANUFACTURING
SECTION 100 – GENERAL
101 PURPOSE: To limit emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from natural and synthetic
rubber adhesives used in the manufacture of non-inflatable rubber balls.
102 APPLICABILITY: This rule applies to any rubber sports-ball manufacturing facility with an
aggregate emission to atmosphere after December 31, 1989, of 50.0 tons (45.35 Mg) or more of
VOC in any year or 8333 pounds (3780 kg) or more of VOC in any month, emitted from handling,
using and/or preparing rubber adhesives or their constituents.
SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS: For the purpose of this rule, the following definitions shall apply, in addition to
those definitions found in Rule 100 (General Provisions and Definitions) of these rules. In the event of any
inconsistency between any of the Maricopa County air pollution control rules, the definitions in this rule take
precedence.
8

201 ADHESIVE: An initially fluid material used to fasten or bond two surfaces together by using the
intermolecular forces between adhesive and the bonded surface(s) as a principal mechanism
effecting the bonding.
202 APPROVED EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM: A system for reducing emissions of organic
compounds, consisting of collection and control devices which are approved in writing by the
Control Officer and are designed and operated in accordance with good engineering practice.
203 DAY: A period of 24 consecutive hours beginning at midnight.
204 PRODUCTION DAY: Any day in which the total adhesive pumped into any and all adhesive
application machines exceeds 100 gallons (379 liters).
205 RUBBER SPORTS BALL: A hollow ball having natural and/or synthetic rubber as a principal
ingredient, having no pressure adjustment valve, and intended for sports in which it is hit.
206 VAPOR PROCESSING DEVICE: The portion of a VOC emission control system that recovers,
destroys, or otherwise physically or chemically handles VOC vapor, delivered to it by a capture
system, so that most or all of that VOC cannot be emitted to the atmosphere.
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS
301 LIMITATION – ADHESIVES: By May 31, 1995, no person shall use adhesives in the
manufacture of rubber sports balls, including but not limited to tennis and racquet balls, except by:
301.1 Using adhesive with a VOC content that does not exceed 2.4 pounds of VOC per gallon
(288 g/l) as applied, less water and non-precursor compounds, as determined by EPA
Method 24; or
301.2 Using an Approved Emission Control System having an overall control efficiency,
including capture and processing, of at least 81 percent by weight of VOC-reduction for
all adhesive application processes using adhesive containing over 2.4 pounds of VOC per
gallon (288 g/l), as applied, less water and non-precursor compounds. The control
efficiency of an adsorption and recovery system used as an Approved Emission Control
System shall be determined using the mass-balance formula in subsection 503.1.
302 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) PLAN:
302.1 The owner or operator of an Approved Emission Control System used to meet the
requirements of subsection 301.2 of this rule shall provide the Control Officer with an
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan. This O&M Plan shall specify:
a. Key system operating parameters, such as temperatures, pressures, fluid throughputs,
and/or flow rates; the stack VOC-concentration monitoring and adsorber sequencing
equipment specifications and the set points contained in their programming; and any
other critical processes necessary for proper operation and for determining
compliance with this rule;
b. All essential maintenance procedures and their frequencies needed to maintain the
Approved Emission Control System.
9

302.2 An Approved Emission Control System must have the O&M Plan approved in writing by
the Control Officer.
302.3 Time Frames for Changes:
a. Changes involving reduction in the frequency or extent of a Control-Officer
approved O&M Procedure must have the written consent of the Control Officer prior
to being implemented.
b. Other changes: An updated O&M Plan must be submitted to the Control Officer for
review within 10 days of any changes not involving reduction in frequency or extent
of an approved O&M procedure. Within five working days of a written disapproval
of such changes, either the original O&M Plan shall be reinstituted or an alternative,
negotiated with the affected facility and approved in writing by the Control Officer,
shall be instituted.
303 MAINTENANCE: Any person subject to this rule shall operate and maintain in proper working
order when in use all process equipment in which VOC-containing materials are used.
304 STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF VOC: Any person subject to this rule shall store all VOC-
containing materials subject to evaporation, including waste adhesive and waste solvent in
containers, each of which is legibly labeled with its contents. The presence of content-labels that
are required by federal hazardous waste or occupational safety statutes (RCRA or OSHA) will
meet this requirement. These containers shall be covered when not in use or, alternatively, they
shall be placed beneath a hood ducted to or within an enclosure ducted to an operating Approved
Emission Control System until solidified throughout. Such person shall keep records of disposal of
VOC-containing materials in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local hazardous waste
disposal statutes and rules.
305 EXEMPTIONS:
305.1 Facilities which after December 31, 1989, always emit less than 50 tons (45.4 Mg) per
year and less than 8333 pounds (3780 kg) per month of VOC from adhesives used in the
manufacture of rubber sports balls are exempt from this rule, except that those facilities
which have the potential to annually emit or which do annually emit more than 25 tons
(22.7 Mg) of VOC from such adhesives after December 31, 1989, must keep records in
accordance with Section 500.
305.2 Applicability of other Rules:
a. Facilities exempted from the provisions of this rule pursuant to Section 102 are not
exempted from other provisions in other rules of the Maricopa County Air Pollution
Control Regulation III.
b. Rules 330 and 336 shall not apply to a facility subject to the standards of this rule.
SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
10

401 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE: An owner or operator who chooses to meet the requirements of
Section 301 by use of an Approved Emission Control System must be in full compliance with all
applicable requirements by May 31, 1995. Any owner or operator of an emission control system
used to meet the requirements of subsection 301.2 of this rule shall provide the Control Officer
with:
401.1 An Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for this system by May 31, 1995.
401.2 A compliance plan by December 1, 1994, listing the dates of completion of increments of
progress toward meeting the requirements of subsection 301.2.
SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS
501 PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING MONITORING DEVICES: Any person operating an
Approved Emission Control System pursuant to this rule shall provide, properly install and
maintain in calibration, in good working order and in operation, devices described in an approved
O&M Plan for indicating temperatures, pressures, fluid throughputs, rates of flow, and/or other
operating conditions necessary to determine if air pollution control equipment is functioning
properly and is properly maintained.
502 RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING: Any person subject to this rule shall comply with the
following requirements. Records shall be retained for five years and shall be made available to the
Control Officer upon request.
502.1 Current List: Maintain a current list of adhesives including their formulations as
applied, makeup solvents, and any other VOC-containing materials. State the VOC
content of each in pounds per gallon or grams per liter.
502.2 Usage Records: Maintain records according to the following schedule, which show the
type and amount of each adhesive, makeup solvent, and any other VOC-containing
material.
a. Adhesives Solvents, and VOC-Containing Materials:
(1) Records shall be updated monthly showing the usage of the separate adhesives,
solvents, and other VOC-containing materials.
(2) Yearly update those materials known to be annually used in quantities less than
15 gallons (56 l) or to annually emit less than 75 lb (34 kg).
(3) Deliveries: At the time of each delivery of solvent, the amount received, tank
designation and time shall be recorded in a log book.
b. Measuring Instruments and Readings:
(1) Readings for efficiency determination should be made during the same time
period each day.
(2) If volume rather than mass (weight) measures are used as the basis for
calculations, then compensate for temperature. A temperature compensating
instrument may be used for this purpose. If two or more such instruments are
11

used in a demonstration of compliance with this rule, log any difference(s)
between their respective compensating factors with the temperature range(s)
where difference occurs. Show adjustments for such differences when making
mass-balance calculations.
(3) Readings of all meters or other instruments measuring throughput on lines to or
from such tanks shall be recorded daily with date and time.
(4) Each repair, adjustment, or resetting of flow meters or other instruments
measuring cumulative throughput shall be logged with the date, time, purpose,
and the reading before and after such an operation. The cumulative, totalizing,
throughput readout of such an instrument shall have no resetting feature.
503 COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION - TEST METHODS: When more than one test method is
permitted for a determination, an exceedance of the limits established in this rule determined by
any of the applicable test methods constitutes a violation of this rule.
503.1 Mass Balance Determinations - Self Monitoring of Compliance for a Facility Using
Carbon Adsorption with Solvent Recovery as a Control Method:
a. Daily recording: Refer to Figure I of this rule for the location of the mass balance
meters - MB, MV, and MR. By midday on the first workday following a completed
production-day, the following shall be determined for that completed production day
and entered in a hardcopy form acceptable to the Control Officer:
(1) The individual readings given by each of the three mass balance meters at the
designated meter-reading time during the production day just completed;
(2) VOC throughputs via those three mass balance flow meters since both:
(a) the previous production day at the designated meter-reading time; and
(b) since meter-reading time on that production day which is nine production
days prior to the most recently completed production day.
(3) Using the Recovery Formula in 503.1,b. and the logged values required by
503.1,a.(2)(a) above, determine the most recent one day recovery efficiency and
record that in the same log. Using the values required by 503.1,a.(2)(b) in the
previous paragraph, the 9-day rolling average shall also be calculated and
recorded using the same recovery formula in 503.1,b.
b. Recovery formula: Using the liquid/liquid mass balance method, the following ratio
expresses the efficiency of the control system during the period of the 9-day rolling
average and for other periods:
𝑀𝑀𝐵𝐵
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑀𝑀=
𝑀𝑀𝑉𝑉 + 𝑀𝑀𝑅𝑅
Where: MB is the solvent throughput indicated by the meter immediately
downstream of the buffer tank.
12

MV is the solvent throughput indicated by the meter on the output pipe of the virgin
solvent tank.
MR is the solvent throughput indicated by the meter downstream of the junction
connecting the output lines from each recovered-solvent storage tank.
(1) Adjustments for waste disposed of through statutorily prescribed
procedures: When the combined mass of all such waste is less than 0.5 percent
of the total mass of solvent metered through meters MV and MR during the
same 9-day rolling average period as the waste occurred, 95 percent of the mass
of contaminated solvent and half the mass of any still fluid adhesive wasted may
be subtracted from the denominator (MV + MR) in the recovery formula when
determining efficiency. Except as allowed by the procedure set forth in the next
paragraph, no adjustment credit will be given for waste adhesive which is no
longer fluid. A Method 24 Test determination of VOC content(s) referenced in
subsection 503.2 shall be performed if the owner or operator of an affected
facility requests adjustment for a larger quantity of fluid and/or non-fluid
waste(s). The request for adjustment and the results of the test shall be submitted
to the Control Officer for approval.
(2) Total shut-downs and start-ups: The production statistics for the last
production day prior to a complete production shutdown of at least five
consecutive days shall not be included in the 9-day rolling average of control
efficiency, as long as no adhesive is made on the last production day. At a start-
up after a total shutdown "day one" of a 9-day rolling average period begins at
the standard meter reading time on the third production day since start-up.
(3) Non-production days: On days during which a total of 100 gallons or less of
adhesive enters adhesive application machines, the readings of meters "MS",
"MV", and "MR" shall not be entered in the same log-sector as such readings
made during actual production days, irrespective of whether adhesive was made
on such days.
503.2 The method of determining both the solids and the volatile content of adhesives, and of
determining compliance of an adhesive with the VOC-limit specified in subsection 301.1
shall be the EPA Reference Method 24 (40 CFR, Part 60, Appendix A). Method 24 shall
also be used to determine the volatile and non-volatile content of waste adhesive with
reference to subsection 503.1,b.(1).
13

14

MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MEETING
MINUTES Monday, July 24, 2017
301 W. Jefferson Street, 10th Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Board of Supervisors Conference Room
Vice President Hughes called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. Return to list of attachments
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Members Excused:
Don Cassano Kip Steill
Henri Cournand
Robert MacMillan
Francisca Montoya
Nedra Halley (via phone)
Don Hughes
Debra Baldauff
Bill Gates
Ex-Officio: Bob England, M.D.
CALL TO THE PUBLIC:
Vice President Hughes announced it was time for a call to the public and requested public comment forms for
those who wanted to speak or who wanted to address any action items.
DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS
1. Approval of Minutes:Vice PresidentHughes asked for a motion to approve the minutes from theBOH
Meeting held on April 24, 2017. Motion was made by Ms. Montoyato approve the BOH minutes as
presented. Motion was seconded by Mr. Cournandand all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously.
a. Fee Waiver Applications Ms. Jeannie Taylor
Ms. Jeannie Taylor presented thirty-eight (38) fee waiversfor review and consideration of approval. A
summary sheet document was provided.
Ms. Montoya stated there are a lot of applications for Southern Arizona Arts and Cultural Alliance out of
Tucson, AZ, is there a reason they do the fee waiver here not in Tucson.
Ms. Taylor responded they are headquartered in Tucson and the special events are in Maricopa County.
Vice President Hughes asked Ms. Taylor if all applications meet the qualifications for fee waivers.
Ms. Taylor responded that all questions have been answered on all of the applications. Qualification of
hardship is left up to the board’s discretion.
Motion to approve the thirty-eight (38) Fee Waiver applications was made by Mr. Cassano, seconded by Ms.
Montoyaand all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously.
2. Approval of the Expedited Process for four (4) Air Quality Department rulemakings Mr. Philip A.
McNeely
AQ-2017-003-Rule 317, AQ-2017-004-Rule 325, AQ-2017-005-Rule 334and AQ-2017-006-Rule 339
15
1

Mr. Greg Verkamp and Mr. Philip A. McNeely presented the four (4) Air Quality Department rulemakings. A
PowerPoint slide-deck document was provided.
Mr. McNeely stated that he brought Greg Verkamp senior planner to go over all rules. Mr. McNeely explained
that they are going through all there rules and updating or removing rules no longer in use. They have
identified 4 rules that are no longer being used. Greg will give you a presentation on the 4 rules.
Mr. Verkamp began stating, as Philip said we are looking to rescind 4 rules right now. We want to give you a
presentation, background on the purpose of each of the rules and what happens if… scenarios.
The four (4) rules are:
• Rule 317 – Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators
• Rule 325 – Brick and Structural Clay Products (BSCP) Manufacturing
• Rule 334 – Rubber Sports Ball Manufacturing
• Rule 339 – Vegetable Oil Extraction Processes
Three (3) of the four (4) rules, 325, 334 and 339 were all drafted with one source in mind. The 4th rule 317
only had one on the books. The rules haven’t had any source subject - Rules 317 and 229 from the 90’s, 334
from 2009 and 325 from 2012. It has been 5 years since any source was subject to these rules and very few
sources subject to any of these rules.
Rule 317
• Purpose: To control emissions of air pollutants from hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators
(HMIWI)
• Adopted on April 7, 1993 and revised 6 times thereafter
• Drafted to strengthen emission controls for medical waste incineration
– Initially regulated under Rule 313 (Incinerators, general incinerator rule)
• Later incorporated Emission Guidelines promulgated by the EPA in 1997
• Department drafted rule 317 to be more stringent on hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators. Due
to the high pollutants in plastic that a lot of the hospital and medical waste are made of. At the same time
EPA was drafting regulations on a Federal level, the 1990 clean air act. In 1997 EPA came out with new
source performance standards as well as emission guidelines.
• Since 1997 the number of HMIWI has decreased significantly nationwide
• 1997 – 2,400 HMIWI
• 2009 – 57 HMIWI
• Last HMIWI permit with MCAQD was closed in 1998
• Alternative technologies to incineration include: autoclaving, thermal treatment and chemical mechanical
systems
• What Happens if . . . a new HMIWI is interested in establishing operations in Maricopa County?
• The new source would be subject to New Source Performance Standards Subpart Ec
• Maricopa County Rule 360 (New Source Performance Standards).
Mr. MacMillian asked if there was still 1 source Mr. Verkamp responded no, the last one was in 90’s and it
was closed in 1998. Mr. MacMillian asked if a new federal rule came out that was less stringent what you
would do, would you write/adopt a new rule. Mr. McNeely responded we would just incorporate the new
Federal rule in any permits they would reference the Federal rule in the permit itself.
Rule 325
Mr. Verkamp gave a few miles stone for context with this rule.
 1990 clean air act designated Maricopa County as moderate for PM10 unattainment. Because of that they
had to submit revisions to the state implementation plan stating how we are going to obtain PM10
standard. In the revision we were supposed to demonstrate attainment by 1994. They were unable to do
16
2

so. In 1996 we were designated as serious unattainment area. Again required to submit revision to the
state implementation plan. They were not able to obtain by December 2001 PM10 and we had to submit
another revision and have had to submit several revisions thereafter. Rule 325 was part of one of those
revisions thereafter.
• Purpose: To limit particulate matter emissions from the use of tunnel kilns for curing in the brick and
structural clay product (BSCP) manufacturing processes
• Adopted on August 10, 2005 and never revised
• Drafted to incorporate commitments the State made in Salt River State Implementation Plan
– Implement Best Available Control Measures (BACM)/Most Stringent Measures (MSM) for all
significant sources of PM10 in the Salt River Area
• Within the Salt River Area there was one brick manufacturer, Phoenix Brick Yard, that needed to
implement BACM/MSM
– Phoenix Brick Yard ceased manufacturing bricks in 2012 due to market conditions and
production costs
• What happens if . . . a new BSCP is interested in establishing operations in Maricopa County?
– The new source would be subject to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for BSCP Manufacturing (Subpart JJJJJ)
• Maricopa County Rule 370 (Federal Hazardous Air Pollutant Program)
No source subject since 2012.
Mr. Cournand asked are any of these rules more stringent that the federal rules are? Mr. McNeely
responded, they are not, no.
Vice President Hughes asked what if the federal rules are reduced and are less stringent. Mr. McNeely
responded it would be the same as the last rule, rule 317, we would just incorporate the new federal rule
Vice President Hughes asked if the rules are less stringent and it has an effect on the air quality what
would you do?
Mr. McNeely responded - that’s a good point, these rules are in our state implementation plan. We will
have to write a letter to the EPA. These will be taken out of the implementation plan.
Vice President Hughes these rules did not put the businesses out of business; they have been taken to
other places (China for example). Where operating costs less. Mr. MacNeely, yes, that is correct. Mr.
MacMillian was this rule written to control PM10 correct? Mr. Verkamp said yes, that is correct.
Rule 334
• Purpose: To limit emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from natural and synthetic rubber
adhesives used in the manufacture of non-inflatable rubber balls
• Adopted on August 2, 1993 and revised 3 times thereafter
• Drafted to comply with requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
– Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT) “Fix-up” – required ozone nonattainment areas
classified as marginal or above to adopt and correct RACT rules as previously requested by the EPA
before the Clean Air Act was amended in 1990
– The new major source of VOCs would be subject to Major New Source Review (NSR) – Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate (LAER)
• With 334 you need to understand the ozone issues we’ve had here at the County. Likewise with 339,
to give you some context, the County was designated none attainment for ozone in 1978.
• 1990 the clean air act.
• Rules 334 and 339 were drafted to comply with the clean air act. In 1984 and 1988 the EPA sent
letters to the Governor requesting that we submit revisions so we can see that you’re going to be able
17
3

to obtain and maintain ozone standards. Those requests in those letters became law, the 1990 clean
air act.
• Included the adoption of rules for major sources of VOCs for which Control Techniques Guidelines
(CTG) had not been issued
• Penn Racquet Sports
• The facility moved operations to China in 2009
• Very unique industry unlikely to appear in the County again
• What happens if . . . a new Rubber Sports Ball Manufacturer is interested in establishing operations in
Maricopa County?
Rule 339
• Purpose: To limit the emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the extraction of vegetable
oil using solvents
– Applicable to major sources only (those facilities emitting more than 100 tons of VOCs per year)
• Adopted on November 16, 1992 and revised 1 time thereafter
• Like in rule 334, drafted to comply with requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
– RACT “Fix-up” – required ozone nonattainment areas classified as marginal or above to adopt and
correct RACT rules as previously requested by the EPA before the Clean Air Act was amended in
1990
• Included the adoption of rules for major sources of VOCs for which Control Techniques
Guidelines (CTG) had not been issued
• Western Cotton Services – produced cottonseed oil
• Permit closed in 1999
• What happens if . . . a new Vegetable Oil Extraction facility is interested in establishing operations in
Maricopa County?
– The new source would be subject to the NESHAP for Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil
Production (Subpart GGGG)
• Maricopa County Rule 370 (Federal Hazardous Air Pollutant Program)
Tentative step for the proposed rule revisions
1-County Manager Briefed Board of Supervisors - May 15, 2017
2-County Stakeholder Workshop - June 15, 2017
3-Stakeholder Notification 2 Weeks before Board of Health Meeting - July 10, 2017
4-Board of Health Meeting To Initiate Regulatory Change - July 24, 2017
5-Specific Departmental Processes (Includes Comment Period) - August 18, 2017 - September 18, 2017
6-Stakeholder Notification 2 Weeks Prior To Board of Health Meeting - Not Required - Expedited Process
7-Board of Health Meeting to Make Recommendations to Board of Supervisors - Not Required Expedited
Process
8-Schedule Board of Supervisors’ Public Hearing - October 4, 2017
9-Board of Supervisors’ Public Hearing - November 29, 2017
10-Item Adopted - November 29, 2017
Currently on step 4, next major step is step 5, including a 30 day comment period. At any point in time in
the process anyone can make comments.
Motion to approve four (4) Air Quality Department rulemakings: AQ-2017-003-Rule
317(Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators), AQ-2017-004-Rule 325(Brick and
Structural Clay Products (BSCP) Manufacturing), AQ-2017-005-Rule 334(Rubber Sports Ball
Manufacturing) and AQ-2017-006-Rule 339(Vegetable Oil Extraction Processes) was made by
Mr. Cassano, seconded by Dr. Baldauff and all were in favor. Motion passed unanimously.
18
4

Discussion Items:
1. Public Health Report Dr. Bob England
I. Healthcare Reform
II. Funding Outlook
III. Human Resources
IV. Communication
V. Infrastructure
VI. Strategic Planning
VII. Programs
VIII. Disease Update
IX. Future Topics
Dr. Bob had several items to review with them.
Health Care Reform – the senate is going to hold a vote tomorrow. Keep in mind with all of this, is they are using
the budget reconciliation process which means they can’t repeal the whole thing, only the pieces that affect the
federal budget. The other requirements that were built in the original affordable care act, like requiring first dollar
coverage for preventative services, incentives built in for keeping people out of the hospital. So however this gets
changed it’s going to be a morph. The version of the budget reconciliation that the senate was proposing would
have both direct and indirect consequences. Indirect – elimination of the expansion of AHCCCS. Direct – the
elimination of the prevention public health fund which 13% of all CDC activities, 9 million a year.
Stay tuned; just know it’s going to change the way we do business going forward.
Other funding issues:
- $1.2 cut to WIC
- Transfer of Health Care to the Homeless to a community partner. This is a good thing for the community, in
the long run.
- Teen pregnancy program is ending. It was intended to be a 5 year program and we are currently in year 3.
Every grantee has been told the funding will end.
- Refugee clinic numbers are way down. The acceptance of refugees is in flux.
A lot of things up in the air.
One item I want to ensure you understand is the changes to the Vital Registration System. The State is moving
towards an electronic death registration system. A good thing in the abstract, better efficiency, better in ease of
operation, more convenient for customers to get death certificates. There are a few things here in how this is
different that attempted in other states. There is no backup system. Every other state that has implemented this
has some sort of paper backup system for when things go wrong.
Question – Do you have any idea how many states have adopted this? Dr. Bob responded this particular system, I
believe is 11 states. New Mexico being the first, they implemented in 2006.
There is no back up system so there is no way for a physician to certify a death other than to go through an on-line
training which takes 20-30 minutes and get a login number and then directly enter the information themselves.
There is no backup in the sense that current law and our practice expedites people’s ability to get their loved ones
in the ground ahead of getting all the information on the death certificate. Mother’s maiden name, how many
years did someone live in the state, county, occupation, stuff that families usually know but may want to look up.
In this system there’s no back up, there’s no work around. All of that has to be entered before burial can move
forward. Because we will not even be able to the death certificate and process it until it’s all entered.
New Mexico has had this system in place for 11 years and they have 62% of the physicians on board.
Question - So what happens with the other 38%? Dr. Bob responded they have a backup system.
19
5

The thing is things are not going to work perfectly the first week, you’re not going to get every doctor in the state
to go on-line and register. We were told we are to be on 24/7 to help physicians when the time comes, we are on
24/7 now. But that’s going to continue because that’s going to change. Right now we do all sorts of work arounds
to make things work for people. Every day you have got families with religious or other requirements for burials
within 24 hours of the death. We make it work for them. As long as we get the statutorily minimal information to
record, we get them the disposition transit permit and then by law the funeral home has 7 days to get the rest of
the information. All of that is going out and it’s going to happen all at once. Target date is late September, 2017.
I’m scared to death that within the first couple of weeks of this program we’re going to have dozens if not
hundreds of people unable to bury their loved ones by the scheduled funeral date.
This is the state implementing this, the State Health Department. We have lobbied and we’re continuing to do it.
I’m not giving up but I’ve already lobbied pretty hard.
Vice President Hughes commented from electronic medical records, you still don’t have that thing working. Bob
responded that’s what I use as my example.
The other thing that complicated it, the third and final thing is that this is a fee based system. We function off the
fee ADHS is changing the way people, as part of this, again a good thing so people can go online and order death
certificates, it’s online completely without having to go to the County. That will be a State controlled operation;
the State will keep the fees. So we have been told that there will be a mechanism in place for revenue sharing but
we haven’t seen anything yet. And the way you hear the vitals folks from ADHS talk they think there will be much
less need for County staff. Because it will be so efficient, it will be all automated.
Vice President Hughes commented except that you have to be on call 24/7.
Dr. Bob responded in reality it’s going to cause us a lot more work early on. Now they may be right overtime this
may be much more efficient and that will be great if we can cut staff in the long run and make things easier for the
families during the worst possible times, then that will all be a good thing.
We are working with the other Counties to submit suggestions for funding. I’m going to propose we get out of the
fee base and we turn it into a contract system. That way ADHS will be at risk for the fees coming in. And we’ll have
a contract at least to start. Hopefully for enough to keep us going the way we are and we will build in mechanisms
by which that will go down. Where they pay us extra for some of the extra work we’re doing beyond what they
think is reasonable baseline. We’ve got a lot to negotiate here.
What I’m going to do, I’m doing to have to do board briefings. Because all of you guys need to understand what’s
going to happen. So that if we can’t prevail on ADHS to change their mind about this before it’s too late then you
at least know how to handle the calls because you’re going to get them. And I’ll be looking to you in terms of how
aggressively you want me to fight with ADHS. I have a wonderful relationship with the director at ADHS. I think
she’s getting really bad advice.
Question – Can you quantify net impact?
Dr. Bob responded last year we took in 6.2 million in Vital Registration. Of that we returned 1.5 million. We give
them $1.00 charge on everything that is issued.
What we’re proposing to them is a contract for about 3.5 million. We are estimating that each month we will get
about a thousand amendments and adjustments to process and they are estimating that will be zero. Each
amendment or adjustment we have to process we will charge them $75.00 per transaction.
Question – Just to make sure I understand what you mean when you are talking backup system you don’t mean it
in the sense that they have them in a server in one location.
20
6

Dr. Bob responded I’m talking paper, something you can revert to when a doctor who just refuses to do the thing
online. You will have a lot of those, there are a lot of older docs that don’t want to use electronic for anything.
They believe they will get 100% compliance week one and that the pressure from within the system will force
them to comply.
I’ll be looking for some guidance in terms of how much hard ball to play here, because I don’t want to blow my
relationship with ADHS over this.
Supervisor Gates asked Dr. Bob, have you talked to the Governor’s office about this?
Dr. Bob responded that’s where I thought and wanted guidance.
Supervisor Gates stated that would make sense. I can see the appeal in this, it sounds truly great. If you could
move all of this to electronic and the fact have 100% compliance.
Dr. Bob responds even if you can get almost 100% compliance but you have to have something to fall back on.
You can’t expect 100% compliance day one.
Every existing modification that every state has made as they are adopting this has been made at no additional
cost to them so we could have adopted that New Mexico’s work around or any other state’s work around. The
state chose to not go with any; they went with the base model.
What I’m still trying to avoid is that first week, when people can’t put their loved one in the ground.
Question – Is this targeted for January 1 implementation?
Dr. Bob responds September.
Question – Of 2018?
Dr. Bob responds 2017; we’ve been struggling with this for awhile.
Last few things in case you see them on the news.
CDC is changing some of their recommendations related to Zika. Especially testing, the problem with testing is the
testing isn’t that good and their scaling back.
School drinking water testing will be expanding the water testing program to include child care centers.
From a budget perspective just know that our multi drug resistant TB issues are not going away. We may have
one patient who we still can’t convince to comply that may result in that person being locked up in a hospital
room at Maricopa Medical Center. Which costs us a ton of money and I don’t know where the budget will come
from.
So expenses like that is always a threat. These are very uncertain times. That is all I have for you.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CURRENT EVENTS
 Next meeting is October 23, 2017
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Cassano,
seconded by Ms. Montoya and motion was passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 4:45p.m.
21
7

Return to list of attachments
22