BOS SR 003 4-8-15 ABRIDGE VERSION.PDF

-Abridged Version for Purpose of Setting the Hearing-
Report to the Board of Supervisors
Prepared by the Maricopa County Environmental Services Department
Board of Health (BOH)
Meeting Date: January 26, 2015
Board of Supervisors
Hearing Date: April 8, 2015
Case #/Title: ES-2014-003/Food Service Worker Certification
Supervisor Districts: All Districts
Applicant: Maricopa County Environmental Services Department
(Department)
Request: Approve proposed revision to Maricopa County Environmental
Health Code (MCEHC) Chapter VII – to align the MCEHC with
A.R.S. § 11-269.12. This statute allows for food service worker
(FSW) training and certification by accredited entities, and the
requirement to accept other Arizona counties certificate or
identification card.
Support/Opposition: To date, the Department has received written comments from
222 stakeholders via the EROP website and other means: 209
expressed support, ten expressed opposition and three stated
their opinion as “other.”
The Department provides email responses to all written
comments received and where applicable, stakeholders were
also provided MCEHC proposal clarifications and/or the
statutory requirements outlined in A.R.S. § 11-269.12.
Stakeholder Meetings
Stakeholder meetings were held on September 22, 2014,
October 7, 2014 and December 4, 2014.
On September 22, 2014, seven stakeholders attended and no
verbal or written support or opposition was expressed for the
proposed revision. On October 7, 2014, six stakeholders
attended; three provided support, two provided opposition and
one did not provide support or opposition. On December 4,
2014, seven stakeholders attended. One provided verbal and
written support on behalf of the National Restaurant
Association. Three provided verbal opposition on behalf of SFS
Page 1 of 8

and two of the three provided written opposition as well. The
remaining three attendees did not provide support or
opposition. Also, an opposing comment was submitted in
writing for an individual not at the December meeting.
Opposing and Supportive Views
Opposing stakeholders are concerned with the potential of
decreased control in the quality of FSW training provided and
the prevention of fraud. Their concerns also included
recommendations to require:
 a secure database for all course providers
 submittal of training documents to the Department
 the continuance of FSW card issuance/fee collection
 placement of the Maricopa County seal on certificates
 fulfillment of the current contract with SFS to remain the
sole source provider of the Department’s FSW card
program.
Supportive stakeholders stated the proposed revision provides
increased flexibility in employee food safety training. Their
written comments indicate FSW training flexibility may also
provide:
 food establishments the ability to utilize quality training
programs that are accepted in other states
 better compliance while retaining the regulation intent
of employees trained on food safety knowledge
 the opportunity to create more affordable and
convenient training options
 increased competition among approved training
providers and the ability to choose the trainer.
Many of these stakeholders support both a FSW certificate to
serve as training documentation and the Department’s
proposal of eliminating the FSW card requirement. Some
stakeholders viewed the $5 FSW card cost as an extra
unnecessary expense and the card as an inconvenience for
employees to obtain at a Department office after successful
test completion.
Thus far, the Department has received over 94% support for this
proposed revision. In accordance with the 2013 FDA Food
Code, Maricopa County food establishment employees must
demonstrate food safety knowledge; actual knowledge
application is evaluated during Department inspections instead
of by a card or certificate.
Page 2 of 8

BOH Meetings
At the October 27, 2014 BOH meeting, the Department
presented written comments from 217 stakeholders received via
the Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program (EROP) website
and other means: 207 expressed support, 7 opposed and 3
stated their opinion as “other”. Contracted vendor SFS
representatives, Mr. Vernon Stout and Dr. Christine Lewis
provided statements at the BOH meeting. Mr. Stout noted that
SFS is the current provider for the Department’s FSW card
program and is concerned about the proposed MCEHC revision
due to the impact on the SFS contract with the Department.
Mr. Stout emphasized that SFS has invested significant resources
into fulfilling the contract requirements. Dr. Lewis expressed
concerns about the proposed revision due to the potential
threat to public safety and interference with the current SFS
contract. After SFS provided their comments, the Department
stated their interest in consideration of stakeholder input while
meeting the changes required by Arizona Revised Statute. A
motion to recommend continuance of the proposed revision
into the standard EROP process was made by Ms. Halley,
seconded by Mr. Steill and the motion passed unanimously.
At the January 26, 2015 BOH meeting, the Department
presented written comments from 222 stakeholders via the
EROP website and other means: 209 expressed support, ten
expressed opposition and three stated their opinion as “other.”
Mr. David Matthew, a National Restaurant Association
representative, provided verbal support for the changes to
Chapter VII of the MCEHC. The National Restaurant Association
believes the proposed changes allowing food service worker
(FSW) training and certification by accredited agencies and
other Arizona counties are a positive step forward in continuing
to promote food safety in Maricopa County. Mr. Vernon Stout, a
SFS representative, provided verbal opposition for the proposed
changes. He believes the feedback provided to the BOH
through the EROP process is skewed as most recent data came
from members of the Restaurant Association through canned
responses. Mr. Stout urged BOH members not to enact the
proposed change as it does not protect the public as well as
the currently implemented rule. Motion to recommend
submission for Case ES-2014-003/Food Service Worker
Certification to the BOS’ for approval was made by Mr. Don
Cassano, seconded by Dr. Michael Mills; BOH members
unanimously passed the motion.
Page 3 of 8

Department
Recommendation: Staff recommends the BOS approve the proposed revisions to
the MCEHC
BOH
Recommendation: Approve per Department recommended language.
Executive Summary: During the 51st Legislature, 2nd Regular Session Representative
T. J. Shope (R-Dist.8) introduced HB 2436 Food Handler Training;
Courses; Certification, amending state statutes related to
county food handler trainings and certificates. HB 2436 was
signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer on April 23, 2014 and
became effective on July 24, 2014 as A.R.S. § 11-269-12.
A.R.S. § 11-269-12 states that if a county requires food handler
training and certificates for employees in the food service
industry, the food handler certificate training course must meet
the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard
E2659-09 and other statutory topics. A food handler certificate
training course may be offered by any means available,
including an online course, it must be completed within the time
period required by the county and the certificate must be
renewed as required by the county.
Upon completion of an accredited food handler certificate
training course, the county shall issue any certificate or
identification card required by the county, to a person who
demonstrates successful completion of the course. A.R.S. § 11-
269-12 also states that a county-issued food handler certificate
or identification card is valid in any county that requires a
certificate or identification card and prohibits the county from
limiting the number of times a person may attempt to complete
a food handler certificate training course.
Finally, A.R.S. § 11-269-12 asserts that if a county government
that provides food service has an in-house food service training
program, a certificate by that county training program is valid
for food service that is provided for that county’s facilities or
operations. Food handler certificate training courses that are
created by the county or approved by the county (or both)
before July 24, 2014 that do not meet the ASTM standards are
considered to be accredited.
In the bill sponsor’s own words, the intent of this legislation “was
to make food handler training courses more readily available to
restaurants and workers and, importantly, to allow more choice
as to entities that could offer such courses throughout
Arizona…as long as a course is accredited per the standards
Page 4 of 8

contained in other parts of the bill, regardless of which entity
offers the training, a county shall issue the proper certificate or
card to anyone completing such a course” (Shope letter to
Deputy County Attorney Dan Brenden, dated June13, 2014).
Department FSW Training/Card Implementation Efforts
Since A.R.S. § 11-269.12 went into effect, the procedures
followed by the Department for FSW training and FSW cards are:
 The Department issues a FSW card to any individual who
presents a valid FSW certificate from any ASTM accredited
third party FSW training program. To obtain the FSW card,
the individual must present the certificate at one of the
Department’s five regional office locations, along with the
appropriate proof of lawful presence (e.g. valid AZ driver’s
license). The individual is then issued a FSW card with their
photo. Kiosks are also provided at the Department’s
regional offices where individuals can take an online course
and exam to obtain the certificate. The online course at
these kiosks is offered through StateFoodSafety.com (SFS).
 The Department accepts valid FSW certificates or
identification cards issued by another county within Arizona.
An individual possessing a valid certificate/identification
card from another Arizona county does not need to obtain
an additional card from Maricopa County.
 The Department issues Limited Use FSW Cards to individuals
with disabilities that meet the requirements outlined in the
MCEHC, Chapter VII.
 The Department issues fee-waived FSW cards to individuals
working under a Board of Health (BOH) fee waiver who have
fulfilled the training requirements. The Department currently
conducts the training required for these cards.
Department Research
Completing due diligence prior to recommending the
proposed MCEHC revision, the Department researched whether
or not each jurisdiction in California requires a locally-issued FSW
card. California’s Health and Safety Code contains
requirements similar to A.R.S. § 11-269.12. Specifically, the
California Code allows FSW cards to be recognized throughout
the state, with the exception of jurisdictions with existing FSW
programs that took effect prior to January 1, 2009.
Page 5 of 8

There are three California counties that qualify for this
exemption based on having an existing FSW program prior to
January 1, 2009. Each of these county programs maintains their
own requirements and methods for obtaining FSW training and
certification.
 San Diego County
San Diego County accepts either a valid FSW card issued by
a county-authorized food handler training school, or a
County FSW test administered by the current food safety
manager who has passed a state approved food safety
certification exam.
 Riverside County
Riverside County accepts only SFS online FSW class/testing or
testing at one of their County offices.
 San Bernardino County
San Bernardino County accepts only County-issued FSW
cards, which can be obtained online via SFS.
There were four other jurisdictions benchmarked which are listed
below. None of the jurisdictions require a locally-issued FSW
card in addition to the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI)/ASTM accredited certificate described in the California
Health and Safety Code.
Do you require a How do you ensure
Jurisdiction card in addition How are the ANSI/ASTM the ANSI/ASTM
to the ANSI/ASTM certificates audited? certificates are valid?
certificate?
Audits generally occur By ensuring the
during inspections when company is on the list
Santa Clara an establishment has a of approved food
County No history of non-compliance handler training
and/or in response to a programs (ANSI-
food-borne illness accredited).
report/investigation.
City of Pasadena No - -
During routine inspections By looking for the
Los Angeles the inspectors verify each ANSI accreditation
County No employee has a certificate on the printed
from an ANSI accredited certificate.
program.
City of San No - -
Francisco
Current Contract with SFS to Provide FSW Training
At the request of the Department, the Office of Procurement
Services (OPS) issued a solicitation for FSW training in November
2012, (Serial 12149-RFP, Food Service Worker Online Training,
Testing and Classroom Training Provider (SFS Contract)) which
Page 6 of 8

was awarded by the Board of Supervisors (BOS) on June 5, 2013
to SFS of Orem, Utah. The SFS contract’s base term is from June
5, 2013 through June 30, 2016. A copy of the SFS contract is
attached and the contractor’s responsibilities are specifically
defined in Exhibit B, Scope of Work.
OPS received a letter dated October 18, 2014, (Included in the
attached Report to BOH dated October 27, 2014) from Mr.
Richard L. Hill who is the legal representative of SFS. In his letter,
Mr. Hill states that by adopting and implementing the proposed
rule to the MCEHC, which permits individuals to obtain training
from providers other than SFS, would result in significant financial
damages to his client, SFS. Mr. Hill alleges that adoption of this
rule would reduce the number of individuals trained under this
contract by 91%.
Mr. Hill also takes the position that adopting and implementing
the proposed rule would be a violation of both the United States
Constitution and the Arizona State Constitution, which both
prohibit the adoption of laws “… that impair contractual rights”
by no longer recognizing SFS as the exclusive provider of FSW
training in Maricopa County through the base term of the
existing SFS contract.
OPS, in consultation with the Maricopa County Attorney’s
Office, reviewed and responded to Mr. Hill’s October 18, 2014
letter on October 30, 2014 (letter attached). A brief summary of
the County’s position regarding SFS’s contract is that while the
contract remains valid for the remaining base term of the
agreement, it is a requirements contract as defined in
Paragraph 6.6.1 of the SFS contract. Further, SFS knowingly
entered into this contract and acknowledged that as a
requirements contract, the County was not obligated to make
any minimum or maximum purchases and therefore adoption
of the rule would not affect the existing agreement.
On November 17, 2014, OPS received a faxed copy of a letter
from Mr. Hill dated November 17, 2014, (letter attached) with a
hard copy subsequently received via FedEx on November 18,
2014. In that letter, Mr. Hill reiterates his position that adoption of
the proposed rule to the MCEHC would result in the County
breaching their agreement with SFS and requested adoption of
the proposed rule be delayed until expiration of the current SFS
contract. Since OPS had previously responded to Mr. Hill’s
contractual issue, they did not provide an additional response.
The Department provided receipt acknowledgement of the
letter, which is included in this report.
Page 7 of 8

A.R.S. § 11-269.12 allows additional means by which a FSW may
complete training and obtain certificates and identification
cards. A FSW who obtains a valid FSW certificate from SFS will
continue to be approved documentation of training. At this
time, the Department’s intent is to continue contracted services
with SFS; however, the following may also serve as
documentation of training:
 a valid food employee certificate, or identification card,
issued by another county within the State of Arizona; or
 a valid food employee certificate of successful
completion of a food handler training course given by
the Department; or
 a valid food employee certificate of successful
completion of a third party food handler training course
that meets all State of Arizona statutory requirements,
including compliance with the ASTM Standard E2659-09.
SFS MCEHC Language Suggestion
The Department did receive a written comment from SFS
representative Vernon Stout which included recommended
language (Included in the October 27 BOH Report) for the
proposed revision. The Department did not incorporate this
suggested language because it is in conflict with A.R.S. § 11-
269.12; this statute is broad with respect to training and does not
limit training to be in accordance with a sole provider or a
specific contract.
The Department understands some opposition to the elimination
of the FSW cards exists; however, the proposal is in line with the
currently adopted 2013 FDA Food Code, which emphasizes the
role of the Person in Charge regarding training and Active
Managerial Control within a food establishment. The
Department has referred all SFS contract related documents
and comments to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office and
the Office of Procurement Services.
Presented by: Steven J. Goode, REHS, Director
Attachments: Report to BOH 1/26/15 (542 pages)
Presentation – Stakeholder Workshop 12/4/14 – (3 Pages)
Minutes – Stakeholder Workshop 12/4/14 – (11 Pages)
Report to BOH 10/27/14 (475 Pages)
Addendum to the BOS (3 Pages)
Stakeholder input and responses received after the BOH
meeting 1/26/15 (2 Pages)
Page 8 of 8


MARICOPA COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CODE
CHAPTER VII
FOOD SERVICE WORKERS EMPLOYEES/CERTIFIED FOOD PROTECTION
MANAGERS
REGULATION 1. Definitions
a. “Food Service Manager” “CERTIFIED FOOD PROTECTION MANAGER”
means any person who supervises/trains a food EMPLOYEE service worker(s)
to follow all food safety regulations (Chapter VII and Chapter VIII). The manager
shall be a full time employee of the individually permitted food establishment
where employed.
b. “Food Service Manager Card” “CERTIFIED FOOD PROTECTION
MANAGER CARD” means a document issued by the Department certifying that
an individual has fulfilled the requirements to work as a Food Service Manager
CERTIFIED FOOD PROTECTION MANAGER.
c. “Food Service Worker” “FOOD EMPLOYEE” SHALL HAVE THE SAME
MEANING AS ARS §11-269.12 FOOD HANDLER, AND means any person
who handles, prepares, serves, sells or gives away food for consumption by
persons other than his or her immediate family, or who handles utensils and
equipment appurtenant thereto. The term does not include persons in
establishments regulated under this code who handle food or drink exclusively in
closed crates, cartons, packages, bottles or similar containers in which no portion
of the food or drink is exposed to contamination through such handling.
d. “Food Service Worker Card” means a document issued by the Department
certifying that an individual has fulfilled the requirements to work as a food
service worker.
D e. “Limited Use Food EMPLOYEE CERTIFICATE Card” means a document
issued by the Department certifying that an individual with a disability has
fulfilled the requirements to perform specific low public health risk activities.
E. "PERSON IN CHARGE" MEANS THE INDIVIDUAL PRESENT AT A
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
OPERATION AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION.
F. “FEE WAIVED FOOD EMPLOYEE CERTIFICATE” MEANS A
DOCUMENT ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT CERTIFYING THAT AN
INDIVIDUAL WORKING UNDER A MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF
7-1

HEALTH FEE WAIVER HAS FULFILLED THE TRAINING
REQUIREMENTS.
REGULATION 2. Display of Food Service Worker/Manager Cards PERSON IN
CHARGE AND CERTIFIED FOOD PROTECTION MANAGER
Each food establishment shall maintain on its premises a separate file containing the food
service worker cards and food service manager cards for each food service worker and food
service manager. This file shall be accessible to the Environmental Health Officer for review
upon request.
A. THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT SHALL
ENSURE FOOD EMPLOYEE(S) ARE TRAINED ON FOODBORNE
DISEASE PREVENTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER VIII,
SECTION 2 OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH CODE, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF PERFORMING ANY FOOD
EMPLOYEE ACTIVITY.
B. THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF A TEMPORARY FOOD
ESTABLISHMENT, SEASONAL FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, OR
SPECIAL EVENT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT SHALL ENSURE FOOD
EMPLOYEE(S) ARE TRAINED ON FOODBORNE DISEASE
PREVENTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER VIII, SECTION 2
OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CODE,
PRIOR TO THE START OF THE EVENT.
C. A VALID FOOD EMPLOYEE CERTIFICATE OR IDENTIFICATION
CARD AS DESCRIBED IN REGULATION 4 OF THIS CHAPTER, MAY
SERVE AS DOCUMENTATION OF TRAINING.
D. EACH FOOD ESTABLISHMENT SHALL MAINTAIN ON ITS
PREMISES A SEPARATE FILE CONTAINING FOOD EMPLOYEE
TRAINING DOCUMENTATION.
E. EACH FOOD ESTABLISHMENT SHALL HAVE AT LEAST ONE (1)
CERTIFIED FOOD PROTECTION MANAGER ON STAFF, WHO IS
EITHER PHYSICALLY PRESENT OR AVAILABLE BY ELECTRONIC
OR TELEPHONIC MEANS WHENEVER THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
IS IN OPERATION.
F. EACH FOOD ESTABLISHMENT SHALL REPLACE THE CERTIFIED
FOOD PROTECTION MANAGER WITHIN NINETY (90) DAYS OF
SEPARATION.
G. A CERTIFIED FOOD PROTECTION MANAGER SHALL OBTAIN A
CERTIFIED FOOD PROTECTION MANAGER CARD FROM THE
7-2

DEPARTMENT AFTER SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF A TEST
FROM A FOOD PROTECTION MANAGER CERTIFICATION
PROGRAM AS DESCRIBED IN THE 2013 FDA FOOD CODE, § 2-102.20.
A CERTIFIED FOOD PROTECTION MANAGER CARD SHALL EXPIRE
FIVE (5) YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION
OF A CERTIFIED FOOD PROTECTION MANAGER TEST.
REGULATION 3 Limited Use Food Service Worker Cards FOOD EMPLOYEE
CERTIFICATES
The Department may issue a Limited Use card when requested to reasonably
accommodate a person with a disability.
THE DEPARTMENT MAY ISSUE THE FOLLOWING FOOD EMPLOYEE
CERTIFICATES:
A. A LIMITED USE FOOD EMPLOYEE CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED
TO REASONABLY ACCOMMODATE A PERSON WITH A
DISABILITY.
a.1. A person with a Limited Use Food EMPLOYEE Service Worker
CERTIFICATE Card shall be under direct supervision of the food
establishment’s CERTIFIED Food Service PROTECTION Manager at
all times when handling food or food contact surfaces.
b.2. The food establishment’s CERTIFIED Food Service PROTECTION
Manager shall be responsible for all Limited Use Food EMPLOYEE
Service Worker CERTIFICATE Card applicants, and for requesting a
Department onsite visit to have the Department officially document any
training and to witness the applicant's associated functions and duties
assigned by the CERTIFIED Food Service PROTECTION Manager.
c.3. Upon Department approval, the applicant will receive written
authorization to have a Limited Use Food EMPLOYEE Service
Worker Card CERTIFICATE. issued at the Department’s offices with
proof of lawful presence in accordance with Arizona State Statute
(A.R.S.§41-1080).
d. The Limited Use Food Service Worker Card shall expire three years from
the date of issue and the fee is the same as listed in Chapter I of this code
for Food Service Worker Cards.
e. Applicants may have a Limited Use Food Service Worker Card reissued
by following Paragraphs 1. a. through d. 3. of this Regulation 3.A.
7-3

B. A FEE WAIVED FOOD EMPLOYEE CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED
TO:
1. A FOOD EMPLOYEE FOR WHICH MARICOPA COUNTY
BOARD OF HEALTH HAS WAIVED PAYMENT OF
ASSOCIATED FEES DUE TO THEIR CHARITABLE OR
NONPROFIT STATUS.
2. A FOOD EMPLOYEE ENROLLED IN A K-12 CULINARY ARTS
SCHOOL PROGRAM OR OTHER SIMILAR CURRICULUM
BASED PROGRAMS FOR WHICH MARICOPA COUNTY
BOARD OF HEALTH HAS WAIVED PAYMENT OF
ASSOCIATED FEES.
REGULATION 4. Food Service Manager Training FOOD EMPLOYEE TRAINING
DOCUMENTATION
a. All food service managers shall obtain a food service manager card by
completing a food service manager sanitation test certified by an ANSI
accredited organization meeting the Conference for Food Protection
accreditation standard. The certificate, diploma, or credential obtained there
from shall be presented to the Department for issuance of a food service
manager card. A food service manager card shall not be issued until the food
service manager card fee established by Chapter I of this code is received by
the Department. All food service manager cards issued under this subsection
shall expire five (5) years from the date of issue of the certification, diploma,
or credential presented.
A. FOOD EMPLOYEE TRAINING DOCUMENTATION MAY BE SHOWN
BY THE FOLLOWING:
1. A VALID FOOD EMPLOYEE CERTIFICATE, OR
IDENTIFICATION CARD, ISSUED BY ANOTHER COUNTY
WITHIN THE STATE OF ARIZONA; OR
2. A VALID FOOD EMPLOYEE CERTIFICATE OF SUCCESSFUL
COMPLETION OF A FOOD HANDLER TRAINING COURSE
GIVEN BY THE DEPARTMENT; OR
3. A VALID FOOD EMPLOYEE CERTIFICATE OF SUCCESSFUL
COMPLETION OF A THIRD PARTY FOOD HANDLER
TRAINING COURSE THAT MEETS ALL STATE OF ARIZONA
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING COMPLIANCE
WITH THE AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS
INSTITUTE/ASTM INTERNATIONAL STANDARD E2659-09.
7-4

B. A CERTIFICATE ISSUED UNDER PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 3 OF
REGULATION 4 SHALL EXPIRE THREE (3) YEARS FROM THE DATE
OF ISSUE.
REGULATION 5. Food Service Worker Training
a. Except as specified in paragraph b of this Section, within thirty (30) days of
performing any food service worker activity, all food service workers shall obtain
a food service worker card by completing a food service worker sanitation course
or test given by the Department, or show evidence of having completed a
substantially similar course or test sponsored or accredited by the Department.
The food service worker exam or class fee established by Chapter I of this code
shall be paid prior to the initiation of the test or sanitation course. All food
service worker cards issued under this subparagraph shall expire three (3) years
from the date of issue. A food service worker card shall not be issued until the
food service worker card fee established by Chapter I of this Environmental
Health Code is received by the Department.
b. Temporary food establishment, seasonal food establishment, and special event
food establishment food service workers shall obtain a food service worker card
prior to the start of the event.
REGULATION 6. Food Service Manager’s Duty
a. All food establishment locations shall have at least one (1) certified food service
manager on staff, who is either physically present or available by electronic or
telephonic means whenever the food establishment is in operation.
b. A food service establishment has ninety (90) days to replace a certified food
service manager who is no longer employed at the food service establishment
location.
REGULATION 75. Communicable Disease
a. Notwithstanding any other provision in this code, should the Environmental
Health Officer reasonably believe that a food EMPLOYEE service worker or
CERTIFIED food Service PROTECTION manager may be a carrier of or
infected with a communicable disease which can be transmitted to the public,
through food, the environmental health officer shall immediately notify the
Director of the Maricopa County Department of Public Health, (MCDPH) who
may: (1) examine or cause the examination of the food EMPLOYEE service
worker, and (2) secure from the food EMPLOYEE service worker or
CERTIFIED food Service PROTECTION manager appropriate specimens or
fluids of body discharge and cause them to be examined at a laboratory approved
7-5

by the Director of MCDPH or by the Arizona Department Of Health Services.
The Environmental Health Officer may exclude from any food service work any
food EMPLOYEE service worker or CERTIFIED food Service
PROTECTION manager who has or demonstrates any illness or symptoms of a
communicable disease that may be transmitted through food from food service
work. A person so excluded shall not thereafter engage in food service work until
approved by the Director of MCDPH.
b. If required by the Director of MCDPH, a food EMPLOYEE service worker or
CERTIFIED food Service PROTECTION manager shall furnish such
information, submit to physical examination, and submit such specimen for
laboratory examination, as the MCDPH Director may require for the purpose of
determining freedom from communicable disease. The failure of a food
EMPLOYEE service worker or CERTIFIED food Service PROTECTION
manager to do so to the satisfaction of the Director of MCDPH, shall be sufficient
basis for excluding the food EMPLOYEE service worker or CERTIFIED food
Service PROTECTION manager from such occupation.
c. No Change
REGULATION 86. Exemptions
Any food establishment, as defined in Chapter VIII of this code, exclusively serving
prepackaged foods that are not potentially hazardous (time/temperature control for safety) foods
is exempt from Regulations 4 and 6 2 PARAGRAPH E. of this Chapter.
7-6