EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AQ-2012-001 RULE 100 REVISIONS.PDF

Maricopa County — Formal (2013-09-25)

View PDF Item 7 Meeting page

Extracted text (via pymupdf_layout) 2035 characters
Executive Summary
Of The Report to the Board of Supervisors
Prepared by the Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Board Hearing Date: September 25, 2013
Case #/Title: AQ-2012-001-Rule 100 Revision
Agenda Item:
Supervisor Districts: All Districts
The Maricopa County Air Quality Department complied with all statutory and county policies throughout this
rulemaking process. Per the Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program 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: This rulemaking is a text amendment to add to one sentence
in Rule 100 (General Provisions and Definitions), Section 108 (Hearing Board) the requirement that County Air Quality
Hearing Board members not have a substantial interest in any person required to obtain an air pollution permit or subject to
enforcement orders issued under the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations. This amendment is intended to
resolve the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) disapproval of the 2009 Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) - a deficiency in a SIP revision submitted by the State of Arizona to address the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the Clean Air Act for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the
1997 and 2006 NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM2.5).
Overview Of Stakeholder Input And Staff Responses: No comments in support or in opposition of this rulemaking
have been received to date; however, during the 30-day public comment period for this rulemaking, an air quality-related
comment was submitted via the Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program (EROP) website. The commenter recommended
that there be alternating days for leaf blower use or that leaf blower use be banned. The commenter did not want to be
contacted.