AQ-2021-002-R270-BOSREPORT-2022-05-18.PDF

Executive Summary 
of the Report to the Board of Supervisors 
Prepared by Maricopa County Air Quality Department 
Board Hearing Date: 
June 22, 2022 
Case Number/Title:  
AQ-2021-002-Rule 270 (Performance Tests) 
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  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: 
Rule 270 establishes performance testing requirements for owners and operators of permitted 
sources that are required to conduct performance tests. This rule was last revised in 1993. The 
purpose of this rulemaking is to update, clarify, and enhance the rule. The proposed revisions to 
Rule 270 include the following: 

Adding an Applicability Section

Adding a Definitions Section with the following definitions: Force Majeure,
Performance Test, Start-Up (with hyphen), Startup (no hyphen), and Test Protocol

Clarifying performance test requirements in § 301.1 by updating Code of Federal
Regulations references to reflect current permitting practices

Removing outdated language including references to the Arizona Testing Manual and
references to sources that do not exist in Maricopa County

Incorporating ASTM D4840-99 “Standard Guide for Sample Chain-of-Custody
Procedures” to clarify the standard guide for sample chain-of-custody procedures and
clarifying the chain of custody procedures shall follow ASTM D4840-99 unless
alternative chain of custody procedures are approved by the Control Officer

Clarifying performance test timeframes and testing criteria

Clarifying Relative Accuracy Test Audits shall be conducted in accordance with the
quality assurance procedures in the applicable federal regulations

Adding a Notification Section to clarify requirements for notice of start-up and notice
of testing

Adding a section addressing test report submission requirements

Clarifying the test report submittal timeframes for single and multiple pieces of
equipment at Title V sources and Non-Title V sources

Adding a Monitoring and Records Section
1

Overview of Stakeholder Input and Staff Responses: 
During the rulemaking process, MCAQD has received written comments from five stakeholders. 
One stakeholder expressed support and four stakeholders expressed neither support nor opposition 
to the rulemaking. MCAQD evaluated the comments and drafted responses. The stakeholder 
comments and the MCAQD responses to the comments are included in Section 9 of the attached 
Draft Notice of Final Rulemaking. 
2

Report to the Board of Supervisors 
Prepared by the Maricopa County Air Quality Department 
Board of Health Meeting Date: 
April 25, 2022 
Board Hearing Date: 
June 22, 2022 
Case Number/Title: 
AQ-2021-002-Rule 270 (Performance Tests) 
Agenda Item: 
(Pending) 
Supervisor Districts: 
All Districts 
Applicant:  
Staff 
Request: 
Approve revisions to Maricopa County Air Pollution Control 
Regulations, Rule 270 (Performance Tests). 
Rule 270 establishes performance testing requirements for 
owners and operators of sources that are required to conduct 
performance tests. This rule was last revised in 1993. The 
purpose of this rulemaking is to update, clarify, and enhance 
the rule. A summary of the proposed revisions is included in 
Section 4 of the attached Draft Notice of Final Rulemaking. 
Support/Opposition: 
During the rulemaking process, the Maricopa County Air 
Quality Department (MCAQD) has received written 
comments from five stakeholders. One stakeholder expressed 
support and four stakeholders expressed neither support nor 
opposition to the rulemaking. MCAQD evaluated the 
comments and drafted responses. The stakeholder comments 
and the MCAQD responses to the comments are included in 
Section 9 of the attached Draft Notice of Final Rulemaking. 
Staff 
Recommendation: 
Approve 
Board of Health 
Recommendation: 
Approve 
Additional Comments: 
This regulatory change is following procedures identified in 
state statutes and the Maricopa County Enhanced Regulatory 
Outreach Program (EROP) Policy. The County Manager 
briefed the Board of Supervisors regarding this rulemaking in 
June 2021. Stakeholder Workshops were held on September 
8, 2021, and February 15, 2022. On October 25, 2021, the 
Board of Health approved initiation of the regulatory change, 
and a Notice of Proposed rulemaking was posted on the 
EROP website on March 8, 2022. On April 25, 2022, the 
3

Board of Health made a recommendation to the Board of 
Supervisors to approve the proposed revisions to Rule 270. 
A newspaper notice of the Board of Supervisors public 
hearing will be published in the Arizona Business Gazette on 
May 19, 2022, and May 26, 2022. 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) 
Draft Rule 270 - Strikethrough/underlined version 
Draft Rule 270 - Clean version 
Minutes from Board of Health meeting 
Copies of all written and electronic Stakeholder input 
4

DRAFT NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING 
MARICOPA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS 
REGULATION II – PERMITS AND FEES 
RULE 270: PERFORMANCE TESTS 
The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) is proposing to revise Rule 270 
(Performance Tests). 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 Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 49-471.05, and the full 
text of the rule, including the intended actions to make new sections or amend, repeal, or renumber 
the sections of the rule. This notice also includes a list of all previous notices posted on the 
Maricopa County EROP website addressing the proposed rule and the concise explanatory 
statement prescribed in A.R.S. § 49-471.07(B). 
PREAMBLE 
1.
Statutory authority for the rulemaking:
A.R.S. §§ 49-112, 49-474, 49-479, and 49-480
2.
Name and address of department personnel with whom persons may communicate
regarding the rulemaking:
Name:
Scott Kahldon or Kimberly Butler 
Maricopa County Air Quality Department 
Planning and Analysis Division 
Address: 
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 410 
Phoenix, AZ 85003 
Telephone: 
602-506-6010 
Fax: 
602-506-6179 
Email: 
AQPlanning@maricopa.gov 
Online: 
Submit a Comment 
3.
Rulemaking process:
This rulemaking is following procedures identified in state statutes and the Maricopa County
EROP Policy.
County Manager Briefing:
June 17, 2021 
Stakeholder Workshops:
September 8, 2021 
February 15, 2022 
Board of Health Meeting to Initiate
Regulatory Change:
October 25, 2021 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
March 8, 2022 
Board of Health Meeting to Recommend
Approval to the Board of Supervisors:
April 25, 2022 
Return to list of attachments
5

Board of Supervisors Formal Meeting to Set 
the Public Hearing: 
May 18, 2022 
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: 
June 22, 2022 
4.
Explanation of the rule, including the control officer's reasons for initiating the
rulemaking:
Rule 270 establishes performance testing requirements for owners and operators of
permitted sources that are required to conduct performance tests. This rule was last revised
in 1993. The purpose of this rulemaking is to update, clarify, and enhance the rule. The
proposed revisions to Rule 270 include the following:

Adding an Applicability Section

Adding a Definitions Section with the following definitions: Force Majeure,
Performance Test, Start-Up (with hyphen), Startup (no hyphen), and Test Protocol

Clarifying performance test requirements in § 301.1 by updating Code of Federal
Regulations references to reflect current permitting practices

Removing outdated language including references to the Arizona Testing Manual and
references to sources that do not exist in Maricopa County

Incorporating ASTM D4840-99 “Standard Guide for Sample Chain-of-Custody
Procedures” to clarify the standard guide for sample chain-of-custody procedures and
clarifying the chain of custody procedures shall follow ASTM D4840-99 unless
alternative chain of custody procedures are approved by the Control Officer

Clarifying performance test timeframes and testing criteria

Clarifying Relative Accuracy Test Audits shall be conducted in accordance with the
quality assurance procedures in the applicable federal regulations

Adding a Notification Section to clarify requirements for notice of start-up and notice
of testing

Adding a section addressing test report submission requirements

Clarifying the test report submittal timeframes for single and multiple pieces of
equipment at Title V sources and Non-Title V sources

Adding a Monitoring and Records Section
5.
Studies relied on in the control officer's evaluation of or justification for the rule and
where the public may obtain or review the studies, all data underlying the studies,
any analysis of the studies and other supporting material.
Not applicable.
6.
An economic, small business and consumer impact statement:
The following discussion addresses each of the elements required for an economic, small
business and consumer impact statement, as prescribed by A.R.S. §§ 41-1055(A)(B)(C), and
41-1035:
An identification of the proposed rulemaking, including all of the following:
Return to list of attachments
6

This rulemaking is proposing to revise Rule 270. 
(a) The conduct and its frequency of occurrence that the rule is designed to change. 
Not Applicable. Rule 270 is being revised to update and enhance the rule since the rule 
was last revised in 1993. The majority of the revisions mirror the performance testing 
requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations and standard permit conditions used in 
Maricopa County Air Quality Permits. 
(b) The harm resulting from the conduct the rule is designed to change and the 
likelihood it will continue to occur if the rule is not changed. 
Not Applicable. Rule 270 is being revised to update and enhance the rule since the rule 
was last revised in 1993. The majority of the revisions mirror the performance testing 
requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations and standard permit conditions used in 
Maricopa County Air Quality Permits. 
(c) The estimated change in frequency of the targeted conduct expected from the 
rule change. 
Not Applicable. Rule 270 is being revised to update and enhance the rule since the rule 
was last revised in 1993. The majority of the revisions mirror the performance testing 
requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations and standard permit conditions used in 
Maricopa County Air Quality Permits. 
A brief summary of the information included in the economic, small business and 
consumer impact statement. 
The economic, small business and consumer impact statement addresses each of the 
elements required for an economic, small business and consumer impact statement, as 
prescribed by A.R.S. §§ 41-1055(A)(B)(C), and 41-1035. 
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: 
Scott Kahldon or Kimberly Butler 
Maricopa County Air Quality Department 
Planning and Analysis Division 
Address: 
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 410 
Phoenix, AZ 85003 
Telephone: 
602-506-6010 
Fax: 
602-506-6179 
Email: 
AQPlanning@maricopa.gov 
Online: 
Submit a Comment 
An identification of the persons who will be directly affected by, bear the costs of or 
directly benefit from the proposed rulemaking. 
This rulemaking affects permitted sources in Maricopa County required to conduct a 
performance test. 
A cost benefit analysis of the following: 
7

(a) The probable costs and benefits to the implementing agency and other agencies 
directly affected by the implementation and enforcement of the proposed 
rulemaking. 
This rulemaking should not impose any new costs on MCAQD or on any other agencies 
affected by the proposed rulemaking. 
(b) The probable costs and benefits to a political subdivision of this state directly 
affected by the implementation and enforcement of the proposed rulemaking. 
This rulemaking should not impose any new costs on political subdivisions of this state 
affected by the proposed rulemaking. 
(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. 
The purpose of this rulemaking is to update, clarify, and enhance the rule. MCAQD does 
not anticipate this rulemaking will have significant economic impacts on businesses. 
A general description of the probable impact on private and public employment in 
businesses, agencies and political subdivisions of this state directly affected by the 
proposed rulemaking. 
This rulemaking should not have any impact on private and public employment in 
businesses, agencies, or political subdivisions of this state. 
A statement of the probable impact of the proposed rulemaking on small businesses. 
The statement shall include: 
(a) An identification of the small businesses subject to the proposed rulemaking. 
This rulemaking affects permitted sources in Maricopa County required to conduct a 
performance test. 
(b) The administrative and other costs required for compliance with the proposed 
rulemaking. 
There are no significant administrative costs required for compliance with the proposed 
rulemaking.  
(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.
This rulemaking does not impose any significant new compliance requirements or
reporting requirements on small businesses.
ii. Establish less stringent schedules or deadlines in the rule for compliance or
reporting requirements for small businesses.
This rulemaking does not impose any significant new compliance requirements or
reporting requirements on small businesses.
iii. Consolidate or simplify the rule's compliance or reporting requirements for
small businesses.
8

This rulemaking does not impose any significant new compliance requirements or 
reporting requirements on small businesses. 
iv. Establish performance standards for small businesses to replace design or
operational standards in the rule.
This rulemaking does not impose any new design or operational requirements on
small businesses.
v. Exempt small businesses from any or all requirements of the rule.
This rulemaking does not impose any significant new requirements on small
businesses.
(d) The probable cost and benefit to private persons and consumers who are directly 
affected by the proposed rulemaking. 
This rulemaking should not result in any significant costs for private persons and 
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. 
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 purpose of this rulemaking is to update, clarify and enhance Rule 270. 
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 June 22, 2022.
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
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 
9

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. 
MCAQD is in compliance with A.R.S. §§ 49-112(A)(B). This rulemaking is not making the 
rule more stringent. 
9.
List of all previous notices posted to the Maricopa County EROP website addressing
the proposed rule and a concise explanatory statement, as prescribed by A.R.S. § 49-
471.07(B):
(a) List of all previous notices posted to the Maricopa County EROP website
addressing the proposed rule: 
Notice 
Date of Posting 
Briefing Notification to County Manager: 
July 14, 2021 
Notices of Stakeholder Workshop: 
August 23, 2021 
February 1, 2022 
Notice of Board of Health Meeting to InitiateRegulatory 
Change: 
October 8, 2021 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: 
March 8, 2022 
Notice of Board of Health Meeting to Make a 
Recommendation to the Board of Supervisors: 
April 11, 2022 
(b) The following discussion addresses each of the elements required for a concise 
explanatory statement, as prescribed by A.R.S. § 49-471.07(B): 
10

i.
A description of any change between the proposed rule or ordinance, the final
rule or ordinance or notice of final supplemental rule or ordinance.
The following changes were made after the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was
published on March 8, 2022.
1.
In Section 301.6(d), MCAQD removed “without good cause” and replaced it
with “for reasons other than force majeure”, removed “forced shutdown, failure
of an irreplaceable portion of the sample train, extreme meteorological
conditions, or other circumstances beyond the operator's control” and replaced it
with “acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety
hazard beyond the control of the permitted source”, and removed "shall" and
replaced it with "may". The section now reads as follows:
§ 301.6(d): If the Control Officer is present, tests may only be stopped with the
Control Officer's approval. If the Control Officer is not present, tests may only 
be stopped for force majeure, which includes acts of nature, acts of war or 
terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the 
permitted source. Termination of testing for reasons other than force majeure 
after the first test run has commenced may constitute a failure of the test. 
2.
MCAQD removed “test method” in portions of the rule and replaced it with
“EPA method(s)” to standardize the rule.
3.
MCAQD removed “source” in portions of the rule and replaced it with either
“performance” or “equipment” or removed it without replacement for rule
clarity. Additionally, “affected” was removed in portions of the rule and replaced
with “permitted” or “equipment” for rule clarity.
4.
MCAQD removed the last sentence in § 301.1 “contains the list of test methods
available for emission measurement” to clarify the rule.
5.
MCAQD restructured § 401 for rule clarity. The section was revised as indicated
below:
401 PERFORMANCE TEST TIME FRAMES: A performance test shall be
conducted per the requirements of this rule as required below. However, 
RATAs shall be conducted in accordance with the quality assurance 
procedures in the applicable federal regulations. The testing deadline may be 
extended by the Control Officer for good cause, but in no case shall the 
testing deadline, including report submittal, extend beyond 180 days. 
401.1 Shall test equipment within 60 days of start-up; and 
401.2 Shall test equipment as specified in the permit. 
6.
MCAQD made additional minor grammatical revisions to improve rule clarity
and standardization.
ii. A summary of the comments and arguments for and against the notice and
the county’s response to the comments and arguments.
The following discussion evaluates the arguments for and against the rule and
includes responses to comments received on the proposed rule or the preamble in
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The MCAQD received written comments from
Return to list of attachments
11

five stakeholders. All of the comments were reviewed and evaluated by 
MCAQD. 
Comment #1: I am a concerned citizen regarding pollution and emissions, especially 
since in the past there were plans to do mountainside "mining" with homes as close 
as 80 feet to the "mine". I would appreciate clarification as to the removal of 
reference to Method 9 from Rule 270, but it remains as a measurement under Rule 
316 and possibly other Rules. First, visual inspection of what is being released into 
the air by the naked eye seems an unacceptable and antiquated method of 
measurement. If something can be seen, there is already too much of whatever in the 
air. The idea of 7% opacity, 12% opacity seems such a unscientific method for 
measurement of emissions or particulate matter when there are more accurate 
methods available. The amount of pollution in our area is unacceptable as it is. Please 
advise the reasoning behind Method 9 from Rule 270 and if other Rules which 
reference Method 9 will be changed or if not, why not. Thank you! 
Response #1: Thank you for your comment. To clarify, Test Method 9 has not 
been removed from Rule 270. Test Method 9 is found in 40 CFR (Code of Federal 
Regulations) 60 in Appendix A-4. The Maricopa County Air Quality Department 
(MCAQD) has incorporated the CFR into the rule as this enables MCAQD and 
regulated facilities to utilize current test methods approved by the EPA and any 
future test methods that the EPA may approve.  Rule 270 references 40 CFR 60 in 
Section 301.1 of draft Rule 270 which states: 
Section 301.1 The applicable procedures and testing methods contained in 40 CFR 
51, Appendix M, 40 CFR 52, Appendices D and E, 40 CFR 60, Appendices A, B, 
and F, 40 CFR 61, Appendix B, and 40 CFR 63, Appendix A shall be used to 
determine compliance with the requirements established in this rule or contained in 
permits issued pursuant to this rule. For a list of Promulgated Test Methods, 
Proposed Test Methods, Approved Alternative Methods, Conditional Test Methods, 
and Other Test Methods, the EPA’s Air Emission Measurement Center website 
contains the list of test methods available for emission measurement. 
Comment #2: Section 202: Definition of Performance Test - [Our company] would 
like to suggest removal of relative accuracy test audit from the proposed definition of 
performance test. A RATA is a method to compare the CEM system performance 
against an independent reference method, not a test to measure the amount of a 
specified regulated pollutant, pollutants, or surrogates being emitted; or to 
demonstrate the capture efficiency of a capture system. 
In some cases, as approved by the Control Officer, multiple RATA runs may be 
combined to meet the requirements of a performance test. In other cases (e.g. CEMS 
recertification), a RATA test is only fulfilling the QA/QC obligation and not used to 
show compliance with an emission rate or capture efficiency, and is not considered a 
performance test. By including RATA in the definition, all RATA tests would be 
considered performance test, which is not the case and in conflict with multiple 
sections of the rule – such as, test methods, minimum testing requirements, and 
performance test timeframes. Specifically, proposed section 301.1 only includes test 
methods from Part 51, 52, 60, and 63, while Part 75 is not included. The exclusion of 
Part 75 could be interpreted to mean that a facility is always required to comply with 
a listed requirement anytime a RATA is completed – Even when a RATA is 
12

completed as a standalone quality assurance evaluation (e.g. RATA completed after 
umbilical line replacement or as a step to certify CEMS). 
When cumulative RATA runs are used to show compliance, they would 
automatically meet the proposed definition, so the inclusion of RATA in the 
definition is unnecessary. 
Response #2: The purpose for keeping the Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) in 
the rule is to ensure the stack testing portion of the RATA, where EPA reference 
methods are utilized to measure NOx, CO, and O2 concentrations in the exhaust 
stack, meets applicable requirements.  The MCAQD did revise Section 401 
(Performance Test Time Frames) as shown below to clarify RATAs shall be 
conducted in accordance with quality assurance procedures in the applicable federal 
regulations. 
401 PERFORMANCE TEST TIME FRAMES: A performance test shall be 
conducted on a source subject to the requirements of this rule as required below. 
Except RATAs shall be conducted in accordance with quality assurance procedures 
in the applicable federal regulations. The testing deadline may be extended by the 
Control Officer for good cause, but in no case shall the testing deadline, including 
report submittal, extend beyond 180 days. 
401.1 Shall test equipment within 60 days of start-up; and 
401.2 Shall test equipment as specified in the permit. 
Additionally, the MCAQD revised Section 301.1 (Performance Test Requirements) 
and added 40 CFR 75, Appendices A and B to clarify anytime a RATA subject to 
Part 75 is completed. 
Comment #3: Section 204: Definition of Start-Up - [Our Company] would like to 
suggest the removal of the start-up definition from the rule. 
The defined term is trying to capture two different scenarios, both create confusion. 
One where a newly constructed/modified unit is initially starting up and the other 
where a unit has been brought online after an extended period of non-operation. 
These scenarios are not the same thing and intuitively are not what a person reading 
a rule would consider a startup. Commonly, the term startup means the unit is 
coming back into operation after just a short period time (e.g., for the day, to fulfill 
operational needs, etc.) or in the case of an electric generating unit, startup may also 
be a mode of operation. In fact, the language of the rule includes the language start-
up/startup as the newly defined term and as the common understanding. Below we 
breakdown the use of start-up/startup in the rule and provide additional comments. 
Rule Section 
Proposed Rule Language 
[Our Company] Comment 
Proposed 
Section 301.4 
Operations during periods of 
start-up, shutdown, and 
malfunction shall not constitute 
representative conditions for the 
purpose of a performance test 
nor shall emissions in excess of 
the level of the relevant standard 
during periods of startup, 
Language reflects a 
period of operation, 
not the defined term. 
13

shutdown, and malfunction… 
Proposed 
Section 401.2 
Shall test equipment within 60 
days of start-up; and 
Language reflects the defined 
term. 
Proposed 
Section 404.1 
Notice of Startup: the owner or 
operator shall notify the 
department in writing within 14 
calendar days after the new 
applicable equipment has 
achieved the capability to operate 
at its maximum capacity. 
Language reflects the 
defined term. Language in 
this section is inconsistent 
with the definition of start-
up where there is reference 
to maximum production rate on 
a sustained basis versus 
maximum capacity. The 
existing language in section 
401 also included the 
language, maximum production 
rate on a sustained basis. 
Seemingly the definition was added to ensure equipment that is new or newly 
modified or recently returned to service conduct performance testing, but language 
within the existing rule already accomplishes this and is described in more detail 
below. 
Existing Section 401 Language 
[Our Company] Comments 
Within 60 days after a source subject 
to the permit requirements of this rule 
has achieved the capability to operate 
at its maximum production rate on a 
sustained basis but no later than 180 
days after the initial start-up of such 
source 
This language effectively captures the 
need to conduct performance tests on 
new or newly modified pieces of 
equipment and is consistent with 
Federal language. 
This language also automatically allows 
for up to 180 days versus the proposed 
language only allows an extension if 
and at other times as may be required 
by the Control Officer, the owner or 
operator of such source shall conduct 
performance tests and shall furnish the 
Control Officer with a written report of 
the results of the tests. 
This language effectively captures any 
other scenario in which the agency 
would like for a performance test to be 
conducted on a piece of equipment; 
including a piece of equipment that 
returns to service after an extended 
If the definition for start-up remains in the rule, [Our Company] provides the 
following comments. 
The definition needs to be improved to clarify what an extended period of non-
operation means and what type of notification the agency is referencing. An 
example of where this could be misunderstood, is a 7-day letter is provided to 
agency to notify them of a simple like-kind replacement and the unit for a variety 
pack of reasons remains offline for several months. Clearly, the agency does not 
intend to require additional performance testing for this piece of equipment, but 
the plain English reading of the definition could result in just that. [Our 
Company] has provided proposed language for your consideration below. 
Rule Section 
Proposed Rule Language 
[Our Company] Comment 
14

START-UP: The moment an emission unit has reached the capability to 
operate at its maximum production rate on a sustained basis or the moment a 
piece of equipment is put back into operation after an extended period of 
non-operation, which the department was notified and where a performance 
test(s) would have otherwise been conducted. 
Both startup and start-up are used throughout the document. It may be helpful if 
the definition of start-up remains in the rule to use start-up each time the term is 
related to the defined term and use startup when the term is related to starting up 
for typical operations or in reference to a mode of operation. 
Response #3: MCAQD considered your comment and will not be removing the 
definition of start-up from the rule, however, for rule clarity, MCAQD revised the 
definition of start-up (with hyphen) and added a definition for startup (no hyphen) as 
seen below. The definition of start-up (with hyphen) applies to new units and 
existing units that have been placed back into operation after an extended period of 
non-operation that led to a missed performance test. 
203 
START-UP (WITH HYPHEN): The moment a new piece of equipment has 
reached its capability to operate at its maximum production rate; or the 
moment an existing piece of equipment is placed back into operation after 
missing its last scheduled performance test and has reached its capability to 
operate at its maximum production rate. 
204 
STARTUP (NO HYPHEN): Relates to normal operation of equipment. 
As a reminder, the testing deadline may be extended by the Control Officer for good 
cause, but in no case shall the testing deadline, including report submittal, extend 
beyond 180 days. 
Comment #4: Section 301.2 - [Our Company] agrees chain-of-custody adherence is 
valuable to appropriate sample management, but we do not believe it is necessary to 
include an ASTM standard within the rule. This ASTM is not required for lab 
certification in all cases and may create undue burden on the facilities as well as the 
testing companies. For example, ADHS requires labs seeking Environmental 
Laboratory Licensure to establish, implement and comply with a written quality 
assurance plan that contains information including chain-of-custody documentation 
procedures with no specific standard adherence required. 
Response #4: MCAQD considered your comment and revised § 301.2 as follows: 
301.2 The chain of custody procedures in ASTM D4840-99 “Standard Guide for 
Sample Chain-of-Custody Procedures” shall be followed for all performance 
testing unless alternative chain of custody procedures are approved by the 
Control Officer. 
Comment #5: Section 301.5 - Language from NSPS added to section 301.5 could 
result in compliance issues or undue burden for units not required to comply with 
NSPS requirements. Because this rule will regulate units outside of Part 60 
applicability, [Our Company] recommends either removing the language (facility 
specific requirements could be included in permit) or updating the language of 
301.5a to include more flexibility. [Our Company] has provided proposed language 
for your consideration below. 
15

a. Sampling ports adequate for test methods appliable to such source that meet the 
requirements as published in 40 CFR Part 51, 60, 61, and 63; or as specified by 
permit language, 
Response #5: MCAQD considered your comment but determined it was not 
necessary to revise the language. The language in § 301.5 is from the current rule 
with the exception of § 301.5(a)(1) and 301.5(a)(2), however the new language is 
consistent with EPA reference method sampling requirements. Even though a unit 
may not be subject to an NSPS, performance testing requirements for sample port 
locations still need to meet EPA reference method 1. 
Comment #6: Section 401 Performance Test Time Frames - [Our Company] would 
like to comment that the proposed language does not add clarity or value. Section 
401.1 states, shall test equipment within 60 days of permit issuance. It is not clear 
what type of permit issuance would require testing – initial issuance, issuance after a 
modification (administrative, minor and/or major), issuance after renewal, etc. 
Section 401.2 includes the defined term start-up which is also not clear, as mentioned 
previously in this document. Unless the definition of start-up is made clear, we 
believe the existing language of the rule should remain. If the agency would like to 
ensure units with extended outages are tested once brought back into operation, 
language could be added to section 401 to make that a requirement. Or, the agency 
could again just stick with the existing language which allowed the Control Officer to 
require testing at such other times it deems necessary. 
Response #6: MCAQD considered your comment and revised § 401 Performance 
Test Time Frames as follows: 
401 
PERFORMANCE TEST TIME FRAMES: A performance test shall be 
conducted per the requirements of this rule as required below. However, 
RATAs shall be conducted in accordance with the quality assurance 
procedures in the applicable federal regulations. The testing deadline may be 
extended by the Control Officer for good cause, but in no case shall the 
testing deadline, including report submittal, extend beyond 180 days. 
401.1 Shall test equipment within 60 days of start-up; and 
401.2 Shall test equipment as specified in the permit. 
Comment #7: Section 404.2 Notice of Testing - [Our Company] would request that 
the agency add language to make the notification only required if test schedule is not 
provided in the Performance Test Protocol. 
Response #7: MCAQD considered your comment and revised § 404.2 as follows:  
404.2 Notice of Testing: the owner or operator shall notify MCAQD in writing at 
least two weeks prior to the actual date and time of each performance test 
unless otherwise specified in the applicable standard or permit so MCAQD 
may have an observer attend. A separate notice of testing is not required if 
the actual date and time is submitted with the test protocol. 
Comment #8: Section 405 Test Report Submission - Submittal of test reports 
within 30 days is too aggressive and should be pushed to at least 45 days. The section 
should also include language to allow longer submittal timeframes as approved by 
the Control Officer. 
16

Test companies take a considerable amount of time to compile information to 
complete a test report and often the duration is longer when multiple pieces of 
equipment undergo testing at a facility. Other factors impacting report turnaround 
time may include timeframes for required analysis, backlogs of the testing company 
and/or laboratories, travel time, etc. Prior to submittal to the agency, we then review 
the reports for any errors or missing information. We consider these submittals to be 
very important and if deadlines are set at 30 days, we are concerned there will not be 
enough time for a robust and thorough review. 
[Our Company] would also like to comment that the test report submittal 
requirements in the proposed rule do not reflect the current guidance provided by 
the agency. Currently, the agency allows for test reports to be submitted within the 
timeframes specific by permit (e.g. 45 days), after the testing program is complete. 
So, if a facility conducted testing on 5 pieces of equipment over a 5-day period, the 
clock for test report submittal would not start until the last day of testing. The 
proposed language could be read to mean that reports for each individual 
performance test shall be submitted within the specified timeframe. So, a facility 
testing under the same scenario, would have the clock start for test report submittals 
five different times. [Our Company] does not believe this is the intention of the 
agency and would request the proposed language be updated to avoid confusion. 
Response #8: MCAQD considered your comment and revised § 405 as seen below. 
MCAQD added the days associated with Title V sources and Non-Title V sources to 
differentiate test report submittal requirements and also added language for 
submitting reports for a single piece of equipment or multiple pieces of equipment. 
405 
TEST REPORT SUBMISSION: The owner or operator shall complete and 
submit test reports for performance tests as follows, unless otherwise 
approved by the Control Officer or as specified in the permit. 
405.1 Test reports shall be submitted to MCAQD within 30 days (Non-Title V 
sources) and within 45 days (Title V sources) after: 
a. The last day of testing of a single piece of equipment; or 
b. The conclusion of testing multiple pieces of equipment with no more 
than 14 calendar days between tests. 
405.2 Submit a separate test report for each piece of equipment tested. 
405.3 All test reports shall be submitted in electronic format and shall provide all 
required information (in accordance with the test protocol review) to 
determine whether or not the equipment has successfully demonstrated 
compliance. 
Comment #9: General Comments on Rule 270 - As described in further detail 
below, [Our Company] firmly believes that Relative Accuracy Test Audits (RATAs) 
and performance tests are subsets of stack tests. Therefore, [Our Company] suggests 
renaming Rule 270 Performance Tests to Rule 270 Stack Tests. The renaming of the 
rule will not change the applicability or scope of the rule but will provide clarity that 
RATAs are not themselves performance tests. With the change of the rule name and 
the proposed revisions to the definitions, provided below, references to performance 
testing will need to be updated to stack testing as necessary throughout the rule. 
17

Response #9: MCAQD considered your comment and determined the rule title 
should remain Performance Tests as the term is used throughout Maricopa County 
Air Pollution Control Regulations. In addition, MCAQD revised § 401 to address 
concerns regarding RATAs as follows:  
401 
PERFORMANCE TEST TIME FRAMES: A performance test shall be 
conducted per the requirements of this rule as required below. However, 
RATAs shall be conducted in accordance with the quality assurance 
procedures in the applicable federal regulations. The testing deadline may be 
extended by the Control Officer for good cause, but in no case shall the 
testing deadline, including report submittal, extend beyond 180 days. 
401.1 Shall test equipment within 60 days of start-up; and 
401.2 Shall test equipment as specified in the permit. 
Comment #10: Section 202: Performance Test - [Our Company] suggests revisions 
to Section 202 to correctly categorize RATAs as quality assurance activities rather 
than performance tests. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Air 
Act National Stack Testing Guidance defines stack testing to include RATAs and 
performance tests but narrows the definition of performance testing to testing which 
is conducted for the purpose of determining and demonstrating compliance with an 
applicable standard. While RATAs are a subset of stack testing and in some instances 
are conducted simultaneously with performance tests, even utilizing the same data, 
RATAs themselves are not and should not be considered performance tests. 
[Our Company] understands MCAQD’s desire to witness RATAs to ensure the 
reference method sampling system is operated in accordance with the applicable 
reference methods and only requests that clarification be added to the definitions to 
identify RATAs and performance tests as subsets of stack testing. [Our Company] 
proposes the following revisions to proposed Section 202 and the addition of a new 
definition for “Performance Test”:   
202 PERFORMANCE STACK TEST: A test, also referred to in EPA regulations as 
a performance or source test, or relative accuracy test audit, that measures the 
amount of a specific regulated pollutant, pollutants, or surrogates being emitted; 
demonstrates the capture efficiency of a capture system; or determines the 
destruction or removal efficiency of a control device used to reduce emissions at 
facilities subject to the requirements of the Clean Air Act. 
203 PERFORMANCE TEST: A stack test conducted for the purpose of 
determining and demonstrating compliance with an applicable standard using 
promulgated test methods, other test methods or procedures cited in the applicable 
subpart(s) or permit, or alternative test methods approved by the Control Officer. 
The separation of RATAs and performance tests within the rule also provides 
additional clarity on the testing time frames (Section 401). Section 401 requires 
performance test to be conducted within either 60 days of permit issuance or 60 days 
of start-up, or according to the test frequency defined in the permit. 
While these time frames are comparable to the time frames found in federal 
regulations (NSPS and NESHAP) for performance testing, they do not align with 
the initial certification time frames for continuous emissions monitoring systems 
(CEMS). For example, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 75 operators are allowed up 
18

to 720 operating hours to complete a RATA for initial certification of a CEMS. 
Being based on the unit’s actual operation could extend the RATA deadline out past 
the 60-day time frames included in the rule. 
Response #10: The purpose for keeping RATA in the rule is to ensure the stack 
testing portion of the RATA, where EPA reference methods are utilized to measure 
NOx, CO, and O2 concentrations in the exhaust stack, meets applicable 
requirements. To address concerns about RATA testing time frames, MCAQD 
revised § 401 Performance Test Time Frames as follows:  
401 
PERFORMANCE TEST TIME FRAMES: A performance test shall be 
conducted per the requirements of this rule as required below. However, 
RATAs shall be conducted in accordance with the quality assurance 
procedures in the applicable federal regulations. The testing deadline may be 
extended by the Control Officer for good cause, but in no case shall the 
testing deadline, including report submittal, extend beyond 180 days. 
401.1 Shall test equipment within 60 days of start-up; and 
401.2 Shall test equipment as specified in the permit. 
Comment #11: Section 203: Performance Test Protocol - [Our Company] suggests 
adding two minor clarifications to the definition of “Performance Test Protocol” as 
shown below: 
203 STACK PERFORMANCE TEST PROTOCOL: A site-specific test plan that 
includes information about the facility and process(es), a test program summary, the 
test schedule (if available), data quality objectives, and both an internal and external 
quality assurance (QA) program. 
Response #11: MCAQD considered your comment and revised § 205 as seen 
below. The word performance was removed to simplify and standardize the use of 
the term Test Protocol throughout the rule. 
205 
TEST PROTOCOL: A site-specific test plan that includes information about 
the facility and process(es), a test program summary, the test schedule if 
available, data quality objectives, and both an internal and external quality 
assurance (QA) program. 
Comment #12: Section 204: Start-Up - [Our Company] agrees with the addition of 
the definition of “Start-Up” as its inclusion provides clarity to the testing and 
notification requirements found in subsequent sections of the Rule. Below is the 
definition as written in the proposed rule. 
204 
START-UP: The moment an emissions unit has reached the capability to 
operate at its maximum production rate on a sustained basis or the moment a piece 
of equipment is put back into operation after an extended period of non-operation 
of which the department was notified. 
[Our Company] believes clarification on how a unit’s capability to operate at its 
maximum production rate is determined and who makes this determination is 
needed. The act of a unit operating in some capacity is not indictive of the unit’s 
ability to operate at its maximum production rate on a sustained basis. For an 
electrical generating unit, the construction contractor or unit manufacturer will 
require a shakedown period prior to turning over operations of the unit to the owner 
19

or operator. Testing during this shakedown period would not represent normal 
operations. 
[Our Company] also seeks further clarification on what would be considered an 
“extended period of non-operation”. Electrical generating units are frequently 
brought offline for up to months at a time for routine maintenance outages. During 
these outages [Our Company] may notify MCAQD of certain projects being 
undertaken (e.g., a 7-day notification). [Our Company's] plain English reading of the 
rule would suggest that these outages could meet the definition of “Start-Up” and 
trigger performance testing requirements. 
Response #12: MCAQD considered your comment and for rule clarity, revised the 
definition of Start-Up (with hyphen) and added a definition for Startup (no hyphen) 
as seen below. Furthermore, MCAQD removed extended period of non-operation. 
The start-up definition (with hyphen) is for new units and existing units that have 
been placed back into operation after an extended period of non-operation that led 
to a missed performance test. 
203 
START-UP (WITH HYPHEN): The moment a new piece of equipment has 
reached its capability to operate at its maximum production rate; or the 
moment an existing piece of equipment is placed back into operation after 
missing its last scheduled performance test and has reached its capability to 
operate at its maximum production rate. 
204 
STARTUP (NO HYPHEN): Relates to normal operation of equipment. 
As a reminder, the testing deadline may be extended by the Control Officer for good 
cause, but in no case shall the testing deadline, including report submittal, extend 
beyond 180 days. This extension may be used to accommodate a shake-down period 
or other necessary equipment testing. 
Comment #13: Section 301.2: Chain-of-Custody Procedures - [Our Company] 
requests the ability to satisfy the chain-of-custody procedures either through the 
adherence to ASTM D4840-99 or by outlining a comparable chain-of-custody 
procedure within the approved Stack Testing Protocol. 
Response #13: MCAQD considered your comment and revised § 301.2 as follows: 
301.2 The chain of custody procedures in ASTM D4840-99 “Standard Guide for 
Sample Chain-of-Custody Procedures” shall be followed for all performance 
testing unless alternative chain of custody procedures are approved by the 
Control Officer. 
Comment #14: Section 401: Performance Test Time Frames - MCAQD has 
included significant revisions to Section 401 of this Rule. [Our Company] agrees with 
the proposed revisions to Section 401 but seeks clarification on the newly added 
Section 401.1 and a minor editorial edit in Section 401.3. 
401 PERFORMANCE TEST TIME FRAMES: A performance test shall be 
conducted on a source subject to the requirements of this rule as required 
below. 
401.1 Shall test equipment within 60 days or permit issuance; or 
401.2 Shall test equipment within 60 days of start-up; and

401.3 Shall test equipment according to the test frequency defined in the source’s 
permit. 
The testing deadline may be extended by the Control Officer for good cause, but in 
no case shall the testing deadline, including report submittal, extend beyond 180 days 
from the original test deadline. 
[Our Company] suggests adding language to Section 401.1 to identify when a permit 
issuance would trigger testing. As written, it appears that any permit issuance would 
require testing within 60 days of said issuance. 
Response #14: MCAQD considered your comment and revised § 401 Performance 
Test Time Frames as follows: 
401 
PERFORMANCE TEST TIME FRAMES: A performance test shall be 
conducted per the requirements of this rule as required below. However, 
RATAs shall be conducted in accordance with the quality assurance 
procedures in the applicable federal regulations. The testing deadline may be 
extended by the Control Officer for good cause, but in no case shall the 
testing deadline, including report submittal, extend beyond 180 days. 
401.1 Shall test equipment within 60 days of start-up; and 
401.2 Shall test equipment as specified in the permit. 
Comment #15: Section 404.2: Notice of Testing - [Our Company] requests that 
language be added to Section 404.2 to waive a separate testing notice when a test 
schedule is provided in the Stack Test Protocol. Proposed language is provided 
below: 
404.2 Notice of Testing: the owner or operator shall notify the department in 
writing at least two weeks prior to the actual date and time of each performance test 
unless otherwise specified in the applicable standard or permit so the department 
may have an observer attend. The requirement of this section shall be deemed met if 
a test schedule is provided in the required Stack Test Protocol. 
Response #15: MCAQD considered your comment and revised § 404.2 as follows:  
404.2 Notice of Testing: the owner or operator shall notify MCAQD in writing at 
least two weeks prior to the actual date and time of each performance test 
unless otherwise specified in the applicable standard or permit so MCAQD 
may have an observer attend. A separate notice of testing is not required if 
the actual date and time is submitted with the test protocol. 
Comment #16: Section 405: Test Report Submission - [Our Company] requests that 
language be added to Section 405 to incorporate MCAQD’s longstanding guidance 
for the submittal of test reports 30- or 45-days following the completion of the 
testing program rather than the individual tests. Additionally, [Our Company] 
requests language allowing for the combining of test reports for tests of similar units 
and reference methods. 
Response #16: MCAQD considered your comment and revised § 405 as seen 
below.  In addition, MCAQD added the days associated with Title V sources and 
Non-Title V sources to differentiate test report submittal requirements. For rule

clarity, we added language for submitting reports for a single piece of equipment or 
multiple pieces of equipment. 
405 
TEST REPORT SUBMISSION: The owner or operator shall complete and 
submit test reports for performance tests as follows, unless otherwise 
approved by the Control Officer or as specified in the permit. 
405.1 Test reports shall be submitted to MCAQD within 30 days (Non-Title V 
sources) and within 45 days (Title V sources) after: 
a. The last day of testing of a single piece of equipment; or 
b. The conclusion of testing multiple pieces of equipment with no more 
than 14 calendar days between tests. 
405.2 Submit a separate test report for each piece of equipment tested. 
405.3 All test reports shall be submitted in electronic format and shall provide all 
required information (in accordance with the test protocol review) to 
determine whether or not the equipment has successfully demonstrated 
compliance. 
Comment #17: [Our Company] requests a change to draft section 301.6a 
concerning test run duration. Applicable standards, such as NSPS Subpart KKKK, 
and test methods, such as EPA Reference Method 20, have specific duration 
requirements for test runs which are less burdensome than the proposed language of 
1-hour test runs. [Our Company] is concerned that for future performance tests, 
[Our Company] will be held to 1-hour test runs as written in draft section 301.6a, 
even though the applicable standard allows a shorter test run duration. 
Due to the size of [Our Company’s] turbines and the nature of [Our Company’s] 
heat and power requirements, [Our Company] has difficulty maintaining the 
expansion turbines at high loads for the entire test duration. This can be onerous, 
especially if [Our Company] must conduct test runs three times greater than the 
applicable standard. 
NSPS Subpart KKKK – Standards of Performance for Stationary Combustion 
Turbine went through extensive public comment, input, and analysis by EPA and the 
regulated industry, which included the development of test run durations. 
Additionally, EPA Reference Method 20 is the test method specifically developed for 
combustion turbines and is one of the few methods for a specific type of equipment. 
Both EPA Reference Method 20 and NSPS Subpart KKKK have specific language 
on test run length. 
If MCAQD retains the draft rule language, [Our Company] would appreciate 
clarification or comment that test run durations of less than one hour are acceptable 
as specified within the applicable standards. 
Response #17: MCAQD considered your comment concerning test run duration 
and revised § 301.6(a). MCAQD removed "requirement" and added "standard" to 
clarify test run durations outlined in a Federal standard may be acceptable. Rule 270 
addresses all types of sources within Maricopa County and MCAQD realizes facility 
specific concerns may result in deviations from a standard performance test plan. 
Therefore, the provision in the rule states "or as approved by the Control Officer."  
§ 301.6(a) reads as follows:

301.6 Minimum Testing Requirements: 
a. Each performance test shall consist of three separate test runs, unless 
otherwise specified in the applicable standard or as approved by the 
Control Officer, using the applicable EPA method(s). Each test run shall 
be conducted for at least one hour in duration unless otherwise specified 
in the applicable standard or as approved by the Control Officer. 
Adjusting or tuning the process based on real time emissions data not 
normally available to the equipment operators shall not be cause for 
testing delays and is prohibited once the test has commenced. 
Comment #18: [Our Company] believes the draft rule language change of test 
report submittals from 30 days to 45 days should apply to both Non-Title V sources 
and Title V sources. Whether a source is Non-Title V or Title V is not a direct 
indication of a performance test’s complexity or the difficult nature of reviewing and 
submitting test reports to MCAQD.  
[Our Company] conducts performance tests that are similar in nature to Title V 
facilities. Specifically, [Our Company] conducts RATAs per NSPS Subpart GG and 
performance tests based on NSPS Subpart KKKK. Though these performance tests 
are not performed as frequently as Title V sources, [Our Company] does experience 
the same issues that Title V facilities experience when submitting test report 
submittals. 
Response #18: MCAQD considered your comment on test report submittals and 
will be maintaining the 30-day (Non-Title V sources) and 45-day (Title V sources) 
submittal deadlines; however, there is Control Officer discretion in the first sentence 
of § 405 that allows for the extension of the submittal deadlines when justified. In 
addition, MCAQD added the language “or as specified in the permit” for instances 
where the permit specifies a test report submittal deadline different from the 
deadlines specified in § 405. 
§ 405 reads as follows: 
405 
TEST REPORT SUBMISSION: The owner or operator shall complete and 
submit test reports for performance tests as follows, unless otherwise 
approved by the Control Officer or as specified in the permit. 
405.1 Test reports shall be submitted to MCAQD within 30 days (Non-Title V 
sources) and within 45 days (Title V sources) after: 
a. The last day of testing of a single piece of equipment; or 
b. The conclusion of testing multiple pieces of equipment with no more 
than 14 calendar days between tests. 
Comment #19: Under the revised Rule 270, under subsection 301.6(d), the phrase 
"good cause" was previously mentioned twice. The first mention was replaced by 
"force majeure" but the second later in the subsection is still "good cause." If we are 
changing the ambiguous phrase "good cause" with "force majeure," should we not 
replace it in both instances? Defining "force majeure" and not "good cause" while 
still using the latter language seems to be an oversight. I would recommend changing 
both instances to "force majeure" to avoid ambiguity.

Response #19: MCAQD considered your comment concerning the ambiguous 
phrase "good cause" and revised § 301.6(d). MCAQD removed "without good 
cause" and replaced it with "for reasons other than force majeure" to remove 
ambiguity. In addition, based on internal review and discussion, MCAQD made two 
further revisions. 
First, to clarify the meaning of Force Majeure in § 301.6(d), MCAQD removed 
“forced shutdown, failure of an irreplaceable portion of the sample train, extreme 
meteorological conditions, or other circumstances beyond the operator's control” 
and replaced it with “acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or 
safety hazard beyond the control of the permitted source” to be consistent with the 
definition of Force Majeure in this rule. 
Second, MCAQD removed "shall" and replaced it with "may" to clarify termination 
of testing for reasons other than force majeure after the first test run has 
commenced "may" constitute a failure of the test. This may include something such 
as failure of an irreplaceable portion of the sample train. 
§ 301.6(d) reads as follows:
d. If the Control Officer is present, tests may only be stopped with the Control
Officer's approval. If the Control Officer is not present, tests may only be stopped 
for force majeure, which includes acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or 
equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the permitted source. 
Termination of testing for reasons other than force majeure after the first test run 
has commenced may constitute a failure of the test. 
EXACT WORDING OF THE RULE 
Strikethrough/Underlined Version of Draft Rule 270
MARICOPA COUNTY 
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS 
REGULATION II – PERMITS AND FEES 
RULE 270: PERFORMANCE TESTS 
INDEX 
SECTION 100 – GENERAL 
101 
PURPOSE 
102 
APPLICABILITY 
102 
103 
AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE TESTING 
103 
104 
SUPPORTIVE DATA FOR GOOD MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING 
PRACTICES 
SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS (NOT INCLUDED) 
201 
FORCE MAJEURE 
202 
PERFORMANCE TEST 
Return to list of attachments

203 
START-UP (WITH HYPHEN) 
204 
STARTUP (NO HYPHEN) 
205 
TEST PROTOCOL 
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS 
301 
PERFORMANCE TEST TESTS REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED 
SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS 
401 
PERFORMANCE TEST TESTS TIME FRAMES REQUIRED 
402 
TESTING CRITERIA 
403 
TESTING CONDITIONS 
404 
403 
NOTICE OF TESTING PROTOCOL 
404 
NOTIFICATION 
405 
TESTING FACILITIES REQUIRED 
406 
MINIMUM TESTING REQUIRED 
407 
COMPLIANCE WITH THE EMISSION LIMITS 
405 
TEST REPORT SUBMISSION 
408 
ADDITIONAL TESTING 
SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS (NOT INCLUDED) 
501 
RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING 
502 
RECORDS RETENTION

Revised 07/13/1988; Repealed and Adopted 11/15/1993; Revised MM/DD/YYYY 
MARICOPA COUNTY 
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS 
REGULATION II – PERMITS AND FEES 
RULE 270: PERFORMANCE TESTS 
SECTION 100 – GENERAL 
101 
PURPOSE: To establish performance testing requirements for an owner owners and or 
operator operators of stationary a permitted source sources. 
102 
APPLICABILITY: This rule applies to permitted sources required to conduct a 
performance test. 
102 
103 
AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE TESTING: Nothing in this rule shall be interpreted 
construed to limit abrogate the Control Officer's authority to require testing. 
103 
104 
SUPPORTIVE DATA FOR GOOD MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING 
PRACTICES: Nothing in this rule shall be interpreted so construed as to prevent the 
utilization of measurements from emissions monitoring devices or techniques not designated 
as performance tests as evidence of compliance with applicable good maintenance and 
operating requirements. 
SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS: For the purpose of this rule, the following definitions shall 
apply, in addition to those definitions found in Rule 100 (General Provisions and Definitions) of 
these rules. In the event of any inconsistency between any of the Maricopa County air pollution 
control rules, the definitions in this rule take precedence. 
201 
FORCE MAJEURE: An event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond 
the control of the permitted source, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the permitted 
source that prevents the owner or operator from complying with the regulatory requirement 
to conduct performance tests within the specified time frame despite the permitted source’s 
best efforts to fulfill the obligation. Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war 
or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the permitted 
source. 
202 
PERFORMANCE TEST: A stack test, also referred to in EPA regulations as a 
performance or source test, or relative accuracy test audit (RATA), that measures the 
amount of a specific regulated pollutant, pollutants, or surrogates being emitted; 
demonstrates the capture efficiency of a capture system; or determines the destruction or 
removal efficiency of a control device used to reduce emissions at facilities subject to the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act. 
203 
START-UP (WITH HYPHEN): The moment a new piece of equipment has reached its 
capability to operate at its maximum production rate; or the moment an existing piece of 
equipment is placed back into operation after missing its last scheduled performance test and 
has reached its capability to operate at its maximum production rate.

204 
STARTUP (NO HYPHEN): Relates to normal operation of equipment. 
205 
TEST PROTOCOL: A site-specific test plan that includes information about the facility 
and process(es), a test program summary, the test schedule if available, data quality 
objectives, and both an internal and external quality assurance (QA) program. 
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS 
301 
PERFORMANCE TEST TESTS REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED: Except as provided 
in Section 407 of this rule: 
301.1 The applicable procedures and testing EPA methods contained in the Arizona 
Testing Manual; 40 CFR 51, Appendix M, 40 CFR 52, Appendices D and E,; 40 
CFR 60, Appendices A, B, through and F, 40 CFR 61, Appendices Appendix B and 
C, and ,40 CFR 63, Appendix A, and 40 CFR 75, Appendices A and B shall be used 
to determine compliance with the requirements established in this rule or contained 
in permits issued pursuant to this rule. For a list of Promulgated EPA methods, 
Proposed EPA methods, Approved Alternative methods, Conditional EPA 
methods, and Other EPA methods, see the EPA’s Air Emission Measurement 
Center website. 
301.2 The opacity of visible emissions shall be determined by Reference Method 9 of the 
Arizona Testing Manual. A permit may specify a method other than Method 9 for 
determining the opacity of emissions from a particular emissions unit, if the method 
has been promulgated by the Administrator in 40 CFR 60, Appendix A. 
301.3 The heat content of solid fuel shall be determined according to ASTM Method D- 
3176-89 (Practice for Ultimate Analysis of Coal and Coke) and ASTM Method D-
2015- 91 (Test Method for Gross Calorific Value of Coal and Coke by the Adiabatic 
Bomb Calorimeter). 
301.2 The chain of custody procedures in ASTM D4840-99 “Standard Guide for Sample 
Chain-of-Custody Procedures” shall be followed for all performance testing unless 
alternative chain of custody procedures are approved by the Control Officer. 
301.4 301.3 All except Except for ambient air monitoring and emissions performance testing 
required under Rule 360 (New Source Performance Standards) and Rule 370 (Federal 
Hazardous Air Pollutant Program) of these rules, alternative and equivalent test 
methods in any test protocol plan submitted to the Control Officer may be approved 
by the Control Officer for the duration of that plan protocol provided that the 
following three criteria are met: 
a.
The alternative or equivalent test method measures the same chemical and
physical characteristics as the test EPA method it is intended to replace, and
b. The alternative or equivalent test method has substantially the same or better
reliability, accuracy, and precision as the test EPA method it is intended to
replace, and
c. Applicable quality assurance procedures are followed in accordance with the this
rule, Arizona Testing Manual, 40 CFR 60 the Code of Federal Regulations, or
other methods approved by the Control Officer.

403 
301.4 Testing Conditions: Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions 
as the Control Officer shall specify specifies to the owner or operator plant operator 
based on representative performance (i.e., performance based on normal operating 
conditions) of the equipment source. or facility. The owner or operator shall make 
available to the Control Officer such records as may be necessary to determine the 
conditions of the performance tests. Operations during periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction shall not constitute representative conditions for the 
purpose of a performance test, tests unless otherwise specified in the applicable 
standard. nor shall emissions in excess of the level of the relevant standard during 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction be considered a violation of the 
relevant standard unless otherwise specified in the relevant standard or a 
determination of noncompliance is made. Upon request, the owner or operator shall 
make available to the Control Officer such records as may be necessary to 
demonstrate the performance tests were conducted under representative operating 
conditions. 
405 
301.5 Testing Facilities Required: The owner or operator of a permitted source shall 
provide, or cause to be provided, performance testing facilities locations as follows: 
405.1 a. Sampling ports adequate for test methods per the applicable EPA methods to 
such source which shall include: 
(1) An air pollution control system constructed such that volumetric flows and 
pollutant emission rates can be accurately determined by applicable EPA 
methods and procedures; and 
(2) A stack or duct that is free of cyclonic flow as demonstrated by applicable 
EPA methods and procedures. 
405.2 b. Safe sampling platform(s). 
405.3 c. Safe access to sampling platforms(s). 
405.4 d. Utilities for sampling and testing equipment. 
406 
301.6 Minimum Testing Required Requirements: 
a. Each performance test shall consist of three separate test runs, unless otherwise 
specified in the applicable standard or as approved by the Control Officer, using 
the applicable test EPA method(s). Each test run shall be conducted for the time 
and under the conditions specified in the applicable standard at least one hour in 
duration unless otherwise specified in the applicable standard or as approved by 
the Control Officer. Adjusting or tuning the process based on real time 
emissions data not normally available to the equipment operators shall not be 
cause for testing delays and is prohibited once the test has commenced. 
b. For the purpose of determining compliance with an applicable requirement 
standard, the arithmetic mean of results of the three test runs shall apply. The 
same EPA method(s) shall be used simultaneously for both the inlet and outlet 
measurements, if applicable; justification for any necessary exceptions shall be 
provided in the test protocol. Emission rates, concentrations, grain loadings, 
and/or efficiencies shall be determined as the arithmetic mean of the values 
determined for each individual test run. In the event that a sample is accidentally

lost, or conditions occur in which one of the three test runs must be 
discontinued because of forced shutdown, failure of an irreplaceable portion of 
the sample train, extreme meteorological conditions, or other circumstances 
beyond the owner or operator's control, compliance may, upon the Control 
Officer's approval, be determined using the arithmetic mean of the results of the 
two other test runs. 
c. The owner or operator shall record all process and control equipment 
information that are necessary to document operating conditions during the test 
and explain why the conditions represent normal operation. Operational 
parameters shall be monitored and recorded at least once every 30 minutes 
during each of the required test runs and documented in the test report. The 
operational parameters monitored shall be capable of indicating that the 
equipment is operating within the permitted limits, both during and after the 
performance tests. 
d. If the Control Officer is present, tests may only be stopped with the Control 
Officer's approval. If the Control Officer is not present, tests may only be 
stopped for force majeure good cause, which includes acts of nature, acts of war 
or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the 
permitted source forced shutdown, failure of an irreplaceable portion of the 
sample train, extreme meteorological conditions, or other circumstances beyond 
the operator's control. Termination of testing for reasons other than force 
majeure without good cause after the first test run has is commenced may shall 
constitute a failure of the test. 
SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS 
401 
PERFORMANCE TEST TESTS TIME FRAMES REQUIRED: Within 60 days after a 
source subject to the permit requirements of this rule has achieved the capability to operate 
at its maximum production rate on a sustained basis but no later than 180 days after initial 
start-up of such source and at such other times as may be required by the Control Officer, 
the owner or operator of such source shall conduct performance tests and shall furnish the 
Control Officer with a written report of the results of the tests. A performance test shall be 
conducted per the requirements of this rule as required below. However, RATAs shall be 
conducted in accordance with the quality assurance procedures in the applicable federal 
regulations. The testing deadline may be extended by the Control Officer for good cause, 
but in no case shall the testing deadline, including report submittal, extend beyond 180 days. 
401.1 Shall test equipment within 60 days of start-up; and 
401.2 Shall test equipment as specified in the permit. 
402 
TESTING CRITERIA: Performance tests shall be conducted, and data reduced in 
accordance with the test EPA methods method and procedures contained in this rule the 
Arizona Testing Manual unless the Control Officer: 
402.1 Specifies or approves, in specific cases, the use of a reference EPA method(s) with 
minor changes in methodology, such changes may be approved in conjunction with 
approval of the test protocol; or

402.2 Approves the use of an equivalent method, Approves alternative sampling times or 
sample volumes when necessitated by process variables or other factors; or 
402.3 Approves the use of an intermediate or major change to an EPA method or the use 
of an alternative to an EPA method the results of which the Control Officer has 
determined to be adequate for indicating whether a specific source the equipment is 
in compliance; or 
402.4 Waives the requirement for performance tests because the owner or operator of a 
source has demonstrated by other means to the Control Officer's satisfaction that 
the equipment source is in compliance with the relevant standard. 
402.5 Nothing in this rule shall be interpreted to abrogate the Control Officer's authority 
to require testing. 
404 
403 
NOTICE OF TESTING PROTOCOL: The owner or operator of a permitted source 
shall provide the Control Officer two weeks prior notice of the performance test to afford 
the Control Officer the opportunity to have an observer present. a permitted source must 
submit a test protocol for each piece of equipment to be tested, unless otherwise approved 
by the Control Officer, at least 30 calendar days prior to the desired test date to allow the 
Control Officer to review and approve the site-specific test plan (in accordance with the 
quality assurance program) and to have an observer present during the test. The results of 
the quality assurance program will be considered by the Control Officer when determining 
the validity of the performance test. 
403.1 All proposed changes and/or alternatives to any EPA Method must be included in 
the test protocol in order to be considered for approval by the Control Officer. 
403.2 If the owner or operator intends to demonstrate compliance by using an alternative 
to any EPA method specified in this rule, the owner or operator is authorized to 
conduct the performance test using an alternative test method only after the Control 
Officer approves the use of the alternative method when the Control Officer 
approves the test protocol. 
403.3 Until authorized to use a change or alternative to an EPA method, the owner or 
operator of a permitted source remains subject to the requirements of this rule. 
404 
NOTIFICATION: The owner or operator of a permitted source required to conduct a 
performance test shall provide notification (as required) for the following: 
404.1 Notice of Start-up: The owner or operator shall notify the Maricopa County Air 
Quality Department (MCAQD) in writing within 14 calendar days after the 
applicable equipment has achieved the capability to operate at its maximum capacity. 
404.2 Notice of Testing: The owner or operator shall notify MCAQD in writing at least 
two weeks prior to the actual date and time of each performance test unless 
otherwise specified in the applicable standard or permit so MCAQD may have an 
observer attend. A separate notice of testing is not required if the actual date and 
time is submitted with the test protocol. 
a. In the event the owner or operator is unable to conduct the performance test on 
the date specified in the notification requirement specified in this rule due to 
unforeseeable circumstances beyond his or her control, the owner or operator

must notify the Control Officer as soon as practicable and without delay prior to 
the scheduled performance test date and specify the date when the performance 
test is rescheduled. 
b. This notification of delay in conducting the performance test shall not relieve the
owner or operator of legal responsibility for compliance with any other
applicable provisions of this rule or with any other applicable Federal, State, or
local requirement, nor will it prevent the Control Officer from implementing or
enforcing this part or taking any other action.
407 
COMPLIANCE WITH THE EMISSION LIMITS: Except as provided in Section 408 of 
this rule, compliance with the emission limits established in this rule or as prescribed in 
permits issued pursuant to this rule shall be determined by the performance tests specified in 
this rule or in the permit. 
405 
TEST REPORT SUBMISSION: The owner or operator shall complete and submit test 
reports for performance tests as follows, unless otherwise approved by the Control Officer 
or as specified in the permit. 
405.1 Test reports shall be submitted to MCAQD within 30 days (Non-Title V sources) 
and within 45 days (Title V sources) after: 
a. The last day of testing of a single piece of equipment; or
b. The conclusion of testing multiple pieces of equipment with no more than 14
calendar days between tests.
405.2 Submit a separate test report for each piece of equipment tested. 
405.3 All test reports shall be submitted in electronic format and shall provide all required 
information (in accordance with the test protocol review) to determine whether or 
not the equipment has successfully demonstrated compliance. 
408 
ADDITIONAL TESTING: In addition to performance tests specified in this rule, 
compliance with specific emission limits may be determined by: 
408.1 Opacity tests. 
408.2 Emission limit compliance tests specifically designated as such in the rule 
establishing the emission limit to be complied with. 
408.3 Continuous emission monitoring, where applicable quality assurance procedures are 
followed and where it is designated in the permit or in an applicable requirement to 
show compliance. 
408.4 Nothing in this rule shall be so construed as to prevent the utilization of 
measurements from emissions monitoring devices or techniques not designated as 
performance tests as evidence of compliance with applicable good maintenance and 
operating requirements. 
SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS: 
501 
RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING: Any owner or operator subject to this rule 
shall comply with the requirements set forth in this section. Any records and data required

by this section shall be kept on site at all times in a consistent and complete manner and be 
made available without delay to the Control Officer or his designee upon request. 
502 
RECORDS RETENTION: Copies of reports, logs, and supporting documentation 
required by the Control Officer shall be retained for at least five years. Records and 
information required by this rule shall also be retained for at least five years.

Clean Version of Draft Rule 270
MARICOPA COUNTY 
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS 
REGULATION II – PERMITS AND FEES 
RULE 270: PERFORMANCE TESTS 
INDEX 
SECTION 100 – GENERAL 
101 
PURPOSE 
102 
APPLICABILITY 
103 
AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE TESTING 
104 
SUPPORTIVE DATA FOR GOOD MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING 
PRACTICES 
SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS 
201 
FORCE MAJEURE 
202 
PERFORMANCE TEST 
203 
START-UP (WITH HYPHEN) 
204 
STARTUP (NO HYPHEN) 
205 
TEST PROTOCOL 
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS 
301 
PERFORMANCE TEST REQUIREMENTS 
SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS 
401 
PERFORMANCE TEST TIME FRAMES 
402 
TESTING CRITERIA 
403 
TESTING PROTOCOL 
404 
NOTIFICATION 
405 
TEST REPORT SUBMISSION 
SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS 
501 
RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING 
502 
RECORDS RETENTION 
Return to list of attachments

Revised 07/13/1988; Repealed and Adopted 11/15/1993; Revised MM/DD/YYYY 
MARICOPA COUNTY 
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS 
REGULATION II – PERMITS AND FEES 
RULE 270: PERFORMANCE TESTS 
SECTION 100 – GENERAL 
101 
PURPOSE: To establish performance testing requirements for an owner or operator of a 
permitted source. 
102 
APPLICABILITY: This rule applies to permitted sources required to conduct a 
performance test. 
103 
AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE TESTING: Nothing in this rule shall be interpreted to 
limit the Control Officer's authority to require testing. 
104 
SUPPORTIVE DATA FOR GOOD MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING 
PRACTICES: Nothing in this rule shall be interpreted to prevent the utilization of 
measurements from emissions monitoring devices or techniques not designated as 
performance tests as evidence of compliance with applicable good maintenance and 
operating requirements. 
SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS: For the purpose of this rule, the following definitions shall 
apply, in addition to those definitions found in Rule 100 (General Provisions and Definitions) of 
these rules. In the event of any inconsistency between any of the Maricopa County air pollution 
control rules, the definitions in this rule take precedence. 
201 
FORCE MAJEURE: An event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond 
the control of the permitted source, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the permitted 
source that prevents the owner or operator from complying with the regulatory requirement 
to conduct performance tests within the specified time frame despite the permitted source’s 
best efforts to fulfill the obligation. Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war 
or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the permitted 
source. 
202 
PERFORMANCE TEST: A stack test, also referred to in EPA regulations as a 
performance or source test, or relative accuracy test audit (RATA), that measures the 
amount of a specific regulated pollutant, pollutants, or surrogates being emitted; 
demonstrates the capture efficiency of a capture system; or determines the destruction or 
removal efficiency of a control device used to reduce emissions at facilities subject to the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act. 
203 
START-UP (WITH HYPHEN): The moment a new piece of equipment has reached its 
capability to operate at its maximum production rate; or the moment an existing piece of 
equipment is placed back into operation after missing its last scheduled performance test and 
has reached its capability to operate at its maximum production rate.

204 
STARTUP (NO HYPHEN): Relates to normal operation of equipment. 
205 
TEST PROTOCOL: A site-specific test plan that includes information about the facility 
and process(es), a test program summary, the test schedule if available, data quality 
objectives, and both an internal and external quality assurance (QA) program. 
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS 
301 
PERFORMANCE TEST REQUIREMENTS: 
301.1 The applicable procedures and EPA methods contained in 40 CFR 51, Appendix M, 
40 CFR 52, Appendices D and E, 40 CFR 60, Appendices A, B, and F, 40 CFR 61, 
Appendix B, 40 CFR 63, Appendix A, and 40 CFR 75, Appendices A and B shall be 
used to determine compliance with the requirements established in this rule or 
contained in permits issued pursuant to this rule. For a list of Promulgated EPA 
methods, Proposed EPA methods, Approved Alternative methods, Conditional 
EPA methods, and Other EPA methods, see the EPA’s Air Emission Measurement 
Center website.  
301.2 The chain of custody procedures in ASTM D4840-99 “Standard Guide for Sample 
Chain-of-Custody Procedures” shall be followed for all performance testing unless 
alternative chain of custody procedures are approved by the Control Officer. 
301.3 Except for ambient air monitoring and performance testing required under Rule 360 
(New Source Performance Standards) and Rule 370 (Federal Hazardous Air 
Pollutant Program) of these rules, alternative and equivalent test methods in any test 
protocol submitted to the Control Officer may be approved by the Control Officer 
for the duration of that protocol provided that the following three criteria are met: 
a.
The alternative or equivalent test method measures the same chemical and
physical characteristics as the EPA method it is intended to replace, and
b. The alternative or equivalent test method has substantially the same or better
reliability, accuracy, and precision as the EPA method it is intended to replace,
and
c. Applicable quality assurance procedures are followed in accordance with this
rule, the Code of Federal Regulations, or other methods approved by the Control
Officer.
301.4 Testing Conditions: Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions 
as the Control Officer specifies to the owner or operator based on representative 
performance (i.e., performance based on normal operating conditions) of the 
equipment. Operations during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction shall 
not constitute representative conditions for the purpose of a performance test, nor 
shall emissions in excess of the level of the relevant standard during periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction be considered a violation of the relevant 
standard unless otherwise specified in the relevant standard or a determination of 
noncompliance is made. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to 
the Control Officer such records as may be necessary to demonstrate the 
performance tests were conducted under representative operating conditions.

301.5 Testing Facilities Required: The owner or operator of a permitted source shall 
provide, or cause to be provided, performance testing locations as follows: 
a. Sampling ports per the applicable EPA method which shall include: 
(1) An air pollution control system constructed such that volumetric flows and 
pollutant emission rates can be accurately determined by applicable EPA 
methods and procedures; and 
(2) A stack or duct that is free of cyclonic flow as demonstrated by applicable 
EPA methods and procedures. 
b. Safe sampling platform(s). 
c. Safe access to sampling platforms(s). 
d. Utilities for sampling and testing equipment. 
301.6 Minimum Testing Requirements: 
a. Each performance test shall consist of three separate test runs, unless otherwise 
specified in the applicable standard or as approved by the Control Officer, using 
the applicable EPA method(s). Each test run shall be conducted for at least one 
hour in duration unless otherwise specified in the applicable standard or as 
approved by the Control Officer. Adjusting or tuning the process based on real 
time emissions data not normally available to the equipment operators shall not 
be cause for testing delays and is prohibited once the test has commenced. 
b. For the purpose of determining compliance with an applicable requirement, the 
arithmetic mean of results of the three test runs shall apply. The same EPA 
method(s) shall be used simultaneously for both the inlet and outlet 
measurements, if applicable; justification for any necessary exceptions shall be 
provided in the test protocol. Emission rates, concentrations, grain loadings, 
and/or efficiencies shall be determined as the arithmetic mean of the values 
determined for each individual test run. In the event that a sample is accidentally 
lost, or conditions occur in which one of the three test runs must be 
discontinued because of forced shutdown, failure of an irreplaceable portion of 
the sample train, extreme meteorological conditions, or other circumstances 
beyond the owner or operator's control, compliance may, upon the Control 
Officer's approval, be determined using the arithmetic mean of the results of the 
two other test runs. 
c. The owner or operator shall record all process and control equipment 
information that are necessary to document operating conditions during the test 
and explain why the conditions represent normal operation. Operational 
parameters shall be monitored and recorded at least once every 30 minutes 
during each of the required test runs and documented in the test report. The 
operational parameters monitored shall be capable of indicating that the 
equipment is operating within the permitted limits, both during and after the 
performance tests. 
d. If the Control Officer is present, tests may only be stopped with the Control 
Officer's approval. If the Control Officer is not present, tests may only be 
stopped for force majeure, which includes acts of nature, acts of war or 
terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the

permitted source. Termination of testing for reasons other than force majeure 
after the first test run has commenced may constitute a failure of the test. 
SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS 
401 
PERFORMANCE TEST TIME FRAMES: A performance test shall be conducted per 
the requirements of this rule as required below. However, RATAs shall be conducted in 
accordance with the quality assurance procedures in the applicable federal regulations. The 
testing deadline may be extended by the Control Officer for good cause, but in no case shall 
the testing deadline, including report submittal, extend beyond 180 days. 
401.1 Shall test equipment within 60 days of start-up; and 
401.2 Shall test equipment as specified in the permit. 
402 
TESTING CRITERIA: Performance tests shall be conducted, and data reduced in 
accordance with the EPA methods and procedures contained in this rule unless the Control 
Officer: 
402.1 Specifies or approves, in specific cases, the use of EPA method(s) with minor 
changes in methodology, such changes may be approved in conjunction with 
approval of the test protocol; or 
402.2 Approves alternative sampling times or sample volumes when necessitated by 
process variables or other factors; or 
402.3 Approves the use of an intermediate or major change to an EPA method or the use 
of an alternative to an EPA method the results of which the Control Officer has 
determined to be adequate for indicating whether the equipment is in compliance; or 
402.4 Waives the requirement for performance tests because the owner or operator has 
demonstrated by other means to the Control Officer's satisfaction that the 
equipment is in compliance with the relevant standard. 
403 
TESTING PROTOCOL: The owner or operator of a permitted source must submit a test 
protocol for each piece of equipment to be tested, unless otherwise approved by the Control 
Officer, at least 30 calendar days prior to the desired test date to allow the Control Officer to 
review and approve the site-specific test plan (in accordance with the quality assurance 
program) and to have an observer present during the test. The results of the quality 
assurance program will be considered by the Control Officer when determining the validity 
of the performance test. 
403.1 All proposed changes and/or alternatives to any test method must be included in the 
test protocol in order to be considered for approval by the Control Officer. 
403.2 If the owner or operator intends to demonstrate compliance by using an alternative 
to any EPA method specified in this rule, the owner or operator is authorized to 
conduct the performance test using an alternative test method only after the Control 
Officer approves the use of the alternative method when the Control Officer 
approves the test protocol. 
403.3 Until authorized to use a change or alternative to an EPA method, the owner or 
operator of a permitted source remains subject to the requirements of this rule.

404 
NOTIFICATION: The owner or operator of a permitted source required to conduct a 
performance test shall provide notification (as required) for the following: 
404.1 Notice of Start-up: the owner or operator shall notify the Maricopa County Air 
Quality Department (MCAQD) in writing within 14 calendar days after the 
applicable equipment has achieved the capability to operate at its maximum capacity. 
404.2 Notice of Testing: the owner or operator shall notify MCAQD in writing at least two 
weeks prior to the actual date and time of each performance test unless otherwise 
specified in the applicable standard or permit so MCAQD may have an observer 
attend. A separate notice of testing is not required if the actual date and time is 
submitted with the test protocol. 
a. In the event the owner or operator is unable to conduct the performance test on 
the date specified in the notification requirement specified in this rule due to 
unforeseeable circumstances beyond his or her control, the owner or operator 
must notify the Control Officer as soon as practicable and without delay prior to 
the scheduled performance test date and specify the date when the performance 
test is rescheduled. 
b. This notification of delay in conducting the performance test shall not relieve the 
owner or operator of legal responsibility for compliance with any other 
applicable provisions of this rule or with any other applicable Federal, State, or 
local requirement, nor will it prevent the Control Officer from implementing or 
enforcing this part or taking any other action. 
405 
TEST REPORT SUBMISSION: The owner or operator shall complete and submit test 
reports for performance tests as follows, unless otherwise approved by the Control Officer 
or as specified in the permit. 
405.1 Test reports shall be submitted to MCAQD within 30 days (Non-Title V sources) 
and within 45 days (Title V sources) after: 
a. The last day of testing of a single piece of equipment; or 
b. The conclusion of testing multiple pieces of equipment with no more than 14 
calendar days between tests. 
405.2 Submit a separate test report for each piece of equipment tested. 
405.3 All test reports shall be submitted in electronic format and shall provide all required 
information (in accordance with the test protocol review) to determine whether or 
not the equipment has successfully demonstrated compliance. 
SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS: 
501 
RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING: Any owner or operator subject to this rule 
shall comply with the requirements set forth in this section. Any records and data required 
by this section shall be kept on site at all times in a consistent and complete manner and be 
made available without delay to the Control Officer or his designee upon request. 
502 
RECORDS RETENTION: Copies of reports, logs, and supporting documentation 
required by the Control Officer shall be retained for at least five years. Records and information 
required by this rule shall also be retained for at least five years.

MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH 
MEETING MINUTES 
Monday, October 25, 2021, at 3:00 PM 
Virtual Meeting due to COVID-19 and social distancing guidelines 
President MacMillan called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. 
ROLL CALL:         
Members Present:         
Debra Baldauff  
Don Cassano 
 
Paul Stander 
Paula Banahan 
Robert MacMillan  
Scott Celley 
Members Absent: Supervisor Bill Gates, Robin Schaeffer, and Kristen Acton 
Ex-Officio: Marcy Flanagan 
1.
CALL TO ORDER
President MacMillan 
A. Roll Call 
B. Call to the Public 
President MacMillan called the meeting to order at 3:02pm, addressing the public advising all how to use the 
chat box to comment or add any questions for the agenda items. There were no requests known to speak at this 
time; all were informed that they would have the opportunity to type questions using the chat box, which will be 
acknowledged during and or after the meeting accordingly. 
DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS: 
2.
Approval of Minutes
President MacMillan 
President MacMillan asked for a motion to approve the minutes from the Board of Health (BOH) meeting held 
on August 9th, 2021.  A motion was made by Mr. Cassano to approve the BOH minutes as presented. Ms. 
Banahan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.  
3.
Public Health Update – FY 2021/2022 Budget Status Report
Scot Pitcairn 
Mr. Pitcairn provided an update for the Public Health FY 2021/2022 Budget Status Report for the funds listed 
below. A memo was provided outlining the updates for the below listed funds. 
•
Fund 100 – General Fund
Through the 1st Quarter of FY22 as of September 30th, or 25% of the fiscal year, the department 
expended 19.9% of the FY22 General Fund budget. This amounts to a positive variance to date of 
$1,227,149.  This large positive variance/underspending is due to three primary factors:  1) The 
department received a $3.1 million "above baseline" General Fund budget increase and 30 additional 
positions for FY23 and beyond, and many of the new positions have not been filled;  2) Even aside from 
these new positions, there is a higher than normal vacancy rate in the General Fund; and 3) several 
General Fund employees are still spending a large percentage of their time on COVID-related activities, 
and their time has been reallocated to the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding that the County 
Return to list of attachments

received this year. Last fiscal year, this reallocation was to the CARES Act funding.  Most of the 30 new 
positions are in Epidemiology, Immunization, STD Control, and CIDS (Community Indigent Decedent 
Services) to address current caseload needs in non-COVID/regular operations.   
•
Fund 265 – Special Revenue Fund
Through the first quarter, the department expended 23.6% of the Fee Fund budget. The operating 
budget (excluding the carryover balanced budget), spending is over budget year-to-date by $(40,693). 
This overage is the result of large purchases of flu vaccines in the first couple of months of the fiscal 
year, which will even out as the year progresses.  Revenues to date exceed expenses by $262,234, so the 
account is structurally balanced. 
The Community Health Assessment fee fund account fee revenues are back to a level that will support 
the expenses for that program, as one major hospital system that had stopped using the departments' 
services recently resumed using them again.  The Vital Registration program's revenue to date is 
$343,259, or 29%, ahead of budget year-to-date, and expenses to date are under budget by 15.7%. 
When the fund balance budget is netted out, however, operating expenses are $42,350, or 3.6% under 
budget year-to-date. In the Refugee fee fund, no AHCCCS 3rd party collections have been posted for the 
first quarter, but the refugee caseload for medical screenings is expected to increase in the coming 
months. STD Control fee collections are 14.2% ahead of budget year-to-date. 
•
Fund 296 – State & Local Recovery Funds/American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
Fund 296 is a new fund through the ARPA fund, through September, ARPA spending is $1,301,853. 
$743,976 posted just in September and expenses are expected to increase month over month.  
Revenues are only showing at $989,517, but this is only a function of the revenue budget being adjusted 
by the Budget and Finance Department as needed. The funds were previously received upfront by the 
county, and they're being allocated out as the department expands them. A share of this funding is to 
support the finance and rent/infrastructure needs of the rest of the COVID-related grants we have 
received, while other major "buckets" of funding include funding for the COVID isolation housing (hotel), 
technology needs for epidemiology, and public health, PPE supplies, Community Health Needs 
Assessments and resulting services, COVID vaccination support, and an additional regional public health 
facility. This funding has an end date of December 31, 2024, but encumbered projects may extend up to 
two years beyond that date. Public Health is looking at a new regional facility on the Westside, but part 
of the Recovery Act was to expand public health services to the public, Maricopa is large, but only has 
one clinic. Currently, the public health clinic is at 1645 Roosevelt (16th street) Phoenix, the new regional 
facility is around 140th Ave. and McDowell (a charter school). The purchase offer has been accepted and 
should close in January 2022. 
•
Fund 532 - Grant Fund
Through the first quarter, the Grant Fund revenues are $1.6 million, or 68.7% below budget and 
expenditures are $14,423,005, or 50.0%, under budget YTD.  These substantial variances are in large 
part due to the addition of the $140 million (almost half of that in the first year) of COVID-related grant 
funding in addition to the ARPA funding described above.  In addition, spending for many of our regular 
grants is still recovering from the effects of the pandemic. The COVID-related grants are direct federal, 
or federal funds passed through the State, and fall into 3 major categories:  1) Epidemiology and Disease 
Investigations; 2) Immunization; and 3) Health Equity and Disparities. 
Public health maintains staff at a decent pay rate for the positions, there has been a large expansion to 
the workforce, the ability to recruit people has shown some difficulties. Compensation rates have

increased in several areas, the workforce availability people have that the department can hire is not 
huge. Public health is struggling to hire people, it has taken some time to fill current positions, although 
many positions have been filled a lot of the positions are vacancy savings for the first quarter. The 
vacancy savings will get smaller as each quarter moves forward, which explains why in the first quarter 
there are a lot of savings that result in under spending. 
(memo and report summary attached to meeting agenda) 
4.
Environmental Services Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Budget Status Report
Ryan Hautzinger 
Mr. Hautzinger provided the Board with an update of the Environmental Services FY 2021/2022 Budget Status 
Report for the funds listed below. A memo was provided outlining the updates for the below listed funds.  
•
Fund 100 - County General Fund
At Quarter 1 Close FY 22, FUND 100 is reporting revenues 43% over the FY 22 year to date (YTD) budget 
and expenditures 7% under the YTD budget. 
Revenues - FUND 100 is funded by the County General Fund subsidy. ESD collects enforcement revenue 
from non-permitted activities. These fines are associated with violations of the Environmental Health 
Code by persons and organizations not subject to obtaining a permit. In addition, Environmental Services 
Waste Resources and Recycling (WRR) Division collects transfer station fees for refuse services provided 
to citizens across the county. Three months into FY 22, FUND 100 revenues are at $170,185 which is 
$51,082 (43%) over YTD budget. 
Expenditures - The Environmental Services General Fund is reporting expenditures at $2,940,959 which is 
$214,021 (7%) under YTD budget at year close. The amount is primarily attributed to a positive 
expenditure variance of $178,005 in supplies and services in the Vector Control and Waste Resources 
Divisions. These divisions have several large purchases planned which will reduce this variance by year-
end. 
•
Fund 290 – Environmental Tire Fund
The Tire Fund 290 is reporting revenues >1% ($2,404) under the YTD budget and expenditures 16% or 
$196,267 over the YTD budget through Quarter 1. 
Tire Fund revenues have been under budget throughout FY 21 and have continued through the first 
quarter of FY 22 due to lower revenues distributed from the State of Arizona through the tire disposal 
tax. To address the shortfall, ESD created a Non-Recurring Appropriation with its FY 22 budget request 
to absorb the increased recycling costs experienced in FY 22 out of the programs $2.6M fund balance 
reserve, funds are expected to hit around February 2022 to eliminate the expenditure variance. Not 
much can be done about the revenue variance, however, the department is in a better state at this time, 
than last year with only $2,000 under budget, hoping continued conversations with the state will allow 
for revenues to come sooner. The fund balance allows the department to keep going for another couple 
of years as the report indicates. 
•
Fund 506 – Environmental Fee Fund
The Environmental Services Special Fee Fund (FUND 506) is reporting revenues 7% under the YTD 
budget and expenditures 9% ($534,245) under the YTD budget through Quarter 1 Close. 
Revenues - FUND 506 is funded by permit fee and fine revenue. FUND 506 revenues through Quarter 1 
Close FY 22 are reporting at $5,152,074 which is $368,583 (7%) under YTD budget. The variance is

attributed to a calendarization issue across the fund. Revenues should come in higher as the year 
continues and more events and permit fees are requested. After Quarter 1 Close FY 22, the fund is still 
structurally sound.  
Expenditures - The Environmental Services Special Fee Fund is reporting expenditures through Quarter 1 
Close FY 22 close at $5,120,159 which is $534,245 (9%) under the YTD budget. This positive variance is 
primarily made up of supplies and services in the amount of $250,000 and personnel services in the 
amount of $265,500. 
(memo and report summary attached to meeting agenda) 
A. Air Quality Department 
Greg Verkamp 
Kimberly Butler 
Mr. Verkamp provided the board an overview of three (3) rules requiring a recommendation and/or approval. 
Notice and Reports for each rule were previously distributed to the board for their review. Each rule requires its 
own action to be recorded by the members of the board. 
Make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to approve the proposed revisions to the 
following rule: 
AQ-2017-010 - Rule 600 (Emergency Episodes) 
Rule 600 establishes criteria to determine when air pollutant concentrations are significantly elevated and 
establishes appropriate control actions to prevent the occurrence of ambient air pollutant concentrations which 
would cause significant harm to the health of persons. 
The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) is proposing to amend Rule 600 to align the rule with 
Arizona Administrative Code R18-2-220 (Air Pollution Emergency Episodes). MCAQD is looking to align the 
emergency episode level criteria for particulate matter 2.5, less than 2.5 microns diameter.  The rule was 
amended by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality in March of 2019. In addition, the department is 
proposing revisions based on stakeholder comments received during the rulemaking process, and those were all 
included in the Board of Health Report distributed. Stakeholder workshops were held during the rulemaking 
process to discuss the proposed revisions, a notice of proposed rulemaking was posted and a notice of 
supplemental proposal rulemaking to allow for the public to review and comment on the proposed revisions. 
MCAQD is asking for the Board of Health to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to approve the 
order of the proposed revisions.  
MCAQD made a significant number of revisions, therefore the department posted a notice of proposed 
rulemaking in 2019. Usually, this would have come straight to the board of health, but due to the significant 
number of comments, MCAQD revisited the rule closely, worked with those stakeholders and posted a notice of 
supplemental proposed rulemaking since so many changes were made after the notice of proposed rulemaking, 
the changes appear in the comment response section throughout the document. A brief summary was provided 
of the Emergency episode that occurs and determined by equal guidelines. 
Section 302 of the rule outlines all of the control actions when you go from an air pollution alert (lowest level) to 
a level where you have to start suspending burn pollution permits (non-residential burning) to suspend burning. 
Air pollution emergency is the (highest level) that allows for the governor to declare air pollution alerts, 
warnings, and emergencies. There were no other comments made.

President MacMillan if anyone wanted to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to approve the 
proposed revisions to AQ-2017-010 - Rule 600. Mr. Cassano made a recommendation and Ms. Banahan 
seconded the recommendation. All were in favor of the recommendation. 
B. Approve initiation of regulatory change for the following rule: 
AQ-2021-002 - Rule 270 (Performance Tests) 
Rule 270 establishes performance testing requirements for owners and operators of sources that are required to 
conduct performance tests. The rule was last revised in 1993. In this rulemaking, the MCAQD is proposing 
revisions to update, clarify, and enhance the rule. 
One stakeholder workshop was held, the notice and reports with stakeholder comments were forwarded to the 
board prior for their review. MCAQD will return to the board after they complete their evaluation of the 
stakeholders’ comments and post a notice of the proposed rulemaking on their website. MCAQD is asking the 
board to approve the department to begin the rulemaking process. Sometime next year MCAQD will ask the 
board for their recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to approve the revisions of the rule. An explanation 
of source testing was provided adding that the air pollution testing is to make sure that the equipment which is 
controlling the amount of air pollution coming out of those sources is limited to what they are permitted to 
emit. MCAQD travels on-site a minimum of every five (5) years to make sure that their air quality control 
equipment is operating as it should be, and it truly is controlling the pollutants to the permitted levels.  
There were two stakeholders APS and SRP that made comments on draft rule 270. Those comments appear in 
the notice and report distributed to the board prior. MCAQD met with the internal staff to discuss the 
comments made to the rule, changes were made to the draft rule. Once the evaluation is completed, MCAQD 
plans to reach out to the stakeholders and discuss the revisions made or not made, hoping that all will be in 
agreement before posting the Notice of proposed rulemaking. There was one draft included in the report, the 
next website posting will include the Notice of proposed rulemaking which will reflect any changes made based 
off of the stakeholder comments. 
A public comment was made concerning the MCAQD staff that reviewed rule 270 to revise it. “How many of 
them have entered into and become a certified person from the source evaluation society to be qualified, stack 
testing individuals, or call qualified, stack testing observers? Power plants when they have to do a test, they 
must have a qualified stack testing individual on the staff, on the site, during the test.” The caller commented 
that the push is for a qualified individual from the EPA, to eliminate the lack of knowledge, especially from 
administrative authorities on the employees they send out on the stack tests that don’t recognize or are not 
familiar with what is being done. Further comments from the public were that a person that is qualified and 
passes the certification could contribute greatly and understands the logistics of the stack testing and should be 
as part of the review and updating of the rule. MCAQD has permit engineers, a supervisor, and a senior permit 
engineer, that are a part of the process. The caller indicated that the push is that a qualified stack testing 
individual who has passed all the tests to be in the department that fully understand the logistics of the test. 
MCAQD is under a rule moratorium, if they are not required by the state or federal government to incorporate a 
certain provision, the county has its own local rules moratorium that cannot make it a little more stringent than 
it currently is unless it's required by federal law or state statute. MCAQD has a fine line to walk when they are 
revising the rules. An invite was extended for anyone who works with the consulting companies that are 
certified to comment on the rule, and an invitation was made to all from MCAQD from their first rulemaking and 
invited them all to sign up for further notifications in the rulemaking process. Many of the companies attended 
the first rulemaking, MCAQD has had participation from those that have gone through the certification. The 
caller questioned if MCAQD was certain that others were certified or had gone through the process because it 
was believed that there's only one person in the state of Arizona, that’s listed as qualified. MCAQD commented 
that most companies or state companies have their own testing engineers, who are familiar with most of the

people and which ones were certified. MCAQD engineers go out to test and their engineers are experienced. 
The State of Arizona does not have many who are certified, most companies, from national companies bring in 
people who are certified under those RATA tests, where it's required by the EPA. Other tests are not required to 
have a certified person but the MCAQD handbook recommends that they have a certified person. It is not 
required at a federal level, MCAQD is not able to add that it is a requirement to have this as a test, because that 
does make the rule stricter. MCAQD will take the public comment back to their permitting supervisor, who is 
over the program for consideration. Members of the public are encouraged to contact MCAQD.  
President MacMillan asked if anyone wanted to make a motion to approve initiation for regulatory change for 
AQ-2021-002 Rule 270. Mr. Cassano made a motion to approve initiation for regulatory change and Mr. Celley 
seconded the motion. All were in favor. 
C. Approve expedited process rulemaking for the following ordinance: 
AQ-2021-003 - Ordinance P-35 (Fireworks Restriction Ordinance) 
Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) §36-1606 allows a county to regulate the sale and use of fireworks within 
unincorporated areas of the county following specific requirements. Currently, Maricopa County does not have a 
regulation in place to regulate the sale and use of fireworks in unincorporated areas of the county. The purpose 
of this ordinance making is to create an ordinance following the requirements and provisions in A.R.S. §36-1601 
to A.R.S §36-1610 to regulate the sale and use of fireworks in unincorporated areas of the county. 
MCAQD is asking the board to approve expedited process rulemaking for the creation of a new ordinance P-35, a 
fireworks restriction ordinance. Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) §36-1606 allows a county to regulate the sale 
and use of fireworks within unincorporated areas of the county following specific requirements. Currently, 
Maricopa County does not have a regulation in place to regulate the sale and use of fireworks in unincorporated 
areas of the county. The purpose of this ordinance making is to create an ordinance following the requirements 
and provisions in A.R.S. §36-1601 to A.R.S §36-1610 to regulate the sale and use of fireworks in unincorporated 
areas of the county. The proposed ordinance will close the regulatory gap that currently exists between 
unincorporated areas of the county and many neighboring jurisdictions that already have fireworks regulations 
similar to what MCAQD is proposing. There was one comment made from a stakeholder workshop held in 
September, however, the comment was on the workshop format. MCAQD is asking the board for the expedited 
process approval. 
President MacMillan asked if anyone wanted to make a motion to approve expedited process rulemaking for 
AQ-2021-003 Ordinance P-35, Fireworks Restriction Ordinance. Dr. Stander made a motion to approve the 
expedited process rulemaking for AQ-2021-003 Ordinance P-35, Fireworks Restriction Ordinance. Ms. Balduff 
seconded the motion. All were in favor. 
5.
Fee Waiver Applications – Fourteen (14) permit fee waiver approval requests
Darcy Kober 
Fee Waiver Application Summary Sheet and Fee Waiver Staff Report
The department received 14 Permit Fee Waiver applications and staff determined that all met the criteria 
outlined in the Environmental Health Code. The criteria - an operator of a charitable non-profit establishment, 
which operates predominantly for the poor distressed or underprivileged that may apply to the Board of Health 
for the waiver of a permit. A waiver may be granted only if the operator maintains a current 501 (c)3 tax-exempt 
status and demonstrates that the payment of the said fee will cause a financial hardship. In addition, waiver of 
fees associated with administering and the issuance of food employee certificates may be granted to an 
operator of an establishment who maintains a current 501 (c)3 and must demonstrate to the board of health

that said payment will cause financial hardship. The department is asking for the board’s approval of the 14 fee 
waiver applications. 
The summary sheet identifies categories for two organizations and a category of four organizations, the 
difference between those other establishments, doesn't pertain to the fee waiver process, they are how the 
department categorizes the risk of their food establishments. The establishments are assigned a risk category 
between one and five, with one being the least amount of risk associated with food-borne illness or contributors 
to foodborne illness and five being the most. So, for instance, a full-blown restaurant with complex processes 
will be between a three and a five, retail centers with packaged foods and things like that are of lower risk and 
will be between a one and two. Food banks and foodservice kitchens that deal primarily with just canned goods 
and other low-risk items will be in those lower classes. Eating and drinking permits, depending on the type of 
food processes that they have, are typically between a three and a five as shown in the lower list of the P 
categories, for example, P7, P8, P9, and P10.  
(memo and report summary attached to meeting agenda) 
President MacMillan asked if there was a motion to approve the fourteen (14) fee waiver applications 
presented as P1 through P11 and C1-C3. A motion was made by Mr. Celley to approve P1 through P11, and C1-
C3 fee waiver applications and seconded by Mr. Cassano. All were in favor, the motion carried. 
Discussion Items 
6.
Public Health Report
Marcy Flanagan 
I. 
Human Resources
and Lilliana C 
II.
Communications
III. Infrastructure
IV. Strategic Planning
V. Programs 
VI. Disease Update
VII. Future Topic
Ms. Flanagan provided the board with the COVID-19 case updates for Maricopa County, adding that Ms. 
Cardenas will present at the next meeting to allow for more board members to be present. 
COVID-19 Update 
•
Maricopa County case count 727,726
•
Maricopa County related Covid deaths 12,083
•
Epi curve has increased slightly, since the summer, but leveled off
•
Three spikes have been seen during the pandemic
o
At the beginning of last summer, then decreased after the countywide mask mandate
o
An increase over the holidays and into the new year (highest peak) during the pandemic, once
the vaccine was available, cases rapidly declined again
o
The beginning of the summer, which has leveled off
The county hasn't seen that same drastic decline that was seen in the other two waves, which is different than 
when you look into the rest of the country in the United States. The epi curve on the CDC website for the overall 
trends in the U.S. have rapidly declined since September going into October and in Arizona has leveled off. A few 
reasons for why Arizona has leveled off; Arizona doesn't have the vaccine uptake that some other states have 
seen, and Arizona doesn't have a statewide mask mandate in place, which a lot of other states still have in place 
compared to Arizona this might be why other states are dropping more rapidly.

Case rate per 100,000 - the county has dropped back down into 190 cases per 100,000 for the past two weeks. 
Before that, the county was at 221 cases per 100,000. Ms. Flanagan further explained that 190 still puts 
Maricopa County in the red for high community transmission, and were two times that limit, therefore the 
county still has a lot of COVID spreading. The epi curve from the county's desk data has leveled out and the 
county has not seen a decrease. The county has hit a steady level since September, hopeful that the booster 
shots and with more individuals being vaccinated, the county will begin to see that decline, however, for now, 
it's just leveled off. 
Children and Schools 
Maricopa County continues to see one in four cases in the community with children 18 years of age and 
younger, that number has increased. At the beginning of summer, the county started to see this, and then, one 
school hit in July, the county saw a spike, however, it’s starting to decline again, which is good. The Pfizer 
vaccine has now been approved for ages 5 to 11, it's expected to help with the county numbers. The county 
continues to see a lot of school outbreaks, they've increased rapidly when the school went back in session, but 
they have leveled a bit in the past couple of weeks. The reason stated was due to schools being on fall break, it’s 
expected that there will be an increase again with the holiday season coming up and as schools are back in 
session. The hope is that with the vaccine for the younger age groups being available, the county will start to see 
cases come down.  
Maricopa County Vaccines – Key Takeaway 
•
2.4 million Maricopa County residents have received at least one dose (54% of the total population)
•
4.7 million doses were provided to residents
•
Last week, the county saw an average of 7500 vaccine doses given per day
•
62% of residents 10 and older, and almost 66% of adults 18 and over have received at least one dose
Compared to other states, Arizona is towards the bottom cortile. Some other states have rates as high as almost 
80%, and some have slightly lower than Arizona. For individuals that have received either the Pfizer or Moderna 
vaccine, the FDA Committee (the body that makes the recommendations on vaccines) recommended a booster, 
which was adopted by the FDA. The recommendation is to get a booster shot six months or more after you've 
completed your initial series of the Pfizer or the Moderna vaccine. Ages 65 years of older are prioritized, and 
those 18 and over who work or live in a high-risk setting. Johnson and Johnson have also been recommended for 
a booster shot for those 18 and over who are vaccinated two or more months ago. Lately, a lot of research has 
encouraged individuals to mix and match the vaccines. The county is ramping up and working with pediatricians 
and primary care providers to provide and be prepared when the vaccine does arrive for youths. The county has 
already placed their first, three orders for the vaccine for children. The vaccine is expected to ship out later in 
the week, so the county has it stored and readily available for use the same day the CDC makes the final 
recommendation and approval. The county has begun setting up vaccine events and pairing them with vendors 
or high schools with the prior success of setting up vaccines. The county is working with larger pharmacies to 
host sites, which are called dark sites. Referring to pharmacies that are not Walgreens, CVS, or a grocery store. 
Similar to the Halloween pop-up shops everywhere that go in place, the county has begun planning for events to 
accommodate those with special health care needs. 
West Nile Virus 
News coverage lately has updated residents that the West Nile virus season has been unprecedented and shows 
the highest totals in Maricopa County since ADHS started capturing West Nile virus numbers, which was in 2004. 
Current cases this year show that the county is up to 590 compared to that of last year, remarks that it didn't 
make sense because of COVID and so much happening in the county. The county only had three cases reported, 
therefore 2019 is what is being looked at for comparison. In 2019 the county had 155 West Nile virus cases. The 
contributing factor was the wet monsoon season that the county had, a lot of standing water, and residents not

emptying the standing water leaving puddles lingering around providing an opportunity to grow mosquitoes. As 
the county hit cooler weather last week, it's hoping the season will come to an end. Environmental Services has 
been at the forefront of dealing with the West Nile virus assisting Public Health, the departments work as a 
partnership addressing this issue as fogging areas were done. This did not come without its own safety issues 
and concern. Working with the CDC and ADHS to allow for a big public health messaging campaign, to continue 
to encourage people to realize that they need to wear mosquito repellent when they are out, especially in those 
dawn to dusk hours where the mosquitoes are active and then checking backyards for standing water and 
addressing it.  
It was mentioned that some Hospitals in Scottsdale have reported having higher numbers, counts were not 
available to report on during the meeting. Mild symptoms are not reported, the 590 cases reported, the vast 
majority are in the hospitals. Hospitals are dealing with shortages that are unprecedented, no one has seen 
shortages like this for healthcare staff nurses in years, it just puts additional pressure on the hospitals for space, 
staff, and hospitals. The county is working on how to increase the number of healthcare professionals that make 
their way to Arizona to work. 
The Community Health Needs Assessment presentation will be provided at the next meeting. Data from the last 
meeting showed behavioral health tapering out. Ms. Flanagan advised the board that hospitals are just 
beginning to catch up on procedures.  
Announcements and Current Events 
President/ 
None 
 
Board Members 
Adjournment  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
President MacMillan 
There being no further business, Mr. Cassano made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Ms. Baldauff seconded 
the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 4:16 p.m.

MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MEETING MINUTES 
Monday, April 25, 2022, at 3:00 PM 
(Pending)

From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>  
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2021 12:08 PM 
To: PND Regulatory <PNDRegulatory@maricopa.gov>; Kathy Semder (COA) 
<Kathy.Semder@Maricopa.Gov>; Andy Linton (OBM) <Andy.Linton@Maricopa.Gov>; Bill Leal (OBM) 
<Bill.Leal@Maricopa.Gov>; Kathryn Garcia (OBM) <Kathryn.Garcia@Maricopa.Gov>; Blanca Caballero 
(ENV) <Blanca.Caballero@Maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Citizen Comments 
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-2021-002 Rule 270 Performance Tests 
Department 
Air Quality
I would like to  
Other
First Name 
Cathy
Last Name 
Dreifort
Organization 
Save Twin Knolls, LLC
City 
Mesa
Zip 
85207
Email 
cldreifort@att.net 
Phone Number 
4803495507
Phone Type 
Mobile
Would you like someone to 
contact you? 
Yes 
Comments: I am a concerned citizen regarding pollution and emissions, especially since in the past there were 
plans to do mountainside "mining" with homes as close as 80 feet to the "mine". I would appreciate clarification 
as to the removal of reference to Method 9 from Rule 270 but it remains as a measurement under Rule 316 
and possibly other Rules. First, visual inspection of what is being released into the air by the naked eye seems 
an unacceptable and antiquated method of measurement. If something can be seen, there is already too much 
of whatever in the air. The idea of 7% opacity, 12% opacity seems such a unscientific method for 
measurement of emissions or particulate matter when there are more accurate methods available. The amount 
of pollution in our area is unacceptable as it is. Please advise the reasoning behind Method 9 from Rule 270 
and if other Rules which reference Method 9 will be changed or if not, why not. Thank you!
If applicable, attach supporting documentation 
associated with your comment. The only file types 
supported are MS Office and Adobe Acrobat. 
Field not completed. 
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 
Comment #1 - Return to Response #1
Copies of All Written and Electronic Stakeholder Input
Return to list of attachments

From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>  
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 1:51 PM 
To: PND Regulatory <PNDRegulatory@maricopa.gov>; Kathy Semder (COA) <Kathy.Semder@Maricopa.Gov>; Andy 
Linton (OBM) <Andy.Linton@Maricopa.Gov>; Bill Leal (FCD) <Bill.Leal@Maricopa.Gov>; Kathryn Garcia (OBM) 
<Kathryn.Garcia@Maricopa.Gov>; Blanca Caballero (ENV) <Blanca.Caballero@Maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Citizen Comments 
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-2021-002 Rule 270 Performance Tests
Department 
Air Quality
I would like to  
Other
First Name 
Anne
Last Name 
Carlton
Organization 
Arizona Public Service 
City 
Phoenix
Zip 
85004
Email 
anne.carlton@aps.com
Phone Number 
480-322-9313
Phone Type 
Mobile
Would you like someone to 
contact you? 
Field not completed. 
Comments 
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Rule 270. Please see the 
attached comments -
If applicable, attach supporting 
documentation associated with 
your comment. The only file 
types supported are MS Office 
and Adobe Acrobat. 
20210922_Rule270_Performance Testing.pdf
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

September 22, 2021 
Electronically submitted 
Kimberly Butler and Scott Kahldon 
Maricopa County Air Quality Department 
3800 N Central Avenue, Suite 1400 
Phoenix, AZ 85012 
Re: 
Arizona Public Service Company Comment in Response to Maricopa County Proposed 
Rulemaking Regulation II – Rule 270: Performance Tests 
Dear Ms. Butler and Mr. Kahldon 
Arizona Public Service Company (APS) appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on the 
proposed Maricopa County Proposed Rulemaking Regulation II – Rule 270: Performance Tests. 
APS would like to thank the Maricopa County Air Quality Department rule development team 
for its continued community outreach and stakeholder workshops. In the interests of improving 
the functionality and applicability of the proposed rules, APS offers the following comments.   
Section 202: Definition of Performance Test 
APS would like to suggest removal of relative accuracy test audit from the proposed definition of 
performance test.  
A RATA is a method to compare the CEM system performance against an independent 
reference method, not a test to measure the amount of a specified regulated pollutant, 
pollutants, or surrogates being emitted; or to demonstrate the capture efficiency of a 
capture system.  
In some cases, as approved by the Control Officer, multiple RATA runs may be 
combined to meet the requirements of a performance test. In other cases (e.g. CEMS 
recertification), a RATA test is only fulfilling the QA/QC obligation and not used to 
show compliance with an emission rate or capture efficiency, and is not considered a 
performance test. By including RATA in the definition, all RATA tests would be 
considered performance test, which is not the case and in conflict with multiple sections 
of the rule – such as, test methods, minimum testing requirements, and performance test 
timeframes. Specifically, proposed section 301.1 only includes test methods from Part 51, 
52, 60, and 63, while Part 75 is not included. The exclusion of Part 75 could be 
interpreted to mean that a facility is always required to comply with a listed requirement 
Comment #2 - Return to Response #2

anytime a RATA is completed – Even when a RATA is completed as a standalone 
quality assurance evaluation (e.g. RATA completed after umbilical line replacement or as 
a step to certify CEMS).   
When cumulative RATA runs are used to show compliance, they would automatically 
meet the proposed definition, so the inclusion of RATA in the definition is unnecessary. 
Section 204: Definition of Start-Up 
APS would like to suggest the removal of the start-up definition from the rule. 
The defined term is trying to capture two different scenarios, both create confusion. One 
where a newly constructed/modified unit is initially starting up and the other where a unit 
has been brought online after an extended period of non-operation. These scenarios are 
not the same thing and intuitively are not what a person reading a rule would consider a 
startup. Commonly, the term startup means the unit is coming back into operation after 
just a short period time (e.g., for the day, to fulfill operational needs, etc.) or in the case 
of an electric generating unit, startup may also be a mode of operation. In fact, the 
language of the rule includes the language start-up/startup as the newly defined term and 
as the common understanding. Below we breakdown the use of start-up/startup in the rule 
and provide additional comments.  
Rule Section 
Proposed Rule Language 
APS Comment 
Proposed 
Section 301.4 
Operations during periods of start-up, 
shutdown, and malfunction shall not 
constitute representative conditions for 
the purpose of a performance test nor 
shall emissions in excess of the level of 
the relevant standard during periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction…  
Language reflects a period of 
operation, not the defined term. 
Proposed 
Section 401.2 
Shall test equipment within 60 days of 
start-up; and  
Language reflects the defined term. 
Proposed 
Section 404.1 
Notice of Startup: the owner or 
operator shall notify the department in 
writing within 14 calendar days after 
the new applicable equipment has 
achieved the capability to operate at its 
maximum capacity.  
Language reflects the defined term.  
Language in this section is 
inconsistent with the definition of 
start-up where there is reference to 
maximum production rate on a 
sustained basis versus maximum 
capacity. The existing language in 
section 401 also included the 
language, maximum production rate 
on a sustained basis.  
Seemingly the definition was added to ensure equipment that is new or newly modified or 
recently returned to service conduct performance testing, but language within the existing 
rule already accomplishes this and is described in more detail below. 
Comment #3 - Return to Response #3

Existing Section 401 Language 
APS Comments 
Within 60 days after a source subject to the 
permit requirements of this rule has achieved 
the capability to operate at its maximum 
production rate on a sustained basis but no 
later than 180 days after the initial start-up of 
such source  
This language effectively captures the need to 
conduct performance tests on new or newly 
modified pieces of equipment and is consistent 
with Federal language.   
This language also automatically allows for up 
to 180 days versus the proposed language only 
allows an extension if approved by the Control 
Officer.  
and at other times as may be required by the 
Control Officer, the owner or operator of such 
source shall conduct performance tests and 
shall furnish the Control Officer with a written 
report of the results of the tests.  
This language effectively captures any other 
scenario in which the agency would like for a 
performance test to be conducted on a piece of 
equipment; including a piece of equipment that 
returns to service after an extended period of 
non-operation.  
If the definition for start-up remains in the rule, APS provides the following comments. 
The definition needs to be improved to clarify what an extended period of non-operation 
means and what type of notification the agency is referencing. An example of where this 
could be misunderstood, is a 7-day letter is provided to agency to notify them of a simple 
like-kind replacement and the unit for a variety pack of reasons remains offline for 
several months. Clearly, the agency does not intend to require additional performance 
testing for this piece of equipment, but the plain English reading of the definition could 
result in just that. APS has provided proposed language for your consideration below.  
START-UP: The moment an emission unit has reached the capability to operate at 
its maximum production rate on a sustained basis or the moment a piece of 
equipment is put back into operation after an extended period of non-operation, 
which the department was notified and where a performance test(s) would have 
otherwise been conducted.  
Both startup and start-up are used throughout the document. It may be helpful if the 
definition of start-up remains in the rule to use start-up each time the term is related to 
the defined term and use startup when the term is related to starting up for typical 
operations or in reference to a mode of operation.  
Section 301.2 
APS agrees chain-of-custody adherence is valuable to appropriate sample management, 
but we do not believe it is necessary to include an ASTM standard within the rule. This 
ASTM is not required for lab certification in all cases and may create undue burden on 
the facilities as well as the testing companies. For example, ADHS requires labs seeking 
Environmental Laboratory Licensure to establish, implement and comply with a written 
quality assurance plan that contains information including chain-of-custody 
documentation procedures with no specific standard adherence required.  
Comment #4 - Return to Response #4

Section 301.5 
Language from NSPS added to section 301.5 could result in compliance issues or undue 
burden for units not required to comply with NSPS requirements. Because this rule will 
regulate units outside of Part 60 applicability, APS recommends either removing the 
language (facility specific requirements could be included in permit) or updating the 
language of 301.5a to include more flexibility. APS has provided proposed language for 
your consideration below.  
a. Sampling ports adequate for test methods appliable to such source that meet the
requirements as published in 40 CFR Part 51, 60, 61, and 63; or as specified by 
permit language,  
Section 401 Performance Test Time Frames 
APS would like to comment that the proposed language does not add clarity or value. 
Section 401.1 states, Shall test equipment within 60 days of permit issuance. It is not clear 
what type of permit issuance would require testing – initial issuance, issuance after a 
modification (administrative, minor and/or major), issuance after renewal, etc.  
Section 401.2 includes the defined term start-up which is also not clear, as mentioned 
previously in this document. Unless the definition of start-up is made clear, we believe 
the existing language of the rule should remain. If the agency would like to ensure units 
with extended outages are tested once brought back into operation, language could be 
added to section 401 to make that a requirement. Or, the agency could again just stick 
with the existing language which allowed the Control Officer to require testing at such 
other times it deems necessary.  
Section 404.2 Notice of Testing 
APS would request that the agency add language to make the notification only required if 
test schedule is not provided in the Performance Test Protocol.  
Section 405 Test Report Submission 
Submittal of test reports within 30 days is too aggressive and should be pushed to at least 
45 days. The section should also include language to allow longer submittal timeframes 
as approved by the Control Officer.  
Test companies take a considerable amount of time to compile information to complete a 
test report and often the duration is longer when multiple pieces of equipment undergo 
testing at a facility. Other factors impacting report turnaround time may include 
timeframes for required analysis, backlogs of the testing company and/or laboratories, 
travel time, etc. Prior to submittal to the agency, we then review the reports for any errors 
or missing information. We consider these submittals to be very important and if 
deadlines are set at 30 days, we are concerned there will not be enough time for a robust 
and thorough review.  
APS would also like to comment that the test report submittal requirements in the 
proposed rule do not reflect the current guidance provided by the agency. Currently, the 
Comment #5 - Return to Response #5
Comment #6 - Return to Response #6
Comment #7 - Return to Response #7
Comment #8 - Return to Response #8

agency allows for test reports to be submitted within the timeframes specific by permit 
(e.g. 45 days), after the testing program is complete. So, if a facility conducted testing on 
5 pieces of equipment over a 5-day period, the clock for test report submittal would not 
start until the last day of testing. The proposed language could be read to mean that 
reports for each individual performance test shall be submitted within the specified 
timeframe. So, a facility testing under the same scenario, would have the clock start for 
test report submittals five different times. APS does not believe this is the intention of the 
agency and would request the proposed language be updated to avoid confusion.  
Again, we want to express our thanks to the agency for the work that it did to create this 
proposed rule.  And we are grateful for the opportunity to comment and add what we hope is 
constructive and useful comments to the rule.   If the agency has questions or requires greater 
information related to our comments, please do not hesitate to contact us. 
Sincerely, 
Anne Carlton  
Manager, Environmental Support 
480-322-9313 Cell 
Arizona Public  Service

From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>  
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 7:39 AM 
To: PND Regulatory <PNDRegulatory@maricopa.gov>; Kathy Semder (COA) <Kathy.Semder@Maricopa.Gov>; Andy 
Linton (OBM) <Andy.Linton@Maricopa.Gov>; Bill Leal (FCD) <Bill.Leal@Maricopa.Gov>; Kathryn Garcia (OBM) 
<Kathryn.Garcia@Maricopa.Gov>; Blanca Caballero (ENV) <Blanca.Caballero@Maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Citizen Comments 
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-2021-002 Rule 270 Performance Tests
Department 
Air Quality
I would like to  
Express support
First Name 
Zachary
Last Name 
Harbin
Organization 
Salt River Project
City 
Phoenix
Zip 
85072
Email 
zachary.harbin@srpnet.com 
Phone Number 
6022365779
Phone Type 
Work
Would you like someone to 
contact you? 
No 
Comments 
Field not completed.
If applicable, attach 
supporting documentation 
associated with your 
Rule 270 Comments 2021-09-23 AQS.pdf
comment. The only file 
types supported are MS 
Office and Adobe Acrobat. 
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

Air Quality Services 
PAB359  |  P.O. Box 52025 
Phoenix, AZ 85072-2025 
P: (602) 236-5779  |  F: (602) 236-3407 
Zachary.Harbin@srpnet.com  |  srpnet.com 
September 23, 2021 
Ms. Kimberly Butler 
Maricopa County Air Quality Department 
3800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1400 
Phoenix, Arizona 85012 
RE: 
SRP Comments in Response to Proposed Revisions to MCAQD’s Rule 270 
Dear Ms. Butler, 
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP) appreciates the opportunity to 
comment on Maricopa County Air Quality Department’s (MCAQD) proposed revisions to Rule 270: 
Performance Tests. 
SRP provides retail electric services to more than 1 million residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, 
and mining customers in Arizona. As a vertically integrated utility, SRP provides generation, transmission, 
and distribution services, as well as metering and billing services. As part of its operations, SRP operates 
several power plants located throughout Maricopa County subject to stack testing requirements. 
Accordingly, SRP has a clear and significant interest in this pending action and would like to provide the 
following comments on the proposed revisions to the rule.  
General Comments on Rule 270 
As described in further detail below, SRP firmly believes that Relative Accuracy Test Audits (RATAs) and 
performance tests are subsets of stack tests. Therefore, SRP suggests renaming Rule 270 Performance 
Tests to Rule 270 Stack Tests. The renaming of the rule will not change the applicability or scope of the 
rule but will provide clarity that RATAs are not themselves performance tests. With the change of the rule 
name and the proposed revisions to the definitions, provided below, references to performance testing 
will need to be updated to stack testing as necessary throughout the rule.  
Comments on Section 200 – Definitions 
SRP agrees with the inclusion of definitions to improve the readability and to clarify the scope of the rule. 
However, SRP believes the definitions of “Performance Test”, “Performance Test Protocol”, and “Start-
Up” should be revised for further clarification.  
Section 202 – Performance Test 
SRP suggests revisions to Section 202 to correctly categorize RATAs as quality assurance activities 
rather than performance tests. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Air Act National 
Stack Testing Guidance defines stack testing to include RATAs and performance tests but narrows the 
Comment #9 - Return to Response #9
Comment #10- Return to Response #10

definition of performance testing to testing which is conducted for the purpose of determining and 
demonstrating compliance with an applicable standard. While RATAs are a subset of stack testing and in 
some instances are conducted simultaneously with performance tests, even utilizing the same data, 
RATAs themselves are not and should not be considered performance tests.  
SRP understands MCAQD’s desire to witness RATAs to ensure the reference method sampling system is 
operated in accordance with the applicable reference methods and only requests that clarification be 
added to the definitions to identify RATAs and performance tests as subsets of stack testing. SRP 
proposes the following revisions to proposed Section 202 and the addition of a new definition for 
“Performance Test”: 
202 
PERFORMANCE STACK TEST: A test, also referred to in EPA regulations as a 
performance or source test, or relative accuracy test audit, that measures the amount of 
a specific regulated pollutant, pollutants, or surrogates being emitted; demonstrates the 
capture efficiency of a capture system; or determines the destruction or removal 
efficiency of a control device used to reduce emissions at facilities subject to the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act. 
203 
PERFORMANCE TEST: A stack test conducted for the purpose of determining and 
demonstrating compliance with an applicable standard using promulgated test methods, 
other test methods or procedures cited in the applicable subpart(s) or permit, or 
alternative test methods approved by the Control Officer.  
The separation of RATAs and performance tests within the rule also provides additional clarity on the 
testing time frames (Section 401). Section 401 requires performance test to be conducted within either 60 
days of permit issuance or 60 days of start-up, or according to the test frequency defined in the permit. 
While these time frames are comparable to the time frames found in Federal regulations (NSPS and 
NESHAP) for performance testing, they do not align with the initial certification time frames for continuous 
emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). For example, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 75 operators are 
allowed up to 720 operating hours to complete a RATA for initial certification of a CEMS. Being based on 
the unit’s actual operation could extend the RATA deadline out past the 60-day time frames included in 
the rule.  
Section 203 – Performance Test Protocol 
SRP suggests adding two minor clarifications to the definition of “Performance Test Protocol” as shown 
below: 
203 
STACK PERFORMANCE TEST PROTOCOL: A site-specific test plan that includes 
information about the facility and process(es), a test program summary, the test schedule 
(if available), data quality objectives, and both an internal and external quality assurance 
(QA) program. 
Section 204 – Start-Up 
SRP agrees with the addition of the definition of “Start-Up” as its inclusion provides clarity to the testing 
and notification requirements found in subsequent sections of the Rule. Below is the definition as written 
in the proposed rule.  
204  
START-UP: The moment an emissions unit has reached the capability to operate at its 
maximum production rate on a sustained basis or the moment a piece of equipment is 
Comment #11
Return to Response #11
Comment #12 - Return to Response #12

put back into operation after an extended period of non-operation of which the 
department was notified. 
SRP believes clarification on how a unit’s capability to operate at its maximum production rate is 
determined and who makes this determination is needed. The act of a unit operating in some capacity is 
not indictive of the unit’s ability to operate at its maximum production rate on a sustained basis. For an 
electrical generating unit, the construction contractor or unit manufacturer will require a shakedown period 
prior to turning over operations of the unit to the owner or operator. Testing during this shakedown period 
would not represent normal operations.  
SRP also seeks further clarification on what would be considered an “extended period of non-operation”. 
Electrical generating units are frequently brought offline for up to months at a time for routine 
maintenance outages. During these outages SRP may notify MCAQD of certain projects being 
undertaken (e.g., a 7-day notification). SRP’s plain English reading of the rule would suggest that these 
outages could meet the definition of “Start-Up” and trigger performance testing requirements.  
Comments on Section 301.2 – Chain-of-Custody Procedures 
SRP requests the ability to satisfy the chain-of-custody procedures either through the adherence to ASTM 
D4840-99 or by outlining a comparable chain-of-custody procedure within the approved Stack Testing 
Protocol.  
Comments on Section 401 – Performance Test Time Frames 
MCAQD has included significant revisions to Section 401 of this Rule.  SRP agrees with the proposed 
revisions to Section 401 but seeks clarification on the newly added Section 401.1 and a minor editorial 
edit in Section 401.3. 
401 
PERFORMANCE TEST TIME FRAMES: A performance test shall be conducted on a 
source subject to the requirements of this rule as required below. 
401.1 
Shall test equipment within 60 days or permit issuance; or 
401.2 
Shall test equipment within 60 days of start-up; and 
401.3 
Shall test equipment according to the test frequency defined in the source’s 
permit. 
The testing deadline may be extended by the Control Officer for good cause, but in no 
case shall the testing deadline, including report submittal, extend beyond 180 days from 
the original test deadline. 
SRP suggests adding language to Section 401.1 to identify when a permit issuance would trigger testing. 
As written, it appears that any permit issuance would require testing within 60 days of said issuance.  
Comments on Section 404.2 – Notice of Testing 
SRP requests that language be added to Section 404.2 to waive a separate testing notice when a test 
schedule is provided in the Stack Test Protocol. Proposed language is provided below: 
404.2 
Notice of Testing: the owner or operator shall notify the department in writing at least two 
weeks prior to the actual date and time of each performance test unless otherwise 
specified in the applicable standard or permit so the department may have an observer 
Comment #13 -
Return to Response #13
Comment #14 -
Return to Response #14
Comment #15 - Return to Response #15

attend. The requirement of this section shall be deemed met if a test schedule is provided 
in the required Stack Test Protocol. 
Comments on Section 405 – Test Report Submission 
SRP requests that language be added to Section 405 to incorporate MCAQD’s longstanding guidance for 
the submittal of test reports 30- or 45-days following the completion of the testing program rather than the 
individual tests. Additionally, SRP requests language allowing for the combining of test reports for tests of 
similar units and reference methods.  
SRP greatly appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on MCAQD’s proposed revisions to Rule 
270. If you have questions or need additional information regarding these comments, please contact me 
at Zachary.harbin@srpnet.com or (602) 236-5779. 
Sincerely, 
Zachary Harbin 
Sr. Environmental Compliance Engineer, Air Quality Services 
Comment #16 - Return to Response #16

From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>  
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 9:07 AM 
To: PND Regulatory <PNDRegulatory@maricopa.gov>; Kathy Semder (COA) <Kathy.Semder@Maricopa.Gov>; Andy 
Linton (OBM) <Andy.Linton@Maricopa.Gov>; Bill Leal (FCD) <Bill.Leal@Maricopa.Gov>; Kathryn Garcia (PND) 
<Kathryn.Garcia@Maricopa.Gov>; Blanca Caballero (ENV) <Blanca.Caballero@Maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Citizen Comments 
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-2021-002 Rule 270 Performance Tests
Department 
Air Quality
I would like to  
Other
First Name 
Tom
Last Name 
Ekren
Organization 
Arizona State University
City 
Tempe
Zip 
85287-6412
Email 
tom.ekren@asu.edu 
Phone Number 
480-788-7278
Phone Type 
Work
Would you like someone to 
contact you? 
Yes 
Comments 
February 10, 2022 
Kimberly Butler
Maricopa County Air Quality Department 
301 W Jefferson St., Suite 140
Phoenix, AZ 85003 
RE: Arizona State University Comment in Response to Maricopa County Proposed Rulemaking Regulation II – Rule 270: 
Performance Tests

Due to the size of ASU’s turbines and the nature of ASU’s heat and power requirements, ASU has difficulty 
maintaining the expansion turbines at high loads for the entire test duration. This can be onerous, especially if ASU 
must conduct test runs three times greater than the applicable standard. 
NSPS Subpart KKKK – Standards of Performance for Stationary Combustion Turbine went through extensive public 
comment, input, and analysis by EPA and the regulated industry, which included the development of test run durations. 
Additionally, EPA Reference Method 20 is the test method specifically developed for combustion turbines and is one of 
the few methods for a specific type of equipment. Both EPA Reference Method 20 and NSPS Subpart KKKK have 
specific language on test run length. 
If MCAQD retains the draft rule language, ASU would appreciate clarification or comment that test run durations of less 
than one hour are acceptable as specified within the applicable standards. 
Section 405.1: Test Report Submission 
ASU believes the draft rule language change of test report 
submittals from 30 days to 45 days should apply to both Non-Title V sources and Title V sources. Whether a source is 
Non-Title V or Title V is not a direct indication of a performance test’s complexity or the difficult nature of reviewing and 
submitting test reports to MCAQD.  
ASU conducts performance tests that are similar in nature to Title V facilities. Specifically, ASU conducts RATAs per 
NSPS Subpart GG and performance tests based on NSPS Subpart KKKK. Though these performance tests are not 
performed as frequently as Title V sources, ASU does experience the same issues that Title V facilities experience 
when submitting test report submittals. 
ASU appreciates the opportunity to comment on MCAQD’s proposed revision to Rule 270. If you have any questions, 
please contact me at 480-788-7278 or Tom.Ekren@asu.edu. 
Sincerely, 
Tom Ekren 
Environmental Professional 
Safety in the Built Environment 
Arizona State University
If applicable, attach supporting 
documentation associated with your 
comment. The only file types supported 
are MS Office and Adobe Acrobat. 
Field not completed. 
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
Section 301.6a Minimum Test Duration: 
ASU requests a change to draft section 301.6a concerning test run duration. Applicable standards, such as NSPS 
Subpart KKKK, and test methods, such as EPA Reference Method 20, have specific duration requirements for test 
runs which are less burdensome than the proposed language of 1-hour test runs. ASU is concerned that for future 
performance tests, ASU will be held to 1-hour test runs as written in draft section 301.6a, even though the applicable 
standard allows a shorter test run duration. 
Comment #17 - Return to Response #17
Comment #18 - Return to Response #18

From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>  
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2022 9:38 AM 
To: PND Regulatory <PNDRegulatory@maricopa.gov>; Kathy Semder (COA) <Kathy.Semder@Maricopa.Gov>; Andy 
Linton (OBM) <Andy.Linton@Maricopa.Gov>; Bill Leal (FCD) <Bill.Leal@Maricopa.Gov>; Kathryn Garcia (PND) 
<Kathryn.Garcia@Maricopa.Gov>; Blanca Caballero (ENV) <Blanca.Caballero@Maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Citizen Comments 
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-2021-002 Rule 270 Performance Tests
Department 
Air Quality
I would like to  
Other
First Name 
Xandrian
Last Name 
McMacken
Organization 
Trinity Consultants
City 
Phoenix
Zip 
85016
Email 
xandrian.mcmacken@trinityconsultants.com 
Phone Number 
4805196194
Phone Type 
Mobile
Would you like someone to 
contact you? 
Yes 
Comments: Under the revised Rule 270, under subsection 301.6(d), the phrase "good cause" was previously 
mentioned twice. The first mention was replaced by "force majeure" but the second later in the subsection is still 
"good cause." If we are changing the ambiguous phrase "good cause" with "force majeure," should we not replace 
it in both instances? Defining "force majeure" and not "good cause" while still using the latter language seems to 
be an oversight. I would recommend changing both instances to "force majeure" to avoid ambiguity. 
If applicable, attach 
supporting documentation 
associated with your 
comment. The only file 
types supported are MS 
Office and Adobe Acrobat. 
Rule 270 Subsection 301.6(d).GIF 
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
Comment #19 - Return to Response #19