RULE 230 BOS REPORT.PDF

Air Quality Department 
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 410 
Phoenix, Arizona 85003 
P: 602-506-6010 
E: AQMail@maricopa.gov 
Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program 
Maricopa County Air Quality Department 
Notice of Public Hearing 
Subject: 
Rule 230 (General Permits) 
Date/Time: 
June 24, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. 
Location:  
Board of Supervisors’ Auditorium 
205 W. Jefferson St., Phoenix, Arizona 85003 
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to conduct a public hearing to solicit 
comments on the proposed revisions to Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations, 
Rule 230 (General Permits) and the proposed submission of the amended rule as a revision to 
the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). 
You may comment on the proposed rule using the Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program 
(EROP) online comment form. 
AQ-2025-004-Rule 230 (General Permits) 
The purpose of Rule 230 is to establish procedures for developing and issuing general permits 
for a facility class that contains a large number of sources that perform similar operations, 
emit similar air contaminants, use similar emission control technologies, and are subject to the 
same or substantially similar regulatory requirements. The purpose of this rulemaking is to 
ensure the rule complies with the general SIP requirements for new source review programs in 
the Code of Federal Regulations so that Rule 230 can be approved into the Arizona SIP. 
Additionally, the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) is proposing to revise Rule 
230 to expand the general permit program by allowing larger Non-Title V and Title V sources to 
potentially qualify for general permits. As a result, more facilities may be able to obtain general 
permits instead of individual permits. Currently, only smaller Non-Title V sources are eligible 
for general permits. 
Members of the public may attend the Board meeting in person or view the meeting online. 
Please check the Board of Supervisors’ website at least 24 hours before the date of the public 
hearing for instructions for remote access. Live video feeds are also available 
at www.maricopa.gov.  
For more information regarding this rulemaking, please refer to the Report to the Board of 
Supervisors attached to this notice and available on the EROP Active Regulatory Process 
webpage. A copy of the SIP submittal will be available at least 30 days prior to the hearing for 
public inspection at the offices of the Maricopa County Air Quality Department, 301 West 
Jefferson Street, Suite 410, Phoenix, Arizona 85003. The SIP submittal will also be available on 
the EROP Active Regulatory Process webpage at least 30 days prior to the hearing. In addition,

Air Quality Department 
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 410 
Phoenix, Arizona 85003 
P: 602-506-6010 
E: AQMail@maricopa.gov 
copies of the Report to the Board of Supervisors and the SIP submittal can be obtained by 
calling 602-506-6010. 
MCAQD will take reasonable measures to provide access to department services to individuals 
with limited ability to speak, write, or understand English and/or to those with disabilities. 
Requests for language interpretation services or for disability accommodations must be made 
at least 48 hours in advance by contacting: 602-506-6443. 
MCAQD (por sus siglas en inglés) tomará las medidas necesarias para brindar acceso a los 
servicios del departamento a personas que no dominan el idioma inglés y/o personas con 
discapacidades. Las solicitudes de servicios de interpretación de otro idioma o adaptaciones 
para discapacitados deben realizarse con al menos 48 horas de anticipación comunicándose 
con: 602-506-6443.

Air Quality Department 
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 410 
Phoenix, Arizona 85003 
P: 602-506-6010 
E: AQMail@maricopa.gov 
Executive Summary of the Report to the Board of Supervisors 
Prepared by Maricopa County Air Quality Department 
Board Hearing Date: 
June 24, 2026 
Case Number/Title: 
AQ-2025-004-Rule 230 (General Permits) 
Agenda Item: 
(Pending) 
Supervisor Districts: 
All Districts 
The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) complied with all statutory and county 
policies throughout this rulemaking process. Per the Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program 
(EROP) Policy: “In addition to the required staff report, an executive summary of the report 
including an overview of stakeholder input and staff responses will be provided to the Board of 
Supervisors at least one week prior to any Board of Supervisors’ public hearing.” 
Overview of the Report to the Board of Supervisors: 
The purpose of Rule 230 is to establish procedures for developing and issuing general permits 
for a facility class that contains a large number of sources that perform similar operations, 
emit similar air contaminants, use similar emission control technologies, and are subject to the 
same or substantially similar regulatory requirements. MCAQD currently has general permits 
for 12 facility classes. 
Rule 230 is a part of MCAQD’s New Source Review (NSR) rules which make up the 
preconstruction permitting program that requires businesses to get an air pollution control 
permit before they begin actual construction or make modifications that could affect 
emissions. On December 20, 2019, MCAQD submitted Rule 230 to the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) along with six other MCAQD rules that make up the NSR permitting 
program as a revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). 
On February 15, 2022, the EPA approved six of the seven NSR rules for incorporation into the 
Arizona SIP, excluding Rule 230. At that time, the EPA deferred action on Rule 230. The EPA 
later provided comments to MCAQD identifying areas for improvement in Rule 230 to enhance 
its approvability specifically related to the administrative procedures for NSR programs. 
MCAQD is proposing revisions to address these comments by ensuring the rule complies with 
the general SIP requirements for NSR programs in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 
under 40 CFR 51.160 through 164. 
Additionally, MCAQD is proposing to revise Rule 230 to expand the general permit program by 
allowing larger Non-Title V and Title V sources to potentially qualify for general permits. As a 
result, more facilities may be able to obtain general permits instead of individual permits. 
Currently, only smaller Non-Title V sources are eligible for general permits. 
Overview of Stakeholder Input and Staff Responses: 
MCAQD has not received any comments on this rulemaking.

Maricopa County 
Air Quality Department 
Planning and Analysis Division 
Report to the 
Board of 
Supervisors 
June 2026 
Rule 230 
(General Permits)

Board of Health Meeting Date: 
April 27, 2026 
Board Hearing Date: 
June 24, 2026 
Case Number/Title:  
AQ-2025-004-Rule 230 (General Permits) 
Agenda Item: 
(Pending) 
Supervisor Districts: 
All Districts 
Applicant:  
Staff 
Request: 
Approve revision of Maricopa County Air Pollution Control 
Regulations, Rule 230 (General Permits) and approve 
submission of the revised rule as a revision to the Arizona 
State Implementation Plan (SIP). 
The purpose of Rule 230 is to establish procedures for 
developing and issuing general permits for a facility class 
that contains a large number of sources that perform similar 
operations, emit similar air contaminants, use similar 
emission control technologies, and are subject to the same 
or substantially similar regulatory requirements. The 
Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) currently 
has general permits for 12 facility classes. 
Rule 230 is a part of MCAQD’s New Source Review (NSR) 
rules which make up the preconstruction permitting program 
that requires businesses to get an air pollution control 
permit before they begin actual construction or make 
modifications that could affect emissions. On December 20, 
2019, MCAQD submitted Rule 230 to the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) along with six other MCAQD rules 
that make up the NSR permitting program as a revision to 
the Arizona SIP. 
On February 15, 2022, the EPA approved six of the seven 
NSR rules for incorporation into the Arizona SIP, excluding 
Rule 230. At that time, the EPA deferred action on Rule 230. 
The EPA later provided comments to MCAQD identifying 
areas for improvement in Rule 230 to enhance its 
approvability specifically related to the administrative 
procedures for NSR programs. MCAQD is proposing 
revisions to address these comments by ensuring the rule 
complies with the general SIP requirements for NSR 
programs in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 40 
CFR 51.160 through 164. 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 5 of 68

Additionally, MCAQD is proposing to revise Rule 230 to 
expand the general permit program by allowing larger Non-
Title V and Title V sources to potentially qualify for general 
permits. As a result, more facilities may be able to obtain 
general permits instead of individual permits. Currently, only 
smaller Non-Title V sources are eligible for general permits. 
Support/Opposition: 
MCAQD has not received any comments on this proposed 
rulemaking. 
Staff 
Recommendation: 
Approve 
Board of Health 
Recommendation: 
Approve 
Additional Comments: 
This regulatory change is following the Enhanced Regulatory 
Outreach Program (EROP) Policy and workflow process. The 
County Manager briefed the Board of Supervisors regarding 
this rulemaking in February 2025. Stakeholder Workshops 
were held on March 12, 2025, and December 9, 2025. 
The Board of Health approved initiation of regulatory change 
on April 28, 2025, and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was 
posted on the EROP website on March 3, 2026. On April 27, 
2026, the Board of Health made a recommendation to the 
Board of Supervisors to approve the revisions to Rule 230. 
A newspaper notice of the Board of Supervisors public 
hearing will be published in the Arizona Business Gazette on 
May 21, 2026, and May 28, 2026. 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.) 
Section 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) 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 6 of 68

Language of proposed regulatory change or amendment 
(See the Draft Notice of Final Rulemaking) 
Strikethrough/underline version of Draft Rule 230 
Clean version of Draft Rule 230 
Minutes from Board of Health meeting – April 28, 2025 
Minutes from Board of Health meeting - April 27, 2026 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 7 of 68

Maricopa County 
Air Quality Department 
Planning and Analysis Division 
Draft Notice 
of Final  
Rulemaking 
Rule 230  
(General Permits) 
June 2026

Draft Notice of Final Rulemaking 
Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations 
Regulation II – Permits and Fees 
Rule 230 (General Permits) 
The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) is proposing to amend Rule 230 
(General Permits). 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 Statute (A.R.S.) Section 
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. Section 49-471.07(B). 
Preamble 
1.
Statutory authority for the rulemaking (A.R.S. Section 49-471.05(1)):
A.R.S. Sections 49-112, 49-474, 49-479 and 49-480
2.
Name and address of department personnel with whom persons may communicate
regarding the rulemaking (A.R.S. Section 49-471.05(2)):
Name:
Lisa Richey 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 
Email: 
AQPlanning@maricopa.gov 
Online: 
Submit a Comment 
3.
Rulemaking process (A.R.S. Section 49-471.05(3)):
This rulemaking is following procedures identified in state statutes and the Maricopa
County EROP Policy.
County Manager Briefing:
February 18, 2025 
Stakeholder Workshops:
March 12, 2025 
December 9, 2025 
Return to list of attachments
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 9 of 68

Board of Health Meeting to Initiate Regulatory 
Change: 
April 28, 2025 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: 
March 3, 2026 
Board of Health Meeting to Recommend 
Approval to the Board of Supervisors: 
April 27, 2026 
Board of Supervisors Formal Meeting to Set the 
Public Hearing: 
May 20, 2026 
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: 
June 24, 2026 
4.
Explanation of the rule, including the control officer's reasons for initiating the
rulemaking (A.R.S. Section 49-471.05(4)):
The purpose of Rule 230 is to establish procedures for developing and issuing general
permits for a facility class that contains a large number of sources that perform
similar operations, emit similar air contaminants, use similar emission control
technologies, and are subject to the same or substantially similar regulatory
requirements. MCAQD currently has general permits for 12 facility classes.
Rule 230 is a part of MCAQD’s New Source Review (NSR) rules which make up the
preconstruction permitting program that requires businesses to get an air pollution
control permit before they begin actual construction or make modifications that could
affect emissions. On December 20, 2019, MCAQD submitted Rule 230 to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) along with six other MCAQD rules that make
up the NSR permitting program as a revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan
(SIP).
On February 15, 2022, the EPA approved six of the seven NSR rules for incorporation
into the Arizona SIP, excluding Rule 230. At that time, the EPA deferred action on Rule
230. The EPA later provided comments to MCAQD identifying areas for improvement
in Rule 230 to enhance its approvability specifically related to the administrative
procedures for NSR programs. MCAQD is proposing revisions to address these
comments by ensuring the rule complies with the general SIP requirements for NSR
programs in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 40 CFR 51.160 through 164.
Additionally, MCAQD is proposing to revise Rule 230 to expand the general permit
program by allowing larger Non-Title V and Title V sources to potentially qualify for
general permits. As a result, more facilities may be able to obtain general permits
instead of individual permits. Currently, only smaller Non-Title V sources are eligible
for general permits.
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 (A.R.S. Section 49-
471.05(5)).
Return to list of attachments
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 10 of 68

No studies were relied on in the Control Officer’s evaluation of the rule. However, 
MCAQD consulted with 13 other air quality agencies, professional national 
organizations, and consultants to air agencies to discuss their general permit 
programs and compare permitting and administrative approaches. These discussions 
formed the development of the proposed revisions to Rule 230 but did not involve 
published studies, datasets, or formal analyses. 
6.
An economic, small business and consumer impact statement (A.R.S. Section 49-
471.05(6)):
The following discussion addresses each of the elements required for an economic,
small business and consumer impact statement, as prescribed by A.R.S. Sections 41-
1055, subsections A, B and C, and 41-1035:
An identification of the proposed rulemaking, including all of the following (A.R.S.
Section 41-1055(A)(1)):
This rulemaking is proposing to revise Rule 230.
(a) The conduct and its frequency of occurrence that the rule is designed to change
(A.R.S. Section 41-1055(A)(1)(a)). 
MCAQD is proposing to revise Rule 230 to expand the general permit program by 
allowing larger Non-Title V and Title V sources to potentially qualify for general 
permits. As a result, more facilities may be able to obtain general permits instead 
of individual permits. Currently, only smaller Non-Title V sources are eligible for 
general 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 (A.R.S. Section 41-
1055(A)(1)(b)). 
MCAQD is proposing to revise Rule 230 to ensure compliance with the general SIP 
requirements for NSR programs in 40 CFR 51.160 through 164 to secure approval 
of Rule 230 into the Arizona SIP. This action will complete the MCAQD’s NSR 
program in the Arizona SIP.  
(c) The estimated change in frequency of the targeted conduct expected from the 
rule change (A.R.S. Section 41-1055(A)(1)(c)). 
MCAQD is proposing to revise Rule 230 to expand the general permit program by 
expanding eligibility to additional source categories, including larger Non-Title V 
sources and certain Title V sources. As with other rules, MCAQD will continue to 
use education, outreach, and compliance assistance tools to support 
implementation of the revised rule. 
A brief summary of the information included in the economic, small business and 
consumer impact statement (A.R.S. Section 41-1055(A)(2)). 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 11 of 68

The revisions proposed for Rule 230 are not expected to impose significant new costs 
on small businesses, and consumers are not expected to experience adverse impacts. 
Expanding eligibility for general permits to include larger Non-Title V sources and 
certain Title V sources is expected to have a positive economic impact by providing a 
more streamlined and efficient permitting option compared to individual permits, 
reducing administrative burden, permitting time, and compliance costs for eligible 
businesses, including small businesses that qualify for coverage under a general 
permit. 
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 (A.R.S. Section 41-1055(A)(3)). 
Name: 
Lisa Richey 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 
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 (A.R.S. Section 41-1055(B)(2)). 
The proposed revisions to Rule 230 primarily affect businesses in Maricopa County 
that own or operate sources subject to NSR and qualify for coverage under a general 
permit. These businesses may choose to apply for an Authority to Operate (ATO) 
under an applicable general permit instead of applying for an individual permit. While 
there may be some administrative costs associated with applying for coverage and 
meeting general permit requirements, the revisions do not create new obligations 
beyond existing federal and county requirements. 
Businesses that qualify for a general permit may benefit from a more streamlined and 
predictable permitting process. MCAQD benefits from greater administrative 
efficiency, and the public benefits from continued implementation of an effective, 
federally approvable NSR program that protects air quality. 
A cost benefit analysis of the following: 
(a) The probable costs and benefits to the implementing agency and other agencies 
directly affected by the implementation and enforcement of the proposed 
rulemaking (A.R.S. Section 41-1055(B)(3)(a)). 
This proposed rulemaking is not expected to impose any new costs on MCAQD or 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 12 of 68

on any other affected agencies. Implementation and enforcement will occur within 
MCAQD’s existing permitting, inspection, and compliance programs. 
In some cases, a larger Non-Title V or Title V source seeking coverage under a 
general permit may be required to submit an Ambient Air Quality Impact 
Assessment (AAQIA). Review of an AAQIA may require additional technical review 
time. However, this review would also be required under an individual permit. No 
additional staffing or resources are anticipated. 
The primary benefit to MCAQD is improved permitting efficiency while maintaining 
compliance with federal NSR requirements and securing approval of the rule into 
the Arizona SIP. 
(b) The probable costs and benefits to a political subdivision of this state directly 
affected by the implementation and enforcement of the proposed rulemaking 
(A.R.S. Section 41-1055(B)(3)(b)). 
This proposed rulemaking is not expected to impose any new costs on any 
political subdivisions of this state affected by the proposed revisions. 
(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 (A.R.S. 
Section 41-1055(B)(3)(c)). 
This proposed rulemaking is not expected to impose new costs on businesses 
subject to the rule. Affected businesses include owners and operators of sources 
that construct new or modify existing pollutant-emitting equipment and qualify for 
coverage under a general permit.  
The proposed revisions do not establish new emission control requirements; 
rather, they expand and clarify the availability and administrative procedures for 
general permits. In many cases, use of a general permit reduces permitting time, 
administrative burden, and associated costs compared to obtaining an individual 
permit. 
No impact on revenues or payroll expenditures is anticipated for employers subject 
to the proposed rulemaking. The rulemaking is expected to provide a more 
efficient permitting process, especially for larger sources, which may result in 
indirect cost savings for affected employers. 
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 (A.R.S. Section 41-1055(B)(4)). 
This proposed rulemaking should have no impact on private or public employment in 
businesses, agencies, and political subdivisions of this state. 
A statement of the probable impact of the proposed rulemaking on small 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 13 of 68

businesses. The statement shall include: 
(a) An identification of the small businesses subject to the proposed rulemaking 
(A.R.S. Section 41-1055(B)(5)(a)). 
The proposed revisions to Rule 230 primarily affect businesses in Maricopa County 
that own or operate sources subject to NSR and qualify for coverage under a 
general permit. This may include small manufacturing operations, surface coating 
facilities, fuel-burning operations, gasoline dispensing operations, stationary 
emergency internal combustion engines, material handling operations, and other 
industrial facilities that construct new or modify existing pollutant-emitting 
equipment. 
Small businesses that qualify for a specific general permit may elect to obtain an 
ATO rather than apply for an individual permit. The revisions to the rule apply to 
small businesses already subject to existing federal and county air permitting 
requirements. 
(b) The administrative and other costs required for compliance with the proposed 
rulemaking (A.R.S. Section 41-1055(B)(5)(b)). 
The proposed revisions to Rule 230 are not expected to impose new administrative 
or compliance costs on affected businesses, including small businesses. Sources 
that elect to operate under a general permit will incur routine administrative costs 
associated with submitting an application for an ATO, an annual fee, and 
maintaining compliance with the general permit conditions.  
In many cases, the costs associated with general permits are less than those 
associated with obtaining and maintaining an individual permit. The proposed rule 
does not establish new emission control requirements or operational standards 
beyond those already required under existing federal and county regulations. 
(c) A description of the methods that the agency may use to reduce the impact on 
small businesses (A.R.S. Section 41-1055(B)(5)(c)). 
The proposed revisions to Rule 230 do not establish separate compliance or 
reporting requirements specifically for small businesses. However, the general 
permit is intended to reduce administrative burden for all qualifying sources, 
including small businesses, by providing standardized permit conditions, simplified 
application procedures, and reduced case-by-case technical review compared to 
individual permits. 
In some cases, a larger Non-Title V or Title V source seeking coverage under a 
general permit may be required to submit an AAQIA. Preparation of an AAQIA 
involves additional cost. However, this analysis would also be required if the 
source applied for an individual permit. Therefore, the rule does not create new air 
modeling requirements but applies existing NSR requirements where applicable. 
Additionally, MCAQD has a Business Assistance Program that provides 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 14 of 68

administrative and technical assistance to business owners. Courtesy site visits, 
on-site training, rule interpretation, and compliance assistance are offered to small 
businesses at no charge. 
i.
Establish less stringent compliance or reporting requirements in the rule for
small businesses (A.R.S. Section 41-1035(1)).
This proposed rulemaking does not impose new compliance or reporting
requirements on small businesses beyond those already required under
existing federal and county air quality regulations.
ii. Establish less stringent schedules or deadlines in the rule for compliance or
reporting requirements for small businesses (A.R.S. Section 41-1035(2)).
This proposed rulemaking does not impose new schedules or deadlines for
compliance or reporting requirements on small businesses beyond those
already required under existing federal and county air quality regulations.
iii. Consolidate or simplify the rule's compliance or reporting requirements for
small businesses (A.R.S. Section 41-1035(3)).
This proposed rulemaking does not impose new compliance or reporting
requirements on small businesses beyond those already required under
existing federal and county air quality regulations. However, MCAQD provides
tools to simplify compliance, including public access to all general permits,
recordkeeping templates for each general permit category, and additional
guidance materials on its website. Additionally, the Business Assistance
Program offers free technical assistance and training to small businesses.
iv. Establish performance standards for small businesses to replace design or
operational standards in the rule (A.R.S. Section 41-1035(4)).
This proposed rulemaking does not impose design requirements on small
businesses beyond those already required under existing federal and county air
quality regulations.
v. Exempt small businesses from any or all requirements of the rule (A.R.S.
Section 41-1035(5)).
This proposed rulemaking does not exempt small businesses from the
requirements of the rule. Rule 230 implements federal NSR and Title V
permitting requirements, and MCAQD does not have discretion to exempt small
businesses from federally mandated permitting obligations.
(d) The probable cost and benefit to private persons and consumers who are directly 
affected by the proposed rulemaking (A.R.S. Section 41-1055(B)(5)(d)). 
The proposed rulemaking is not expected to impose direct costs on private 
persons or consumers. Consumers may benefit indirectly from permitting 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 15 of 68

efficiencies and continued implementation of an effective, federally approvable 
NSR program that protects air quality. 
A statement of the probable effect on state revenues (A.R.S. Section 41-
1055(B)(6)). 
The proposed 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 (A.R.S. Section 41-1055(B)(7)). 
The general permit program is the least intrusive and in most cases, the least costly 
method of achieving the purpose of the proposed rulemaking. The purpose of these 
revisions is to ensure Rule 230 complies with the general NSR requirements in 40 CFR 
51.160 through 164 and secure the authority to issue general permits for larger Non-
Title V sources and certain Title V sources.  
Alternatives, such as continuing to rely solely on individual permits or limiting 
applicability, would reduce permitting flexibility and likely increase administrative 
costs. These proposed revisions are required to secure approval of Rule 230 into the 
Arizona SIP and complete MCAQD’s NSR program. 
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 (A.R.S. Section 41-
1055(B)(8)). 
Not applicable. 
No published studies or data were relied on in the Control Officer’s evaluation of the 
rule. However, MCAQD consulted with 13 other air quality agencies and associations 
to discuss their general permit programs and compare permitting and administrative 
approaches. These discussions formed the development of the proposed revisions to 
Rule 230 but did not involve published studies or datasets. 
7.
The proposed effective date of the rule (A.R.S. Section 49-471.05(7)):
The proposed effective date of this rulemaking is June 24, 2026.
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 (A.R.S. Section 49-471.05(8)):
Under A.R.S. Section 49-479(A), county air pollution control rules must be at least
equal to or more restrictive than those adopted by the Director of the Arizona
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 16 of 68

Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). In addition, under A.R.S. Section 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 ADEQ for similar sources unless it complies with 
A.R.S. Section 49-112. 
The proposed revisions to Rule 230 are equivalent to ADEQ’s general permit 
regulations in Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R18-2-501 et seq. and do not 
impose emission limitations, control requirements, applicability criteria, or compliance 
or recordkeeping obligations that are less stringent than or more stringent than 
ADEQ’s rules for similar sources.  
While Rule 230 may differ in organization or procedural detail, those differences 
ensure consistency with MCAQD’s existing permitting SIP-approved rules and federal 
NSR requirements. For example, Rule 230 expressly incorporates Rule 210 (Title V 
Permit Provisions) content requirements and incorporates by reference 40 CFR 
70.6(d) for Title V general permits. ADEQ’s rule references Article 3 and Title V 
generally, but MCAQD’s language is more explicit and structured. That makes Rule 
230 procedurally more detailed, though not necessarily more stringent. 
Such structural or administrative distinctions do not establish additional regulatory 
requirements “more stringent than or in addition to” ADEQ’s rules within the meaning 
of A.R.S. Section 49-112. Accordingly, A.R.S. Section 49-112(A) and (B) are not 
applicable to this proposed rulemaking. 
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.
Section 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: 
February 26, 2025 
Notice of First Stakeholder Workshop: 
February 26, 2025 
Notice of First Board of Health Meeting:  
April 14, 2025 
Notice of Second Stakeholder Workshop: 
November 24, 2025 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: 
March 3, 2026 
Notice of Second Board of Health Meeting: 
April 13, 2026 
(b) The following discussion addresses each of the elements required for a concise 
explanatory statement, as prescribed by A.R.S. Section 49-471.07(B): 
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
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 17 of 68

was published on March 3, 2026: 
1. A discrepancy in the rule language in Section 302.1(a)(2) was identified
between the clean version and the strikethrough/underline version of the
rule published in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The rule language in
the clean version of the rule reflects the intended language which is: “The
Control Officer shall provide public notice in accordance with Section
302.1(d) below for a determination to approve a required AAQIA
demonstration.”
2. An administrative clarification was identified after publication of the Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking. As proposed, Section 302.1(e)(2) provided only
that the Administrator would receive a copy of the public notice. MCAQD’s
practice, however, is to provide copies of all public notices to EPA Region 9
and ADEQ, consistent with 40 CFR 51.161(d). Section 302.1(e)(2) was
therefore revised to codify this existing administrative practice and align the
rule text with the applicable NSR requirement and now states:
“The Control Officer shall send a copy of the notice to the Administrator
and to all other State and local air pollution control agencies having
jurisdiction in the region in which such new or modified installation will be
located (if known) at the same time the Control Officer publishes the first
notice in a newspaper.”
ii. A summary of the comments and arguments for and against the notice and
the county’s response to the comments and arguments.
As of the posting of this notice on May 20, 2026, no comments on the proposed
rulemaking for Rule 230 have been received.
Exact Wording of the Rule 
Note to reader:  Two versions of the rule are included below. The first version is a strikethrough/underline 
version showing the intended actions to make new sections or amend, repeal, or renumber the sections of 
the rule. The second version is a clean version without the strikethrough/underline included for readability 
purposes.
Return to list of attachments
Return to list of attachments
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 18 of 68

MARICOPA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS 
REGULATION II – PERMITS AND FEES 
RULE 230 (GENERAL PERMITS) 
INDEX 
SECTION 100 – GENERAL
101 
PURPOSE 
102 
APPLICABILITY 
103 
SECTION AND RULE CITATIONS 
SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS 
201 
GENERAL PERMIT 
201 
202 
SIMILAR IN NATURE 
203 
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT (TSD) 
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS 
301 
RULES APPLICABLE TO A GENERAL PERMIT 
302 
GENERAL PERMIT DEVELOPMENT 
303 
APPLICATION FOR AUTHORITY TO OPERATE UNDER GENERAL PERMIT 
304 
PUBLIC NOTICE 
305 
SOURCES FOR WHICH A GENERAL PERMIT MAY NOT BE ISSUED 
306 
GENERAL PERMIT RENEWAL 
307 
RELATIONSHIP TO INDIVIDUAL PERMITS 
308 
GENERAL PERMIT VARIANCE FOR ANY NON-FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE 
REQUIREMENT OF A PERMIT 
309 
GENERAL PERMIT APPEALS 
310 
REVOCATIONS OF AUTHORITY TO OPERATE 
311 
CHANGES TO FACILITIES GRANTED AUTHORITY TO OPERATE UNDER GENERAL 
PERMIT 
301 
GENERAL PERMIT DEVELOPMENT 
302 
PUBLIC NOTICE AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION  
303 
AUTHORITY TO OPERATE (ATO) APPLICATION 
Strikethrough/underline version of Draft Rule 230 
Return to list of attachments
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 19 of 68

304 
REVOCATIONS OF AUTHORITY TO OPERATE 
305 
RELATIONSHIP TO INDIVIDUAL PERMITS 
306 
GENERAL PERMIT RENEWAL 
307 
VARIANCE FOR ANY NON-FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE REQUIREMENT OF A 
GENERAL PERMIT 
308 
GENERAL PERMIT APPEALS 
309 
CHANGES ALLOWED UNDER A GENERAL PERMIT 
SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS (NOT APPLICABLE) 
SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS (NOT APPLICABLE) 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 20 of 68

Adopted 11/15/1993; Revised 02/15/1995; Revised 06/06/2007; Revised 02/03/2016; Revised 
12/11/2019; Revised MM/DD/YYYY 
MARICOPA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS 
REGULATION II – PERMITS AND FEES 
RULE 230 (GENERAL PERMITS) 
SECTION 100 – GENERAL 
101 
PURPOSE: To allow provide an orderly procedure for the issuance of General general 
permits for a facility class that contains a large number of sources that are similar in 
nature, have substantially similar emissions, and would be subject to the same or 
substantially similar requirements governing operations, emissions, monitoring, 
reporting, or recordkeeping. 
102 
APPLICABILITY: 
102.1 A General permit may only be issued to a stationary source in a facility class. 
102.2 102.1 This rule provides the authority and requirements the Control Officer must meet 
to develop and issue General permits a general permit for a facility class. 
102.3 The Control Officer may issue a General permit for any facility class that is 
determined to be appropriate for a General permit, in accordance with the 
requirements of this rule. 
102.4 102.2 This rule provides the requirements a stationary source an owner or operator 
must meet to obtain authority to operate under a General general permit issued 
by the Control Officer. 
102.3 Unless otherwise stated, the provisions of the following rules shall apply to the 
issuance, content, and applications for general permits, as applicable: 
a. Rule 200 (Permit Requirements)
b. Rule 210 (Title V Permit Provisions)
c. Rule 220 (Non-Title V Permit Provisions)
d. Rule 241 (Minor New Source Review (NSR))
102.4 Sources for Which a General Permit May Not be Issued: 
a. A general permit shall not be issued to a facility class if that facility class has
been issued a general permit by the Director of the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality for sources in Maricopa County pursuant to Arizona
Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) Section 49-426(H).
b. General permits shall not be authorized for affected sources under the acid
rain program unless otherwise provided in regulations promulgated under
Title IV (Acid Deposition Control) of the Clean Air Act.
c. General permits shall not be issued to a facility class if application of Section
102.3 would not ensure compliance with all applicable requirements.
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 21 of 68

103 SECTION AND RULE CITATIONS: All section citations refer to sections within this rule 
unless otherwise specified and all rule citations refer to rules within the Maricopa 
County Air Pollution Control Regulations (MCAPCR) unless otherwise specified. 
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 Regulations MCAPCR, the definitions in this rule take precedence. 
201 
GENERAL PERMIT: A permit issued by the Control Officer for a specific facility class 
consisting of Non-Title V or Title V sources that are similar in nature. 
201 
202 
SIMILAR IN NATURE: Refers to facility size, processes, and operating conditions A 
facility class with substantially similar emissions subject to the same or substantially 
similar requirements governing operations, emissions, monitoring, reporting, and 
recordkeeping. 
203 
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT (TSD): A statement issued by the Control Officer 
that sets forth the legal and factual basis for draft permit conditions, including 
references to the applicable statutory or regulatory provisions. 
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS 
301 
RULES APPLICABLE TO A GENERAL PERMIT: Unless otherwise stated, the provisions of 
Rule 200-Permit Requirements, Rule 210-Title V Permit Provisions, Rule 220- Non-Title V 
Permit Provisions, Rule 241-Minor New Source Review (NSR), Rule 245 - Continuous 
Source Emission Monitoring, Rule 270-Performance Tests, and Rule 400- Procedure 
Before the Hearing Board shall apply to General permits. 
302 
GENERAL PERMIT DEVELOPMENT: 
302.1 The Control Officer may issue a General permit on his own initiative or in 
response to a petition. At the time the Control Officer issues a General permit, the 
Control Officer may also establish a specific application with filing instructions 
for sources in the facility class covered by the General permit. 
302.2 Any person may submit a petition to the Control Officer requesting the issuance 
of a General permit for a defined class of facilities. The petition shall propose a 
particular facility class, shall list the approximate number of facilities in the 
proposed class along with their size, processes, and operating conditions, and 
shall demonstrate how the facility class meets the criteria for a General permit as 
specified in Sections 100 and 301 through 303 of this rule and in A.R.S. § 49-
426(H). The Control Officer shall provide a written response to the petition within 
120 days of receipt. 
302.3 A General permit shall be issued for a facility class using the same engineering 
technical review process that applies to permits for individual sources and 
following the public notice requirements of Section 304 of this rule. 
302.4 A General permit shall include all of the following: 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 22 of 68

a. General permits issued for Title V sources shall contain all elements in Rule
210 (Title V Permit Provisions), Section 302.1 (Permit Contents) of these 
rules except Sections 302.1(b)(2) and 302.1(f). 
b. General permits issued for Non-Title V sources shall contain all elements in
Rule 220 (Non-Title V Permit Provisions), Section 302 (Permit Contents) of 
these rules. 
c. The process for individual sources to apply for authority to operate under the
General permit. 
302.5 A source applying for authority to operate under a General permit shall not 
propose nor accept pursuant to Rule 220 (Non-Title V Permit Provisions) of these 
rules emissions limitations, controls, or other requirements that are not included 
in the specific General permit. 
302.6 General permits developed by the Control Officer shall require both of the 
following: 
a. Installation and operation of reasonably available control technology (RACT)
as determined by Rule 241, Section 307.1 of these rules. 
b. Compliance with standards/requirements promulgated pursuant to Sections
111 or 112 of the Act as applicable. 
303 
APPLICATION FOR AUTHORITY TO OPERATE UNDER GENERAL PERMIT: 
303.1 Once the Control Officer has issued a General permit, any source which is a 
member of the class of facilities covered by the General permit may apply to the 
Control Officer for authority to operate under the General permit. Applicants shall 
complete the specific application form, or if none has been adopted, the standard 
application form. The specific application form shall, at a minimum, require the 
applicant to submit information identifying and describing the source, its 
processes and operating conditions in sufficient detail to allow the Control 
Officer to determine qualification for and to assure compliance with the General 
permit. 
303.2 For sources required to obtain a permit under Title V of the Act, the Control 
Officer shall provide the Administrator with a permit application summary form 
and any relevant portion of the permit application and compliance plan. To the 
extent possible, this information shall be provided in computer readable format 
compatible with the Administrator's national database management system. 
303.3 The Control Officer shall act on the application for authority to operate under a 
General permit as expeditiously as possible. The source may operate under the 
terms of the applicable General permit seven days after the application is 
submitted, if the application shows that the source qualifies for and is in 
compliance with the specific General permit. The Control Officer may defer 
acting on an application under this rule, if the Control Officer has provided notice 
of intent to renew or not to renew the permit for the facility class. 
303.4 The Control Officer shall make available to the public a monthly summary of all 
applications received for authority to operate under a General permit. 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 23 of 68

304 
PUBLIC NOTICE: 
304.1 The Control Officer shall provide public notice for any proposed General permit, 
for any revision of an existing General permit, and for renewal of an existing 
General permit. 
304.2 The Control Officer shall publish notice of the proposed General permit once 
each week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation 
within Maricopa County. The notice shall describe the following: 
a. The proposed General permit
b. The category of sources that would be affected
c. The air contaminants which the Control Officer expects to be emitted by a
typical source in the facility class and by facility class as a whole 
d. The Control Officer's proposed actions and effective date for the actions
e. Locations where documents relevant to the proposed General permit will be
available during normal business hours 
f.
The name, address, and telephone number of a person within the department
who may be contacted for further information 
g. The address where any person may submit comments and/or request a
public hearing and the date and time by which comments or public hearing 
request are required to be received 
h. The process by which sources may obtain authorization to operate under the
General permit 
304.3 For General permits under which operation may be authorized in lieu of individual 
source permits issued under Rule 210 (Title V Permit Provisions) of these rules, 
the Control Officer shall give notice of the proposed General permit to each 
affected state at the same time that the Control Officer publishes notice of the 
proposed General permit in a newspaper as specified in Section 304.2 of this 
rule. The Control Officer shall provide the proposed final permit to the 
Administrator after public and affected state review. No Title V permit shall be 
issued if the Administrator properly objects to its issuance in writing within 45 
days from receipt of the proposed final permit and any necessary supporting 
information from the Control Officer. 
304.4 The Control Officer shall provide at least 30 days from the date of the first notice 
described in Section 304.3 of this rule for public comment. 
304.5 Written comments to the Control Officer shall include the name of the person 
and the person's agent or attorney and shall clearly set forth reasons why the 
General permit should or should not be issued. 
304.6 At the time a General permit is issued, the Control Officer shall make available a 
response to all relevant comments on the proposed permit raised during the 
public comment period and during any requested public hearing. The response 
shall specify which provisions, if any, of the proposed permit have been changed 
and the reason for the changes. The Control Officer shall also notify in writing 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 24 of 68

any petitioner and each person who has submitted written comments on the 
proposed permit or requested notice of the final permit decision. 
305 
SOURCES FOR WHICH A GENERAL PERMIT MAY NOT BE ISSUED: A General permit 
shall not be issued to a facility class if that facility class has been issued a General 
permit by the Director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality for sources in 
Maricopa County pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes § 49-426(H). 
306 
GENERAL PERMIT RENEWAL: 
306.1 The Control Officer shall review and may renew General permits every five years 
or sooner, if warranted. When renewing a General permit, the Control Officer shall 
ensure that the General permit meets all of the applicable requirements in 
accordance with this rule. 
306.2 A source's authorization to operate under a General permit shall expire when the 
General permit expires regardless of when the authorization began during the 
five year period, except as provided in Section 311.3 of this rule. 
306.3 At the time a General permit is renewed, the Control Officer shall notify in writing 
all sources that were granted authority to operate under the previous General 
permit and shall require such sources to submit a timely renewal application. For 
purposes of General permits, a timely application is one that is submitted within 
the time frame specified by the Control Officer in the written notification. Failure 
to submit a timely application terminates the source’s right to operate. If a 
source submits a timely and complete application for a permit renewal, but the 
Control Officer has failed to issue or deny the renewal General permit before the 
end of the term of the previous General permit, then the General permit shall not 
expire until the General permit renewal has been issued or denied. 
307 
RELATIONSHIP TO INDIVIDUAL PERMITS: Any source with authority to operate under a 
General permit may request to be excluded from such authority to operate by applying 
for an individual source permit. Authority to operate under the General permit shall 
terminate on the date the individual source permit is issued. 
308 
GENERAL PERMIT VARIANCE FOR ANY NON-FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE 
REQUIREMENT OF A PERMIT: 
308.1 Except as modified by the variance, the source shall comply with all conditions of 
the General permit. 
308.2 Applications and approvals of General permit variances shall be subject to the 
public notice requirements of Rule 210 (Title V Permit Provisions) of these rules. 
309 
GENERAL PERMIT APPEALS: Any person who filed a comment on a proposed General 
permit as provided in Section 304 of this rule may appeal the terms and conditions of a 
General permit, as they apply to the facility class covered under a General permit, by 
filing an appeal with the hearing board within ten days of issuance of the General 
permit. 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 25 of 68

310 
REVOCATIONS OF AUTHORITY TO OPERATE: 
310.1 The Control Officer may require a source authorized to operate under a General 
permit to apply for and to obtain an individual source permit at any time if: 
a. The Control Officer has determined that the source is not in compliance with
the terms and conditions of the General permit; or 
b. The Control Officer has determined that the emissions from the source or
facility class are significant contributors to ambient air quality standard 
violations which are not adequately addressed by the requirements in the 
General permit; or 
c. The Control Officer has information which indicates that the effects on
human health and the environment from the sources covered under the 
General permit are unacceptable. 
310.2 The Control Officer shall provide a written explanation to all sources operating 
under a General permit at least 12 months prior to termination or cancellation of 
a General permit. At least 6 months prior to the date of termination or 
cancellation of a General permit, sources operating under such General permit 
shall submit an application for an individual source permit to the Control Officer. 
Each source previously authorized to operate under such General permit may 
operate under the terms of such General permit, until the individual source permit 
is approved by the Control Officer. 
311 
CHANGES TO FACILITIES GRANTED AUTHORITY TO OPERATE UNDER GENERAL 
PERMIT: 
311.1 An owner or operator of a source that has been granted authority to operate 
under a General permit may make the following changes at the source only after 
the owner or operator provides written notification to the Control Officer and only 
if such changes do not require the owner or operator to obtain a Title V or a Non-
Title V permit: 
a. Adding new emissions units of the same type operating under a General
permit issued to the source. 
b. Installing a replacement emissions unit operating under a General permit
issued to the source. 
c. Adding or replacing air pollution control equipment operating under a General
permit issued to the source. 
311.2 Notification Required: The written notification required by Section 311.1 of this 
rule shall include: 
a. When the proposed change will occur;
b. A description of the change; and
c. Any change in potential emissions of regulated air pollutants.
311.3 An owner or operator of a source that has been granted authority to operate 
under a General permit shall keep a record of any physical change or change in 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 26 of 68

the method of operation that could affect emissions. The record shall include a 
description of the change and the date the change occurred. 
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS
301 
GENERAL PERMIT DEVELOPMENT 
301.1 Initiation by Control Officer: The Control Officer may issue a general permit on 
their own initiative or in response to a petition. At the time of issuance, the 
Control Officer shall establish a specific application with filing instructions for 
sources in the facility class covered by the general permit. 
301.2 Initiation by Petition: 
a. Any person may submit a petition to the Control Officer requesting the
issuance of a general permit for a defined class of facilities. The petition
shall: 
(1) Propose a particular facility class and list the approximate number of 
sources; 
(2) Demonstrate that the sources of the proposed facility class are similar in 
nature; and 
(3) Describe how the sources of the proposed facility class meet the criteria 
for a general permit as specified in this rule and in A.R.S. Section 49-
426(H). 
b. The Control Officer shall provide a written response to the petition within 120
days of receipt.
301.3 Technical Review Process: General permits shall be developed and issued for a 
facility class using the same technical review process that applies to individual 
source permits and following the public notice and public participation 
requirements of Section 302.  
301.4 Permit Term: The permit term shall not exceed five years from the date of 
issuance. 
301.5 Permit Contents: A general permit shall: 
a. For Non-Title V Sources: Include all permit content requirements in Rule 220,
Section 302.
b. For Title V Sources:
(1) Include all permit content requirements in Rule 210, Section 302.1 except
for the acid rain program provisions in Section 302.1(b)(2) and Section 
302.1(f). 
(2) Incorporate the requirements under 40 CFR 70.6(d). 
c. For Both Non-Title V and Title V Sources:
(1) Require the installation and operation of reasonably available control
technology (RACT) as determined by Rule 241, Section 307 or best 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 27 of 68

available control technology (BACT) as determined by Rule 241, Section 
306. 
(2) Incorporate the standards/requirements promulgated pursuant to 
Sections 111 or 112 of the Clean Air Act, as applicable. 
302 
PUBLIC NOTICE AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 
302.1 The Control Officer shall provide public notice, opportunity for public comment, 
and opportunity for a public hearing in accordance with the procedures set forth 
in this section before a general permit action or an ambient air quality impact 
assessment (AAQIA) determination is finalized. 
a. Actions Requiring Public Notice:
(1) The Control Officer shall provide public notice in accordance with Section
302.1(c) for the following proposed general permit actions: 
(a) Issuance of a new general permit. 
(b) Revision of an existing general permit.  
(c) Renewal of an existing general permit. 
(2) The Control Officer shall provide public notice in accordance with Section 
302.1(d) below for a determination to approve a required AAQIA 
demonstration. 
b. Public Notice: Public notices shall include the following to ensure public
availability of information:
(1) The Control Officer's proposed actions and effective date for the actions.
(2) Locations where documents relevant to the proposed action will be
available during business days. 
(3) The name, address, email address, and telephone number of a person 
within the Department who may be contacted for further information. 
(4) The address and email address where any person may submit comments 
and/or request a public hearing and the date and time by which comments 
or public hearing request are required to be received. 
(5) The process by which sources may obtain authorization to operate under 
the general permit. 
c. Public Notice for General Permit Actions: Public notices for a proposed
general permit issuance, revision, or renewal shall include:
(1) The components listed in Section 302.1(b).
(2) The proposed general permit and TSD.
(3) The facility class that would be affected.
(4) The air contaminants which the Control Officer expects to be emitted by a
typical source in the facility class and by facility class as a whole. 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 28 of 68

d. Public Notice for AAQIA Determinations for ATO Action: Public notices for
proposed AAQIA determinations, if an ambient air quality impact assessment
is required, shall include:
(1) The components listed in Section 302.1(b).
(2) The applicant’s AAQIA report.
(3) The Control Officer’s analysis of the applicant’s AAQIA report determining
the effect of construction or modification on ambient air quality. 
e. Methods of Public Notice:
(1) The Control Officer shall publish notice of the proposed actions:
(a) Once each week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general 
circulation within Maricopa County; and 
(b) On the department’s official website. 
(2) The Control Officer shall send a copy of the notice to the Administrator 
and to all other State and local air pollution control agencies having 
jurisdiction in the region in which such new or modified installation will be 
located (if known) at the same time the Control Officer publishes the first 
notice in a newspaper. 
f.
EPA and Affected State Review for Title V Source General Permits:
(1) When notice is published in accordance with Section 302.1(e), the Control
Officer shall send a copy of the notice of the proposed general permit to 
the Administrator and to all state and local air pollution control agencies 
having jurisdiction in the region where the new or modified emission 
unit(s) will be located (if known). 
(2) The Control Officer shall provide the proposed final general permit or the 
AAQIA determination, if required, to the Administrator concurrently with or 
after public and affected state review.  
(3) If the Administrator properly objects to its issuance in writing within 45 
days of receipt of the proposed final permit or AAQIA determination and 
all necessary supporting information from the Control Officer, the Title V 
general permit shall not be issued.  
g. Public Comment Period:
(1) The Control Officer shall provide a public comment period of at least 30
days from the date of the first publication of the notice. 
(2) Written comments shall include the commenter’s name, and if applicable, 
the name of their agent or attorney, and shall clearly state reasons for 
supporting or opposing the proposed action. 
h. Response to Comments and Final Action: At the time a general permit action
is issued or a determination on the AAQIA is finalized, the Control Officer
shall:
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 29 of 68

(1) Make available a response to all relevant comments received during the 
public comment period or during a public hearing. The response shall 
specify which provisions or determinations have been changed, and the 
reason for the change.  
(2) Provide written notice of the final decision to any petitioner and to all 
persons who submitted written comments or requested notice of the final 
decision. 
303 
AUTHORITY TO OPERATE (ATO) APPLICATION 
303.1 After the Control Officer issues a general permit, an owner or operator of any 
qualifying source that meets the criteria of the permit may apply for an ATO 
under that permit. 
303.2 Applicants shall complete and submit the application form(s) for the permit 
category provided by the Control Officer. 
303.3 The application form shall require the applicant to submit information in 
sufficient detail to allow the Control Officer to determine qualification for and to 
assure compliance with the general permit. 
303.4 Insignificant activities do not need to be included in the application unless the 
application is for a Title V general permit. 
303.5 Applicants shall not propose or accept emissions limitations, controls, or other 
requirements that are not included in the applicable permit. 
303.6 Ambient Air Quality Impact Assessment (AAQIA):  
a. The Control Officer may require an applicant to conduct and submit an AAQIA
with the ATO application in accordance with Rule 241, Section 303 to
demonstrate that emissions from the source will not interfere with attainment
or maintenance of any national ambient air quality standard.
b. The Control Officer’s proposed AAQIA determination shall be subject to the
public notice and public participation procedures specified under Section 302.
303.7 ATO Application for Title V General Permits: 
a. For sources required to obtain a permit under Title V of the Clean Air Act, the
Control Officer shall provide the Administrator with a permit application
summary form, any relevant portion of the permit application, and a
compliance plan.
b. To the extent possible, this information shall be provided in computer
readable format compatible with the Administrator's national database
management system.
303.8 Action on Application: 
a. Upon receiving a complete application for a general permit, the Control
Officer shall review and act on the application as expeditiously as possible.
b. The agency may issue an ATO to the owners and operators of a source
without repeating the public notice and public participation procedures
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 30 of 68

required under Section 302, unless the applicant is required to submit an 
AAQIA. 
c. An owner or operator may operate under the terms of the general permit
seven days after the application is submitted if the application shows that the
source qualifies for and is in compliance with the general permit unless the
applicant is required to submit an AAQIA demonstration.
d. An owner or operator applying for a general permit that requires an AAQIA
demonstration shall not operate until the Control Officer grants authority to
operate under the general permit.
e. The Control Officer may delay acting on an application under this rule if the
Control Officer has provided notice of intent to renew or not to renew the
permit for the facility class.
303.9 Public Availability of ATO Application Information: The Control Officer shall 
make available to the public: 
a. A monthly summary of all applications received for authority to operate under
a general permit.
b. A record of all sources in a facility class covered by each general permit.
304 
REVOCATIONS OF AUTHORITY TO OPERATE 
304.1 Basis for Revocation: The Control Officer may require an owner or operator 
authorized to operate under a general permit to apply for and to obtain an 
individual source permit at any time if: 
a. The Control Officer has determined that the source is not in compliance with
the terms and conditions of the general permit; or
b. The Control Officer has determined that emissions from the source or facility
class are significant contributors to an ambient air quality standard violation
not adequately addressed by the general permit; or
c. The Control Officer has information which indicates that the effects on
human health and the environment from the sources covered under the
general permit are unacceptable.
304.2 Notification of Termination or Cancellation: The Control Officer shall provide a 
written explanation to all sources operating under a general permit at least 12 
months prior to termination or cancellation of a general permit.  
a. At least six months prior to the termination or cancellation date, owners or
operators of sources operating under such general permit shall submit an
application for an individual source permit.
b. Each source may continue to operate under the terms of such general permit,
until the individual source permit is approved by the Control Officer.
305 
RELATIONSHIP TO INDIVIDUAL PERMITS 
305.1 An owner or operator who obtains an ATO under a general permit is not required 
to also obtain an individual source permit. 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 31 of 68

305.2 If a source no longer qualifies for the facility class covered by a general permit, it 
must apply for an individual source permit. 
305.3 An ATO under a general permit shall terminate on the date the individual source 
permit is issued. 
305.4 Authority to operate under an individual source permit shall terminate on the date 
the ATO under a general permit is issued. 
306 
GENERAL PERMIT RENEWAL 
306.1 The Control Officer shall review and may renew permits every five years or 
sooner, if warranted, to ensure that the permit meets all of the applicable 
requirements in this rule. 
306.2 A source's ATO under a general permit shall expire when the permit expires 
regardless of when the authorization began during the five-year period, except as 
provided in Section 301.10. 
306.3 At the time a permit is renewed, the Control Officer shall notify in writing all 
sources that were granted an ATO under the previous general permit and shall 
require such owners and operators to submit a timely renewal application. A 
timely application is one that is submitted within the time frame specified by the 
Control Officer in the written notification.  
306.4 Failure to submit a timely application terminates the owner or operator’s right to 
operate once the ATO expires. 
306.5 If a source submits a timely and complete application for an ATO renewal, but 
the Control Officer does not renew or deny the general permit before the end of 
the term of the previous permit, then the general permit shall not expire until the 
general permit renewal has been issued or denied. 
307 
VARIANCE FOR ANY NON-FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE REQUIREMENT OF A GENERAL 
PERMIT 
307.1 Except as modified by the variance, an owner or operator of the source shall 
comply with all conditions of the general permit. 
307.2 Applications and approvals of general permit variances may only be granted for 
non-federally enforceable conditions and shall be subject to the public notice 
requirements of Rule 210 (Title V Permit Provisions). 
308 
GENERAL PERMIT APPEALS 
308.1 Any person who filed a comment on a proposed general permit action as 
provided in Section 302 may appeal the Control Officer’s terms and conditions as 
they apply to the facility class covered under a general permit. 
308.2 An appeal shall be filed with the hearing board within 30 days of issuance of a 
general permit. 
309 
CHANGES ALLOWED UNDER A GENERAL PERMIT 
309.1 Changes Not Requiring Notification: The owner or operator that has been 
granted an ATO under a general permit may make the following changes at the 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 32 of 68

facility without providing notification, provided the source keeps on-site records 
of the changes: 
a. Install a replacement emissions unit;
b. Engage in any new insignificant activity;
c. Add or replace air pollution control equipment with an identical item or one
that has the same or better pollutant removal efficiency; or
d. Make a change that results in a decrease in actual emissions.
309.2 Changes Requiring Notification: The owner or operator of a source that has been 
granted an ATO under a general permit may add new emissions units of a type 
already regulated under the general permit at the facility provided all of the 
following conditions are met: 
a. The addition of the emission unit does not require the owner or operator to
obtain an individual source permit, and
b. The owner or operator provides notification to the Control Officer in
accordance with the notification requirements below:
(1) Notification shall be provided to the Control Officer through electronic
mail or the AQD Online Portal.  
(2) Notification must include sufficient detail of the new emission unit(s) to 
allow the Control Officer to verify continued qualification for, and to 
assure compliance with, the general permit, including:  
(a) When the proposed change will occur; and  
(b) A description of the change including identification of any change 
that affects applicable general permit limits or operating parameters, 
including but not limited to changes in: 
(i) Throughput, production, fuel or material usage; 
(ii) Operating hours or operating conditions; 
(iii) Waste generation rates (such as sawdust or metal shavings); or 
(iv) Rated capacity, including rated brake horsepower (bhp) or heat 
input rating. 
(3) The notification is submitted at least seven days before the change. If 
advance notification is not practicable, submit the notification as soon as 
practicable after the change. 
309.3 Recordkeeping: The owner or operator shall keep a record of any physical 
change or change in the method of operation that could affect emissions. The 
record shall include a description of the change and date the change occurred. 
SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS (NOT APPLICABLE) 
SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS (NOT APPLICABLE) 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 33 of 68

MARICOPA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS 
REGULATION II – PERMITS AND FEES 
RULE 230 (GENERAL PERMITS) 
INDEX 
SECTION 100 – GENERAL 
101 
PURPOSE 
102 
APPLICABILITY 
103 
SECTION AND RULE CITATIONS 
SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS 
201 
GENERAL PERMIT 
202 
SIMILAR IN NATURE  
203 
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT (TSD) 
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS 
301 
GENERAL PERMIT DEVELOPMENT 
302 
PUBLIC NOTICE AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION  
303 
AUTHORITY TO OPERATE (ATO) APPLICATION 
304 
REVOCATIONS OF AUTHORITY TO OPERATE 
305 
RELATIONSHIP TO INDIVIDUAL PERMITS 
306 
GENERAL PERMIT RENEWAL 
307 
VARIANCE FOR ANY NON-FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE REQUIREMENT OF A 
GENERAL PERMIT 
308 
GENERAL PERMIT APPEALS 
309 
CHANGES ALLOWED UNDER A GENERAL PERMIT 
SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS (NOT APPLICABLE) 
SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS (NOT APPLICABLE) 
Clean version of Draft Rule 230 
Return to list of attachments
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 34 of 68

Adopted 11/15/1993; Revised 02/15/1995; Revised 06/06/2007; Revised 02/03/2016; Revised 
12/11/2019; Revised MM/DD/YYYY 
MARICOPA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS 
REGULATION II – PERMITS AND FEES 
RULE 230 (GENERAL PERMITS) 
SECTION 100 – GENERAL 
101 
PURPOSE: To provide an orderly procedure for the issuance of general permits for a 
facility class that contains sources that are similar in nature. 
102 
APPLICABILITY: 
102.1 This rule provides the authority and requirements the Control Officer must meet 
to develop and issue a general permit for a facility class. 
102.2 This rule provides the requirements an owner or operator must meet to obtain 
authority to operate under a general permit issued by the Control Officer. 
102.3 Unless otherwise stated, the provisions of the following rules shall apply to the 
issuance, content, and applications for general permits, as applicable: 
a. Rule 200 (Permit Requirements)
b. Rule 210 (Title V Permit Provisions)
c. Rule 220 (Non-Title V Permit Provisions)
d. Rule 241 (Minor New Source Review (NSR))
102.4 Sources for Which a General Permit May Not be Issued: 
a. A general permit shall not be issued to a facility class if that facility class has
been issued a general permit by the Director of the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality for sources in Maricopa County pursuant to Arizona
Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) Section 49-426(H).
b. General permits shall not be authorized for affected sources under the acid
rain program unless otherwise provided in regulations promulgated under
Title IV (Acid Deposition Control) of the Clean Air Act.
c. General permits shall not be issued to a facility class if application of Section
102.3 would not ensure compliance with all applicable requirements.
103 SECTION AND RULE CITATIONS: All section citations refer to sections within this rule 
unless otherwise specified and all rule citations refer to rules within the Maricopa 
County Air Pollution Control Regulations (MCAPCR) unless otherwise specified. 
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 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 35 of 68

Definitions). In the event of any inconsistency between any of the MCAPCR, the definitions in 
this rule take precedence. 
201 
GENERAL PERMIT: A permit issued by the Control Officer for a specific facility class 
consisting of Non-Title V or Title V sources that are similar in nature. 
202 
SIMILAR IN NATURE: A facility class with substantially similar emissions subject to the 
same or substantially similar requirements governing operations, emissions, 
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping. 
203 
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT (TSD): A statement issued by the Control Officer 
that sets forth the legal and factual basis for draft permit conditions, including 
references to the applicable statutory or regulatory provisions. 
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS
301 
GENERAL PERMIT DEVELOPMENT 
301.1 Initiation by Control Officer: The Control Officer may issue a general permit on 
their own initiative or in response to a petition. At the time of issuance, the 
Control Officer shall establish a specific application with filing instructions for 
sources in the facility class covered by the general permit. 
301.2 Initiation by Petition: 
a. Any person may submit a petition to the Control Officer requesting the
issuance of a general permit for a defined class of facilities. The petition
shall:
(1) Propose a particular facility class and list the approximate number of
sources; 
(2) Demonstrate that the sources of the proposed facility class are similar in 
nature; and 
(3) Describe how the sources of the proposed facility class meet the criteria 
for a general permit as specified in this rule and in A.R.S. Section 49-
426(H). 
b. The Control Officer shall provide a written response to the petition within 120
days of receipt.
301.3 Technical Review Process: General permits shall be developed and issued for a 
facility class using the same technical review process that applies to individual 
source permits and following the public notice and public participation 
requirements of Section 302.  
301.4 Permit Term: The permit term shall not exceed five years from the date of 
issuance. 
301.5 Permit Contents: A general permit shall: 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 36 of 68

a. For Non-Title V Sources: Include all permit content requirements in Rule 220,
Section 302.
b. For Title V Sources:
(1) Include all permit content requirements in Rule 210, Section 302.1 except
for the acid rain program provisions in Section 302.1(b)(2) and Section 
302.1(f). 
(2) Incorporate the requirements under 40 CFR 70.6(d). 
c. For Both Non-Title V and Title V Sources:
(1) Require the installation and operation of reasonably available control
technology (RACT) as determined by Rule 241, Section 307 or best 
available control technology (BACT) as determined by Rule 241, Section 
306. 
(2) Incorporate the standards/requirements promulgated pursuant to 
Sections 111 or 112 of the Clean Air Act, as applicable. 
302 
PUBLIC NOTICE AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 
302.1 The Control Officer shall provide public notice, opportunity for public comment, 
and opportunity for a public hearing in accordance with the procedures set forth 
in this section before a general permit action or an ambient air quality impact 
assessment (AAQIA) determination is finalized. 
a. Actions Requiring Public Notice:
(1) The Control Officer shall provide public notice in accordance with Section
302.1(c) for the following proposed general permit actions: 
(a) Issuance of a new general permit. 
(b) Revision of an existing general permit.  
(c) Renewal of an existing general permit. 
(2) The Control Officer shall provide public notice in accordance with Section 
302.1(d) below for a determination to approve a required AAQIA 
demonstration. 
b. Public Notice: Public notices shall include the following to ensure public
availability of information:
(1) The Control Officer's proposed actions and effective date for the actions.
(2) Locations where documents relevant to the proposed action will be
available during business days. 
(3) The name, address, email address, and telephone number of a person 
within the Department who may be contacted for further information. 
(4) The address and email address where any person may submit comments 
and/or request a public hearing and the date and time by which comments 
or public hearing request are required to be received. 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 37 of 68

(5) The process by which sources may obtain authorization to operate under 
the general permit. 
c. Public Notice for General Permit Actions: Public notices for a proposed
general permit issuance, revision, or renewal shall include:
(1) The components listed in Section 302.1(b).
(2) The proposed general permit and TSD.
(3) The facility class that would be affected.
(4) The air contaminants which the Control Officer expects to be emitted by a
typical source in the facility class and by the facility class as a whole. 
d. Public Notice for AAQIA Determinations for ATO Action: Public notices for
proposed AAQIA determinations, if an ambient air quality impact assessment
is required, shall include:
(1) The components listed in Section 302.1(b).
(2) The applicant’s AAQIA report.
(3) The Control Officer’s analysis of the applicant’s AAQIA report determining
the effect of construction or modification on ambient air quality. 
e. Methods of Public Notice:
(1) The Control Officer shall publish notice of the proposed actions:
(a) Once each week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general 
circulation within Maricopa County; and 
(b) On the department’s official website. 
(2) The Control Officer shall send a copy of the notice to the Administrator 
and to all other State and local air pollution control agencies having 
jurisdiction in the region in which such new or modified installation will be 
located (if known) at the same time the Control Officer publishes the first 
notice in a newspaper. 
f.
EPA and Affected State Review for Title V Source General Permits:
(1) When notice is published in accordance with Section 302.1(e), the Control
Officer shall send a copy of the notice of the proposed general permit to 
the Administrator and to all state and local air pollution control agencies 
having jurisdiction in the region where the new or modified emission 
unit(s) will be located (if known). 
(2) The Control Officer shall provide the proposed final general permit or the 
AAQIA determination, if required, to the Administrator concurrently with or 
after public and affected state review.  
(3) If the Administrator properly objects to its issuance in writing within 45 
days of receipt of the proposed final permit or AAQIA determination and 
all necessary supporting information from the Control Officer, the Title V 
general permit shall not be issued.  
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 38 of 68

g. Public Comment Period:
(1) The Control Officer shall provide a public comment period of at least 30
days from the date of the first publication of the notice. 
(2) Written comments shall include the commenter’s name, and if applicable, 
the name of their agent or attorney, and shall clearly state reasons for 
supporting or opposing the proposed action. 
h. Response to Comments and Final Action: At the time a general permit action
is issued or a determination on the AAQIA is finalized, the Control Officer
shall:
(1) Make available a response to all relevant comments received during the
public comment period or during a public hearing. The response shall 
specify which provisions or determinations have been changed, and the 
reason for the change.  
(2) Provide written notice of the final decision to any petitioner and to all 
persons who submitted written comments or requested notice of the final 
decision. 
303 
AUTHORITY TO OPERATE (ATO) APPLICATION 
303.1 After the Control Officer issues a general permit, an owner or operator of any 
qualifying source that meets the criteria of the permit may apply for an ATO 
under that permit. 
303.2 Applicants shall complete and submit the application form(s) for the permit 
category provided by the Control Officer. 
303.3 The application form shall require the applicant to submit information in 
sufficient detail to allow the Control Officer to determine qualification for and to 
assure compliance with the general permit. 
303.4 Insignificant activities do not need to be included in the application unless the 
application is for a Title V general permit. 
303.5 Applicants shall not propose or accept emissions limitations, controls, or other 
requirements that are not included in the applicable permit. 
303.6 Ambient Air Quality Impact Assessment (AAQIA): 
a. The Control Officer may require an applicant to conduct and submit an AAQIA
with the ATO application in accordance with Rule 241, Section 303 to
demonstrate that emissions from the source will not interfere with attainment
or maintenance of any national ambient air quality standard.
b. The Control Officer’s proposed AAQIA determination shall be subject to the
public notice and public participation procedures specified under Section 302.
303.7 ATO Application for Title V General Permits: 
a. For sources required to obtain a permit under Title V of the Clean Air Act, the
Control Officer shall provide the Administrator with a permit application
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 39 of 68

summary form, any relevant portion of the permit application, and a 
compliance plan. 
b. To the extent possible, this information shall be provided in computer
readable format compatible with the Administrator's national database
management system.
303.8 Action on Application: 
a. Upon receiving a complete application for a general permit, the Control
Officer shall review and act on the application as expeditiously as possible.
b. The agency may issue an ATO to the owners and operators of a source
without repeating the public notice and public participation procedures
required under Section 302, unless the applicant is required to submit an
AAQIA.
c. An owner or operator may operate under the terms of the general permit
seven days after the application is submitted if the application shows that the
source qualifies for and is in compliance with the general permit unless the
applicant is required to submit an AAQIA demonstration.
d. An owner or operator applying for a general permit that requires an AAQIA
demonstration shall not operate until the Control Officer grants authority to
operate under the general permit.
e. The Control Officer may delay acting on an application under this rule if the
Control Officer has provided notice of intent to renew or not to renew the
permit for the facility class.
303.9 Public Availability of ATO Application Information: The Control Officer shall 
make available to the public: 
a. A monthly summary of all applications received for authority to operate under
a general permit.
b. A record of all sources in a facility class covered by each general permit.
304 
REVOCATIONS OF AUTHORITY TO OPERATE 
304.1 Basis for Revocation: The Control Officer may require an owner or operator 
authorized to operate under a general permit to apply for and to obtain an 
individual source permit at any time if: 
a. The Control Officer has determined that the source is not in compliance with
the terms and conditions of the general permit; or
b. The Control Officer has determined that emissions from the source or facility
class are significant contributors to an ambient air quality standard violation
not adequately addressed by the general permit; or
c. The Control Officer has information which indicates that the effects on
human health and the environment from the sources covered under the
general permit are unacceptable.
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 40 of 68

304.2 Notification of Termination or Cancellation: The Control Officer shall provide a 
written explanation to all sources operating under a general permit at least 12 
months prior to termination or cancellation of a general permit.  
a. At least six months prior to the termination or cancellation date, owners or
operators of sources operating under such general permit shall submit an
application for an individual source permit.
b. Each source may continue to operate under the terms of such general permit,
until the individual source permit is approved by the Control Officer.
305 
RELATIONSHIP TO INDIVIDUAL PERMITS 
305.1 An owner or operator who obtains an ATO under a general permit is not required 
to also obtain an individual source permit. 
305.2 If a source no longer qualifies for the facility class covered by a general permit, it 
must apply for an individual source permit. 
305.3 An ATO under a general permit shall terminate on the date the individual source 
permit is issued. 
305.4 Authority to operate under an individual source permit shall terminate on the date 
the ATO under a general permit is issued. 
306 
GENERAL PERMIT RENEWAL 
306.1 The Control Officer shall review and may renew permits every five years or 
sooner, if warranted, to ensure that the permit meets all of the applicable 
requirements in this rule. 
306.2 A source's ATO under a general permit shall expire when the permit expires 
regardless of when the authorization began during the five-year period, except as 
provided in Section 304. 
306.3 At the time a permit is renewed, the Control Officer shall notify in writing all 
sources that were granted an ATO under the previous general permit and shall 
require such owners and operators to submit a timely renewal application. A 
timely application is one that is submitted within the time frame specified by the 
Control Officer in the written notification.  
306.4 Failure to submit a timely application terminates the owner or operator’s right to 
operate once the ATO expires. 
306.5 If a source submits a timely and complete application for an ATO renewal, but 
the Control Officer does not renew or deny the general permit before the end of 
the term of the previous permit, then the general permit shall not expire until the 
general permit renewal has been issued or denied. 
307 
VARIANCE FOR ANY NON-FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE REQUIREMENT OF A GENERAL 
PERMIT 
307.1 Except as modified by the variance, an owner or operator of the source shall 
comply with all conditions of the general permit. 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 41 of 68

307.2 Applications and approvals of general permit variances may only be granted for 
non-federally enforceable conditions and shall be subject to the public notice 
requirements of Rule 210 (Title V Permit Provisions). 
308 
GENERAL PERMIT APPEALS 
308.1 Any person who filed a comment on a proposed general permit action as 
provided in Section 302 may appeal the Control Officer’s terms and conditions as 
they apply to the facility class covered under a general permit. 
308.2 An appeal shall be filed with the hearing board within 30 days of issuance of a 
general permit. 
309 
CHANGES ALLOWED UNDER A GENERAL PERMIT 
309.1 Changes Not Requiring Notification: The owner or operator that has been 
granted an ATO under a general permit may make the following changes at the 
facility without providing notification, provided the source keeps on-site records 
of the changes: 
a. Install a replacement emissions unit;
b. Engage in any new insignificant activity;
c. Add or replace air pollution control equipment with an identical item or one
that has the same or better pollutant removal efficiency; or
d. Make a change that results in a decrease in actual emissions.
309.2 Changes Requiring Notification: The owner or operator of a source that has been 
granted an ATO under a general permit may add new emissions units of a type 
already regulated under the general permit at the facility provided all of the 
following conditions are met: 
a. The addition of the emission unit does not require the owner or operator to
obtain an individual source permit, and
b. The owner or operator provides notification to the Control Officer in
accordance with the notification requirements below:
(1) Notification shall be provided to the Control Officer through the AQD
Online Portal. 
(2) Notification must include sufficient detail of the new emission unit(s) to 
allow the Control Officer to verify continued qualification for, and to 
assure compliance with, the general permit, including:  
(a) When the proposed change will occur; and 
(b) A description of the change including identification of any change 
that affects applicable general permit limits or operating parameters, 
including but not limited to changes in: 
(i) Throughput, production, fuel or material usage; 
(ii) Operating hours or operating conditions; 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 42 of 68

(iii) Waste generation rates (such as sawdust or metal shavings); or 
(iv) Rated capacity, including rated brake horsepower (bhp) or heat 
input rating. 
(3) The notification is submitted at least seven days before the change. If 
advance notification is not practicable, submit the notification as soon as 
practicable after the change. 
309.3 Recordkeeping: The owner or operator shall keep a record of any physical 
change or change in the method of operation that could affect emissions. The 
record shall include a description of the change and date the change occurred. 
SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS (NOT APPLICABLE) 
SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS (NOT APPLICABLE) 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 43 of 68

NOTICE OF ACCOMMODATIONS: Individuals with disabilities, assistive listening devices, large-printed materials, special 
parking arrangements, and other accommodations are available with 72 hours advance notice. If you require 
accommodations to participate in the above meeting, please contact Amy Windus at the Public Health Administration 
Department, (602)571-7851. 
BOARD OF HEALTH MEETING MINUTES 
April 28, 2025 | 3:00-5:00 pm 
4041 N. Central Avenue, 14th Floor, Phoenix, AZ 
Legal Advice - A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3) 
The Board may vote to go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussion or consultation for legal advice with the 
attorney or attorneys of the Board on any matter listed on the agenda pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03 (A)(3). Members of 
the Board of Health will attend either in person or by telephone conference call. Members attending telephonically will 
be announced at the meeting. Agendas are available within 24 hours of each meeting in the Public Health 
Administration office at 4041 N. Central Ave., 14th floor, Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 
ITEM 
TOPIC/ACTION 
TYPE 
PRESENTER 
1. 
Call to Order @ 3:08 p.m. 
A. Roll call 
Members Present:  Joanne Osborne, Robert 
MacMillan, Chuck Catlin, Dr. Matthew Farber, 
Veronica Oros, Mary Schraven, Dr. Stefanie 
Schroeder 
Virtual:  Supervisor Debbie Lesko, Lorenzo 
Sierra 
Absent Members:  Cynthia Hardy 
A quorum of nine (9) members was confirmed. 
B. Call to the public 
Dave Bennett is in attendance and wishes to 
speak on Agenda Item 7 (Environmental 
Services EROP Case ES-2024-002). 
Action 
President Osborne 
2. 
Introductions 
A. Charles (Chuck) Catlin, Member-at-Large 
Jeanene Fowler introduced new member, 
Chuck Catlin. Chuck has worked on different 
sides of public health during his career, from 
local health departments to the private industry, 
including restaurants, Google, and Fox.  He is 
looking forward to contributing to the Board of 
Health. 
Discuss 
Jeanene Fowler 
Return to list of attachments
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 44 of 68

NOTICE OF ACCOMMODATIONS: Individuals with disabilities, assistive listening devices, large-printed materials, special 
parking arrangements, and other accommodations are available with 72 hours advance notice. If you require 
accommodations to participate in the above meeting, please contact Amy Windus at the Public Health Administration 
Department, (602)571-7851. 
B. Dr. Nick Staab, Chief Medical Officer 
Jeanene Fowler introduced Dr. Nick Staab to 
the board as the recently retired Rebecca 
Sunenshine’s replacement as Chief Medical 
Officer.  Dr. Staab has been with Maricopa 
County Public Health since 2003, beginning as 
an intern and most recently as a medical 
epidemiologist.   
Jeanene Fowler also welcomed Supervisor Debbie 
Lesko to her first meeting as a board member.  
Supervisor Lesko introduced herself to the board as the 
newly elected Supervisor representing District 4.  Prior 
to this role she served in the US House of 
Representatives and the Arizona State Legislature.   
3. 
Approval of Minutes 
President Osborne asked the Board for a motion to 
approve the January 27, 2025 minutes.   
Motion to approve the January 27, 2025, 
minutes:  Dr. Farber 
Second:  Veronica Oros 
Motion status:  Approved unanimously 
Action 
President Osborne 
4. 
Public Health Finance 
Make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to 
approve the Public Health fiscal year 2025/2026 budget 
request as recommended by the Maricopa County 
Budget Office. 
Ray Farrish began by pointing out that the first 
sentence of the Fiscal Year 2025/2026 Budget 
Request Summary contained an error: the 
department's total base budget request for this 
year should have read $163,023.649.   
This is a 17.45% decrease from the FY25 
revised budget.  The General Fund budget is on 
target while there is a 5.63% increase in the 
Discuss/ 
Action 
Ray Farrish 
Millette Miller 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 45 of 68

NOTICE OF ACCOMMODATIONS: Individuals with disabilities, assistive listening devices, large-printed materials, special 
parking arrangements, and other accommodations are available with 72 hours advance notice. If you require 
accommodations to participate in the above meeting, please contact Amy Windus at the Public Health Administration 
Department, (602)571-7851. 
Special Revenue (Fee) Fund budget.  The 
Justice Reinvestment Fund budget matches 
FY25, indicating a 41.67% decrease in the 
ARPA Fund budget and a 14/31% decrease in 
the Grant Fund budget.  
A slide identified all of the different funding 
sources. It was noted that the primary decrease 
was due to the COVID grants, which were 
spending down and going away. ARPA funds 
have also decreased due to money being spent 
and projects being completed.    
Supervisor Lesko asked if we were guaranteed 
to receive the ARPA funds requested or if the 
federal government could take them away.   
Jeanene Fowler stated it is always a possibility 
for the federal government to take back ARPA 
money; however, to date, all of the money is 
obligated.  We have until December 2026 to 
spend that money and have not heard anything 
otherwise.   
A breakdown of the budget allocations was 
shown, and it was noted that the general fund 
request remains flat and on target.   
President Osborne asked if there was any 
impact on the county from the concerns 
surrounding Medicaid. 
Jeanene Fowler responded that while Medicaid 
does not have a direct impact on public health, 
it puts more pressure on the programs that 
provide services to the public if they lose their 
health insurance.  We do currently bill Medicaid 
for immunization services, but if Medicaid 
expansion goes away, it will impact childless 
adults the most.  Without knowing the future of 
our federal grants, we do our best to plan, but it 
is hard to know.   
President Osborne asked what the plan of 
action is since there was a reduction in our STI 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 46 of 68

NOTICE OF ACCOMMODATIONS: Individuals with disabilities, assistive listening devices, large-printed materials, special 
parking arrangements, and other accommodations are available with 72 hours advance notice. If you require 
accommodations to participate in the above meeting, please contact Amy Windus at the Public Health Administration 
Department, (602)571-7851. 
grants, but our county and state have a problem 
with STI numbers.  
Jeanene Fowler shared that a billing project is 
one of the things happening to see how much it 
would benefit us to start billing for STI testing 
at our clinics.  We are also trying to strengthen 
partnerships in the community to help people 
access care.   
President Osborne commented that it would 
benefit the board to hear of any categories that 
saw a positive impact from using ARPA dollars 
that public health feels should have more 
funding in the future. 
Supervisor Lesko noted the general fund’s 
$88,000 budget addition for the Chief Science 
Officer did not seem like a very high salary and 
questioned whether that was the going rate for 
that position.   
Jeanene Fowler answered by stating that they 
are currently working with HR to create the 
position and determine its market range. It will 
be funded through vacant positions; it will not 
use new money. 
Joanne Osborne asked about the grant process 
for organizations using justice reinvestment 
and opioid settlement funds.   
Jeanene Fowler shared that they are entering 
year three of their strategic plan for substance 
use.  A substantial amount of money was put 
into community-based RFPs in years one and 
two.  The grants are renewable each year for up 
to five years.  To evaluate the agencies' use of 
funds, there are no plans for another big RFP 
this year.  The plan for this year is a narrow 
focus to look at very specific community needs 
and figure out ways to better support 
businesses affected by the opioid issue.  The 
Juul settlement funds is one example of 
partnering with schools to provide telehealth 
mental health in the school systems.  
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 47 of 68

NOTICE OF ACCOMMODATIONS: Individuals with disabilities, assistive listening devices, large-printed materials, special 
parking arrangements, and other accommodations are available with 72 hours advance notice. If you require 
accommodations to participate in the above meeting, please contact Amy Windus at the Public Health Administration 
Department, (602)571-7851. 
Joanne Osborne questioned the statement in 
the general fund operating budget that stated, 
“it is not intended to imply that all service levels 
are being fully met.”    
Jeanene Fowler responded with the example of 
syphilis, that there are times when they are not 
able to investigate every case or do contact 
investigations.  The mandates are so large that 
there is not enough staff to do what needs to 
be done in a community as large as ours.  We 
prioritize by looking at those with the highest 
risk, but we are not touching every person.   
Motion to make a recommendation to the 
Board of Supervisors to approve the Public 
Health fiscal year 2026 budget request as 
recommended by the Maricopa County Budget 
Office:  Mary Schraven 
Second:  Chuck Catlin 
Motion status:  Approved unanimously 
5. 
Environmental Services Finance 
Make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to 
approve the Environmental Services fiscal year 2026 
budget request as recommended by the Maricopa 
County Budget Office.  
Sylvie Donaldson discussed the three funds in 
their budget request. Fund 100, the general 
fund, has a slight increase of 1.02%. The 
increase is for adjustments to base, 
compensation, and benefits. Fund 290 receives 
its revenue through tire disposal. Fund 506 had 
a slight increase of .003%.   
Chuck Catlin noted that the PowerPoint 
presentation model that Public Health 
presented was easier to review.   
Sylvie Donaldson offered to do a different 
presentation next year or bring back more 
information if the board requested it.   
Discuss/ 
Action 
Sylvie Donaldson 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 48 of 68

NOTICE OF ACCOMMODATIONS: Individuals with disabilities, assistive listening devices, large-printed materials, special 
parking arrangements, and other accommodations are available with 72 hours advance notice. If you require 
accommodations to participate in the above meeting, please contact Amy Windus at the Public Health Administration 
Department, (602)571-7851. 
Chuck Catlin stated that it was not necessary 
at this time.   
Motion to make a recommendation to the 
Board of Supervisors to approve the 
Environmental Services fiscal year 2026 
budget request as recommended by the 
Maricopa County Budget Office:  Dr. Farber 
Second:  Veronica Oros 
Motion status:  Approved unanimously 
6. 
Environmental Services – Fee Waiver Applications 
A. Request for Board of Health approval of 
twenty-three (23) fee waiver applications 
marked P1-P23 and C1-C3  
Robert Stratman:  This quarter, we reviewed twenty-six 
(26) fee waiver applications. Of the applications 
reviewed, staff determined that all meet the criteria 
outlined in the Maricopa County Environmental Health 
Code.  
As a reminder, only an operator of a charitable nonprofit 
establishment which operates to provide relief 
predominantly for the poor, distressed, or 
underprivileged may apply to the Board of Health for a 
waiver of a permit fee. A waiver of a permit fee may be 
granted only to the operator of an establishment, which 
maintains a current 501(c)(3) tax-exempt designation 
from the Internal Revenue Service and who 
demonstrates to the Board of Health that payment of 
said fee will cause financial hardship. 
Applications for waivers of Temporary Food 
Establishment fees will be processed on a first come, 
first served basis in accordance with Chapter I, 
Regulation 5 a. of the Environmental Health Code. The 
Department shall only present a maximum of twenty-
five (25) of such applications per event to the Board of 
Health. 
In addition, a waiver of fees associated with the 
administering and issuance of a food employee 
certificate (in compliance with A.R.S. § 41-1080) may 
Discuss/ 
Action 
Robert Stratman 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 49 of 68

NOTICE OF ACCOMMODATIONS: Individuals with disabilities, assistive listening devices, large-printed materials, special 
parking arrangements, and other accommodations are available with 72 hours advance notice. If you require 
accommodations to participate in the above meeting, please contact Amy Windus at the Public Health Administration 
Department, (602)571-7851. 
be granted to the operator of an establishment which 
maintains a current 501(c)(3) tax-exempt designation 
from the Internal Revenue Service or to a current 
student enrolled in a K-12 culinary arts school program 
or similar curriculum-based program requiring food 
employee certificates. The organization or sponsoring 
school district must demonstrate to the Board of Health 
that payment of said fee will cause financial hardship.  
Again, all fee waiver applications reviewed this quarter 
appear to meet the criteria. 
Motion to approve twenty-three (23) fee waiver 
applications marked P1-P23 and C1-C3:  
Robert MacMillan 
Second:  Veronica Oros 
Motion status:  Approved unanimously 
A. Request for Board of Health to revisit 
approval of one (1) fee waiver application 
marked P5-Jan-25, Operation BBQ 
Robert Stratman updated the board on the status of the 
fee waiver application marked P5, for which further 
clarification was requested at the last board meeting. 
Robert stated that two emails were sent to the applicant 
requesting additional information and addressing the 
questions the board had asked. Neither of the emails 
received a reply. He asked the board to make a decision 
to approve or deny the application, as it is still on the 
table.   
Joanne Osborne provided background on the 
applicant’s request.  
Robert MacMillan asked how long the application 
remains active when someone applies for a waiver and 
if there is a legal perspective to consider before 
approving or denying.   
Aubrey Joy Corcoran responded that for legal advice on 
the matter, they would go into executive session to 
discuss.   
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 50 of 68

NOTICE OF ACCOMMODATIONS: Individuals with disabilities, assistive listening devices, large-printed materials, special 
parking arrangements, and other accommodations are available with 72 hours advance notice. If you require 
accommodations to participate in the above meeting, please contact Amy Windus at the Public Health Administration 
Department, (602)571-7851. 
Robert MacMillan asked if the item had an expiration 
date; could it just expire itself, without having to 
approve or deny?   
Robert Stratman said there was no expiration date, and 
they could hold the application, but in his experience, 
they had not had a case like this go on indefinitely. He 
again noted that after multiple months, the applicant 
had not replied.   
Supervisor Lesko asked if the event had already been 
held and if they were asking for a refund of their fees. 
Robert Stratman responded that, yes, the event has 
been held, and they are bringing it to the board to make 
a recommendation on waiving the fees.   
Motion to deny approval of one (1) fee waiver 
application marked P5-Jan-25, Operation BBQ: 
Supervisor Lesko 
Second:  Chuck Catlin 
Motion status:  Denied unanimously 
7. 
Environmental Services 
EROP Case ES-2024-002/Solid Waste Variance 
Request for Board of Health approval to 
proceed according to the EROP Standard 
Process.    
Andy Linton presented the board with a proposal to 
change the Maricopa County Environmental Health 
Code regarding the frequency of refuse collection. 
Supervisor Lesko asked whether the city pays the 
$15,000 waiver fee per year. 
Andy Linton responded that it is based on the waste 
collection entity's number of trash containers. For large 
cities, it is $15,000 to $30,000 a year, depending on the 
number of containers. 
Discuss/ 
Action 
Andy Linton 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 51 of 68

NOTICE OF ACCOMMODATIONS: Individuals with disabilities, assistive listening devices, large-printed materials, special 
parking arrangements, and other accommodations are available with 72 hours advance notice. If you require 
accommodations to participate in the above meeting, please contact Amy Windus at the Public Health Administration 
Department, (602)571-7851. 
Supervisor Lesko asked if this would create a county-
wide budget problem.   
Andy Linton answered that it would affect the 
Environmental Services budget. 
Joanne Osborne asked if this was for residential and 
commercial services.   
Andy Linton stated that it is correct.  He also added that 
this doesn’t preclude Environmental Services from 
addressing public health nuisances should they occur.   
Dave Bennett introduced himself as the Solid Waste 
Services Director for the city of Scottsdale.  He stated 
that a company called In Division Holdings has 
petitioned the state to make this change.  Their idea is 
to have everything in one container, including trash and 
recycling.  It would then go to a state-of-the-art facility, 
get recycled, and they claim they could divert 90% of 
that material.  It would be on a 500-acre campus, and 
they would make carbon fiber from what goes in the 
container.  They have a letter of intent to build, but as of 
today, he said there are no plans to build this type of 
plant in Maricopa County.  Dave noted that twice weekly 
refuse collection is still needed because nothing has 
changed.  Cities and towns in Maricopa County are not 
advocating for this change, and we still need the 
variance to protect human health.  This is a Maricopa 
County issue, not a state issue.  He respectfully asked 
the board not to change the current language in the 
variance unless a plant is built. 
Andy Linton responded that they did participate in 
ADEQ’s rule-making process when this was    
changed at the state level.  They did not learn of any 
opposition to the change during those meetings.  
Opposition from Scottsdale was received at the first 
stakeholder meeting. Other cities were present but did 
not express any opposition.   
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 52 of 68

NOTICE OF ACCOMMODATIONS: Individuals with disabilities, assistive listening devices, large-printed materials, special 
parking arrangements, and other accommodations are available with 72 hours advance notice. If you require 
accommodations to participate in the above meeting, please contact Amy Windus at the Public Health Administration 
Department, (602)571-7851. 
Joanne Osborne asked whether they had the same 
information regarding no facility being built that Dave 
Bennett spoke of.   
Andy Linton said they were involved in the rule-making 
process but that it was not part of Environmental 
Services’ presentation to stakeholders.  
Dave Bennett agreed, however, stated that the primary 
focus of the ADEQ stakeholder meetings was on raising 
rates and fees, and asked Andy Linton if that was 
accurate.   
Andy Linton said ESD’s focus was on the variance for 
refuse collection because that would potentially impact 
the code, as it would no longer be a mandate. Their 
mission is to protect public health, and they do not see 
the potential for this to create additional public health 
risks in the community from making the variance no 
longer required. It would continue to be a once-weekly 
trash collection without the variance requirement.   
Joanne Osborne asked if this could be described as a 
language clean-up for a practice that is already 
occurring.   
Andy Linton responded that the difference is that a 
variance is now required for once-a-week trash pickup. 
That variance contains parameters subject to 
inspection, but those inspections and parameters will 
no longer be a requirement for once-a-week trash 
pickup.   
Supervisor Lesko asked what the ramifications would 
be if Maricopa County did not align with the ADEQ 
administrative code, since that changed on February 4 
of this year.   
Andy Linton stated that this requirement is in our local 
environmental health code.  By statute, we are allowed 
to have a local code that can be more restrictive than 
state requirements, but it has been our practice not to 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 53 of 68

NOTICE OF ACCOMMODATIONS: Individuals with disabilities, assistive listening devices, large-printed materials, special 
parking arrangements, and other accommodations are available with 72 hours advance notice. If you require 
accommodations to participate in the above meeting, please contact Amy Windus at the Public Health Administration 
Department, (602)571-7851. 
take on unmandated functions and requirements that 
are more restrictive than the state.   
Supervisor Lesko asked if we change our code to say a 
variance is not needed to have just one trash pickup, 
will the cities then be given a green light to not even 
have a recyclables pickup?   
Andy Linton explained that it is correct, and the 
decision would be made at the city level as it is 
currently, under a variance. Our variance does not 
require them to pick up recycling, but that is a plan 
proposal that will be made to us as a means of diverting 
ways to prevent other health diseases.   
Supervisor Lesko asked if the reason cities are given a 
variance right now is that they provide trash and 
recyclable pickup. 
Andy Linton responded that it was correct.  It would be 
a means of preventing public health nuisances by 
diverting that trash to recycling containers.   
Supervisor Lesko confirmed with Andy Linton that if we 
change it to say the cities no longer need a variance, 
then they could choose not to do recyclables because 
they don’t have to explain it.   
Andy Linton agreed that was a correct statement.  
Supervisor Lesko asked if we decided not to change it, 
then could some of the cities sue the county for not 
aligning with the state by charging them the $15,000 or 
$30,000 variance fee?   
Andy Linton stated that they have statutory authority to 
have their own ordinance, and it can be more restrictive 
than the state rules.  We are in line with state statute by 
having our own ordinance that is currently more 
restrictive.   
Supervisor Lesko stated that she was conflicted on this 
issue because she usually likes to align with the state. 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 54 of 68

NOTICE OF ACCOMMODATIONS: Individuals with disabilities, assistive listening devices, large-printed materials, special 
parking arrangements, and other accommodations are available with 72 hours advance notice. If you require 
accommodations to participate in the above meeting, please contact Amy Windus at the Public Health Administration 
Department, (602)571-7851. 
However, she does not want to see the cities choose to 
no longer pick up recycling because it costs more. She 
wondered if they see any health concerns by just having 
a pickup once a week, if recycling is not done as well.   
Andy Linton responded that they do not see the 
potential for additional public health nuisances and are 
still able to address those issues should they occur.   
Joanne Osborne also expressed conflict. She lives in a 
city that has both recycling and trash pickup and does 
not feel good about changing that.   
Chuck Catlin questioned how much of the recycling 
currently being picked up is actually being recycled and 
asked where it is going and being processed.   
Andy Linton said that Environmental Services does not 
regulate the recycling portion and asked Mr. Bennett to 
speak on the question.  
David Bennett stated that there are currently four or five 
recycling facilities in Maricopa County. Each city has an 
acceptable items list, and whatever is on the list is 
taken in, processed, marketed, and sold. Everything that 
is put into the recycle bin does get recycled. The 
commodity markets are strong right now, and it is 
favorable for cities to have recycling.   
Andy Linton explained that since this case started as an 
expedited case but received opposition, it will become a 
regular case.  It will have a second stakeholder meeting 
and return to the Board of Health before it goes on to 
the Board of Supervisors.  At the next stakeholder 
meeting, these additional concerns can be brought up.   
Chuck Catlin asked whether residents could choose to 
pay for two garbage cans and have one pickup per 
week.   
Dave Bennett stated yes they can, however they do 
have to pay for it.  Out of 85,000 ratepayers, around 
5,000 pay for the second container.   
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 55 of 68

NOTICE OF ACCOMMODATIONS: Individuals with disabilities, assistive listening devices, large-printed materials, special 
parking arrangements, and other accommodations are available with 72 hours advance notice. If you require 
accommodations to participate in the above meeting, please contact Amy Windus at the Public Health Administration 
Department, (602)571-7851. 
Supervisor Lesko asked for clarification on what the 
board is voting on today regarding this case.   
Andy Linton responded that today's vote is to 
recommend proceeding with the EROP case. He 
clarified that there would be another stakeholder 
meeting, and it would come back to the Board of Health 
again before it went to the Board of Supervisors.   
Robert MacMillan asked how many variances they have 
issued and how many eligible for variances have gotten 
a variance.   
Andy Linton answered that they have issued variances 
to 18 different trash collection entities and that would 
be the vast majority.   
Robert MacMillan commented on how the sizes of the 
trash containers have changed over the years and how 
that could justify how often garbage and recycling is 
picked up.  He asked if the recycling scenario has 
changed with those 18 cities mentioned to receive 
variances. 
Andy Linton responded that they do not track what is 
collected. 
Motion to proceed according to the EROP 
standard process, EROP Case ES-2024-
002/Solid Waste Variance:  Supervisor Lesko 
Second:  Chuck Catlin 
Opposed:  Marie Schraven 
Motion status:  Approved 
8. 
Air Quality Department 
Approve Initiation of Regulatory Change for the 
following rule: 
A. AQ-2025-004 
Rule 230 (General Permits) 
The Maricopa County Air Quality Department 
(MCAQD) is proposing to revise Rule 230 to 
Discuss/ 
Action 
Gregory Verkamp 
Kimberly Butler 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 56 of 68

NOTICE OF ACCOMMODATIONS: Individuals with disabilities, assistive listening devices, large-printed materials, special 
parking arrangements, and other accommodations are available with 72 hours advance notice. If you require 
accommodations to participate in the above meeting, please contact Amy Windus at the Public Health Administration 
Department, (602)571-7851. 
address deficiencies identified by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency so Rule 
230 can be approved into the Arizona State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). In addition, 
MCAQD is considering revisions to allow for 
the creation of general permits for larger 
sources. Upon adoption of the revised rule, 
MCAQD plans to submit the rule as a 
revision to the Arizona SIP. 
Philip McNeely and Kimberly Butler presented on 
behalf of the Air Quality Department.   
Philip McNeely explained that Rule 230 was the general 
permits rule and gave a brief summary of the different 
classifications of permits that they issue.   
Supervisor Lesko asked to confirm that any proposed 
rule changes will not negatively affect businesses with 
more regulations and costs.   
Philip McNeely stated that is correct. General permits 
are much cheaper and quicker than other types of 
permits, so they are trying to expand this program.   
Supervisor Lesko asked if the current EPA 
administration has any different thoughts on this, since 
we have a new EPA under a new administration, and the 
former EPA hasn’t approved this rule.    
Philip McNeely responded that much of what came 
from the EPA was the result of a lawsuit, there were 
some missing elements in our rule, the public notice of 
information availability and he thinks it is not currently 
in front of the EPA to approve.  He doesn’t have an 
answer as to whether it would have been approved by 
the current EPA, but the result of this was from a 
lawsuit.   
Robert MacMillan asked whether this will be for Non-
Title V permits only or would it be Non-Title V and then 
hopefully Title V. 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 57 of 68

NOTICE OF ACCOMMODATIONS: Individuals with disabilities, assistive listening devices, large-printed materials, special 
parking arrangements, and other accommodations are available with 72 hours advance notice. If you require 
accommodations to participate in the above meeting, please contact Amy Windus at the Public Health Administration 
Department, (602)571-7851. 
Philip McNeely responded that the rule doesn’t allow 
them to do major source general permits. It’s 
challenging to fix the rule to allow this because of 
technical obstacles. They are being creative in thinking 
they can do modeling or similar work outside of the 
ATO permit before you apply. 
Robert MacMillan expressed the importance of some 
flexibility in how general permits are written because 
the methodologies can be very different depending on 
the type of business.   
Philip McNeely agreed that the intention is to add 
flexibility.   
Motion to approve initiation of regulatory 
change for the following rule: AQ-2025-004 
Rule 230 (General Permits):  Dr. Farber 
Second:  Mary Schraven 
Motion status:  Approved unanimously 
9. 
Proposed July 2025 Meeting Date Change 
Joanne Osborne asked if anyone would not be able to 
attend the July meeting to ensure a quorum. Dr. Farber 
is the only member who indicated he would not be able 
to attend. The date will remain the same.   
Discuss 
President Osborne 
10. 
Maricopa County Department of Public Health 
A. Public health update 
Joanne Osborne asked why there was an increase in 
measles cases around 2018. 
Dr. Staab answered that it increased due to an outbreak 
at Disneyland.   
Joanne Osborne asked why the chart of Arizona 
kindergartners vaccinated against measles stopped at 
2022. 
Dr. Staab acknowledged that it was a quick image used 
to show the decline over time, and the rates are 
collected at the beginning of the school year. He will 
follow up with 2023/2024 numbers. 
Discuss 
Dr. Nick Staab 
Jeanene Fowler 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 58 of 68

NOTICE OF ACCOMMODATIONS: Individuals with disabilities, assistive listening devices, large-printed materials, special 
parking arrangements, and other accommodations are available with 72 hours advance notice. If you require 
accommodations to participate in the above meeting, please contact Amy Windus at the Public Health Administration 
Department, (602)571-7851. 
Dr. Farber asked where we currently stand with 
diphtheria.   
Dr. Staab stated that we have sporadic cases of 
diphtheria, but due to relatively high vaccination rates, 
most are acquired overseas, and individuals are not 
vaccinated.   
Dr. Farber asked if the diphtheria vaccination rate is 
higher than that of measles.   
Dr. Staab responded that it was harder for him to say.   
Recommendations have increased for pertussis 
coverage, boosting pregnant women or household 
members with babies in the house.  It has been a good 
effort to increase DTaP; with that, you get your 
diphtheria coverage.  The MMR vaccine is given when 
you’re a child, but you can forget about it.   
B. Federal updates impacting public health 
Jeanene Fowler stated that she put this agenda item on 
because everything is changing so quickly at the federal 
level. She has no new federal updates in the last few 
weeks that have impacted public health. They continue 
to plan for any cuts that may come our way, but at this 
time, they do not have any news to share.   
Joanne Osborne asked that if something does change 
that has an impact, to let the board know before the 
next meeting on July 28th.   
11. 
Announcements 
Joanne Osborne offered condolences to Board Member 
Cynthia Hardy on the recent loss of her husband.    
Joanne Osborne thanked Robert MacMillan for his 
years of service to the board and invited members to 
wish him farewell after the meeting had ended. Board 
members were reminded that even though there may be 
a quorum present, this would not be a meeting, and no 
business would be discussed after this meeting had 
been adjourned.   
Discuss 
President Osborne 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 59 of 68

NOTICE OF ACCOMMODATIONS: Individuals with disabilities, assistive listening devices, large-printed materials, special 
parking arrangements, and other accommodations are available with 72 hours advance notice. If you require 
accommodations to participate in the above meeting, please contact Amy Windus at the Public Health Administration 
Department, (602)571-7851. 
12. 
Adjournment 
President Osborne asked for a motion to 
adjourn the meeting.   
Motion to adjourn:  Dr. Stefanie Schroeder 
Second:  Dr. Farber 
Motion status:  Approved unanimously 
The meeting adjourned at 4:59 p.m. 
Discuss 
President Osborne 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 60 of 68

NOTICE OF ACCOMMODATIONS: Individuals with disabilities, assistive listening devices, large-printed materials, special parking 
arrangements, and other accommodations are available with 72 hours advance notice. If you require accommodations to 
participate in the above meeting, please contact Amy Windus at the Public Health Administration Department, (602)909-8787. 
BOARD OF HEALTH MEETING MINUTES 
April 27, 2026 | 3:00-5:00 pm 
4041 N. Central Avenue, 14th Floor, Phoenix, AZ 
ITEM 
TOPIC/ACTION 
TYPE 
PRESENTER 
1. 
Call to Order @ 3:03 p.m. 
A. Roll call 
Members Present:  President Joanne Osborne, Jack 
Ragan, Niusha Hinz, Dr. Stefanie Schroeder, Chuck 
Catlin, Veronica Oros, Machrina Leach, Dr. Matthew 
Farber, Supervisor Debbie Lesko  
Virtual: Vice President Mary Schraven (3:21 p.m.) 
Absent Members: Lorenzo Sierra 
B. Call to the Public 
Trevor Baggiore wishes to speak on Item 7(B) 
Action 
President Osborne 
2. 
Approval of Minutes (timestamp-1:13) 
Approval of the January 2026 minutes 
President Joanne Osborne asked the board for a motion to 
approve the January 26, 2026 minutes. 
Motion to approve the January 26, 2026, minutes: 
Dr. Stefanie Schroeder 
Second: Chuck Catlin 
Motion status: Approved unanimously 
Action 
President Osborne 
3. 
Maricopa County Department of Public Health (timestamp-
1:38) 
HR1 Update 
President Joanne Osborne asked if children would 
fall under kids' care. 
Josue Macias responded that they would; however, 
the law requires their parents to meet work 
requirements.   
Supervisor Debbie Lesko asked, regarding the work 
requirements, why someone would not be able to 
Discuss 
Jeanene Fowler 
Josue Macias 
Return to list of attachments
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 61 of 68

NOTICE OF ACCOMMODATIONS: Individuals with disabilities, assistive listening devices, large-printed materials, special parking 
arrangements, and other accommodations are available with 72 hours advance notice. If you require accommodations to 
participate in the above meeting, please contact Amy Windus at the Public Health Administration Department, (602)909-8787. 
work 80 hours per month, attend job training, attend 
half-time school, or do community service?   
Josue Macias answered that the concern is the 
eligibility rules around reporting and the need for 
tracking mechanisms to satisfy audit standards.  
Supervisor Debbie Lesko questioned whether it 
would be more cost-effective to hire people to help 
people do the paperwork.   
Josue Macias agreed; however, the concern going 
into the new budget cycle is that budget cuts are 
anticipated rather than an increase in funding.  They 
are relying more on educating folks and making the 
existing systems as easy to use as possible.   
4. 
Public Health Finance (timestamp-18:55) 
Make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to 
approve the Public Health fiscal year 2026/2027 budget 
request as recommended by the Maricopa County Budget 
Office. 
Supervisor Debbie Lesko announced that she has 
been advised to recuse herself from the vote, as it 
will come before the Board of Supervisors.   
Supervisor Debbie Lesko asked for details on what 
heat-related relief services the funding includes.   
Jeanene Fowler answered that it was for one full-
time employee and three respite centers.  She noted 
that it was still under consideration and that they 
were unsure whether they would receive that 
funding.  
Supervisor Debbie Lesko asked whether the COVID 
response staff/contract tracing has already 
concluded or is still ongoing.   
Jeanene Fowler stated that this grant has allowed us 
to use contract tracing, not just for COVID, but for 
other diseases, which is where the staff is being 
used.   
Millette Miller explained that the last few programs 
that are actively working will conclude by December 
31st.  Some of them are heavily involved in ARPA 
administration, with a total of 21 positions.   
Supervisor Debbie Lesko questioned why there was 
still a need for a COVID response team.   
Discuss/ 
Action 
Ray Farrish 
Millette Miller 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 62 of 68

NOTICE OF ACCOMMODATIONS: Individuals with disabilities, assistive listening devices, large-printed materials, special parking 
arrangements, and other accommodations are available with 72 hours advance notice. If you require accommodations to 
participate in the above meeting, please contact Amy Windus at the Public Health Administration Department, (602)909-8787. 
Jeanene Fowler answered that they are categorized 
as COVID response staff, but she would provide her 
specifics on their job duties. 
Dr. Matthew Farber asked whether there would be 
enough funding to address potential problems if 
funding were reduced.   
Jeanene Fowler explained that the only money 
currently being received through AHCCCS is for 
billing immunization, STI, and TB services.  This does 
not affect the budget presented today.   
Motion to make a recommendation to the Board of 
Supervisors to approve the Public Health fiscal year 
2027 budget request as recommended by the 
Maricopa County Budget Office:   Vice President 
Mary Schraven 
Second: Chuck Catlin 
Supervisor Debbie Lesko was recused and did not 
vote. The motion was approved unanimously by the 
remaining members present.   
Motion status: Approved  
5. 
Environmental Services Finance (timestamp-39:02) 
Make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to 
approve the Environmental Services fiscal year 2027 budget 
request.  
Supervisor Debbie Lesko announced that she has 
been advised to recuse herself from the vote, as it 
will come before the Board of Supervisors.   
Supervisor Debbie Lesko asked for a reminder as to 
how much of this money is for the operations of the 
six transfer stations that are not mandated. 
Andy Linton said that in Maricopa County, there are 
many overlapping services with the current transfer 
stations, and their plan is to present a proposal to the 
Board of Health in July to change the fees and 
operations of the transfer stations.   
Supervisor Debbie Lesko wondered whether that 
would go into effect on the budget here today and 
whether money would be saved.   
Andy Linton responded that it would go through the 
EROP process, which usually takes around 6 to 9 
months.  If the changes were to take effect at the 
Discuss/ 
Action 
Sylvie Donaldson 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 63 of 68

NOTICE OF ACCOMMODATIONS: Individuals with disabilities, assistive listening devices, large-printed materials, special parking 
arrangements, and other accommodations are available with 72 hours advance notice. If you require accommodations to 
participate in the above meeting, please contact Amy Windus at the Public Health Administration Department, (602)909-8787. 
beginning of the fiscal year, it would save about 
$950,000 in the general fund.  Prorating that over the 
year would come out to a couple of hundred 
thousand dollars.   
Motion to make a recommendation to the Board of 
Supervisors to approve the Environmental Services 
fiscal year 2027 budget request as recommended by 
the Maricopa County Budget Office: Dr. Stefanie 
Schroeder 
Second: Dr. Mattew Farber 
Supervisor Debbie Lesko was recused and did not 
vote. The motion was approved unanimously by the 
remaining members present.   
Motion status: Approved  
6. 
Environmental Services – Fee Waiver Applications 
(timestamp-47:33) 
A. Request for Board of Health approval of twenty 
(20) fee waiver applications marked P1-P19 and 
C1. 
President Joanne Osborne asked for clarification on 
waiving the $85 fees and then increasing them with 
the Environmental Health Code fee increase. 
Robert Stratman explained that these permits have 
already been issued.  If the fees are increased, then 
those who qualify for a fee waiver would be 
presented with the permit amount at that time.   
President Joanne Osborne asked for an example of 
a temporary food establishment that wouldn’t qualify 
for a fee waiver.   
Robert Stratman answered that a commercial event 
that is not a 501 (c) (3) sponsored organization, 
where they are generating fundraising, would be an 
example.   
Motion to approve twenty (20) fee waiver 
applications marked P1-P19 and C1: Veronica Oros 
Second: Chuck Catlin 
Motion status: Approved unanimously 
Discuss/ 
Action 
Robert Stratman 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 64 of 68

NOTICE OF ACCOMMODATIONS: Individuals with disabilities, assistive listening devices, large-printed materials, special parking 
arrangements, and other accommodations are available with 72 hours advance notice. If you require accommodations to 
participate in the above meeting, please contact Amy Windus at the Public Health Administration Department, (602)909-8787. 
7. 
Environmental Services – Enhanced Regulatory Outreach 
Program (EROP)  
EROP Case ES-2025-004/Maricopa County Environmental 
Health Code Fee Changes (timestamp-52:58) 
A. Request for BOH approval to continue according to 
the EROP Standard Process for final consideration 
from the Board of Supervisors. 
Chuck Catlin asked whether the consultant used 
time studies or relied on their experience with time 
studies at other similar organizations. 
Andy Linton stated that the fees were mostly based 
on actual data.   
President Osborne asked about food trucks and 
where they fall into place, fee-wise. 
Andy Linton explained that the mobile food truck 
permit fee will remain the same. Many vendors start 
as temporary establishments and later invest in 
mobile trailers with an annual permit.   
Supervisor Debbie Lesko asked for an explanation of 
the refuse collection variance charge, which went 
from $2,100 to $779.  
Andy Linton responded that they now have better 
ways to capture data, and it shows the importance of 
doing these studies with greater frequency.  He said 
he would provide her office with the exact revenue 
reduction for this permit. The proposed fee would 
ensure 100% of the cost is recovered for the 
activities.   
Motion to approve to continue according to the 
EROP Standard Process for final consideration from 
the Board of Supervisors:   
Chuck Catlin 
Second: Veronica Oros 
Motion status: Approved unanimously 
EROP Case ES-2025-005/Wastewater Treatment Plants 
(timestamp-78:13) 
B. Request for BOH approval to proceed according to 
the EROP Standard Process for final consideration 
from the Board of Supervisors. 
President Osborne stated that she appreciated the 
removal of redundancies, usage, and fees; however, 
Discuss/ 
Action 
Andy Linton 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 65 of 68

NOTICE OF ACCOMMODATIONS: Individuals with disabilities, assistive listening devices, large-printed materials, special parking 
arrangements, and other accommodations are available with 72 hours advance notice. If you require accommodations to 
participate in the above meeting, please contact Amy Windus at the Public Health Administration Department, (602)909-8787. 
she expressed concerns about prior discussions 
regarding advanced water purification and oversight. 
Andy Linton answered that AZDEQ has regulatory 
responsibility for advanced water purification. 
Regarding wastewater treatment plants, MCESD's 
and ADEQ’s engineering review processes and 
operational inspections are very similar. Most of the 
oversight is duplicative. ADEQ goes a step further in 
its reviews by conducting hydrological analysis.  
Trevor Baggiore, Director of the Water Quality 
Division for the Arizona Department of Environmental 
Quality, spoke in support of coordination between the 
two agencies and of having a single process to avoid 
duplicative regulation. 
Motion to approve to continue according to the 
EROP Standard Process for final consideration from 
the Board of Supervisors:   
Dr. Matthew Farber 
Second: Stefanie Schroeder 
Motion status: Approved unanimously 
8. 
Air Quality Department (timestamp-88:48) 
Make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to 
approve the proposed revisions to the following rule: 
AQ-2025-004 
Rule 230 (General Permits) 
The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) is 
proposing to revise Rule 230 to ensure the rule complies 
with the general state implementation plan (SIP) 
requirements for new source review programs in the Code of 
Federal Regulations so that Rule 230 can be approved into 
the Arizona SIP. Additionally, MCAQD is proposing to revise 
Rule 230 to expand the general permit program by allowing 
larger Non-Title V and Title V sources to potentially qualify 
for general permits. As a result, more facilities may be able 
to obtain general permits instead of individual permits. Upon 
adoption of the revised rule, MCAQD plans to submit the rule 
as a revision to the Arizona SIP. 
Supervisor Debbie Lesko asked for an explanation of 
what kind of permit a large data center would be 
Discuss/ 
Action 
Philip McNeely 
Kimberly Butler 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 66 of 68

NOTICE OF ACCOMMODATIONS: Individuals with disabilities, assistive listening devices, large-printed materials, special parking 
arrangements, and other accommodations are available with 72 hours advance notice. If you require accommodations to 
participate in the above meeting, please contact Amy Windus at the Public Health Administration Department, (602)909-8787. 
 
given, and if the Air Quality Department is the agency 
that checks to make sure they are abiding by the 
conditions under which they received the Board of 
Supervisors’ approval.  
 
Philip McNeely explained that there are many 
reporting and performance testing requirements, and 
that continuous monitoring is handled by their staff.  
They are the regulators, and their rules are always 
approved by the EPA into the state implementation 
plan. 
 
Motion to approve the proposed revisions to the 
following rule: AQ-2025-004 Rule 230 (General 
Permits): Dr. Matthew Farber 
Second: Chuck Catlin 
Motion status:  Approved unanimously 
9.  
Adjournment (timestamp-103:25) 
The next Maricopa County Board of Health meeting will be 
held on Monday, July 27, 2026.   
 
President Osborne asked for a motion to adjourn the 
meeting.   
Motion to adjourn: Chuck Catlin 
Second: Supervisor Debbie Lesko 
Motion status: Approved unanimously 
The meeting adjourned at 4:48 p.m. 
 
Action 
President Osborne 
 
Maricopa County • Air Quality Department • Rule 230 Report to the Board of Supervisors
Page 67 of 68

Maricopa County
Air Quality Department 
Planning and Analysis Division 
Maricopa.gov/AQ