UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX AIR DIVISION

Technical Support Document 

for

EPA’s Rulemaking

for the

Arizona State Implementation Plan

Arizona Statute 49-457.01: Leaf Blower Use Restrictions and Training; Leaf Blower 

Equipment Sellers; Informational Material; Applicability

Arizona Statute 11-877: Air Quality Control Measures

Prepared by: Robert Marinaro

March 20, 2013
2

RULE IDENTIFICATION

Agency: State of Arizona for Maricopa County

Submitted Rule: 

Arizona Revised Statute (ARS) 11-877: Air Quality 

Control Measures. Subsections A 1-3 & B. 

Adopted: July 2, 2007

Submitted: May 25, 2012

Determined Complete: July 20, 2012

ARS 49-457.01: Leaf Blower Use Restrictions and 

Training; Leaf Blower Equipment Sellers; Informational 

Material; Applicability. Subsections A-G.

Adopted: July 2, 2007

Submitted: May 25, 2012

Determined Complete: July 20, 2012

Previous Submittal: 

Arizona Revised Statute (ARS) 11-877: Air Quality 

Control Measures. Subsections A 1-3 & B. 

Adopted: July 2, 2007

Submitted: December 21, 2007

Withdrawn: January 25, 2011

ARS 49-457.01: Leaf Blower Use Restrictions and 

Training; Leaf Blower Equipment Sellers; Informational 

Material; Applicability. Subsections A-G.

Adopted: July 2, 2007

Submitted: December 21, 2007

Withdrawn: January 25, 2011

BACKGROUND

Maricopa County is classified as a serious nonattainment area for PM10. As required by 

section 189 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), Arizona submitted a PM10 plan that included the 

most stringent measures (MSM) and an extension request for attainment no later than 

December 31, 2006. On January 14, 2002, EPA announced the approval of the serious 

area plan, including the Agricultural Best Management Practices (AgBMP) Program as 

meeting both Best Available Control Measures (BACM) and MSM requirements, and also 

granted a five year extension of the attainment date for both the 24-hour and annual PM10

standards from December 31, 2001 to December 31, 2006. Both decisions were published 

in the Federal Register on July 25, 2002 (67 FR 48718).

The area did not attain by December 2006, however, triggering the requirement under 

Section 189(d) of the CAA that a SIP revision providing for annual reductions of PM10 or 

PM10 precursors of not less than 5% of the most recent emissions inventory, until the 

standard is attained, be submitted to EPA by December 31, 2007.

The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) prepared the 2007 Five Percent Plan 

for PM10 which was approved by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ) and submitted to the EPA on December 21, 2007. The SIP contained rule 

revisions in Maricopa County and Pinal County to further reduce PM10 emissions.
3

Arizona Senate Bill 1552 (2007) addressed the authority to revise rules while adding 

requirements for both Maricopa County and one township in Pinal County. Cities and 

towns in the nonattainment area committed to develop and enforce local ordinances to 

address PM10 emissions from vacant lots, unpaved roads and shoulders, off-highway 

vehicles, and leaf blowers. EPA proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of 

the Five Percent Plan on September 9, 2010 (75 FR 54806).

After ADEQ withdrew the plan on January 25, 2011, EPA issued a Finding of Failure to 

Submit the Five Percent Plan on February 14, 2011 (76 FR 8300), triggering an 18-month 

sanctions clock and a two-year Federal Implementation Plan clock. Arizona submitted a 

replacement plan, MAG 2012 Five Percent Plan for PM10, on May 25, 2012. EPA found 

that submission complete on July 20, 2012. A.R.S. § 49-457.01 and 11-877 are included 

in the submittal.

RULE SUMMARY

ARS 49-457.01 (Leaf Blower Use Restrictions and Training; Leaf Blower Equipment 

Sellers; Informational Material; Outreach; Applicability) and ARS 11-877 (Air Quality 

Control Measures) are designed to ensure further reductions of PM10 emissions from leaf 

blowers in order to progress towards attainment of federal and state standards and to 

protect public health and welfare.

ARS 49-457.01 Leaf Blower Use Restrictions and Training; Leaf Blower Equipment 

Sellers; Informational Material; Outreach; Applicability - controls PM10 emissions 

from leaf blowers by:

 Prohibiting the use of leaf blowers to blow landscape debris into public roadways.

 Limiting the use of leaf blowers to stabilized surfaces.

 Instituting a training requirement for leaf blower operators who operate the device 

for remuneration.

 Educating operators who use leaf blowers in the normal course of their business to 

blow landscape debris. 

 Requiring persons selling or renting leaf blowers to distribute approved printed 

training materials to the operators.

 Requiring Maricopa County to produce and distribute printed materials to persons 

who sell or rent leaf blowers. The printed materials would be designed to educate 

and inform users on the safe and efficient use of the equipment, including methods 

to reduce dust.

ARS 11-877 Air Quality Control Measures - mandates the board of supervisors of any 

county containing a portion of Area A (as defined in section 40-541) to develop, 

implement, and enforce the following air quality control measures:

 Prohibits employees or contractors from operating leaf blowers on any high 

pollution advisory day except while in vacuum mode.

 Prohibits employees or contractors from blowing landscape debris into public 

roadways at any time. 
4

 Shall adopt, implement, and enforce an ordinance that bans the blowing of 

landscape debris into public roadways at any time by any person.

 Shall adopt, implement, and enforce an ordinance that prohibits the operation of 

leaf blowers except on stabilized surfaces.

 Additionally, this section does not apply to any site that has a permit issued by a 

control officer as defined in section 49-471 for the control of fugitive dust from 

dust generating operations.

EPA REVIEW CRITERIA

EPA considered the criteria described and set forth in the following sections of the CAA 

and guidance documents to evaluate this rule: 

1. Enforceability

Section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act requires enforceable SIP requirements. Several 

EPA guidance documents are used to evaluate rule enforceability, including the 

“Bluebook” (Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Clarification to Appendix D), November 24, 1978, 52 FR 45044), and “the Little 

Bluebook” (Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies), EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001. 

2. Rule Relaxation

EPA must evaluate whether this SIP revision would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any 

requirement of the Act (CAA 110(l)) or modify, in a nonattainment area, any SIPapproved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990 (CAA 193).

RULE EVALUATION

Enforceability - - We believe these statutes are consistent with the relevant policy and 

guidance regarding enforceability. Requirements are clear and compliance determinations 

are straightforward given the nature of the rules.

Rule Relaxation - - We have evaluated these SIP revisions to determine whether they

would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the Act (CAA §110(l)) or 

modify, in a nonattainment area, any SIP-approved control requirement in effect before 

November 19, 1990 (CAA §193). ARS 49-457.01 and 11-877 reduce emissions and 

strengthen the SIP because there are no previous versions of the statutes in the SIP. 

Furthermore, they do not undermine other existing SIP provisions. Therefore, we propose 

to determine that an approval of the submittal would comply with CAA sections 110(l) 

and 193 because (1) the proposed SIP revisions would not interfere with the on-going 

process for ensuring that requirements for the RFP and attainment of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards are met, and (2) the submitted SIP revisions are more 
5

stringent than the existing SIP requirements. 

 

RULE DEFICIENCES

We have identified no deficiencies with ARS 49-457.01 and 11-877 sufficient for EPA to 

propose less than full approval. 

 

 

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NEXT RULE REVISION

The regulation of leaf blowers has been in existence since the 1970’s when they first 

became used as an alternative to brooms and rakes to clean up lawn and garden debris. 

Local regulations are in place to control noise and, to use California as an example, there 

are more than 20 California communities that have outlawed the use of all leaf blowers. 

An additional 80 other California communities have ordinances restricting either the time 

of use or the noise level or both. In addition to noise, leaf blowers also create emissions 

from their gasoline-powered engines and from the powerful air streams they create. 

Nonetheless, we believe that additional requirements to control PM10 emissions are not 

required at this time for reasons including the following:

a. Leaf blower PM10 emissions are primarily caused by dust entrained by the leaf blower 

air streams. These are of a fugitive nature and difficult to quantify, but generally 

projected to be a relatively small portion of nonattainment area inventories.

b. We have not identified any formal rules in existing SIPs to address these emissions, 

including in California, which arguably has the worst PM10 problems, and the most 

aggressive air pollution control agencies in the country.

c. We are not aware of any EPA or State policy, guidance or rules describing PM10

control for leaf blowers. 

Nontheless, there are a significant number of municipal, county, and state 

ordinances/regulations that do provide a frame of reference to reduce emissions. Some of 

the recommendations from these ordinances/regulations are provided below and should be 

considered to increase rule effectiveness: 

1. At least one city in Arizona restricts the size of gas-powered leaf blowers. [Ordinance 

No. 14-08, An Ordinance of the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Buckeye, 

AZ, Amending the Town of Buckeye Code Chapters Nine, and Twelve, Related to Air 

Quality, Dust Control, and Vehicular Use on Unpaved Roadways, 

http://www.buckeyeaz.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/313]. While the original 

intent of this ordinance may have been to control noise, this measure should also 

reduce the velocity of blown air and associated fugitive dust emissions. We are not 

aware that it has been shown to be generally available, however, particularly in light of 

Buckeye’s local ordinance; Arizona should evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this 

control strategy in the future.
6

2. Many other areas have adopted local rules primarily to control leaf blower noise and 

nuisance. Several have the ancillary impact of reducing exhaust emissions (e.g., 

converting from gas to electric powered engines). However, since leaf blowers 

primarily emit PM10 from the blown air rather than engine exhaust, PM10 impacts of 

these controls are likely to be small. Nonetheless, Arizona could consider such 

strategies if additional PM10 reductions are needed in the future. Specifically:

 Reduce hours of operation [ http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazinearchive/2010/september/home-garden/leaf-blower/blower-noise/index.htm] and 

[http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county-times/ci_21919846/san-mateomulls-leaf-blower-ban]

o Weekdays excluding early morning and late afternoon.

o Exclude Sundays and holidays

o Restrict commercial use to one or more days per week per neighborhood.

 Consider requiring only electric-powered leaf blowers rather than gas-powered 

blowers, which are typically noisier and emit additional pollutants (e.g. exhaust 

and unburned gas).

 Consider requiring gas-powered leaf blowers to have lower emitting 4-stroke 

engines rather than the 2-stroke engines: 

[http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/sm_en_fs.pdf]

 Require operation at lower speeds [http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateocounty-times/ci_21919846/san-mateo-mulls-leaf-blower-ban].

3. Other areas have developed related programs that Arizona should also consider in the 

future including:

 Implement a Lawn Equipment (Leaf Blower) Exchange Program [EPA: 

http://www.epa.gov/air/community/details/yardequip.html#2] and [SCAQMD: 

http://www.aqmd.gov/tao/leafblowerexchange.htm].

 Raise public awareness: 

o Maintain a Lawn Equipment Awareness table at public places such as libraries, 

schools, or community centers.

o Sponsor a lawn Equipment Awareness booth at public places and/or events such 

as malls, athletic events, or fairs.

[http://www.epa.gov/air/community/details/yardequip.html].

 Effectively publicize the rule since citizen complaints will most likely be the 

primary means enforcement personnel will be aware of rule violations

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123128859885159113.html].

 Institute a civil penalties fee structure for violations.

 Provide enforcement authority to a broader range of enforcement individuals rather 

that limiting enforcement to only the Control Officer.

4. We recommend defining the terms in paragraph 3 of 11-877 or requiring appropriate 

definitions in the measures required by this statute with respect to the terms 

“stabilized,” “granite, aggregate, or gravel cover” (i.e. minimum depth and % of 
7

coverage), and “grass of other continuous vegetative cover” (i.e. minimum % of 

coverage), along with appropriate test methods. As an example, Imperial County Rule 

800 contains a definition for stabilized surface (section C.34) and for test methods 

(Appendix B). Imperial Rule 806 provides additional control measure specificity, for 

example (section C 23) gravel.

5. We recommend deletion of paragraph B in 11-877 as we see no reason why permitted 

sources should not be subject to at least as stringent leaf-blower restrictions as private 

citizens.

EPA ACTION

EPA believes that the statutory provisions associated with ARS Rule 49-457.01 and 11-877 

are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability and SIP 

relaxations. EPA staff recommends approving these provisions in accordance with section 

110(k)(3) of the Clean Air Act. 

REFERENCES: 

1. Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, 

(a.k.a., Bluebook) EPA OAQPS, May 25, 1988: 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ozonetech/voc_bluebook.pdf).

2. Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies, 

(a.k.a., Little Bluebook), EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001: 

(http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/sips/littlebluebook2001.pdf).

3. State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title 

I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 

FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).

4. State Implementation Plans for Serious PM10 Nonattainment Areas, and 

Attainment Date Waivers for PM10 Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum 

to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990, 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994). 

5. PM10 Guideline Document, EPA 452/R-93-008, April 1993.

6. Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information Document for 

Best Available Control Measures, (September 1992).

7. A Report to the California Legislature on the Potential Health and 

Environmental Impacts of Leaf Blowers, California Air Resources Board, 

February 2000.
8

8. Reducing Pollution from Small Engines, Fact Sheet, California Air Resources 

Board, April 1998.

9. Leaf Blower Pollution Hazards in Orange County: 

(www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/leafblow.pdf).

10. Maricopa County Ordinance P-25, Leaf Blower Restriction: 

http://www.maricopa.gov/aq/divisions/planning_analysis/rules/docs/p25-

0802.pdf.

11. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Implementation of Executive 

Order 2007-03, signed January 8, 2007, Regarding Leafblowers and Gas 

Powered Equipment: 

http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/download/Exec_Order_2007-03.pdf.

12. An Ordinance of the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Buckeye, 

Arizona, Amending the Town of Buckeye Code Chapters Nine, and Twelve, 

Related to Air Quality, Dust Control, and Vehicular Use on Unpaved 

Roadways: http://www.buckeyeaz.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/313.

13. San Mateo Mulls Leaf-Blower Ban, San Mateo County Times. November 2, 

2012: http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-countytimes/ci_21919846/san-mateo-mulls-leaf-blower-ban.

14. Lowering the Volume on Leaf Blowers, Wall Street Journal, January 7, 2009: 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123128859885159113.html.

15. Leaf- Blower Regulations Nationwide, Consumer Reports, September 2010: 

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2010/september/homegarden/leaf-blower/blower-noise/index.htm.

16. Determination of Particulate Emission Rates from Leaf Blowers, Dennis Fitz et 

al. and Gary Arcemont, Center of Environmental Research and Technology, 

University of California Riverside: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/conference/ei15/session5/fitz.pdf.

17. Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) Rule 800 General 

Requirements for Control of Fine Particulate Matter (PM10), Adopted 10/10/94; 

Revised 11/25/96; Revised 11/08/2005; Revised 10/16/2012; Submitted to 

EPA 11/07/12; Proposed Approval 78 FR 922 (January 7, 2013).

18. ICAPCD Rule 806 Conservation Management Practices (CMPs), Adopted 

11/08/05; Revised 10/16/12; Submitted to EPA 11/07/12; Proposed Approval 

78 FR 922 (January 7, 2013).

19. State of Arizona Senate Bill 1552, Adopted July 2, 2007