ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
25A-A06-DEQ · Department of Environmental Quality · 2026-03-02
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
In The Matter Of:
Myron Sacks
15510 N. La Cometa Ave
Surprise, AZ 85374
VIN: JHMEH6260PS008535,
Appellant.
No. 25A-A06-DEQ
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: February 13, 2026
APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Taylor Parmenter represented the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Appellant Myron Sacks appeared on his own behalf. Sarah Fitzgerald appeared as a witness.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality’s Exhibits 1-7
FINDINGS OF FACT
On October 30, 2025, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (“ADEQ”) issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-entitled matter for hearing. The Notice of Hearing provided that the issue set for determination was, “whether or not ADEQ’s denial of Appellant’s application to enter into the voluntary vehicle repair and retrofit program in accordance with A.R.S. § 49-558.02(B)(4) should be reconsidered, based on the appeal.”
A hearing was held on February 13, 2026.
At hearing, ADEQ presented the testimony of Sarah Fitzgerald, ADEQ’s Manager of the Transportation Solutions Unit. Appellant Myron Sacks testified on his own behalf.
On or about August 16, 2025, Mr. Sacks first applied for ADEQ’s voluntary vehicle repair and retrofit program (the “Program”) after he failed an emissions test. ADEQ denied that application because the vehicle was not registered in Mr. Sack’s name.
On or about August 19, 2025, Mr. Sacks submitted another application for the Program, having corrected the ownership of the vehicle and after having passed the emissions testing for the vehicle. ADEQ denied that application because the vehicle had been repaired at a non-ADEQ approved facility.
Mr. Sacks appealed ADEQ’s denial.
The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
Ms. Fitzgerald explained that when an applicant applies to the Program, and clicks the “submit” link, the Terms and Conditions to which an applicant must agree in order to submit the application, appear on the screen. The Program participation requirements appear on the screen, the first of which is: “[t]he vehicle must be taken to an approved repair facility no more than 60 days from the date of enrollment.” A live link follows entitled, “View List of Approved Repair Facilities.” Prior to being able to submit an application, an applicant must first click a box that states, “I acknowledge that I have read and agree to the Terms and Conditions.”
ADEQ provided screenshots of the list of approved repair facilities that were available and viewable within the live link provided in the Terms and Conditions that an applicant must agree to prior to submitting an application for the Program. The list of facilities is also available on ADEQ’s website. The facility used by Mr. Sacks was not on the list of approved facilities.
Ms. Fitzgerald testified that there are no exceptions to the requirement of using an ADEQ approved facility.
Mr. Sacks testified that he “did not recall seeing” a list of approved facilities, however, he remembers that there was a requirement that the repairs be performed at an authorized facility and “disregarded what he saw based on newer information that his wife received,” as she had asked an employee at the repair facility and was advised that they “could use one of her choice.” Mr. Sacks asserted that he “feels [he] made a reasonable decision based on what the employee of the emissions facility” told his wife. Mr. Sacks acknowledged that his wife was not aware of the Program and only made a general inquiry as to where the repair could be made.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Mr. Sacks bears the burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that ADEQ improperly denied his application for the Program. A preponderance of the evidence is: “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.
A.R.S. § 49-558.02(B) provides:
A vehicle owner may participate in the program if all of the following criteria are met:
. . . .
The vehicle is required to undergo an emissions inspection and fails an emissions test.
. . . .
7. The vehicle is taken to a participating repair facility. Any repairs performed at an unauthorized repair facility are not eligible for payment.
. . . .
Upon consideration of the evidence presented at hearing, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Mr. Sacks failed to establish that ADEQ improperly denied his application for the Program. The preponderance of the evidence supports that conclusion and Mr. Sacks has not shown that ADEQ’s determination was otherwise in error or contrary to law.
As such, Mr. Sack’s appeal should be dismissed.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Myron Sack’s appeal is dismissed.
In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.
-54864001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
-137160-45720000Done this day, March 2, 2026.
/s/ Sondra J. Vanella
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Karen Peters
Department of Environmental Quality
Myron Sacks
[email redacted]
Department of Environmental Quality
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
Taylor Parmenter
Office of the Attorney General
Environmental Enforcement Section
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff