SUSANA MARTINEZ Governor JOHN A. SANCHEZ Lieutenant Governor



### February 2, 2015 Mr. Ron Curry Harold Runnels Building 1190 Saint Francis Drive, PO Box 5469 Santa Fe, NM 87502-5469 Telephone (505) 827-2855 Fax (505) 827-2836 www.nmenv.state.nm.us

Regional Administrator (6-A) U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region 6 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 Dallas, TX 75202-2733 Dear Mr. Curry: RYAN FLYNN Cabinet Secretary BUTCH TONGATE Deputy Secretary



### On behalfofthe New Mexico Environment Department, I am pleased to submit to the Environmental Protection Agency the enclosed proposed revision to the New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality. The proposed revision to the SIP would incorporate amendments to rule 20.2.1 NMAC- 

### General Provisions. The Environmental Improvement Board adopted these amendments on January 23, 2015, after a public comment period and subsequent public hearingheld on the same day. The public notice for the hearing was conducted in accordance with 40 CFR §51.102. The hearing record for the proposed SIP revision is attached, which includes the filed regulation, hearing transcript, exhibits, public notices, affidavits ofpublication, the Department's notice ofintent to testify, and public comments. Included along with the attached hard copy ofthe SIP submittal is an electronic copy provided on disk which I certify to be an exact duplicate ofthe hard copy. Ifthere are any questions concerning this SIP submittal, please contact Neal Butt ofmy staffat (505) 476-4317.

Enclosures

cc: Mr. Guy Donaldson, EPA Region 6 Mr. JeffRobinson, EPA Region 6 Mr. Michael Vonderheide, Director, Environmental Protection Division Mr. Richard Goodyear, Chief, AirQuality Bureau

## REVISION TO THE NEW MEXICO STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR AIR QUALITY (SIP) PERTAINING TO 20.2.1 NMAC, GENERAL PROVISIONS February 13, 2015 SIP COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST for regular processing (Per 40 CFR 51 Appendix V) 2.1 Administrative Materials (a) A formal letter of submittal from the Governor or designee, requesting EPA approval of the plan or revision thereof (hereafter “the plan”). __X__YES ___NO ___N/A The package is being sent with a formal submittal letter from the designee of the Governor of New Mexico. (b) Evidence that the State has adopted the plan in the State code or body of regulations; or issued the permit, order, consent agreement (hereafter “document”) in final form. That evidence shall include the date of adoption or f inal issuance as well as the effective date of the plan, if different from the adoption/issuance date. __X__YES ___NO ___N/A The amended regulation, 20.2.1 NMAC, General Provisions, was adopted at the January 23, 2015 meeting and hearing of The New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (EIB). The regulation was filed on January 27, 2015 with the New Mexico State Records Center and Archives (NMSRC), and became effective February 27, 2015, as shown in Attachment A. The first page of Attachment A is the transmittal of the amended regulation to the NMSRCsigned by EIB Chair John Volkerding as required by the NMSRC. The date of transmittal is indicated by the date stamp at the top of each page. (c) Evidence that the State has the necessary legal authority under State law to adopt and implement the plan. __X__YES ___NO ___N/A The New Mexico Air Quality Control Act provides for regulation at 74-2- 5.1 NMSA 1978, Duties and powers of the department and the local agency; and for plan revisions at 74-2-5.2 NMSA 1978, State airpollution 1

## control agency; specific duties and powers of the department

. (d) A copy of the actual regulation, or document submitted for approval and incorporation by reference into the plan, including indication of the changes made (such as redline/strikethrough) to the existing approved plan, where applicable. The submittal shall be a copy of the official State regulation/document signed, stamped, dated by the appropriate State official indicating that it is fully enforceable by the State. The effective date of the regulation/document shall, whenever possible, be indicated in the document itself. If the State submits an electronic copy, it must be an exact duplicate of the hard copy with changes indicated, signed documents need to be in portable document format, rules need to be in text format and files need to be submitted in manageable amounts (i.e. a file for each section or chapter, depending upon size, and separate files for each distinct document) unless otherwise agreed to by the State and Regional Office. __X__YES ___NO ___N/A Attachment Acontains a stamped and dated copy of the amended 20.2.1 NMAC showing changes made to the existing approved regulation as indicated by redline

-strikeout; and the concomitant NMAC Transmittal Form, stamped, dated and signed by EIB Chair John Volkerding, indicating that the amended rule is fully enforceable.The amended rule and NMAC Transmittal were filed at the NMSRC on January 27, 2015, with an effective date of February 27, 2015 as indicated within the documents. Pursuant to Section 14-4-5 of the State Rules Act, NMSA 1978, the amended rule was published in the New Mexico Register, on February 13, 2015, Volume XXVI, Number 3, as shown in Attachment B. (e) Evidence that the State followed all of the procedural requirements of the State's laws and constitution in conducting and completing the adoption/issuance of the plan. __X__YES ___NO ___N/A The New Mexico Air Quality Control Act at 74-2-6C NMSA 1978, Adoption of regulations; notice and hearings, requires 30

-day public notice of a rulemaking hearing

. 20.1.1.301 NMAC, Notice of Hearings, provides that: “Unless otherwise allowed by governing law and specified by the board, the board shall give public notice of the hearing at least sixty (60) days prior to the hearing[...]” See NMED Exhibits # 6a and #6b in Attachment C for evidence that notices were published in the “newspaper of general circulation in the area affected” and in the New Mexico Register. 20.1.1.300 NMAC and 20.1.1.302 NMAC requires respectively that a Petition for Hearing be filed as well as an NOI. These are both shown in Attachment C.2

## (f) Evidence that public notice was given of the proposed change consistent with procedures approved by EPA; including the date of publication of such notice. __X__YES ___NO ___N/A Attachment C provides evidence that notices were published in the

“newspaper of general circulation in the area affected” and the New Mexico Register. The New Mexico Air Quality Control Act at 74-2-6C NMSA 1978, Adoption of regulations; notice and hearings requires a 30

- day notice. Public notice of the hearing was published on November 2, 2014 in the Albuquerque Journal both in English shown as NMED Exhibit 6a and in Spanish shown as NMED Exhibit 6b; in the New Mexico Register on November 13, 2014 shown as NMED Exhibit 6d; on the NMED Air Quality Bureau electronic mail list on November 10, 2014 shown as NMED Exhibit 6c; and on the NMED Air Quality Bureau’s website on November 12, 2014. Additional outreach was conducted for the proposed revisions to 20.2.1 NMAC in the form of: a dedicated NMED webpage explaining CROMERR; and an open house held at the New Mexico Environment Department in Santa Fe, on September 30, 2014. (g) Certification that public hearing(s) were held in accordance with the information provided in the public notice and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable and consistent with the public hearing requirements in 40 CFR 51.102. __X__YES ___NO ___N/A The opening statement for the January 23, 2015, public hearing includes information on the notice of public hearing and instructions on how the hearing will be conducted. See certified hearing record transcript in Attachment D. (h) Compilation of public comments and the State’s response thereto. __X__YES ___NO ___N/A The Department received no negative comments from the EPA, stakeholders or the public

. Attachment Ccontains a summary of comments from stakeholders and the Air Quality Bureau’s responses shown as NMED Exhibit 7. Comments from EPA and the Air Quality Bureau’s responses are shown as NMED Exhibit 8.

3

## 2.2 Technical Support (a) Identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the plan. __ __YES ___NO _ X __N/A (b) Identification of the locations of affected sources including the EPA attainment/ nonattainment designation of the locations and the status of the attainment plan for the affected area(s). ____YES ___NO _X__N/A (c) Quantification of the changes in plan

-allowable emissions from the affected sources; estimates of changes in current actual emissions from affected sources or, where appropriate, quantification of changes in actual emissions from affected sources through calculations of the differences between certain baseline levels and allowable emissions anticipated as a result of the revision. ____YES ___NO __X__N/A The amended regulation, 20.2.1 NMAC, General Provisions, does not regulate identified plan

-allowable emissions. (d) The State's demonstration that the national ambient air quality standards, prevention of significant deterioration increments, reasonable further progress demonstration, and visibility, as applicable, are protected if the plan is approved and implemented. For all requests to redesignate an area to attainment for a national primary ambient air quality standard, under Section 107 of the Act, a revision must be submitted to provide for the maintenance of the national primary ambient air quality standards for at least 10 years as required by section 175A of the Act. ___YES ___NO __ X __N/A This plan revision does not pertain to redesignating an area to attainment for a national primary ambient air quality standard, and this regulation does not directly regulate criteria air pollutants. Nor does it pertain to PSD increments or demonstrations of reasonable further progress. (e) Modeling information required to support the proposed revision, including input data, output data, models used, justification of model selections, ambient monitoring data used, meteorological data used, justification for use of offsite data (where used), modes of models used, assumptions, and other information relevant to the determination of adequacy of the modeling analysis.

4

## __ YES ___ NO __X_ N/A (f) Evidence, where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction technology. ___ YES ___ NO _X_ N/A (g) Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations, work practice standards and record keeping/reporting requirements, where necessary, to ensure emission levels.

_ _ YES___ NO __ X _ N/A (h) Compliance/enforcement strategies, including how compliance will be determined in practice.

_ X _ YES___ NO ___ N/A Compliance and enforcement strategies are delineated within Title 20, Environmental Protection, Chapter 2, Air Quality (Statewide) and within CROMERR. (See testimony and exhibits provided during hearing in Attachment D and Attachment C respectively). (i) Special economic and technical justification required by any applicable EPA policies, or an explanation of why such justifications are not necessary.

__ _ YES___ NO _ X _ N/A No special economic and technical justifications required by other applicable EPA policies are necessary because no such policies are relevant in this case.

5

# Attachment A 

# Attachment A contains the transmittal fonns required bythe New Mexico State Records Center and Archives to file a regulation or an amendment. The fonns are signed by EIB Chair John Volkerding. Also included in Attachment A are the official filed copy of the amended 20.2.1 

# NMAC. The date stamp at the top of each page indicates the date of filing.

# NMAC TRANSMITTAL FORM HISTORICAl

ALD Use 0(11y Volume: X XIV I ssue: 3 Publication Date: 

### 02 

### l 13 

### J 2015 [Sequence# 1 1 , Issuing Agency 2

.**~gen ~y** **DFA** Code

Environmental Improvement B oard 667 .2:..,_ Agel!_cy

_ Address c /o New Mexic o Envi ronment Department, 

### A l r Quality Bu r eau P.O. Box 5469 

## * 525 Camino de los Marquez Suite 1

- Santa F e NM 87502

-5469 _i._fontaot P er

son -=---------------...----,-----------------! Name Ne al Butt 

# IPhone # 

# I(505) 476-4317 E
-mail ncal.burtraJ state.nm.us 

# Is

. Type of Rule Action 

# D New 

# [!] Amendment 

# G 1 number of pages: 

# l 1 D Repeal 

# D Repeal/ Replace O Renumber O emergenc y 

# I [1

. Hearing date: 

# I 01/23/15 

# [j s . E ffective date:
9

. NMAC Nu'fber Title

## _,L~**a_p Jte** **;;;.;. r**  __ _,Tf-"

P ....;; a ;.;.. rt

"------1 20 

# 12 1 1 .,!0

. NMAC Name Title Env ironmental Protection J c hapter 

# I A

ir Quality (Statewide) 

# IGener al Provisions 1 02/2 7/15



## ...!!.:

.Amendment Description (Amend me nt filing only) 

### 12. Amendment's NMAC Citation 

## 'J!applica ble ) Amend three sections, add on e section and am end annotation in one section 20.2

. 1 NMAC,**S~ct s**  5, 108, 111, 116 & 117 

### 13

. Most recent filing date (ALD Use On!vl. 04 

### I 

### 15 I 2010 

# I 14

. Arethere any
_ materials incorporated by reference? Reference 

### 1 I ntern etsite No 0 v es 0 Please listattachments 

### 1

. andInternet sit e(s) if applicable 

### 2. 3. 

### 15, 

## tt materials are attached has c oovriaht permission been received? No 

# I 

# I Yes 

# I I Pu blic domain 

# I I 1 6. Legal ci tation(s) that allows the Issu i ngA ge ncyto reg ulate and the IssuingAuthorityto promulgate

1**~a io** **s** on this sub ect (p_rovlde all that

## ;pl!!Yl. 74-1-B NMSA 1978; Chapter74, Article 2 NMSA 1978 17

. Sig nature & Tltle of**uln g**  Authority (Delegation aut horityletter MUSTbe on fl/e with A .!£l......

__ 

## -

# :fo~" 

# \lv**~ 'K.~**  

# cd:**~** l., C heckIf deleg ated Name: authority 

# 0 _) Title: Chair

# ~ \._ \.1 .._ -- 

# c--.. Sig

- n t ure [Black Ink Only] 

# ' 0Ll>' D
- te Sig ned 1 .24 .10 NMAC

SRC- 2014·05

### This is an amendment to 20.2.1 NMAC, Sections 108, Ill, and 116; adding Section 117; and an update to the annotation following the history note tbr Section 5, 

### effective 02127115. 20.2.1.5 EFFECTIVE DATE: 

### October 27. 1995, unless a later date is cited at the end ofa section. [09/05/95, 10127/95; 20.2.1.5 NMAC- Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.104. 10131/02: A, 06/01110] [The latest effective date ofany section in this part is 

### [C>fiiOI/10] 

### 02/27115] 20.2.1.108 SAVING CLAUSE: 

### Supersession ofany Air Quality Control Regulation (AQCR) shall not 

### [etle£-t] affect any administrative orjudicial enforcement action pending on the effective date ofany part under Chapter 

### 2 ofTitle 20. nor the validity ofany pennit issued pursuant to any AQCR. [09105195; 

### 20.2.1.108 NMAC- Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.108, 10/31/02; A, 02/27/15] 20.2.1.111 AVAILABILITY OF MATERIALS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE: 

### Materials incorporated by reference into any part under Chapter 2 ofTitle 20 may be viewed at the state records center 

### [E404 Montezuma,**SaR~a ~e.** **~IM** 

### 87503) [ 1205 CamiRe Carles Rey, SaAta**~e.** 

### NM 875051] or at the New Mexico environment department, air quality bureau [(l.farald RuAAels**B~:~ildiAg,** 

### 1190 St JiraAeis 

### Dr., 8aflta Fe. NM 87503) [2018 Galisteo St., SaAta f.e, 

### NM 87505]]. [09/05/95; 20.2.1.111 NMAC- Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.111 I0/3J/02; A, 02/27/151 [As of02/27/15, the State Records Center is located at 1205 Camino Carlos Rey. Santa Fe, NM 87505: and the New Mexico Environment Department, Air Quality Bureau, is located at 525 

### Camino de los Marquez. Suite I, 

### Santa Fe. NM, 87505] 20.2.1.116 SIGNIFICANT FIGURES: A. All 

### emissions standards are deemed to have at least two significant ligures. but not more than three significant figures. B. At least five significant ligures shall be retained in all intermediate calculations. C. In calculating emissions to determine compliance with an emission standard, the tbllowing rounding offprocedures shall be used: (I) 

### if

### the first digit to be 

### discarded is less than the number'live, the last digit retained shall not be changed; (2) 

### ifthe first digit discarded is 

### greater than the number live, or ifit is 

### the number five tbllowed by at least one digit other than the number zero, the last 

### figure retained shall be increased by one unit; and (3) 

### ifthe first digit discarded is exactly the number live, followed only by zeros, the last digit retained shall be rounded upward ifit is an odd number, but no adjustment shall be 

### made if

### it is an even number. 

### [t4:)] D. 

### The final result ofthe calculation shall be expressed in the 

### units ofthe standard. [20.2.1.116 NMAC- N, 06/01/10; A, 02/27/15] 20.2.1.117 ELECTRONIC REPORTING AND PERMIT APPLICATIONS: A. Applicability. 

### Pursuant to the Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule 

### (CROMERR) as defined by Title 40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations <CFR) Part 3, and the Unif(wm Electronic Transactions Act, 

### NMSA 1978, Sections 14-16-1 to -21 (200 I 

### as amended through 20 13). any submittal to the department required by anv part under Chapter 2, Air 

### QuaU(J• (Statewide), 

### ofTitle 20. Environmentul Protection. 

### ofthe New Mexico administrative code, for which the department has notified persons subject to the applicable requirement that it is accepting specified electronic documents in lieu ofpaper, shall be submitted electronically. provided that the method ofsubmittal complies with applicable federal and state standards for electronic submissions. The department mav· grant a waiver ofthis requirement on a case-by-case basis ifrequested by the regulated source. B. Deadline extension due to computer system failure. (I) 

### Ifelectronic submittal capability is in place, but the dcrartmcnt's electronic document receiving system is temporarilv unavailable, then the department may grant a deadline extension to the regulated (2) Ifelectronic submittal capability is in place, but the regulated source's computer system or its internet service provider is temporarily unavailable, then the source mav request a deadline extension. The department may grant a deadline extension to the regulated source. r20.2.1.117 NMAC- N, 02127/15]

20.2.1 NMAC'

### 20.2.1 NMAC 1 TITLE 20 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CHAPTER 2 AIR QUALITY (STATEWIDE) PART 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS 20.2.1.1 ISSUING AGENCY:New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board. [09/05/95; 20.2.1.1 NMAC - Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.100, 10/31/02] 20.2.1.2 SCOPE:The provisions of this part apply to all parts of this chapter. [09/05/95; 20.2.1.2 NMAC - Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.101, 10/31/02] 20.2.1.3 STATUTORY AUTHORITY:Statutory authority comes from the Environmental Improvement Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 74-1-1 et seq., and the Air Quality Control Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 74-2-1 et seq. [09/05/95; 20.2.1.3 NMAC - Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.102, 10/31/02] 20.2.1.4 DURATION:Permanent. [09/05/95; 20.2.1.4 NMAC - Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.103, 10/31/02] 20.2.1.5 EFFECTIVE DATE:October 27, 1995, unless a later date is cited at the end of a section. [09/05/95, 10/27/95; 20.2.1.5 NMAC - Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.104, 10/31/02; A, 06/01/10] [The latest effective date of any section in this part is 02/27/15] 20.2.1.6 OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this Part (20.2.1 NMAC) is to establish general provisions which apply to all parts of this chapter (20.2.1 through 20.2.99 NMAC). [09/05/95; 20.2.1.6 NMAC - Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.105, 10/31/02] 20.2.1.7 DEFINITIONS:[RESERVED] 20.2.1.8 to 20.2.1.105[RESERVED] 20.2.1.106 AMENDMENT AND SUPERSESSION OF PRIOR REGULATIONS: A.This part amends and supersedes Air Quality Control Regulations (AQCRs): (1) 110, Confidential Information Protection, last filed May 29, 1990; (2) 701, Procedures for Requesting a Variance Hearing, last filed Oct. 7, 1975; (3) 1001, Sampling Equipment, last filed Jan. 27, 1970; (4) 1101, Severability, last filed Jan. 27, 1970; (5) 1201, Effective Date, last filed Jan. 27, 1970; (6) 1301, Conflicts, last filed Jan. 27, 1970. B.All references to AQCRs 110, 701, 1001, 1101, 1201 and 1301 in any other rule shall be understood as a reference to this part. [09/05/95, 10-27-95; 20.2.1.106 NMAC - Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.106, 10/31/02] 20.2.1.107 SEVERABILITY:If any provision or application of any part under Chapter 2 of Title 20 is held invalid, the remainder, or its application to other situations or persons, shall not be affected. [09/05/95; 20.2.1.107 NMAC - Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.107, 10/31/02] 20.2.1.108 SAVING CLAUSE:Supersession of any Air Quality Control Regulation (AQCR) shall not affect any administrative or judicial enforcement action pending on the effective date of any part under Chapter 2 of Title 20, nor the validity of any permit issued pursuant to any AQCR. [09/05/95; 20.2.1.108 NMAC - Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.108, 10/31/02; A, 02/27/15] 20.2.1.109 CONSTRUCTION:Any part under Chapter 2 of Title 20 shall be liberally construed to effectuate the purpose of the Environmental Improvement Act, NMSA 1978, 74-1-1 et seq. and the Air Quality Control Act, NMSA 1978, 74-2-1 et seq. [09/05/95; 20.2.1.109 NMAC - Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.109, 10/31/02]

### 20.2.1 NMAC 2 20.2.1.110 COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER REGULATIONS:Compliance with any part under Chapter 2 of Title 20 does not relieve a person from the obligation to comply with other applicable state and federal regulations. [09/05/95; 20.2.1.110 NMAC - Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.110, 10/31/02] 20.2.1.111 AVAILABILITY OF MATERIALS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:Materials incorporated by reference into any part under Chapter 2 of Title 20 may be viewed at the state records center or at the New Mexico environment department, air quality bureau. [09/05/95; 20.2.1.111 NMAC - Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.111, 10/31/02; A, 02/27/15] [As of 02/27/15, the State Records Center is located at 1205 Camino Carlos Rey, Santa Fe, NM 87505; and the New Mexico Environment Department, Air Quality Bureau, is located at 525 Camino de los Marquez, Suite 1, Santa Fe, NM, 87505] 20.2.1.112 EFFECT OF STAY OR INVALIDATION OF INCORPORATED FEDERAL REGULATIONS:If a federal court stays, invalidates or otherwise renders unenforceable by the environmental protection agency (EPA), in whole or in part, any federal regulation incorporated by reference in any part under Chapter 2 of Title 20, such incorporated federal regulation shall be enforceable by the department only to the extent it is enforceable by EPA. [09/05/95; 20.2.1.112 NMAC - Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.112, 10/31/02] 20.2.1.113 SAMPLING EQUIPMENT:When directed by the environment department, or its designated representative, the necessary openings for sampling equipment shall be provided on stacks or other openings through which emissions are released to the atmosphere. [09/05/95; 20.2.1.113 NMAC - Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.113, 10/31/02] 20.2.1.114 PETITION PROCEDURES FOR REQUESTING A VARIANCE HEARING: A. Definition:As used in this section (part), “petitioner”means a person seeking a variance from a regulation of the environmental improvement board or limitation prescribed under theAir Quality Control Act pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 74-2-8. B. Petition procedures: (1) Any person seeking a variance from a regulation of the environmental improvement board, or a permit condition imposed by the department, or from the limitations prescribed under the Air Quality Control Act pursuant to Section 74-2-8 NMSA 1978, shall do soby filing a written petitionwith the secretary. Petition forms may be obtained from the environment department. (2) Petitions shall: (a) state the petitioner’s name and address; (b)state the date of the petition; (c)describe the facility or activity for which the variance is sought; (d)state the address or description of the property upon which the facility is located; (e)identify the regulation of the board or limitation prescribed under the Air Quality Control Act from which the variance is sought; (f) state in detail the extent to which the petitioner wishes to vary from the regulation or limitations; (g) state why the petitioner believes the variance is justified; and (h) state the period of time for which the variance is desired. (3) The petitioner may submit with the petition any relevant documents or material which the petitioner believes would support the petition. C.The environment department’s response and any further action and proceedings shall be in accordance with general adjudicatory proceduresof the environmental improvement board. [10/27/95; 20.2.1.114 NMAC - Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.114, 10/31/02] 20.2.1.115 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PROTECTION: A. Definitions:As used in this section: (1) “Claimant”refers to a person or business who makes a claim of confidentiality.

### 20.2.1 NMAC 3 (2) “Confidential business information”refers broadly to information that, if made public, would harm a business’ competitive position. This includes trade secrets and may include data relating to the profits and costs of the owner or operator which have not previously been released to the public. (3) “Nature and amount of emissions”means information necessary to determine the identity, amount, frequency, concentration, or other characteristics (to the extent related to air quality) of any air contaminant emission and includes a general description of the location and nature of the source. (4) “Source”or “stationary source”means any building, structure, equipment, facility, installation (including temporary installations), operation or portable stationary source which emits or may emit any air contaminant. Any research facility may group its sources for the purpose of this section, at the discretion of the secretary. (5) “Trade secret”refers to a secret plan or process,tool or mechanism unique to the owner or operator of a business. B. Confidentiality determinations:The environment department shall keep confidential trade secrets or confidential business information under applicable legal principles to the extent that: (1) business information furnished to or obtained by the environment department concerning air contaminant sources shall be considered for confidential treatment if specifically marked as confidential at the time such information is submitted; (2) the department is not required to disclose this information pursuant to a statutory provision; and (3) the following conditions are satisfied: (a) the claimant has asserted a claim of confidentiality which has not been waived, withdrawn or denied; (b) the claimant has satisfactorily shown that it has taken reasonable measures to protect the confidentiality of the information, and that it intends to continue to take such measures; (c) the information is not, and has not been, reasonably obtainable without the business’ consent; and (d) the claimant has satisfactorily shown that disclosure of the information is likely to cause substantial harm to the business’ competitive position. C.This Section (20.2.1.115 NMAC) shall not be construed to prohibit disclosure of records and information: (1) to other officers, employees or authorized representatives of the department, the local agency, the environmental improvement board, or the local board concerned with carrying out the Air Quality Control Act; (2) to officers, employees or authorized representatives of the United States environmental protection agency concerned with carrying out the federal act; (3) when relevant, in any proceeding under the Air Quality Control Act or the federal act; (4) of data concerning the nature and amount of emissions from any source; or (5) limit the use of such records or information in any civil or criminal action, subject to such protection as the court may give. D. Procedures for handling requests for confidentiality: (1) The department’s office of general counsel (OGC) in each case shall determine whether and to what extent the information qualifies for confidential treatment under this section. (2) If the department determines it will need additional information in order to decide whether information submitted by the claimant qualifies for confidential treatment, the department shall send the claimant a written notice requesting additional information. (a) The claimant shall submit the requested additional information within thirty (30) days of receiving the department’s request. The department shall keep the claimant’sinformation confidential and not disclose it to the public during that thirty (30) day time period. (b) If the claimant does not submit the requested additional information within the thirty (30) day time period, then the department shall assume that the claimant has abandoned or withdrawn the claim of confidentiality, and may release the information tothe public upon request (followingthe expiration of the thirty (30) day period). (3) Within thirty (30) days of receiving material marked as confidential or within thirty (30) days of receiving any additional information the department requested, the department shall determine whether and to what extent the information qualifies for confidential treatment under this section.

### 20.2.1 NMAC 4 (4) Once a decision is reached, the department shall send the claimant a written notice of the decision by certified mail. (5) If the department notifies a claimant that his or her claim of confidentiality will not be honored, the department shall not make the information available for public inspection or copying for thirty (30) days in order to give the claimant an opportunity to request administrative review of the decision. The department shall not make the information available for public inspection or copying while an administrative review, or legal action to prevent disclosure, is pending. (6) Business information that has been determined to be confidential shall not be made a part of any public record unless the claimant expressly agrees to its publication. E. Administrative review:Every claimant has the right to request additional review of any denial of a request for confidential treatment of business information or documents. The secretary shall be responsible for conducting reviews of denials made by department personnel. The secretary shall use his or her best efforts to review denials within thirty (30) daysof receiving the request for review. [10/27/95; 20.2.1.115 NMAC - Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.115, 10/31/02] 20.2.1.116 SIGNIFICANT FIGURES: A. All emissions standards are deemed to have at least two significant figures, but not more than three significant figures. B. At least five significant figures shall be retained in all intermediate calculations. C. In calculating emissions to determine compliance with an emission standard, the following rounding off procedures shall be used: (1) if the first digit to be discarded is less than the number five, the last digit retained shall not be changed; (2) if the first digit discarded is greater than the number five, or if it is the number five followed by at least one digit other than the number zero, the last figure retained shall be increased by one unit; and (3) if the first digit discarded is exactly the number five, followed only by zeros, the last digit retained shall be rounded upward if it is an odd number, but no adjustment shall be made if it is an even number. D. The final result of the calculation shall be expressed in the units of the standard. [20.2.1.116 NMAC - N, 06/01/10; A, 02/27/15] 20.2.1.117 ELECTRONIC REPORTING AND PERMIT APPLICATIONS: A. Applicability.Pursuant to the Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule(CROMERR) as defined by Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 3, and the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 14-16-1 to -21 (2001 as amended through 2013), any submittal to the department required by any part under Chapter 2, Air Quality (Statewide), of Title 20, Environmental Protection, of the New Mexico administrative code, for which the department has notified persons subject to the applicable requirement that it is accepting specified electronic documents in lieu of paper, shall be submitted electronically, provided that the method of submittal complies with applicable federal and state standards for electronic submissions. The department may grant a waiver of this requirement on a case-by-case basis if requested by the regulated source. B. Deadline extension due to computer system failure. (1)If electronic submittal capability is in place,but the department’s electronic document receiving system is temporarily unavailable, then the department may grant a deadline extension to the regulated source. (2)If electronic submittal capability is in place, but the regulated source’s computer system or its internet service provider is temporarily unavailable, then the source may request a deadline extension. The department may grant a deadline extension to the regulated source. [20.2.1.117 NMAC- N, 02/27/15] HISTORY OF 20.2.1 NMAC: Pre-NMAC History:The material in this part was derived from that previously filed with the Commission of Public Records-State Records Center and Archives. HSSD 70-1, Ambient Air Quality Standards And Air Quality Control Regulations, 01/27/70. EIB/AQCR 110, Air Quality Control Regulation 110 - Confidential Information Protection, 05/29/90. History of Repealed Material: [RESERVED]

### 20.2.1 NMAC 5 Other History: HSSD 70-1, Ambient Air Quality Standards And Air Quality Control Regulations, (relating to those portions numbered 1001-Sampling Equipment; 1101-Severability; 1201-Effective Date; 1301-Conflicts) filed 01/27/70; (AQCR) 701, Procedure For Requesting A Variance Hearing, filed 10/07/75; and EIB/AQCR 110, Air Quality Control Regulation 110 - Confidential Information Protection, 05/29/90 was renumberedinto first version of the New Mexico Administrative Code as 20 NMAC 2.1, General Provisions, filed 08/03/95. 20 NMAC 2.1, General Provisions, filed 08/03/95 was replacedby 20 NMAC 2.1, General Provisions, filed 09/27/95. 20 NMAC 2.1, General Provisions, filed 09/27/95 was renumbered, reformatted and replacedby 20.2.1 NMAC, General Provisions, effective 10/31/02.

# Attachment B Attachment B contains a copyofthe amended 

# 20.2.1 NMAC, as published in the New Mexico Register on February 13, 

# 2015 in the NewMexico Register, Volume XXVI, Number 

# 3.

### New Mexico Register / Volume XXVI, Number 3 / February 13, 2015

20.2.1 NMAC 1 This is an amendment to 20.2.1 NMAC, Sections 108, 111, and 116; adding Section 117; and an update to the annotation following the history note for Section 5, effective 02/27/15. 20.2.1.5 EFFECTIVE DATE: October 27, 1995, unless a later date is cited at the end of a section. [09/05/95, 10/27/95; 20.2.1.5 NMAC - Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.104, 10/31/02; A, 06/01/10] [The latest effective date of any section in this part is [06/01/10] 02/27/15] 20.2.1.108 SAVING CLAUSE: Supersession of any Air Quality Control Regulation (AQCR) shall not [effect] affect any administrative or judicial enforcement action pending on the effective date of any part under Chapter 2 of Title 20, nor the validity of any permit issued pursuant to any AQCR. [09/05/95; 20.2.1.108 NMAC - Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.108, 10/31/02; A,02/27/15] 20.2.1.111 AVAILABILITY OF MATERIALS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE: Materials incorporated by reference into any part under Chapter 2 of Title 20 may be viewed at the state records center[(404 Montezuma, Santa Fe, NM 87503) [1205 Camino Carlos Rey, Santa Fe, NM 87505]] or at the New Mexico environment department, air quality bureau[(Harold Runnels Building, 1190 St. Francis Dr., Santa Fe, NM 87503) [2048 Galisteo St., Santa Fe, NM 87505]]. [09/05/95; 20.2.1.111 NMAC - Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.111 10/31/02; A, 02/27/15] [As of 02/27/15, the State Records Center is located at 1205 Camino Carlos Rey, Santa Fe, NM 87505; and the New Mexico Environment Department, Air Quality Bureau, is located at 525 Camino de los Marquez, Suite 1, Santa Fe, NM, 87505] 20.2.1.116 SIGNIFICANT FIGURES: A. All emissions standards are deemed to have at least two significant figures, but not more than three significant figures. B. At least five significant figures shall be retained in all intermediate calculations. C. In calculating emissions to determine compliance with an emission standard, the following rounding off procedures shall be used: (1) if the first digit to be discarded is less than the number five, the last digit retained shall not be changed; (2) if the first digit discarded is greater than the number five, or if it is the number five followed by at least one digit other than the number zero, the last figure retained shall be increased by one unit; and (3) if the first digit discarded is exactly the number five, followed only by zeros, the last digit retained shall be rounded upward if it is an odd number, but no adjustment shall be made if it is an even number

. [(4)] D. The final result of the calculation shall be expressed in the units of the standard. [20.2.1.116 NMAC - N, 06/01/10; A, 02/27/15] 20.2.1.117 ELECTRONIC REPORTING AND PERMIT APPLICATIONS: A. Applicability. Pursuant to the Cross

-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) as defined by Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 3, and the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 14-16-1 to -21 (2001 as amended through 2013), any submittal to the department required by any part under Chapter 2, Air Quality (Statewide), of Title 20, Environmental Protection, of the New Mexico administrative code, for which the department has notified persons subject to the applicable requirement that it is accepting specified electronic documents in lieu of paper, shall be submitted electronically, provided that the method of submittal complies with applicable federal and state standards for electronic submissions. The department may grant a waiver of this requirement on a case

-by

-case basis if requested by the regulated source. B. Deadline extension due to computer system failure. (1) If electronic submittal capability is in place, but the department’s electronic document receiving system is temporarily unavailable, then the department may grant a deadline extension to the regulated source. (2) If electronic submittal capability is in place, but the regulated source’s computer system or its internet service provider is temporarily unavailable, then the source may request a deadline extension. The department may grant a deadline extension to the regulated source. [20.2.1.117 NMAC - N, 02/27/15]

# Attachment C Attachment C contains a copy of the Notice of Intent to present technical testimony (including exhibits), filed on December 30, 2015; as well as additional exhibits, N1\1ED Exhibit # 

# 17 and # 

# 18, which were moved into the record during theJanuary23, 2015 hearing.

## STATE OF NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO: 20.2.1 NMAC- GeneralProvisions

NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF INTENT T·O PRESENT TECHNICAL TESTIMONY

Pursuant to 20.1.1.302.A NMAC, the New Mexico Enviromnent Department ("Department") hereby submits its Notice oflntent to present technical testimony in this proceeding. 1. 

## The person for whom the witnesses will testify. The New Mexico Environment Department, Environmental Protection Division, Air Quality Bureau. 

## 2. The name and qualifications ofeach technical witness. Neal Butt. Mr. Butt is an Environmental Scientist & 

### Specialist in the Control Strategies Unit ofthe Air Quality Bureau. He has worked in the Air Quality Bureau since March of2014. Prior to this he worked for the City ofAlbuquerque Environmental Health Deparhnent for 17 years, the last 12 ofwhich were as an Environmental Health Scientist in the Air Quality Division. Mr. Butt holds an M.S. Degree in Biology from the University ofNorth Dakota, a B.S. Degree in Biology from the University ofNew Mexico, a B.A. Degree in Environmental Planning and Design from UNM, an A.A.S. in Enviromnental Protection from Central New Mexico Community College, and an A.A.S. in Criminal Justice from CNM. His resume is attached as NMED Exhibit 2 Robert Samaniego. Mr. Samaniego is the Major Sources Permitting Program Manager for the Major Source Pennitting Section ofthe Air Quality Bureau. He supervises two Notice ofIntent Page 1 of4>5

### ~rnployees 

### in the Major Source Permitting Section, and works with managers to ensure that :pennits are issued on-time. He also performs special projects to improve permit templates and monitoring protocols. He has worked in the Air Quality Bureau since 1996. Mr. Samaniego holds a B.S. degree in Chemical Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. His resume is attached as NMED Exhibit 4. Rita Bates. Rita Bates is the Chiefofthe Planning Section ofthe Air Quality Bureau. She has 24 years ofexperience in the environmental field, including 16 years with the Department. In addition to her work for the Air Quality Bureau, Ms. Bates has worked in industry as an environmental coordinator and in environmental consulting as a project manager. Ms. Bates holds a B.S. degree in Biology from Humboldt State University. Her resume is attached as NMED Exhibit 5. 3. A Copy ofthe Direct Testimony ofEach Witness in Narrative Form A copy ofthe written direct testimony ofMr. Butt is attached as NMED Exhibit 2. Mr. Butt will present testimony regarding the proposed amendments to 20.2.1 NMAC, General Provisions. The Department does not intend to present direct testimony from Mr. Samaniego or Ms. Bates, but may present them as rebuttal witnesses, and will make them available to assist in answering questions that may go beyond the expertise ofMr. Butt. 4. Text ofRecommended Modifications to the Proposed Regulatory Change The Department recommends that the Board adopt the proposed amendments to 20.2.1 NMAC

as shown in the Petition For Regulatory Change, filed September 16,2014, and as attached (without further revision) as NMED Exhibit 1. 5. List and Description ofExhibits The Department submits the following exhibits:

Notice oflntent Page 2 of4

### Exhibit Number NMED1

NMED2 NMED3 NMED4 NMED5 NMED6

NMED7 NMED8 NMED9 NMED 10 NMED 11 NMED 12

NMED 13 NMED 14 NMED 15 NMED 16 

### Title ofExhibit Petition For Regulatory Change, No. EIB 14-05(R), including Proposed Amendments to 20.2.1 NMAC, General Provisions 

### Written testimony ofNeal Butt Resume ofNeal Butt Resume ofRobert Samaniego Resume ofRita Bates Legal Notices: 6a. Albuquerque Journal, 11/2/14 (English); 6b. Albuquerque Journal, 1112/14 (Spanish); 6c. List Serve Notice, 11110/14; 6d. NM Register, 11/13/14. Summary ofStakeholder Comments and AQB Response EPA Comments and AQB Response Special Commission Letter from Attorney General's Office Memo from Jennifer Hower, Assistant General Counsel, 4/24/12 Memo from Hess Yntema, Office ofGeneral Counsel, November 2013 CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 197, 59848-89, 10/13/05 Federal Register Vol. 73, No. 248, 78991-4, 12/24/08 CROMERR, 40 CFR 3 Proposed Order and Statement ofReasons

Notice oflntent Page 3 of4

### 7. Reservation ofRights 

### This 

## Notice of Intent to present technical testimony is based on the Department's petition. The Department reserves the right to call any person to testify and to present any exhibit in response to another

## Notice of Intent or public comment filed in this matter or to any testimony or exhibit offered at the public hearing. The Department also reserves the right to call any person

as a rebuttal witness and to present any exhibit in support thereof.

Notice ofIntent Page 4 of4 Respectfully submitted, NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 

# /l //\

/ c



### New Mexico Environment Department Harold L. 

### Runnels Building 1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N-4050 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 John.Verheul@state.nrn.us Telephone 505-827-0528 Facsimile 505-827-1628

### Exhibit Number NMED1

NMED2 NMED3 NMED4 NMED5 NMED6

NMED7 NMED8 NMED9 NMED 10 NMED 11 NMED 12

NMED 13 NMED 14 NMED 15 NMED 16 NMED 17

NMED 18 Title ofExhibit Petition For Regulatory Change, No. EIB 14-05(R), including Proposed Amendments to 20.2.1 NMAC, General Provisions Written testimony ofNeal Butt Resume ofNeal Butt Resume ofRobert Samaniego Resume ofRita Bates Legal Notices: 6a. Albuquerque Journal, 11/2/14 (English); 6b. Albuquerque Journal, 11/2/14 (Spanish); 6c. List Serve Notice, 11/10114; 6d. NM Register, 11/13/14. Summary ofStakeholder Comments and AQB Response EPA Comments and AQB Response Special Commission Letter from Attorney General's Office Memo from Jennifer Hower, Assistant General Counsel, 4/24/12 Memo from Hess Yntema, Office ofGeneral Counsel, November 2013 CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 197, 59848-89, 10/13/05 Federal Register Vol. 73, No. 248, 78991-4, 12/24/08 CROMERR, 40 CFR 3 Proposed Order and Statement ofReasons Submittal Requirements ofRules Potentially Affected by Proposed Amendments to 20.2.1 NMAC, General Provisions NMED's Notice ofCompliance with Small Business Regulatory Relief Act/ '"'%**~~~** 

# /t.Q '0 

## 1:;

# ~~ STATEOFNEWMEXICO

# ~ ., 

# !1; BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT BOARD <'o.t

## ~?/ 

# eI) a,.. .... c- '1.,;:;:/ 

## IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO: No. EIB 14-05

# .(~ 20.2.1 NMAC- GeneralProvisions 

## PETITION FOR REGULATORY CHANGE

The Air Quality Bureau in the Enviromnental Protection Division ofthe New Mexico Environment Department petitions the Enviromnental Improvement Board ("Board"), pursuant to 20.1.1 NMAC

- 

### RulemakingProcedures, to amend 20.2.1 NMAC- 

### General Provisions. The Board is authorized to adopt these amendments by the Air Quality Control Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 

### 74-1-8 and 74-2-5. A statement ofthe reasons for the regulatory change is attached. A copy of the currently effective 20.2.1 NMAC which is proposed for amendment is attached as Attachment A, in redline/strikeout format. The Air Quality Bureau requests that the Board schedule the hearing in this matter for January 5, 2015 during its regular meeting. The Air Quality Bureau anticipates that the hearing regarding the proposed amendments will take approximately one hour.

Respectfully submitted,

John Verlteul Assistant General Counsel 1190 S. St. Francis Drive, Suite N-4084 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 505.827.0528 john.verheul@state.mn.us



## NMED EXHIBIT 1

## STATE OF NEW MEXICO BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT BOARD IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO: 20.2.1 NMAC- GeneralProvisions



## STATEMENT OF REASONS EIB 14-0S(R)

The New Mexico Environment Department ("Department") proposes to amend 20.2.1 NMAC, 

## General Provisions, to include language authorizing and requiring the electronic submittal of data, reports and permit applications in lieu ofpaper submittals. The purpose of20.2.I NMAC is to establish general provisions which apply to all parts ofChapter 2, 

## Air Quality (Statewide), of Title 20, 

## Environmental Protection (i.e., 20.2.I through 20.2.99 NMAC). Federal Requirement The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires state agencies which currently accept required submittals electronically, in lieu ofpaper submittals, to comply with the federal 

## CrossMedia Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR). "CROMERR was codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40, Part 3 on October I3, 2005. [FR Vol. 70, No. I97, 59848- 89, I0/13/05]. It was then amended on December 24, 2008, to extend compliance dates for existing electronic document receiving systems (i.e. those that accepted e-reports in lieu ofpaper on or before October 13, 2005). [FR Vol. 73, No. 248,_7899I-4]. Under this amendment, programs with an existing e-reporting system were required to submit an application to EPA for approval no later than January I3, 20I0. This is an extension from the original deadline of October I3, 2007." (EPA, 2014, 

## CROMERR 101, p. ii 1). 

### The Air Quality Bureau (AQB) has several existing submittal programs that require EPA approval. Therefore, the AQB submitted a CROMERR application to EPA in August, 2012, and received comments in March, 2013. A rule amendment and subsequent certification ofregulatory authority by the State Attorney General are required before EPA will approve this application (see infra). However, the AQB "may continue to operate the existing e-reporting systems while the application is under review." (EPA, 20I4, 

## CROMERR 101, p. 1-4).

1 

### Available at http://www.epa.gov/CROMERR/training/cromerrI0 1/cromerr course summary.pdf Statement ofReasons 20.2.1 NMAC, 

## General Provisions, 9/I6114 Page 1 

### of7

### "The CROMERR rule provides the legal framework for electronic reporting to the EPA and states, tribes and local governments that are authorized to administer EPA programs." (EPA, 2014, CROMERR webpage, http://www.epa.gov/CROMERR/states.html.) "The intent of CROMERR is to maintain the same level of corporate and individual responsibility and accountability that exists in the paper environment when reporting is done electronically." (EPA, 2014, 

## CROMERR 101, p. ii). CROMERRrequirements ensure that documents submitted electronically "are as legally dependable as their paper counterparts." [70 FR 59850]. EPA requires that authorized programs that receive e-reports in lieu ofpaper must: I. 

### "have sufficient legal authority to enforce its authorized program using electronically submitted documents." (EPA, 2014, 

## CROMERR 101, p. 1-1); For EPA to approve the AQB's program, "the State Attorney General must certify that the State can continue to enforce these authorized programs based on e-submissions." (EPA, 2014, 

## CROMERR 101, p. 3-1). The AQB already has the statutory and regulatory authority to accept e-submittals for "excess emissions" reporting, and "emissions inventory" ("EI") data, but it is less clear whether the AQB currently has the authority to accept permitting submittals electronically. To ensure that the Attorney General is able to certify that the AQB has sufficient authority, the AQB is proposing to amend 20.2.1 NMAC to require that data/reports/permit applications be submitted electronically for any rule under Chapter 2, 

## Air Quality (Statewide), of Title 20, 

## Environmental Protection, for which the AQB is accepting e-reports. The proposed new language would be inserted under a new section entitled:
20.2.1.117 

### ELECTRONIC REPORTING AND PERMIT APPLICATIONS. 

### and would stipulate: A. Applicability. 

### Pursuant to the 

## Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) as defined by Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 3; and the 

## Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 

### 14-16-1 to -21 (2001 as amended through 2013); any submittal to the department required by any pmi under Chapter 2, 

## Air Quality (Statewide), of Title 20, 

## Environmental Protection, of the New Mexico Administrative Code, for which the department has notified persons subject to**~he** 

### applicable requirement that it is accepting specified electronic documents in lieu of paper, shall be submitted electronically, provided that the method of submittal complies with applicable federal and state standards for electronic submissions. The department may grant a waiver of this requirement on a case-by-case basis if requested by the regulated source. Statement ofReasons 20.2.1 NMAC, 

## General Provisions, 9116114 Page 2 

### of7

### II. The system that the AQB proposes to use to receive thee-reports must meet the CROMERR standards fore-reporting systems. (EPA, 

## CROMERR 101, p. 1-1). The final rule mandated numerous categories of standards that state governments utilizing electronic submittal systems would have to satisfy, including: 1) timeliness ofdata generation [40 CFR 3.2000(b)]; 2) copy ofrecord [40 CFR 3.2000(b)]; 3) integrity ofthe electronic document [40 CFR 3.2000(b)(l)-(2)]; 4) submission knowingly [40 CFR 3.2000(b)(3)]; 5) opportunity to review and repudiate copy ofrecord [40 CFR 3.2000(b)(4)]; 6) validity ofthe electronic signature [40 CFR 3.2000(b)(5)(i)]; 7) binding the signature to the document [40 CFR 3.2000(b)(5)(ii)]; 8) opportunity to review [40 CFR 3.2000(b)(5)(iii)]; 9) understanding the act ofsigning [40 CFR 3.2000(b)(5)(iv)]; 10) the electronic signature or subscriber agreement [40 CFR 3.2000(b)(5)(v)]; 11) acknowledgement ofreceipt [40 CFR 3.2000(b)(5)(vi)]; and 12) determining the identity of the individual uniquely entitled to use a signature device [40 CFR 3.2000(b)(5)(vii)]. The AQB is working with EPA to ensure that the AQB's e-reporting system is adequate. In addition the AQB is proposing amendments to 20.2.1 NMAC to accommodate computer system failure. The proposed new language would stipulate: B. Deadline extension due to computer system failure. (I) 

### If electronic submittal capability is in place, but the department's electronic document receiving system is temporarily unavailable, then the department may grant a deadline extension to the regulated source. (2) Ifelectronic submittal capability is in place, but the regulated source's computer system or its internet service provider is temporarily unavailable, then the source may request a deadline extension. The department may grant a deadline extension to the regulated source. Legal Foundation 

### Requiring e-reporting is not prohibited by any state law or regulation. The 

## NMAir Quality ControlAct, NMSA 1978, Sections 74-2-1 to -22 (1953, as amended through 2009), does not specify the manner in which reports and applications must be submitted to theAQB. The 

## Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), NMSA 1978, Sections 14-16-1 to -21 (2001, as amended through 20 13), establishes standards for transactions that are to occur electronically, and is applicable to both private and governmental entities. The UETA does not mandate that governmental entities utilize electronic records or signatures. NMSA 1978, §

### 14-16-18. However, the UETA does provide that: "[

...] a governmental agency[

.. . ] may[

...] issue its Statement ofReasons 20.2.1 NMAC, 

## General Provisions, 9/16114 Page 3 

### of7

### own rules that specify: 'the manner and format in which the electronic records must be created, generated, sent, communicated, received, and stored and the systems established for these purposes."' NMSA 1978, §14-16-18(A). Current Ability/Authority to Accept e-reports/applications 

### Within the State air quality regulations there is a reasonable argument that when the word "written" is not used, an electronic submission is acceptable. Emissions Inventory 

### The AQB currently accepts EI reports via an online system; therefore, it is obligated to submit a CROMERR application to EPA. Requirements for EI reporting are contained in 20.2.73 NMAC, 

## Notice Of Intent andEmission Inventory Requirements. Fairly consistent language is used throughout, mandating that entities "shall submit an emissions report annually." 

## See 20.2.73.300.B.(l), (2), (3), (4), (6) and (7) NMAC. The regulations do not mandate the format in which the reports should be submitted (e.g., written, electronic). So, it can be argued based upon the regulatory language that any submission methodology required by the AQB would be acceptable, giving the AQB the authority to accept Eis electronically. Excess Emissions Reporting 

### Excess emissions are also being reported via an online system. The requirements for excess emissions reporting are found at 20.2.7 NMAC, 

## Excess Emissions, and state that: "the owner or operator of a source having an excess emission shall report the following information to the department on forms provided by the Department. The Department may authorize the submittal ofsuch reports in electronic format." [20.2.7.11 O.A NMAC]. This language is explicit in allowing the Department to accept electronic submittals. Federal Performance Standards 

### New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) promulgated by EPA through September 23, 2013 are incorporated by reference in 20.2.77 NMAC, 

## New Source Performance Standards. National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) promulgated by EPA through December 31, 2010, are incorporated by reference in 20.2.78 NMAC, 

## Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Maximum Achievable Control Standards promulgated by EPA through August 29, 2013, are incorporated by reference in 20.2.82 NMAC, 

## Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standardsfor Source Categories of HazardousAir Pollutants. Since these are federal standards, the EPA regulates whether specific required information can be submitted electronically. Permit Applications



### Statement ofReasons 20.2.1 NMAC, 

## General Provisions, 9/16/14 Page 

## 4 of7

### The AQB does not currently accept permit applications electronically; however, the proposed amendments to 20.2.1 NMAC will make this possible ifadopted. i 

## Operating Permits, 20.2.70 NMAC 

### 20.2.70.300.D NMAC stipulates that: "any person seeking a permit under this part shall do so by filing a written application with the Department." In addition, providing written notification to the Department and the Administrator is required for "Section 502(b)(I

### 0)" changes. [20.2.70.302.H(l)(b) NMAC]. 

### However, the reporting requirements at 20.2.70.302.£ NMAC can be submitted electronically. The legal remedy to these provisions is found within UETA which provides that: "Ifa law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic record satisfies this law." [NMSA 1978, §14-16-7(C)]. ii Construction Permits, 20.2.72 NMAC 

### 20.2.72.203.A NMAC stipulates that: "any person seeking a permit under Subsection A of 20.2.72.200 NMAC 

### shall do so by filing a written application with the Department." The legal remedy to this provision is found within UET A which provides that: "Ifa law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic record satisfies this law." [NMSA 1978, §14-16-7(C)]. In addition, pursuant to 20.2.72.213 NMAC, 

## Startup andFollowup Testing, "a written report ofthe results ofthe [performance] test shall be submitted to the Department by the owner or operator within 30 days from the test date;" and at 20.2.72.305.C.(4) NMAC, the owner or operator shall "submit a written report to the Department ofthe results ofthe [performance] test within 30 days from the test date." Miscellaneous Rules 

### Many rules do not explicitly require written submittal ofinformation and therefore information can be submitted electronically (e.g., 20.2.1 0 NMAC, 

## Woodwaste Burners; 20.2.62 NMAC, 

## Municipal Waste Combustion; and 20.2.63 NMAC, 

## Biomedical Waste Combustion). Stack Testing and Reporting 

### All stack testing protocols and reports, explicitly mentioned in the State air quality regulations allow for electronic submissions (e.g., 20.2.16 NMAC, 

## Nonferrous Smelters New & 

## ExistingParticulate Matter; 20.2.17 NMAC, 

## Nonferrous Smelters Existing- Particulate Matter; 20.2.18 NMAC, 

## Oil Burning Equipment- Particulate Matter; 20.2.19 NMAC, 

## Potash, Salt or Sodium Sulfate Processing Equipment- Particulate Matter; 20.2.20 NMAC, 

## Lime Manufacturing Plants -Particulate Matter; 20.2.37 NMAC, 

## Petroleum Processing Facilities; and 20.2. 40 NMAC, 

## SulfuricAcidProduction Units- Sulfur Dioxide, AcidMist and Visible Emissions). Benefits of electronic reporting



### Statement ofReasons 20.2.1 NMAC, 

## General Provisions, 9/16/14 Page 5 

### of7

### Facilitating and encouraging the electronic submittal ofrequired reports and permit applications in lieu ofpaper by regulated sources would benefit both the regulated source and the Department. This is because electronic reporting: a. Reduces the burden and operating costs incurred by Department staffrequired to transfer data contained in paper reports, and reduces the economic and environmental cost to the regulated source ofprinting and mailing. b. "Fosters more rapid and accurate environmental reporting and posting of compliance information." (EPA, 20I4, 

### CROMERR 1OJ, 

### p. ii). Data can now be transferred directly to the AQB databases, and transcription errors (from paper reports) will be eliminated. c. Makes reporting and application submission simpler and more efficient. 

### Additional Proposed Amendments The following amendments are proposed to correct typographical errors and to standardize formatting ofrule language.



### 20.2.1.108 SAVING CLAUSE: Supersession of any Air Quality Control Regulation (AQCR) shall not [effeet] affect any administrative orjudicial enforcement action pending on the effective date ofany part under Chapter 2 ofTitle 20, nor the validity ofany permit issued pursuant to any AQCR. 

## [09105195; 20.2.l.I08 NMAC- 

### Rn, 20 NMAC 2.l.I08 I0/3I/02; A, 

## xxlxxlxx] 20.2.1.111 AVAILABILITY OF MATERIALS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE: Materials incorporated by reference into any part under Chapter 2 ofTitle 20 may be viewed at the state records center [ (404 Montezuma, Santa Fe, NM 87503) [1205 Camino Carlos 

## Rey, Santa Fe, NM 87505]] or at the New Mexico environment department, air quality bureau [(Harold Runnels Building, 1190 St. Francis Dr., Santa Fe, NM 87503) [2048 Galisteo St., Santa Fe, NM 87505]]. 

## [09/05195; 20.2.1.111 NMAC- 

### Rn, 20 NMAC 2.I.II1 I0/31/02; A, 

## xx/xxlxx] [As ofxx/xx/xx, the State Records Center is located at 1205 Camino Carlos Rey, Santa Fe, NM 87505, and the New Mexico Environment Department Air Quality Bureau is located at 525 Camino de los Marquez, Suite I, Santa Fe, NM, 87505] 

### 20.2.1.116 SIGNIFICANT FIGURES: A. 

### All emissions standards are deemed to have at least two significant figures, but not more than three significant figures. 

## B. At least five significant figures shall be retained in all intermediate calculations. C. 

### In calculating emissions to determine compliance with an emission standard, the following rounding offprocedures shall be used:

Statement ofReasons 20.2.1 NMAC, 

## General Provisions, 9/16/14 Page 6 

### of7

### (1) ifthe first digit to be discarded is less than the number five, the last digit retained shall not be changed; (2) ifthe first digit discarded is greater than the number five, or ifit is the number five followed by at least one digit other than the number zero, the last figure retained shall be increased by one unit; and (3) ifthe first digit discarded is exactly the number five, followed only by zeros, the last digit retained shall be rounded upward ifit is an odd number, but no adjustment shall be made ifit is an even number. [(4-t]D. The final result ofthe calculation shall be expressed in the units ofthe standard. [20.2.1.116 NMAC- N, 06/01/10; A, xx/xx/xx]

Attachment A is the currently effective rule that the AQB proposes to amend, with changes shown in redline/strikeout format. Ifa hearing is granted in this matter, the Department will present (in its Notice ofIntent to present technical testimony) a more detailed analysis ofthe proposed amendments to 20.2.1 NMAC on a section by section basis.

Statement ofReasons 20.2.1 NMAC, 

## General Provisions, 9116!14 Page 7 of7

### 2 3 

### 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 

### 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 

## :o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 

### 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 TITLE 20 CHAPTER2 PART I ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AIR QUALITY (STATEWIDE) GENERAL PROVISIONS 20.2.1.1 ISSUING AGENCY: New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board. [09105195; 20.2.1.1 NMAC- 

### Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.100, 10/31/02] 20.2.1.2 SCOPE: The provisions ofthis part apply to all parts ofthis chapter. [09105195; 20.2.1.2 NMAC- 

### Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.101, 10/3 1102] 20.2.1.3 STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Statutory authority comes from the 

### Environmental Improvement Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 74-1-1 et seq., and the 

### Air Quality ControlAct, NMSA 1978, Sections 74-2-1 et seq. [09/05/95; 20.2.1.3 NMAC

- 

### Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.102, 10/31102] 20.2.1.4 DURATION: Pennanent. [09/05!95; 20.2.1.4 NMAC

- Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.1 03, I0/31102] 20.2.1.5 EFFECTIVE DATE: October 27, 1995, unless a later date is cited at the end ofa section. [09105/95, 1 0-27-95; 20.2.1.5 NMAC- Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.104 10/31/02; A, 06/01/1 0] [The latest effective date ofany section in this Part is 06/01/10.] 20.2.1 .6 OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this Part (20.2.1 NMAC) is to establish general provisions which apply to all parts ofthis chapter (20.2.1 through 20.2.99 NMAC). [09/05/95; 20.2.1.6 NMAC

- Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.1 05, I 0/31102] 20.2.1.7 DEFINITIONS: [RESERVED] 20.2.1.8 to 20.2.I.I05 [RESERVED] 20.2.1.106 AMENDMENT AND SUPERSESSION OF PRIOR REGULATIONS: A. This part amends and supersedes Air Quality Control Regulations (AQCRs): (1) 110, 

### Confidential Information Protection, last filed May 29, 1990; (2) 701, 

### Procedures for Requesting a Variance Hearing, last filed Oct. 7, 1975; (3) 1001, 

### Sampling Equipment, last filed Jan. 27, 1970; (4) 1101, 

### Severability, last filed Jan. 27, 1970; (5) 1201, 

### Effective Date, last filed Jan. 27, 1970; (6) 1301, 

### Conflicts, last filed Jan. 27, 1970. B. AllreferencestoAQCRs 110,701,1001,1101,1201 and 1301 inanyotherruleshallbe understood as a reference to this part. [09105195, I 0-27-95; 20.2.1.106 NMAC

- Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.106, 1 0/31/02] 20.2.l.I07 SEVERABILITY: Ifany provision or application ofany part under Chapter 2 ofTitle 20 is held invalid, the remainder, or its application to other situations or persons, shall not be affected. [09105195; 20.2.1.107 NMAC

- 

### Rn, 20 NMAC 2.l.l07, 10/3 1102] 20.2.l.I08 SAVING CLAUSE: Supersession of any Air Quality Control Regulation (AQCR) shall not 

### [ effe€t] affect any administrative orjudicial enforcement action pending on the effective date ofany part under Chapter 2 ofTitle 20, nor the validity ofany permit issued pursuant to any AQCR. [09105/95; 20.2.1.1 08 NMAC

- 

### Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.108 I 0/3 1102; A, xxlxx/xx] 20.2.1.109 CONSTRUCTION: Any part under Chapter 2 ofTit1e 20 shall be liberally construed to effectuate the purpose ofthe 

### EnvironmentalImprovementAct, NMSA 1978, 74-1-1 et seq. and the 

### Air Quality ControlAct, NMSA 1978, 74-2-1 et seq. [09105/95; 20.2.1.109 NMAC- 

### Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.109, 10/31102]

20.2.1 NMAC Public Review Draft 9116114 

### Attachment AI 20.2.1.110 COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER REGULATIONS: 

### Compliance with any part under Chapter 2 2 ofTitle 20 does not relieve a person from the obligation to comply with other applicable state and federal 3 regulations. 4 

### [09!05195; 20.2.1.11 0 NMAC- 

### Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.11 0, 10/31102] 

### 5 6 20.2.1.111 AVAILABILITY OF MATERIALS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE: 

### Materials 7 incorporated by reference into any part under Chapter 2 ofTitle 20 may be viewed at the state records center 

### [E4G4 8 Montezuma, Santa Fe, 

### NM 87503) [1205 Camino Carlos 

### Rey, Santa Fe, 

### NM 87505]] or at the New Mexico 9 environment department, air quality bureau [(Harold Runnels Building, 1190 St. Francis Dr., S::mta Fe, NM 87503) I0 [204 8 Galisteo St., Santa Fe, NM 87505]]. II 

### [09/05/95; 20.2.1.111 NMAC- 

### Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.111 1 0/31102; A, xxlxxlxx] 

### 12 [As ofxxlxxlxx, 

### the State Records Center is located at 1205 Camino Carlos Rey, Santa Fe, NM 87505, and the New 13 Mexico Environment**Department~.** 

### Air Quality Bureau is located at 525 Camino de los Marquez. Suite 

### L Santa Fe. 14 NM. 87505) 15 20.2.1.112 EFFECT OF STAY OR INVALIDATION OF INCORPORATED FEDERAL 

### 16 REGULATIONS: 

### Ifa federal court stays, invalidates or otherwise renders unenforceable by the environmental 17 protection agency (EPA), in whole or in part, any federal regulation incorporated by reference in any part under 18 Chapter 2 ofTitle 20, such incorporated federal regulation shall be enforceable by the department only to the extent 19 it is enforceable by EPA. 20 [09/05/95; 20.2.1.112 NMAC- Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.112, 10/31/02] 21 22 20.2.1.113 SAMPLING EQUIPMENT: 

### When directed by the environment department, or its designated 23 representative, the necessary openings for sampling equipment shall be provided on stacks or other openings 24 through which emissions are released to the atmosphere. 25 [09/05/95; 20.2.1.113 NMAC

- 

### Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.113, 1 0/31102) 26 27 20.2.1.114 PETITION PROCEDURES FOR REQUESTING A VARIANCE HEARING: 

### 28 A. Definition: 

### As used in this section [part], "petitioner" 

### means a person seeking a variance from a 29 regulation ofthe environmental improvement board or limitation prescribed under the Air Quality ControlAct 30 pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 74-2-8. 31 B. Petition procedures: 

### 32 (I) 

### Any person seeking a variance from a regulation ofthe environmental improvement board, or a 33 pennit condition imposed by the department, or from the limitations prescribed under the Air Quality ControlAct 34 pursuant to Section 74-2-8 NMSA 1978, shall do so by filing a written petition with the secretary. Petition forms 35 may be obtained from the environment department. 36 (2) 

### Petitions shall: 37 (a) state the petitioner's name and address; 3 8 (b) 

### state the date ofthe petition; 39 (c) describe the facility or activity for which the variance is sought; 40 (d) 

### state the address or description ofthe property upon which the facility is located; 41 (e) identify the regulation ofthe board or limitation prescribed under the Air Quality Control 42 Act from which the variance is sought; 43 (f) 

### state in detail the extent to which the petitioner wishes to vary from the regulation or 44 limitations; 45 (g) state why the petitioner believes the variance is justified; and 46 (h) 

### state the period oftime for which the variance is desired. 4 7 (3) The petitioner may submit with the petition any 

### relevant documents or material which the 48 petitioner believes would support the petition. 49 C. 

### The environment department's response and any further action and proceedings shall be in 50 accordance with general adjudicatory procedures ofthe environmental improvement board. 51 [10/27/95; 20.2.1.114 NMAC

- 

### Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.114, 1 0/31102] 52 53 20.2.1.115 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PROTECTION: 

### 54 A. Definitions: 

### As used in this section: 55 (1) 

### "Claimant" 

### refers to a person or business who makes a claim ofconfidentiality.

20.2.1 NMAC Public Review Draft 9/16114 2

### (2) "Confidential business information" refers broadly to information that, ifmade public, would 2 harm a business' competitive position. This includes trade secrets and may include data relating to the profits and 3 costs ofthe owner or operator which have not previously been released to the public. 4 (3) "Nature and amount of emissions" means information necessary to determine the identity, 5 amount, frequency, concentration, or other characteristics (to the extent related to air quality) ofany air contaminant 6 emission and includes a general description ofthe location and nature ofthe source. 7 (4) "Source" or "stationary source" means any building, structure, equipment, facility, installation 8 (including temporary installations), operation or portable stationary source which emits or may emit any air 9 contaminant. Any research facility may group its sources for the purpose ofthis section, at the discretion ofthe I0 secretary. II (5) "Trade secret" refers to a secret plan or process, tool or mechanism unique to the owner or 12 operator ofa business. 13 B. Confidentiality determinations: The environment department shall keep confidential trade 14 secrets or confidential business information under applicable legal principles to the extent that: 15 (1) 

### business information furnished to or obtained by the environment department concerning air 16 contaminant sources shall be considered for confidential treatment ifspecifically marked as confidential at the time 1 7 such information is submitted. 18 (2) The department is not required to disclose this information pursuant to a statutory provision; and 19 (3) The following conditions are satisfied: 20 (a) the claimant has asserted a claim ofconfidentiality which has not been waived, withdrawn 21 or denied; 22 (b) the claimant has satisfactorily shown that it has taken reasonable measures to protect the 23 confidentiality ofthe information, and that it intends to continue to take such measures; 24 (c) the information is not, and has not been, reasonably obtainable without the business' 25 consent; and 26 (d) the claimant has satisfactorily shown that disclosure ofthe information is likely to cause 27 substantial harm to the business' competitive position. 28 C. 

### This Section (20.2.1.115 NMAC) shall not be construed to prohibit disclosure ofrecords and 29 information: )0 (1) 

### to other officers, employees or authorized representatives ofthe department, the local agency, the 31 environmental improvement board, or the local board concerned with carrying out the

### Air Quality ControlAct; 32 (2) to officers, employees or authorized representatives ofthe United States environmental protection 33 agency concerned with carrying out the federal act; 34 (3) when relevant, in any proceeding under the 

### Air Quality ControlAct or the federal act; 35 (4) ofdata concerning the nature and amount ofemissions from any source; or 36 (5) limit the use ofsuch records or information in any civil or criminal action, subject to such 37 protection as the court may give. 38 D. Procedures for handling requests for confidentiality: 39 (1) 

### The department's office ofgeneral counsel (OGC) in each case shall determine whether and to 40 what extent the information qualifies for confidential treatment under this section. 41 (2) Ifthe department determines it will need additional information in order to decide whether 42 information submitted by the claimant qualifies for confidential treatment, the department shall send the claimant a 43 written notice requesting additional information. 44 (a) The claimant shall submit the requested additional information within thirty (30) days of 45 receiving the department's request. The department shall keep the claimant's information confidential and not 46 disclose it to the public during that thirty (30) day time period. 47 (b) Ifthe claimant does not submit the requested additional information within the thirty (30) 48 day time period, then the department shall assume that the claimant has abandoned or withdrawn the claim of 49 confidentiality, and may release the information to the public upon request (following the expiration ofthe thirty 50 (30) day period). 51 (3) Within thirty (30) days ofreceiving material marked as confidential or within thirty (30) days of 52 receiving any additional information the department requested, the department shall determine whether and to what 53 extent the information qualifies for confidential treatment under this section. 54 (4) Once a decision is reached, the department shall send the claimant a written notice ofthe decision 55 

### by certified mail.

20.2.1 NMAC Public Review Draft 9/16/14 3I 

### 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 31 32 

### 33 34 35 36 37 

### 38 39 40 41 42 43 

### 44 45 46 47 

### 48 49 50 51 52 53 (5) Ifthe department notifies a claimant that his or her claim ofconfidentiality will not be honored, the department shall not make the information available for public inspection or copying for thirty (30) days in order to give the claimant an opportunity to request administrative review ofthe decision. The department shall not make the information available for public inspection or copying while an administrative review, or legal action to prevent disclosure, is pending. (6) Business information that has been determined to be confidential shall not be made a part ofany public record unless the claimant expressly agrees to its publication. E. Administrative review: Every claimant has the right to request additional review ofany denial of a request for confidential treatment ofbusiness information or documents. The secretary shall be responsible for conducting reviews ofdenials made by department personnel. The secretary shall use his or her best efforts to review denials within thirty (30) days ofreceiving the request for review. [10/27/95; 20.2.1.115 NMAC- Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.115, 10/31/02] 20.2.1.116 SIGNIFICANT FIGURES: A. All emissions standards are deemed to have at least two significant figures, but not more than three significant figures. 

### B. At least five significant figures shall be retained in all intermediate calculations. C. In calculating emissions to determine compliance with an emission standard, the following rounding offprocedures shall be used: (1) ifthe first digit to be discarded is less than the number five, the last digit retained shall not be changed; (2) ifthe first digit discarded is greater than the number five, or ifit is the number five followed by at least one digit other than the number zero, the last figure retained shall be increased by one unit; and (3) ifthe first digit discarded is exactly the number five, followed only by zeros, the last digit retained shall be rounded upward if it is an odd number, but no adjustment shall be made ifit is an even number.**[~]D.** The final result ofthe calculation shall be expressed in the units ofthe standard. [20.2.1.116 NMAC- N, 06/01/10; A, xx/xx/xx] 20.2. 1.117 ELECTRONIC REPORTING AND PERMIT APPLICATIONS. A. Applicability. Pursuant to the 

### Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) as defined by Title 40 of

### the Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) Pmi 3, and the 

### Uni(orm Electronic Transactions Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 14-16-1 to -71 (2001 as amended through 2013), any submittal to 

### the department required by any part under Chapter 2, 

### Air Quality (Statewide), ofTitle 20, 

### Environmental Protection, ofthe New Mexico Administrative Code, for which the department**D~<l-i>"JUlliti~dl:l~~OQn?o,?~UP.~f.l_!Q.J)ly"om:!Rlif,gJ2L~Lr~mJir~JJJ.¥I+.tJ!Ettll)s** accepting specified electronic documents in lieu ofpaper, shall be submitted electronically, provided that the method of submittal complies with applicable federal and state standards for electronic submissions. The department may grant a waiver ofthis requirement on a case-by-case basis ifrequested by the regulated source. 

### B. Deadline extension due to computer system failure. ( l) Ifelectronic submittal capability is in place, but the department's electronic document receiving system is temporarily unavailable, then the department may grant a deadline extension to the regulated source. (2) Ifelectronic submittal capability is in place, but the regulated source's computer system or its internet service provider is temporarily unavailable, then the source may request a deadline extension. The department may grant a deadline extension to the regulated source. [20.2.1.117 NMAC

- N, XX/XX/XX] HISTORY OF 20.2.1 NMAC: Pre-NMAC History: The material in this part was derived from that previously filed with the Commission of Public Records-State Records Center and Archives. HSSD 70-1, Ambient Air Quality Standards And Air Quality Control Regulations, 01/27/70. EIB/AQCR 110, Air Quality Control Regulation 110- Confidential Information Protection, 05!29/90. History ofRepealed Material: [RESERVED] 54 Other History: 55 HSSD 70-1, Ambient Air Quality Standards And Air Quality Control Regulations, (relating to those portions

·6 numbered 100 !-Sampling Equipment; 110 !-Severability; 1201-Effective Date; 1301-Conflicts) filed 0 1127170;

20.2.1 NMAC Public Review Draft 9116114 4

### 1 (AQCR) 701, Procedure ForRequesting A Variance Hearing, filed 10/07/75; and EIB/AQCR II0, Air Quality 2 Control Regulation II0

- Confidential Information Protection, 05/29/90 was renumbered 

### into first version ofthe 3 New Mexico Administrative Code as 20 NMAC 2.1, General Provisions, filed 08/03/95. 4 20 NMAC 2.1, General Provisions, filed 08/03/95 was replaced 

### by 20 NMAC 2.1, General Provisions, filed 5 09/27/95. 6 20 NMAC 2.1, General Provisions, filed 09/27/95 was renumbered, reformatted and replaced 

### by 20.2.1 NMAC, 7 General Provisions, effective I0/31/02.

20.2.1 NMAC Public Review Draft 9/16/14 5

### STATE OF NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO: 20.2.1 NMAC- GENERAL PROVISIONS

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF NEAL BUTT 

### Witness Qualifications: EIB 09-14(R)



### Neal Butt. Mr. Butt is an Environmental Scientist & 

### Specialist in the Control Strategies Unit ofthe Air Quality Bureau. He has worked in the Air Quality Bureau (AQB) since March of 2014. Prior to this he worked for the City ofAlbuquerque Environmental Health Department for 17 years, the last 12 ofwhich were as an Environmental Health Scientist in the Air Quality Division. Mr. Butt holds an M.S. Degree inBiologyfrom the University ofNorth Dakota, a B.S. Degree in Biology from the University ofNew Mexico, a B.A. Degree in Environmental Planning and Design from UNM, an A.A.S. in Environmental Protection from Central New Mexico Community College, and an A.A.S. in Criminal Justice from CNM. 

### I. Introduction The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires state agencies which currently accept required submittals electronically, in lieu ofpaper submittals, to comply with the federal CrossMedia Electronic Reporting Rule ("CROMERR") [40 CFR Part 3]. To comply with CROMERR, the Department must codifY its authority to request and receive documents required from regulated sources in an electronic format. Therefore, the New Mexico Environment Department ("Department") proposes to amend 20.2.1 New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC), 

## GeneralProvisions, to include language authorizing and requiring the electronic submittal ofdata, reports and permit applications in lieu ofpaper submittals. Pursuant to 20.1.1.300 NMAC: "Anyperson mayfile a petition with the Board to adopt, amend or repeal any regulation within thejurisdiction ofthe Board." The Petition For Regulatory Change No. EIB 14-05(R), filed on September 16,2014, is shown as NMED Exhibit 1, and includes the Department's proposed amendments in current NMAC format. The proposed amendments are shown in standard legislative format, with new material underlined, and deleted material stricken or designated as stricken. The overall purpose of20.2.1 NMAC is to establish general provisions which apply to all parts ofChapter 2, 

## Air Quality (Statewide), ofTitle 20, 

## Environmental Protection (i.e., 20.2.1 through 20.2.99 NMAC).

BUTT TESTIMONY

- PAGE 1 

## NMED EXHIBIT 2

## A. What is CROMERR? CROMERR was originally codified in the Code ofFederal Regulations (CPR), Title 40, Part 3 on October 13,2005 [FR Vol. 70, No. 197, 59848-89, 10/13/05] (NMED Exhibit 13), and amended on December 24,2008 [FR Vol. 73, No. 248, 78991-4] (NMED Exhibit 14), to extend compliance dates for existing electronic document receiving systems (i.e., those that accepted electronic reports ("e-reports") in lieu ofpaper on orbefore October 13, 2005). The amendment extended the deadline for programs with an existing e-reporting system to submit an application for EPA approval from October 13, 2007 to January 13,2010. The AQB has existing e-reporting programs for air emissions inventory reports (AEIR) and excess emissions reports (EER), and has plans for new electronic submittal programs that will require EPA approval. These proposed new programs include Air Quality Permit Applications (AQPA), routine report submittals, stack testing protocols and reports, and asbestos notifications. Therefore, the AQB submitted a draft CROMERR application to EPA in August 2012, and received comments in March 2013. EPA CROMMER Guidance, shown as NMED Exhibit 12, allows the AQB to continue operation of existing e-reporting systems while the application is under review. According to EPA, "[t]he CROMERR rule provides the legal framework for electronic reporting to the EPA and states, tribes and local governments that are authorized to administer EPA programs." "The intent is to maintain the same level ofcorporate and individual responsibility and accountability that exists in the paper environment whenreporting is done electronically" and to ensure that documents submitted electronically "are as legally dependable as their paper counterparts." [70 FR 59850]. 

## B. Requirements ofCROMERR EPA guidance requires that an authorized program that receives e-reports in lieu ofpaper must meet the following two requirements. 1. The authorized program must have sufficient legal authority to enforce its authorized program using electronically submitted documents. The demonstration oflegal authority must be a certification from the State Attorney General ("AG") or his designee that the Department can continue to enforce these authorized programs based on electronic submissions. Specifically: "A certification that the state, tribe, or local government has sufficient legal authorityprovided by lawfully enacted orpromulgated statutes or regulations that are in full force and effect on the date ofthe certification to implement the electronic reporting component ofits authorized programs covered bythe application in conformance with §3 .2000 and to enforce the affected programs using electronic documents collected under these programs, together with copies ofthe relevant statutes and regulations, signed by the State Attorney General orhis or her designee, or, in the case ofan authorized tribe or local government

BUTT TESTIMONY- PAGE 2

### program, by the chiefexecutive or administrative official or officer ofthe governmental entity, or his or her designee"[

...] ; [40 CPR 3.1 OOO(b)(I)(i) According to a legal analysis conducted by the Department's Office ofGeneral Counsel (OGC) in 2012, shown as NMED Exhibit 10, the AQB already has the statutory and regulatory authority to accept e-submittals for air emissions inventoryreports (AEIR) and excess emissions rep01is (EER) because the rule language for those programs does not require "written" submittals. The AQB also intends to accept all compliance reports and permitting submittals electronically. Therefore, in order to remove any question as to whether the Department has the authmity to accept and require electronic submissions and to ensure that the AG or his designee may certify that the AQB has sufficient authority to enforce these programs based on electronic submissions, the AQB is proposing to amend 20.2.1 NMAC to require that data, reports and pennit applications be submitted electronically for any rule under Chapter 2, 

## Air Quality (Statewide), of Title 20, 

## EnvironmentalProtection, for which the AQB is accepting electronic submittals. A preliminary assessment ofthe ability ofthe AG to certify the AQB's authority is shown as NMED Exhibit 9. The proposed new language (which reflects comments received from stakeholders) would be inserted under a new section entitled: 20.2.1.117 ELECTRONIC REPORTING AND PERMIT APPLICATIONS. 

### and would stipulate: A. Applicability. 

### Pursuant to the 

## Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) as defined by Title 40 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations (CPR) Part 3; and the 

## UnifOrm Electronic Transactions Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 

### 14-16-1 to -21 (2001 as amended through 2013); any submittal to the department required by any part under Chapter 2, 

## Air Quality (Statewide), of Title 20, 

## Environmental Protection, of the New Mexico Administrative Code, for which the department has notified persons subject to the applicable requirement that it is accepting specified electronic documents in lieu of paper, shall be submitted electronically, provided that the method of submittal complies with applicable federal and state standards for electronic submissions. The department may grant a waiver of this requirement on a case-by-case basis if requested by the regulated source. 2. The authorized program must also meet the CROMERR standards fore-reporting systems pursuant to 40 CPR 3.2000, shown as NMED Exhibit 15. The AQB is working with EPA to ensure that the AQB's e-reporting system is adequate.

BUTT TESTIMONY- PAGE 3

### In addition, the AQB is proposing amendments to 20.2.1 NMAC to accommodate computer system or network failures. The proposed new language would stipulate: 

## B. Deadline extension due to computer system failure. (1) 

### If electronic submittal capability is in place, but the department's electronic document receiving system is temporarily unavailable, then the department may grant a deadline extension to the regulated source. (2) Ifelectronic submittal capability is in place, but the regulated source's computer system or its internet service provider is temporarily unavailable, then the source may request a deadline extension. The department may grant a deadline extension to the regulated source. 

## II. Legal Foundation Requiring e-reporting is not prohibited by any state law or regulation. The New Mexico

## Air Quality ControlAct, NMSA 1978, Sections 74-2-1 to -22 (1967, as amended through 2009), does not specify the manner in which reports and applications must be submitted to the AQB. The 

## Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (VETA), NMSA 1978, Sections 14-16-1 to -21 (2001, as amended through 2013); "[

...] applies to electronic records and electronic signatures relating to a transaction." [NMSA 1978, 

## §14-16-3 A]. "VETA 

### does not require a record or signature to be created, generated, sent, communicated, received, stored or otherwise processed or used by electronic means or in electronic form." [NMSA 1978, §14-16-5 (a)]. However, the VETA 

### does provide that: "[

...]a governmental agency[

...] may[

...] issue its own rules that specify: the mam1er and fonnat in which the electronic records must be created, generated, sent, communicated, received, and stored and the systems established for these purposes;[

...]." [NMSA 1978, §

### 14-16-18(A)]. Additionally, "[If] a law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic record satisfies the law." and "[If] a law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law." [NMSA 1978, §14-16-7 (c) & 

### (d)]. Further, "[If] parties have agreed to conduct a transaction by electronic means and a law requires a person to provide, send or deliver information in writing to another person, the requirement is satisfied ifthe information is provided, sent or delivered, as the case may be, in an electronic record capable ofretention by the recipient at the time ofreceipt. An 

### electronic record is not capable ofretention by the recipient ifthe sender or its infonnation processing system inhibits the ability ofthe recipient to print or store the electronic record." [NMSA 1978, §14-16-8 (a)]. 

## III. Current Ability and Authority to Accept e-reports and Applications

BUTT TESTIMONY- PAGE 4

### Within the State air quality regulations there is a reasonable argument that when the word "written" is not used, an electronic submission is acceptable (e.g., 20.2.10 NMAC, Woodwaste Burners; 

### 20.2.62 NMAC, Municipal Waste Combustion; 

### and 20.2.63 NMAC, Biomedical Waste Combustion). 

### Examples ofexisting programs that require reporting to the AQB, and which could be affected by the proposed rule amendments include the following. 

## A. Emissions Inventory According to the 2012 OGC memo, "[t]he AQB currently accepts AEIR reports via an online system; therefore it is obligated to submit a CROMERR application to EPA. Requirements for EI reporting are contained in 20.2.73 NMAC, Notice of Intent andEmissions Inventory Requirements. 

### Fairly consistent language is used throughout, mandating that entities 'shall submit an emissions report annually.' (See 20.2.73 .300.B.(1), (2), (3), (4), (6) and (7) NMAC). The regulations do not mandate the format in which the reports should be submitted (e.g., written vs. electronic). So, it can be argued based upon the regulatory language that any submission methodology required by the AQB would be acceptable, giving the AQB the authority to accept Els electronically." (See NMED Exhibit I0, p.2.) 

## B. Excess Emissions Reporting The requirements for excess emissions reporting are found at 20.2.7 NMAC, Excess Emissions**~nd** 

### state that: "the owner or operator ofa source having an excess emission shall report the following information to the department on forms provided by the Department. The Department may autho.rize the submittal ofsuch reports in electronic format." [20.2.7.I1O.A NMAC). This language is explicit in allowing the Department to accept electronic submittals. Since the AQB currently accepts EER reports via an online system, it is obligated to submit a CROMERR application to EPA. (See NMED Exhibit I0, p. 3) C. 

## Permit Applications At present, provisions in 20.2.70 NMAC, OperatingPermits 

### and 20.2.72 NMAC, Construction Permits, 

### require written permit application submittals; therefore, the AQB does not currently accept permit applications electronically. The proposed amendments to 20.2.I NMAC, in conjunction with UETA, will make this possible ifadopted. 

## Operating Permits, 20.2.70 NMAC 20.2.70.300.D. NMAC, Content Of Application, 

### stipulates that: "Anyperson seeking a pelTilit under this part shall do so by filing a written application with the Department." In 

### addition, providing written notification to the Department and the Administrator is required for "Section 502(b)(I

### O) changes" (defined as changes that contravene an express permit term). [20.2.70.302.H.(I).(b) NMAC]. However, the reporting requirements at 20.2.70.302.E. NMAC, Reporting, 

### can be submitted electronically. The legal remedy to these provisions is found within UETA.

BUTT TESTIMONY- PAGE 5

## Construction Permits, 20.2.72 NMAC 20.2.72.203.A NMAC stipulates that: "anyperson seeking a permit under Subsection A of 20.2.72.200 NMAC shall do so by filing a written application with the Department." In addition, pursuant to 20.2.72.213 NMAC, 

## Startup andFollowup Testing, "a written report ofthe results of the [performance] test shall be submitted to the Department by the owner or operator within 30 days from the test date"; and at 20.2.72.305.C.(4) NMAC, the owner or operator shall "submit a written report to the Department ofthe results ofthe [performance] test within 30 days from the test date." The legal remedy to this provision is found within UETA. 

## D. Stack Testing and Reporting "All stack testing protocols explicitlymentioned in the State air quality regulations allow for electronic submissions." (e.g., 20.2.16 NMAC, 

## Nonferrous Smelters New & 

## ExistingParticulate Matter; 20.2.17 NMAC, 

## Nonferrous Smelters Existing- Particulate Matter; 20.2.18 NMAC, 

## OilBurningEquipment- Particulate Matter; 20.2.19 NMAC, 

## Potash, Salt or Sodium Sulfate ProcessingEquipment- Particulate Matter; 20.2.20 NMAC, 

## Lime Manufacturing Plants -ParticulateMatter; 20.2.37 NMAC, 

## Petroleum Processing Facilities; and 20.2. 40 NMAC, 

## SulfuricAcidProduction Units

- Sulfur Dioxide, AcidMist and Visible Emissions) (See NMED Exhibit 11.) 

## E. Gas Sulfur Emissions Reports for gas sulfur emissions are required by 20.2.35 NMAC, 

## Natural Gas ProcessingPlant -Sulfur, but can be submitted electronically. Specifically, "To aid the Department 

### in determining compliance with this Part, the owner or operator ofa natural gas processingplant to which this Part applies shall submit to the Department quarterly reports[

...]" [20.2.35.112.A NMAC]. There is no mention ofa written requirement in this provision. This maybe distinguished from language used in 20.2.35.113.E NMAC, which stipulates in part that: "The department shall notify the applicant orpetitioner and all interested persons who submitted written comments ofthe Department's action on the application for certification or petition for modification ofthe 'sulfur release schedule' and the reasons therefore. The Department shall notify the applicant orpetitioner by certified mail." Here, the word "written" is not used, but could be implied by the requirement to send the notice bymail. According to the 2013 memo, "due to the UETA and the omission ofthe word 'written' AQB presumablyhas authority to accept electronic submissions ofgas sulfur emissions reporting." 

## F. Refineries Reports for refineries are required by 20.2.36 NMAC, 

## Petroleum Refinery- Sulfur, but can be submitted electronically. Specifically, 20.2.36.113.A NMAC stipulates that: "To aid the Department in determining compliance with this Part, the owner or operator ofa petroleum refinery shall submit to the department quarterly reports[

...]."According to the 2013 memo, "[g]iven the nearly identical

BUTT TESTIMONY- PAGE 6

### language to 20.2.35 NMAC and the mandate ofthe UETA, it is safe to assume that electronic submissions ofrefineryreports are also acceptable." 

### G. Federal Standards New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) promulgated byEPA through September 23, 2013 are incorporated byreference in 20.2.77 NMAC, New Source Performance Standards. NESHAPs promulgated by EPA through December 31, 2013 are incorporated byreference in 20.2.78 NMAC, Emissions Standards for HazardousAirPollutants. Maximum Achievable Control Standards (MACT) promulgated by EPA through August 29, 2013 are incorporated by reference in 20.2.82 NMAC, Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standardsfor Source Categories of HazardousAirPollutants. Since these are federal standards, the EPA regulates whether specific required information can be submitted electronically or not. A detailed analysis ofthe AQB's existing authority to receive electronic submissions, including those required by federal standards was conducted by OGC in 2013 as shown by NMED Exhibit 11. 

### IV. Benefits ofElectronic Reporting Facilitating and encouraging the electronic submittal ofrequired reports and permit applications in lieu ofpaper byregulated sources will benefitboth the regulated source and the AQB. This is because electronic reporting: A. reduces tl;le burden and operating costs incurred by AQB staffrequired to transfer data contained in paper reports, 

### B. reduces the economic and environmental cost to the regulated source ofprinting and mailing, C. enables more rapid and accurate environmental reporting and posting ofcompliance information; data can now be transferred directly to the AQB databases, and transcription errors (from paper reports) will be eliminated, and D. 

### makes reporting and application submission simpler and more efficient. 

### V. Impact on the Regulated Community The proposed new Section 20.2.1.117 NMAC, Electronic ReportingAndPermitApplications, would apply to persons and signatories who submit electronic reports or other documents for which the AQB is accepting specified electronic documents in lieu ofpaper, except for documents submitted via facsimile; and electronic documents submitted via magnetic or optical media such as diskette, compact disc, digital video disc, or tape which are not subject to CROMERR. Regulated sources that have not already submitted an Electronic Subscriber Application and Agreement (ESAA) to the AQB for any existing or new online application (e.g., for excess emissions reporting or emissions inventory reporting) will need to submit one.

BUTT TESTIMONY- PAGE 7

### An Electronic SignatureAgreement (ESA) which is part ofthe ESAA, ensures that data submitted to the AQB is being submitted by an authorized representative ofthat source. The AQB anticipates that ifthe proposed amendments are adopted and the AQB is prepared to go live with a new online submittal program (e.g., permit application), the following procedure will generallybe followed: • Stakeholders will be notified via emails, AQB website, etc.; • Volunteers will be recruited for a limited livebeta test ofthe software; • A phased roll out will commence after completion ofthe beta test; and • No penalty will be assessed for any entity that did not receive notification. 

### VI. Additional Proposed Amendments A. The following amendment is proposed to conect a grammatical enor. 

### 20.2.1.108 SAVING CLAUSE: Supersession ofany Air Quality Control Regulation (AQCR) shall not 

## [e.ffee.t] affect any administrative orjudicial enforcement action pending on the effective date ofanypart under Chapter 2 ofTitle 20, nor the validity ofany pe1mit issued pursuant to any AQCR. [09/05/95; 20.2.1.108 NMAC

- Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.1 08 1 0/31/02; A, xxlxxlxx] 

## B. The following amendment removes outdated and inaccurate information regarding physical addresses from the rule language and replaces it with conect infonnation within brackets in the HistoryNote, which is not subject to the legal constraints ofrulemaking procedures, thereby facilitating administrative changes in the future without a hearing. 

### 20.2.1.111 AVAILABILITY OF MATERIALS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE: Materials incorporated byreference into anypart under Chapter 2 ofTitle 20 maybe viewed at the state records center [(404 

### Montezuma, Santa Fe, NM 87503) [1205 Camino Carlos Roy, Santa Fe, NM 87505]] or at the New Mexico enviromnent department, air quality bureau [(Harold Rllnnels Building, 1190 St. Francis Dr., Santa Fe, NM 87503) [2048 Galisteo St., Santa Fe, NM 87505]]. [09105195; 20.2.1.111 NMAC- Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.111 10/31102; A, xxlxxlxx] 

### [As ofxx/xx/xx, the State Records Center is located at 1205 Camino Carlos Rey, Santa Fe, NM 87505, and the Ne"': Mexico Enviromnent Department. Air Quality Bureau is located at 

## 525 Camino de los Marquez, Suite I, Santa Fe, NM, 87505] C. The following amendment refonnats the Section's hierarchy in a more logical fashion without any change to the rule language itself. 

### 20.2.1.116 SIGNIFICANT FIGURES:

BUTT TESTIMONY

- PAGE 8

### A. All emissions standards are deemed to have at least two significant figures, but not more than three significant figures. 

### B. At least five significant figures shall be retained in all intermediate calculations. C. 

### In calculating emissions to dete1mine compliance with an emission standard, the following rounding offprocedures shall be used: (1) 

### ifthe first digit to be discarded is less than the number five, the last digit retained shall not be changed; 

### (2) ifthe first digit discarded is greater than the number five, or ifit is the number five followed by at least one digit other than the number zero, the last figure retained shall be increased by one unit; and (3) ifthe first digit discarded is exactlythe number five, followed onlyby zeros, the last digit retained shall be rounded upward ifit is an odd number, but no adjustment shall be made ifit is an even number. [(4J]D. The final result ofthe calculation shall be expressed in the units ofthe standard. [20.2.1.116 NMAC- N, 06/01/10; A, xx/xx/xx] 

### VII. Public Notice and Outreach Public notice ofthe hearing was published in the Albuquerque Journal (in English and Spanish) on November 2, 2014 and in the New Mexico Register on November 13, 2014; on the NMED AQB electronic mail list on November 10,2014 shown as NMED Exhibit 6; and on the NMED AQB website http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/prop_regs.html on November 12,2014. The notice stated that the Board may make a decision on the proposed amendments at the conclusion ofthe hearing, or may convene at a later date to consider action on the proposal. Additional outreach was conducted for the proposed revisions to 20.2.1 NMAC in the fonn of: a dedicated webpage explaining CROMERR at http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/CROMERRimplementation.htm ; and an open house held on September 30, 2014. The Department received no negative comments fi·om the public notices. A smmnary ofcomments from stakeholders and the AQB's responses are shown as NMED Exhibit 7. Comments from EPA and the AQB's response are shown as NMED Exhibit 8. 

### VIII. Conclusion The Board has the authority to adopt the proposed amendments pursuant to NMSA 1978, §§74- 2-5 B & 

### C. In considering the proposed amendments, the Board is required by the Air Quality Control Act, NMSA 1978, §74-2-S.E, to give weight it deems appropriate to all facts and circumstances, including but not limited to (1) character and degree ofinjury to or interference with health,

BUTT TESTIMONY- PAGE 9

### welfare, visibility and property; (2) the public interest, including the social and economic value ofthe sources and subjects ofair contaminants; and (3) technical practicability and economic reasonableness ofreducing or eliminating air contaminants from the sources involved and previous experience with equipment and methods available to control the air contaminants involved. The proposed amendments do not cause injury or interfere with health, welfare, visibility and property, in accordance with NMSA, §74-2-5.E(1); nor do theyrelate to the technical practicability and economic reasonableness ofreducing or eliminating air contaminants, in accordance with NMSA, §74-2-5.E(3). In addition, in accordance with NMSA, §74-2-5.E(2), the Department concludes that the public interest will be served by implementation ofthe proposed amendments. Specifically, implementation ofthe electronic reporting system as authorized bythis amendment will reduce the burden and operating costs incurred by Department staffrequired to transfer data contained in paperreport$, reduce the economic and environmental cost to the regulated source ofprinting and mailing, foster**mor~** 

### rapid and accurate environmental reporting and posting ofcompliance information, and make reporting and application submission simpler and more efficient. The Department concludes that the factors specified byNMSA 1978, §74-2-S.E all weigh in favor ofadopting the proposed amendments. This concludes my testimony to the Environmental Improvement Board on the NMED proposed amendments to 20.2.1 NMAC. I 

### respectfully request that the Board adopt these proposed amendments and concomitant proposed SIP revision at the conclusion ofthis hearing. The Department also requests that the Board authorize possible additional non-substantive changes to correct any typographical errors and to reflect any formatting changes required by the Administrative Law Division ofthe New Mexico Commission ofPublic Records for compilation into the New Mexico Administrative Code. Thank you

BUTT TESTIMONY- PAGE 10

# NEAL T. BUTT
EDUCATION· B.S. Biology (Zoology) Universiry ofNewMexico 

### 1989 Dean's List, (})liege ofArts and Sciences, Spring 1986 M.S. Biology (Wildlife Management) Universiry ofNorth Dakota 

### 1993 • Scholarships: "Most Promising Field Biologist" 

## & "Excellence in Field Biology" A.A.S. Environmental Protection Technology TVI Communiry College 

### 1998 • Graduated with Highest Honors Phi Theta Kappa Honor Society Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Certification \X!ERC 

## I Universi!J of New Mexico 

### 1999 • HonorRoll, School of Engineering

- Chemical-Nuclear, Spring 1997 A.A.S. CriminalJustice • Graduated with Honors TVI Communiry College 

### Dean's List Fall2000 2001 Pre-ManagementDevelopment Program COAPublic Service Universiry 

### 2006 • Graduatedwith Distinction. Earnedtwo years' service credit as a supervisor B.A. Environmental Planning and Design Universiry of NewMexico 

### 2012 • Communityand Regional Planning, School ofArchitecture and Planning 

### EXPERIENCE· ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST & 

### SPECIALIST 

## Air QualityBureau, NewMexico Environment Department 525 Camino de losMarqueZ; Suite 1, Santa Fe, NM 87505 

### 3/14-present

Develop control strategyplans to regulate airpollution emissions in NewMexico: developing concepts into detailed, functional air qualityplans and regulations; effectively working with stakeholders with disparate interests to build consent onproposed plans and regulations that meet the goals ofthe Bureau and Department; andpresenting testimonyon proposed air qualityplans and regulations to the Environmental Improvement Board. Research assigned 

## air pollution topics, analyze data, prepare reports, present summaries and conclusions to management, post information to the Bureau website and manage multiple projects with minimal supervision. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENTIST 

## Air QualityDivision, Albuquerque Environmental Health Department 400 Marquette 

## NW,Albuquerque, NM 87102 

### 7/07-3/14

Developed and implemented long range plans, programs and special projects in the field of municipal air quality. Served as the lead for promulgating state rules (New Mexico Administrative Code) governing air quality, through the Albuquerque

- Bernalillo County 

## Air Quality Control Board 

## (Air Board), including research, drafting and editing of technical documents, hearing preparation, testifying, filing rules with State Records Center 

## & Archives in the correct style and format, and submittal of rules and State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to EPA for approval. Coordinated internal committees, collaborated with other disciplines, conducted outreach and followed tight schedules and budget commitments.

### AIR QUALITY PLANNER 

## 5/05-7/07 

## Air QualityDivision, Albuquerque Environmental Health Department Perlormed technical review ofAirQuality Impact Anajyses 

### required for large-scale land use development plans using air quality emissions analysis modeling. Representative to 

### the MidRegion Council of Governments, necessitating the review, analysis and technical consultation on transportation plans. Promulgated air quality regulations and SIPs through the 

## Air Board, and submitted to 

### EPA for approval. Established and maintained effective working relationships with regulated industry, elected officials and the general public. 

### ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST I 

## 10/01-5/05 

## Air QualityDivision, Albuquerque Environmental Health Department Developed control strategies and air quality regulations used to improve air quality. Developed working knowledge of the principles and practices of environmental health and air quality, including federal, state and local laws, statutes, ordinances, codes, regulations and policies. Served as staff to the 

## Air Board, Hearing Oerk; Custodian of Records and webmaster. Planned hearings and meetings, published public notices in the New Mexico Register and the Albuquerque Journal, solicited hearing officers, court reporters and managed electronic records. 

### CERTIFIED FIELD TRAINING OFFICER/ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER Albuquerque Animal Welfare- 

## 4/97-10/01 

# I Corrales Police Dept.- 

## 10/93-7/94 8920 LomasBlvd., Albuquerque, NM 87112 

# I 4324 Corrales Rd, Corrales NM 87048 

### Interpreted, applied and enforced federal, state and local animal welfare laws, statutes, ordinances, codes, regulations and policies. Followed protocol for animal care 

## & control including, impoundment, chemical tranquilization, bite investigation, quarantine, cruelty investigation, equine neglect, and hoarding behavior. Trained Animal Services officer recruits. Assisted law enforcement with nuisance urban wildlife, protected species, game animals, poisonous snakes and protective custody situations. Job is very high profile requiring adept handling of confrontational situations and prudent enforcement of laws while maintaining positive public relations. Served on the U.S. Humane Society task force implementation team. 

### LAB TECHNICIAN III 

## 10/96-12/98 Advanced :Materials Laboratory, Centerfor Radioactive Waste :Management (CeR.a1VJ) 152 Farris Engineering Center Albuquerque, NM 87131 

### Assisted project leaderwith: lab research on the bioremediation ofuranium-contaminated soil and groundwater at sites in NewMexico, Arizona, and Germany; and research and field demonstration ofprinciples and practices of in situ 

### bioremediation as applied to 

### a nitratecontaminated groundwaterplume located in Albuquerque's South Valley. Emphasis placed on analyzing the behavior ofnative bacteria under field-like conditions when supplemented with different types and amounts ofnutrient amendments.

# Robert A. Samaniego

Education:

B.S. Chemical Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 

## Employment: New Mexico EnvironmentDepartment- Air Quality Bureau Major Sources Permitting Program Manager Santa Fe, NM 2014 

### to present

• Supervise two FTEs in the Major Source Permitting Section. Work with managers to insure that permits are issued on-time. Perform special projects to improve permit templates and monitoring protocols.



### New Mexico EnvironmentDepartment- Air Quality Bureau Environmental Scientist & 

### Specialist-Supervisor Santa Fe, NM 2013 

### to 2014



### • Supervised four FTEs in the Compliance InspectionField Unit. Provided technical guidance related to issues arising during on-site inspections, and feedback on written reports. Managed employee workload to insure that EPA CMS commitment was met. In addition, continued work on special projects related to development ofexcess emissions reporting online application and continuation offormer duties until vacancy was filled.



### New Mexico EnvironmentDepartment- Air Quality Bureau Environmental Scientist & 

### Specialist-A, Lead Worker Santa Fe, NM 2008 

### to 2013



### • Focus on special projects including training classes to staff, technical analysis and guidance for complex enforcement cases and regulatory development. Includes mentoring ofinspectors while continuing with complex inspections. Participated in numerous settlement negotiations for enforcement cases with civil penalties. Required extensive problem solving through analysis and evaluation offacts. Included report reviews from permitted facilities.



### New Mexico EnvironmentDepartment- Air Quality Bureau Environmental Scientist & 

### Specialist-A, Supervisor SantaFe,NM 2005 

### to 2008



### • In addition to continuing to carry a full load ofcomplex air emission source inspections and special projects, assumed supervisory responsibility for two FTEs. In 

### addition, was



## NMED EXHIBIT 4

### Acting Inspections Section manager on four occasions between May 2005 and September 2008 for a total of 12 months, assuming supervisory responsibility for 8 FTEs. Supervisory and acting manager responsibilities included men toring, evaluation ofwork product, EDA reviews, hiring and promotion actions. Participated in numerous settlement negotiations for enforcement cases with civil penalties. Required extensive problem solving through analysis and evaluation offacts. Included report reviews from permitted facilities. 

### New Mexico Environment Department- Air Quality Bureau Environmental Scientist & 

### Specialist-A Santa Fe, NM 2004 

### to 2005

• Stationary source inspector ofcomplex air emission sources such as Gas Processing Plants, Petroleum Refineries and the Intel Semiconductor Manufacturing Facility. Includes extensive knowledge offederal and state air regulations as well as air emission sampling methods. Special projects include training classes to staff, technical analysis and guidance for complex enforcement cases and regulatory development. Participated in numerous settlement negotiations for enforcement cases with civil penalties. Required extensive problem solving through analysis and evaluation offacts. Included report reviews from permitted facilities. 

### New Mexico EnvironmentDepartment- Air Quality Bureau Environmental Scientist & 

### Specialist-0 Santa Fe, NM 1996 

### to 2004

• Stationary source inspector ofair emission sources such as aggregate (construction), oil and gas and electric generation facilities. Duties also included observation and review of stack tests and reports and response to citizen complaints. Special projects included training classes to staffand public presentations at US EPA Air Inspector Workshops. Participated in numerous settlement negotiations for enforcement cases with civil penalties. Required extensive problem solving through analysis and evaluation offacts. Included report reviews from permitted facilities.



### Nizhoni Institute Academic Director, Director Academy ofEcology and Energy Santa Fe, NM 1990 

### to 1993

• As Academic Director, hired and supervised three other instructors on staff. Developed and implemented annual operating budget. Involved strategic planning, resource allocation, and coordination ofpeople and resources. Also Director ofAcademy focusing on environmental and energy studies. Included teaching classes in 

### mathematics and chemistry.



### Princeton Review Mathematics and Science Instructor New York, NY 1986 

### to 1990

### • Instructor ofmathematics and chemistry focusing primarily on preparing high school students for the SAT and College Board Achievement exams.. 

### California Regional Water Quality Control Board Oakland, CA Water Resources Control Engineer 1981 to 1985 • Area inspector ofsurface water discharge sources, such as landfills, petroleum refineries and chemical plants. Prepared post-inspection reports, and enforcement notices. Included extensive knowledge ofFederal and California water regulations and water sampling methods. Required extensive problem solving through analysis and evaluation offacts.



### Bechtel Petroleum San Francisco, CA Project Engineer 1980 to 1981 • Project engineer for Petroleum Refineryproject. Included extensive mathematical analyses to verify calculations and source capacities to specify equipment sizes. Required extensive problem solving through analysis and evaluation offacts. 

### Uniroyal Chemical Naugatuck, CT Project Engineer 1978 to 1980 • Project engineer for chemical plant. Included extensive mathematical analyses to verify calculations and source capacities to specify equipment sizes. Required extensive problem solving through analysis and evaluation offacts.

# RITA BATES

EDUCATION

HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY, ARCATA, CALIFORNIA 

### B.S., Biology, 1990. Minor in Botmry, emphasis in Ecology. 

### EXPERIENCE

STATE OF NEWMEXICO, ENVIRONMENTDEP ARTl\1ENT AIR QUALITYBUREAU, PLANNING &POLICYSECTION 

### Section Chiif, March 2005-present Program Manager (NaturalSciencesManager-2), March 2000- March 2005 EnvironmentalSpecialist, December 1998- March 2000 EnvironmentalScientist, August 1998- December 1998 

### The Planning 

## &Policysection ofthe 

## Air QualityBureau is responsible forthe control strategy, dispersion modeling, emission inventoryand small business assistance programs in the 

## Air QualityBureau. The control strategysection ofthe 

## Air QualityBureau is responsible forpreparing state implementation plans, policies, and regulations for air quality. The modeling section ensures that all air dispersion modeling analyses submitted to our agency are accurate and complete. The Small Business Assistance Program assists small businesses in meeting air qualityregulatoryrequirements.
E:MPIRE 

### GROUP, 

### LLC Empire, Nevada Environmental Coordinator, June 1996- ]ufy 1998 

### Empire Group, LLC is the parent companyfor several entities which own and operate a geothermal powerplant, an onion and garlic dehydration plant, several ranches, and a garlic seed operation. In myposition as environmental coordinator, I was responsible for permitting at all facilities.
JBRENVIRONMENTAL CbNSULTANTS, INC. 

### Reno, Nevada EnvironmentalAnafystIV, Reno Office Coordinator/Manager,Jufy 1994- Jufy 1996 EnvironmentalAnafystIII,Jufy 1993- Jufy 1994 EnvironmentalAnafystI, June 1990- ]ufy 1993 

### As the manager ofthe Reno office, I supetvised seven technical staff and one administrative employee. During myemployment with

# JBR, I worked on and managed numerous NEP 

## A, environmental permitting andbaseline projects.



## NMED EXHIBIT 5

### rage 1 

### or L



### Published in the Albuquerque Journal on Sunday November 02,2014 NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT BOARD NOTICE OF RULEMAKING HEARING The New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board ("Board") will hold a public hearing on January 23, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. at the Old PERA Building, Apodaca Hall, 1120 Paseo De Peralta, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87504. The purpose ofthe hearing is to consider the matter of EIB 14-05 (R), a proposed amendment ofthe New Mexico State Implementation Plan ("SIP") regarding 20.2.1 NMAC, General Provisions. The proponent ofthis regulatory amendment is the NewMexico Environment Department ("NMED"). The purpose ofthe public hearing is to consider and take possible action on a petition from the NMED to amend 20.2.1 NMAC. The purpose of proposed amendments to 20.2.1 NMAC is to codify the Department's authority to request and receive documents required from regulated sources in an electronic format. The proposed amendment would stipulate that: pursuant to the Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) as defined by Title 40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) Part 3; and the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, NMSA 1978, 14-16-1 to -21 (2001 as amended through 2013); any submittalto the department required by any part under Chapter 2, Air Quality (Statewide), ofTitle 20, Environmental Protection, ofthe New Mexico Administrative Code, for which the department has notified persons subject to the applicable requirement that it is accepting specified electronic documents in lieu ofpaper, shall be submitted electronically, provided that the method ofsubmittal complies with applicable federal and state standards for electronic submissions. The department may grant a waiver ofthis requirement on a case-by-case basis if requested by the regulated source. The proposed amendments will also address potential problems encountered with electronic reporting due to problems with computer systems and internet service providers. The proposed amendments will also include minor corrections to formatting and style. Upon adoption by the Board, the amended 20.2.1 NMAC would be submitted to EPA for incorporation into NewMexico's SIP. The full text ofNMED's proposed revised regulation is available on the Air Quality Bureau's web site at http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/prop_regs.html or by contacting Neal Butt at 505-476-4317 orneal.butt@state.nm.us. The proposed revised regulation may also be examined during office hours at the Air Quality Bureau office, 525 Camino de los Marquez, Suite 1, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87505. The hearing will be conducted in accordance with 20.1.1 NMAC, Rulemaking Procedures

- Environmental Improvement Board, the Environmental Improvement Act, NMSA 1978, Section 74-1-9, the Air Quality Control Act, NMSA 1978, Section 74-2-6, and other applicable procedures. All interested persons will be given a reasonable opportunity at the hearing to submit relevant evidence, data, views and arguments, orally or in writing, to introduce exhibits, and to examine witnesses. Persons wishing to present technical testimony must file with the Board a written notice ofintent to do so. The notice ofintent shall: (1) 

### identify the person for whom the witness(es) will testify; (2) identify each technical witness that the person intends to present and state the qualifications ofthe witness, including a description oftheir education and work background; (3) include a copy ofthe direct testimony of each technical witness in narrative (4) list and attach each exhibit anticipated to be offered by that person at the hearing; and (5) attach the text ofany recommended modifications to the proposed new and revised regulations. Notices ofintent for the hearing must be received in the Office ofthe Board not later than 5:00pm on January 2, 2015, and should reference the docket number, EIB 14- 05 (R), 

### and the date ofthe hearing. Notices oflntent to present technical testimony should be

http://legals.abqjournal.com/legals/print_legal/335197 12116/2014**rag~** L OIL



### submitted to: Pam Castaneda, Board Administrator Environmental Improvement Board P. 0. 

### Box 5469 Santa Fe, NM 87502 Phone: (505) 827-2425, Fax (505) 827-0310 Any member ofthe general public may testify at the hearing. No prior notification is required to present non-technical testimony at the hearing. Any such member may also offer exhibits in connection with their testimony, so long as the exhibit is not unduly repetitious ofthe testimony. A member ofthe general public who wishes to submit a written statement for the record, in lieu ofproviding oral testimony at the hearing, shall file the written statement prior to the hearing, or submit it at the hearing. Persons having a disability and needing help in being a part ofthis hearing process should contact Juan Carlos Borrego ofthe NMED Human Resources Bureau by January 13,2015 at P.O. Box 26110, 1190 St. Francis Drive, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87502, telephone 505-827-0424 or e-mailjuancarlos.borrego@state.nm.us. TDYusers please access his number via the New Mexico Relay Network at 1-800-659-8331. The Board may make a decision on the proposed revised regulation at the conclusion ofthe hearing, or the Board may convene a meeting after the hearing to consider action on the proposal. Journal: November 2, 2014

http:/ /legals.abqjournal.com/legals/print_legal/335197 12/16/2014

### CLA-22-A (R-1/93)

/ r 

# AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF NEW MEXICO County of Bernalillo 

# ss Linda MacEachen, being duly sworn, declares and says that she is Classified Advertising Manager of 

### The Albuquerque Journal, and that this newspaper is duly qualified to publish legal notices or advertisements within the meaning of Section 3, Chapter 167, SessionLaws of 1937, and that payment therefore has been made of assessed as court cost; that the notice, copy of which is hereto attached, was

## p~~~shed in said paper in(\:he regular dailyedition, for_\_ times, the first publication being on the 

### _;,(l_IV' day of 

# ftOUQ.m 

# mL ,20d, and the subsequent consecutive publications on

____________________________________________,20

__.

Sworn and subscribed before me, a Notary Public, in and**~qr** 

### the**Com~~Oof** 

### Bernalillo and State ofNew Mexico**t~is**

## ~day of 

## Yl ( 

## V 

# RJ.n,\).4_. of 20 ) .**~** 

# ,sPRICE l1:> 

# (SY, Statement to come at end of month. ACCOUNT NUMBER_\ 

## _tJ_tJ_--q-_CQ_C(_Y

___ __LA JUNTA DE MEJORA AMB!ENTAL DE NUEVO MEXIC,O NOTJFICACI6N DE REUNJ6N PUBLICA PARA AUDIENCIA PUBLICA DE REGLAMENTACJ6N La Junta de Majora Ambiental de Nuevo Mexico ("Junta") llevara a**~abo** una audiencia publica e/ 23 de enero del 2015 a las 10:00 am en el Old pER A Building' (edificio viejo de P.E.R.A), Salon Apodaca, 1120 Pas'eo De Peralta,. en Santa Fe, Nuevo Mexico. El motivo de Ia audiencla es para considerar el asunto de EIB 14-05 (R!, que cons/ste de una propuesta para modificar el Plan de lmplementacl6n del Esiado de Nuevo Mexico ("SIP") en relacl6n a Ia Parte 1de Ia Ley de Control

. de CaJ/dad del Aire del C6digo Admlnistrativo de Nuevo MeXICO, 20.2.1 

### I NMAC, "Provlsiones Generales". El proponents de esta modlficaci6n reglamentaria es el Departamento del Media Amblente de Nuevo Mexico ("NMED"). El motlvo de Ia audlencia publica es para considerar, y posiblemente Jlevar a cabo, Ia petlcl6n de NMED de modificar 20.2.1 NMAC. El prop6sito de las enmlendas a 20.2.1 NMAC es para codlf/car Ia autoridad del Departamento de poder so/lcitar y reciblr documantos requeridos por Ia fuentes de sarvlc/ps reglamentarios en forma electr6nica. La enmienda propane estipular que: conforme. a Ia ley de Cross-Media Elactron'ic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) segun Trtulo 40 del C6digo de Regulae/ones Federates (CFR), Parte 3; y Ia Ley de Uniform/dad en Operaciones Electr6nicas, NMSA 1978 §§ 14-16-4- a/

- 21 del ana 2001 con sus enm/endas hasta 2013; cua/quier documento presentado a/ Departamento que sea requerldo en cualquier parte del Trtulo 20 de Ia Protecci6n del Media Amblente del C6d1go Adminlstratlvo del Nuevo Mexico, sa podni entregar en forma electr6nlca, siempre y cuar\lio e/ Departamento haya notificado a las / personas sujetas a los requlsilos correspond/antes de que .sa aceptan documentos electr6nicos especificados en vez de papal, Sl e/ metoda , de**entr~ga** cump/e con los esbindares federates y estata!es para entrega electr6nica. EJ Departamento podra otorgar exenc1ones de acuerdo acada caso en particular, si asf Ia so/lclta Ia fuente regulada. Las enmiendas propuestas tambien abarcaran problemas con e/ proceso e/ectr6nico que posiblemente puadan surgir a**caus~** de 'los sistemas Jnformaticos o par los proveedores de servlclo de mtamet. Las enmlendas propuestas tambien Jnc/uinin correcclones min/mas a/ formate y esli/o. Luego de ser adoptad.a por Ia Junta, Ia ·enmlanda 20.2.1 NMAC sera presentada a EPA para que se lncorpore en e/ SIP de Nuevo Mexico. El texto completo de Ia propuesta ravisi6n a Ia norma de**NMED~** esta disponible en e/ sltlo web de Ia Agencla de Ca/ldad de A1re en http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us!aqb/prop_regs.h!ml ose puede contactar a Neal Butt a/ 505-476·4317 o nea/.butt@state.nm.us. La propuesta revisi6n a Ia norma tambien se puede examlnar durante horas de oficlna en las oflcinas de Ia Agenc1a de Calidad de Alre locallzada en 525 camino de Los Marquez, Suite 1, Santa Fe, Nuevo Mexico. La audiencla se Jlevani a cabo de acuerdo con 20.1.1 NMAC ' Procedlmientos de Reglamentaci6n
- La Junta de Majora Ambiental, La Ley de Majora Ambiental NMSA 1978, Secci6n 74·1·9, La Ley de Con· trot de Calidad de Alre NMSA 1978, Secci6n 74·2·6, Y otros / procedimlentos ap/icab/es. Durante Ia audiencia publica, Iadas las personas lnteresadas tendnln J una oportunidad razonable de presentar pruebas re/evantes,

. Jnformac/6n, opiniones y argumentos, ya sea verbal o par escrito, para presenter pruebas documenta/es y para interrogar a testigos. Las personas Jnteresadas en presenter testimonio tecnico, deberan presentar una notiflcaci6n por escrito a Ia Junta de Ia lntenci6n de hacerlo. La notificaci6n de lntento debera: (1) Jdentlficar a Ia personal para quien testificara(n} el(los) testigos; (2) ldentificar cada testigo tecnico que Ia persona desea presentar, y expl/car las cuallficaclones del test/go, inc/uyendo una descrlpci6n de su educaci6n ysu experlenc/a /aboral; (3) Jncluir una copia de Ia narrative del testimonio de cada 

### I test/go tecnico; (4) Enumerar y adjuntar cada prueba documental que esa persona vaya aofrecer en Ia aud/encia; y (5) Anexar el escrito de las recomendaciones para cua/quiera de las nuevas propuestas a /as regulaciones o para las revlslones. Las notificaclones de Jntenc/6n debenin ser rec/b/das en las of/cinas de Ia Agencia a mas tardar e/2 de Enero del 2015 antes de las 5:00 PM y deberan hacer referencla a/ numero de expedlente EIB14·05(R) y Ia fecha de Ia audiencla. Las notificaciones de intento para presentar testimonies teen/cos sa deben de envlar a: 1 Pam Castaneda, Adminlstradora deJa Junta Ofic/na de Ia Junta de Mejoramiento Ambiental P.O. Box 5469 Santa Fe, NM 8750? Telefono: (505) 827·2425; fax: (505) 827·0310 Cualquler mlembro del**pu~Jico** en general podra atestiguar durante Ia 

### i 1 audlenc/a. No sa requlere notificac/6n previa para presenter testimonio no-teen/co durante Ia audlencia. Cua/quiera de estos miembros, lamb/en podran presentar pruebas documenta/es en relaci6n ·con el testimonio, siempre y cuando las pruebas no sean excesivamen/e repetilivas del testimonio. Mlembros del publico general que deseen presenter una declarac/6n para el Jnforme judicial, en Iugar de proporclonar un testimonio verbal durante Ia audiencla, deberan presenter Ia declaracl6n por escrito antes de Ia audiencla, olamb/en sa podra presenter en Ia audlencia. Personas con discapacidad y que neces/ten ayuda para ser parte de este proceso de audiencia, deberan contactar Juan Carlos Borrego de Ia Of/cina de Recursos Humanos de NMED antes del 13 de Enero del 2015 a P.O. Box 26110, 1190 St. Francis Drive, Santa Fe, NM 87502, telefono 505·827·0424 o por correo e/ectr6n/co juancar/os.borrego@state.nm.us. Los usuanos de TDY par favor comunfquense a su numero por media de Ia Red de Relevo de Nuevo Mexico a/1-800·659·8331. · AI termino de Ia audlencla, Ia Junta podra tamar una decis/6n acerca de Ia revisi6n propuesta al reglamento, o tambien podran acordar en otra reuni6n despues de Ia audiencia para considerar acci6n sabre Ia propuesta. Journal: November 2, 2014



## NMED EXHIBIT 6b

### CLA-22-A (R-1193) 

# AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF NEW MEXICO County of Bernalillo 

# ss Linda MacEachen, being duly sworn, declares and says that she is Classified Advertising Manager of 

### The Albuquerque Journal, and that this newspaper is duly qualified to publish legal notices or advertisements within the meaning of Section 3, Chapter 167, Session Laws of 1937, and that payment therefore has been made of assessed as court cost; that the notice, copy of which is hereto attached, was publthed in said paper in tJte regular daily edition, for------\- times, the first publication being on the 

## tJ- 1 '\J 

### day of 

## Y\Olil\'1'\**~.** 

## , 

## 2o_li, and the subsequent consecutive publications on 

# -+-\;{\RW-, -.

# -.~--. 

# _w __ ,2o_.

Sworn and subscribed before me, a Notary Public, in and for:,_the County of Bernalillo and State of New Mexico this



# Y day of 

## Y\**()J~M ~**  of 20tl_. 

## <t' ,'1

# c::I"'

. t>3 PRICE

_______**~?_oz** 

### ___ - __



### 1

__________**~----** 

### Statement to come at end of month. ACCOUNT NUMBER

# _\_:b:.....Q=-q-_G_9_-~-"- __ _

### Butt, Neal, NMENV From: Sent: To: Butt, Neal, NMENV Monday, November 10, 2014 9:19AM Butt, Neal, NMENV 

### Subject: New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board
- Notice Of Rulemaking Hearing 

### Categories:



## Air Quality Bureau Announcement Regarding Rules


# I.J/!Regulatory andState Implementation Plan Developments andActions

TheNew Mexico Environmental Improvement Board ("Board") will hold a public hearing on January 23, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. at the Old PERA Building, Apodaca Hall, 1120 Paseo De Peralta, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87504. Thepurpose ofthe hearing is to consider the matter ofEIB 14-05 (R), a proposed amendment ofthe New Mexico State Implementation Plan ("SIP") regarding 20.2.1 NMAC, General Provisions. Theproponent ofthis regulatory amendment is the New Mexico Environment Department ("NMED"). The purpose ofthe public hearing is to consider and take possible action on a petition from the NMED to amend 20.2.1 NMAC. The purpose ofproposed amendments to 20.2.1 NMAC is to codify the Department's authority to request and receive documents required from regulated sources in an electronic format. The proposed amendments will also address potential problems encountered with electronic reporting due to problems with computer systems and internet service providers. The proposed amendments will also include minor coiTections to formatting and style. Upon adoption by the Board, the amended 20.2.1 NMAC would be submitted to EPA for incorporation into New Mexico's SIP. The full text ofNMED's proposed revised regulation is available on the Air Quality Bureau's web site at www.nmenv.state.mn.us/aqb/prop regs.html orby contacting Neal Butt at 505-476-4317 or neal.butt@state.nm.us

. The proposed revised regulation may also be examined during office hours at the Air Quality Bureau office, 525 Camino de los Marquez, Suite 1, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87505. All interested persons will be given a reasonable opportunity at the hearing to submit relevant evidence, data, views and arguments, orally or in writing, to introduce exhibits, and to examine witnesses. Persons wishing to present technical testimony must file with the Board a written Notice oflntent to present technical testimony. Notices oflntent for the hearing must be received in the Office ofthe Board not later than 5:00pm on January 2, 2015, and should reference the docket number, EIB 14-05 (R), and the date ofthe hearing. Notices oflntent to present technical testimony should be submitted to: Pam Castaneda, Board Administrator Environmental Improvement Board ?. 0. 

### Box 5469 

## NMED EXHIBIT 6c

### Santa Fe, NM 87502 Phone: (505) 827-2425, Fax (505) 827-0310 Any member ofthe general public may testifY at the hearing. No prior notification is required to present nontechnical testimony at the hearing. Any such member may also offer exhibits in connection with their testimony, so long as the exhibit is not unduly repetitious ofthe testimony. A member ofthe general public who wishes to submit a written statement for the record, in lieu ofproviding oral testimony at the hearing, shall file the written statement prior to the hearing, or submit it at the hearing. Persons w/ a disability and needing help in being a pa1i ofthis hearing process should contact Juan Carlos Bonego ofthe NMED Human Resources Bureau by January 13,2015 at P.O. Box 26110, 1190 St. Francis Drive, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87502, telephone 505-827-0424 or e-mail juancarlos.boiTegQ@state.nm.us. TDY users please access his number via the New Mexico Relay Network at 1-800-659-8331. The Board may make a decision on the proposed revised regulation at the conclusion ofthe hearing, or the Board may convene a meeting after the hearing to consider action on the proposal.

New Mexico Environment Department Air Quality Bureau 525 Camino de los Marquez, Suite 1 Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87505-1816 Proposed Air**Qualit~ulations** 

### and Plans (505) 476-4300

To unsubscribe from from this AQB list, or subscribe to another one, visit this link. Ifyou would like to opt out ofALL ofthe AQB lists and not receive any more emails from this listserve, visit Unsubscribe. To forward this message to someone please use this link.

2

### Nenr Mexico Register I 

### Volume XXV, Number 21/November 13,2014 735 

# Notices ofRulemaking and Proposed Rules NE\VMEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT BOARD NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL HviPROVEMENT BOARD NOTICE OF RULEMAKING HEARING The New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board ("Board") will hold a public hearing on January 23,2015 at 10:00 a.m. at the Old PERA Building, Apodaca Hall, I 120 Pasco De Peralta, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87504. The purpost! ofthe hearino- is to consider the matter ofEIB 14-05

## (R), a proposed amendment ofthe New Mexico State Implementation Plan ("SIP"') regarding 20.2.1 NMAC, General Provisions. The proponent ofthis regulatory amendment is the New Mexico Environment Department ("'NMED"). The purpose of01e public hearing is to consider and take possible action on a petition from the NMED to amend 20.2.1 NMAC. The purpose ofproposed amendments to 20.2.1 NMAC is to codify the Department's authority to request and receive documents required from reoulated sources in an electronic format. "'The proposed amendment would stipulate that: pursuant to the Cross-}vfedia Electronic ReportingRule (CROMERR) as defined by Title 40 ofthe Code of federal Regulations (CFR) Part 3: and the Uniform Electronic 1i·ansactionsAct, NMSA 1978, §§ 14-16-l to -21 {2001 as amended through 2013); any submittal to the department required by any part under Chapter 2, Air Quality (Statewide), ofTitle 20, Environmental Protection, ofthe New iv!cxico Administrative Code, for which the department has notified persons subject to the applicable requirement that it is accepting specified electronic documents in lieu ofpaper, shall be submitted electronically, provided that the method ofsubmittal complies with applicable federal and state standards for electronic submissions. The department may grant a waiver ofthis requirement on a case-bycase basis ifrequested by the regulated source. The proposed amendments will also address potential problems encountered with electronic reporting due to problems with computer systems and internet service providers. The proposed amendments will also include minor corrections to fonnatting and style. Upon adoption by the Board, the amended 20.2.1 Nl'viAC would be submitted to EPA for incorporation into New Mexico's SIP. The full text ofNMED's proposed revised regulation is available on the Air Quality Bureau's web site at http://www.nmenv. state.nm.us/aqb/prop_rcgs.html or by contacting Neal Butt at 505-476-4317 or neal.butt@state.nm.us

. The proposed revised regulation may also be examined during office hours at the Air Quality Bureau ofilce, 525 Camino de los Marquez. Suite 1, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87505. The hearing 

### will be conducted in accordance with 20.1.1 NMAC, Rulemaking Procedures- EnvironmemalImprovement Board, the Environmental Improvement Act, NMSA 1978, Section 74-1-9, the Air Quality ControlAct, NMSA 1978, Section 74-2-6, and other applicable procedures. All interested persons will be given a reasonable opportunity at the hearing to submit relevant evidence, data, views and arguments, orally orin writing, to introduce exhibits, and to examine witnesses. Persons wishing to present technical testimony must file with the I3oard a written notice ofintent to do so. The notice ofintent shall: {l) idcntif:.V the person for whom the witness{es) will testify; (2) identity each technical witness that the person intends to present and stale the qualifications ofthe witness, including a description oftheir education and work background; (3) include a copy ofthe direct testimony of each technical witness in narrative (4) list and attach each exhibit anticipated to be offered by that person at the hearing; and {5) attach the text ofany recommended modifications to the proposed new and revised regulations. Notices ofintent for the hearing must be received in the Office ofthe Board not later than 5:00pm on January 2, 2015, and should reference the docket number. EIB 14-05 (R), and the date ofthe hearing. Notices ofIntent to present technical testimony should be submitted to: Pam Castaneda, Board Administrator Environmental Tmprovement Board P. 0. Box 5469 Santa Fe, NM 87502 Phone: (505} 827-2425, Fax (505) 827-03 !0 Any member ofthe general public may testilY at the hearing. No prior notification is required to present non-technical testimony at the hearing. Any such member may also oflcr exhibits in connection with their testimony, so long as the exhibit is not unduly repetitious ofthe testimony. 

## NMED EXHIBIT 6d A member ofthe general public who wishes to submit a written statement for the record, in lieu ofproviding oral testimony at the hearing. shall file the written statement prior to the hearing. or submit it at the hearing. Persons having a disability and needing help in being a part ofthis hearing process should contact Juan Carlos Borrego of the NMED Human Resources Bureau by January 13, 2015 at P.O. Box 26110, 1190 St. Francis Drive, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87502, telephone 505-827-0424 or e-mail juancarlos.borrego@state.nm.us. TDY users please access his number via the New Mexico Relay Network at 1-800-659-8331. The Board may make a decision on the proposed revised regulation at the conclusion ofthe hearing, or the Board may convene a meeting after the hearing to consider action on the proposal. 

### NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF FINANCEAND ADMINISTRATION NEW MEXICO COMJ'v!UNITY

DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING The New Mexico Community Development Council {Council) through the Department ofFinance and Administration gives notice that the Council will conduct a public hearing at Room 317 ofthe New Mexico State Capitol, 411 State Capitol, Santa Fe, New Mexico on Thursday, December 4, 2014, at l0:00a.m. The purpose ofthe public hearing will be to obtain input to the proposed amendments to 2.110.2 NMAC Small Cities Community Development Block Grant. Interested individuals may provide comments at the public hearing and/or submit writtt::n comments to Jolene Slowen, Bureau Chief, Community Development Bureau, Local Government Division, Department ofFinance and Administration, via email atJolcncM.Slowcnrpstate. nm.us, fax (505) 827-4948, or directed to Ms. Slowen at Department ofFinance and Administration, Local Government Division, Bataan Memorial Building Room 202, Santa Fe, New Mexico 8750I. Written comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 3, 2014. TI1c submission ofwritten comments as soon as possible is encouraged. Copies ofthe proposed rules may be accessed on the Department's website (http:!/www.nmdfa.srate.nm.u;;L), or

# Ne'v Mexico Con1mission ofPublic Records Administrative La'v Division 1205 Camino Carlos Rey Santa Fe, NM 87507 505-476-7907 

# Affidavit ofPublication in !he_

# New Mexit?o_Register I, Matthew Ortiz , certify that the agency noted below has published legal notices or rules in the NewMexico Register, and that payment has been assessed by invoice for said legal notice orpublication, which appeared on the date and in the volume and issue number noted below. Date ofPublication: 

### 11/13/2014 Agency: Volume: XXV Issue# : 21 Environment Department- Air Qual Bureau Contact: Neal Butt Invoice#: 

### NMR-2015- 89 Amount: $55.00 Description: Notice



### (seal) 525 Camino de los Marquez Santa Fe, NM 87505-

Notice ofRulcmaking Hearing



### State ofNew Mexico, County ofSanta Fe Signed and affirmed before me on Friday, November 

### 14,2014 by Matthew Ortiz __{) 

## Notary

# Publ~c:**--0--~** _W_C)_o«-.:J=-c<--- Louise 

### Wood/ 

## j [My comu1 'ssion,:xpires: 

# c;= I 

## :C /

# J ] -r/ 

# I /L 

# ;'-,lc:' Affiant: / L / 

## --c; Publisher,lzvew

### Afexico

## R~gis;e-;---\-----D-a_t_e--:-1-11-14-/-20.14 -Copies of thepublishedmaterial documented in !his affidavit are enclosedForm SRC-2002-04 Revised July 2007Stakeholder Comments on Draft Amendments to 20.2.1 General Provisions 8/26/14 Received Respond Name Comment Response



### Thank you for your interest. The intent of this rule amendment is to facilitate and encourage the electronic submittal of required information and permit applications in lieu of paper by regulated sources. To take full advantage of the potential speed, efficiency, accuracy and economy that is afforded by submitting information electronically, "electronic submittal" will be done online and not via magnetic or optical media. In addition, CROMERR "does not apply to electronic documents submitted via magnetic or optical media such as diskette, compact disc, digital video disc, or tape in satisfaction of reporting requirements, as permitted under other parts ofTitle 40 or under authorized programs."[40 CFR 3.1.(b).(2)]. During the transition of the permitting program's acceptance of paper submittals to electronic submittals, the AQB will continue the Bill Blankenship current practice of accepting paper submittals with CD backup. Chemical Thank you for the draft proposal to review. I am The AQB's position is that the amendment to 20.2.1 NMAC, Engineer wondering how this relates to NSR or Title V permit 

### General Provisions, will augment the AQB's current authority to 505-665-0823 applications. As of now, we submit paper copies accept electronic submittals, to also allow permit applications to 505-690-2021 with an e-copy on disk as well. Am I correct this be submitted online, without necessitating any amendment to cell does meet the definition of "electronic reporting"? 20.2.70 NMAC, 

### Operating Permits, or 20.2.72 NMAC, bblankenship@l Will the Bureau be amending either permit rules or 

### Construction Permits. Possible changes to the current permit 7/16/2014 7/18/201 anl.gov permit guidance to allow true electronic filing of guidance will be considered to address electronic submittal.

, e-mail 4, e-mail permit applications?



## NMED EXHIBIT 7

### We got an announcement from the Bureau asking for any input to the proposed changes to 20.2.1. Could you tell me briefly what this description means in regards to permit applications? [



### ...] 

### I am hung up on the term "electronic reports and applications". We include a copy of permit applications on a disk with the paper copy. Is this an "electronic application", or is something else in the works for future direct submittal of permit applications with no paper copy? I understand the responde primary purpose ofthe revisions is to gain EPA d to in approval, just need to know any changes coming 7/17/14e- above e- our way from the proposal. mail mail ibid responded to in above e-mail

We hope to go into 'production' in early Fall. This means that we This is very clear. Do you have any estimate in will use the software internally to help debug it. Depending on 7/18/2014 7/23/201 regards to when the Bureau will be ready to start the debugging efforts necessary, we hope roll it out to limited

, e-mail 4, e-mail ibid accepting electronic submittals? consultants and facilities in the Winter.

### (Paraphrased) While the amendment is small, the implcations are great. Electronic submittal will be a benefit for both the source and the AQB. But in order to accept permits electronically, the AQB must have its program approved by EPA, which entails a regulatory amendment to clarify our authority. To get an idea of what is involved in an approved electronic submittal program, you can review the EPA's CROMERR website. The electronic (Paraphrased) What are the details of this proposal? submittal system will be more interactive than just copying the What are the new requirements for submitting current application from the CD onto the website. Using the new documents electronically? Will it be more work for submittal system may require some extra work in the beginning, Bruce the source? Will the source be able to hire a but it will save work in the end. This may be especially true for a Nickelson, Air consultant to complete the online application? modification or update, because the information will already be Quality Services How will an online permit application differ from an in the system. Ifyou want to discuss the intricacies of the 

### 8/1/2014, 8/1/2014, Inc., Santa Fe, electronic copy on CD? How will the electronic electronic aspect ofthe program, please contact Robert phone call phone call 

### 982-2737 submittal system work? Samaniego

### Here are the comments I mentioned previously. As you can see, they are not too extensive, and I hope that they will be considered in the Department's proposal. Thank you for your consideration. § 20.2.1.117 ELECTRONIC REPORTING AND PERMIT 

### Thank you for your comments. Is your firm representing anyone APPLICATIONS. 

### in particular? The draft rule language mandates submission of data in electronic form, but only documents "for The Air Quality Bureau (AQB) is in agreement that: "It is essential which the department is accepting specified that the regulated community be provided with adequate notice electronic documents in lieu of paper." The draft by NMED regarding acceptable forms of reports and submissions rule, however, does not identify how the [

...]". To ensure that those sources that may be subject to the department will notify persons subject to the proposed rule are notified, the AQB will be conducting outreach requirements ofTitle 20 Chapter 2 when NMED is to stakeholders, including notification on the AQB website, accepting specified electronic documents in lieu of through e-mail notifications and through public notice(s). paper and what form of electronic submission is acceptable. It is essential that the regulated In regards to your first suggested change, that persons subject to community be provided with adequate notice by this proposed rule are notified before they are required to NMED regarding acceptable forms of reports and comply with the proposed rule; the AQB finds merit in this submissions when failure to comply with applicable suggestion and is considering incorporating this language into the requirements can be subject to substantial next draft. penalties. Furthermore, the rule as written does not make Since the second suggested change appears to simply be a list of clear the process by which the Department is to potential methods the AQB could take to notify the public, we Dalva notify stakeholders as to whether or not it is have determined that it is not appropriate to include in the rule Moellenberg, "accepting" electronic submissions for specified language. We believe the first revision is sufficient. Gallagher & categories of documents. Consequently, we 8/22/14, e 8/29/14 e Kennedy, Santa propose that the proposed language for Thank you for your interest, mail mail Fe, 989-8223 20.2.1.117(A) NMAC be revised as follows:20.2.1.117 ElECTRONIC REPORTING AND PERMIT APPLICATIONS. A. Applicability. 

### Pursuant to the Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) as defined by Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 3, and the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, NMSA 311978, §§ 14-16-1 

### to -21 (2001 as amended through 2013), any submittal to the department required by any part under Chapter 

### 2, Air Quality (Statewide), ofTitle 20, Environmental Protection, ofthe New Mexico Administrative Code, for which the department is has notified persons subject to the applicable reo.uirement that it is accepting specified electronic documents in lieu of paper, shall be submitted electronically, provided that the method of submittal complies with applicable federal and state standards for electronic submissions. Notification bv the department may be made through a Qermit condition, a reQort!ng form QUblished 

### b:t the department, to an individual Qerson in writing or on the de12artment's website and shall identif'L the form qr 

### forms of acceptable electronic submissions. The department may grant a waiver of this requirement on a case-by-case basis ibid ibid ibid if requested by the regulated source.

### Butt, Neal, NMENV From: Sent: To: Walser, John <Walser.John@epa.gov> Monday, September 15, 2014 3:52 PM Butt, Neal, NMENV 

### Cc: Singleton,Kerwin, NMENV; Donaldson, Guy; Young, Carl; Olszewski, Joshua; Ruple, Rhonda; Smith, Monica; Welton, Patricia 

### Subject: RE: Notice of Availability of EPA Review Draft, 20.2.1 NMAC General Provisions (re: CROMERR) 

### Categories: EPA

Hello Neal, We have looked at the revision to 20.2.1 NMAC General Provisions and have no comments to offer. Josh Olzewski in our Office of Regional Counsel has also reviewed this and has no concerns with the revisions as presented. Thanks again, John Mr. John Walser 

## I Physical Scientist Air Planning Section U.S. EPA Region 6, 6PD-L 1445 Ross Ave., Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75202-2733 Email: walser.john@f.Q.a.g_ov Tel: 214-665-7128 

## I Fax: 214-665-6762

From: Butt, Neal, NMENV [mailto:Neai.Butt@state.nm.us] 

### Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 4:17PM To: Walser, John 

### Cc: Singleton,Kerwin, NMENV 

### Subject: FW: Notice of Availability of EPA Review Draft, 20.2.1 NMAC, General Provisions {re: CROMERR)

Will you be providing any comments in addition to those below? Thank you,



### from: Seeh, Karen**[mailto:Seeh.Karen~QQY]** 

### Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:34PM 

### To: Butt, Neal, NMENV**~c:** Singleton,Kerwin, NMENV; Samaniego, Robert, NMENV; Ruple, Rhonda 

### ;ubject: FW: Notice of Availability of EPA Review Draft, 20.2.1 NMAC, General Provisions (re: CROMERR)



## NMED EXHIBIT 8NealEPA's Region 6 air counsel team reviewed this document and had no comments on the language itself but -from an implementation standpoint-- did take note that it seems e-re porting will be required once this is enacted? Here are their comments:

1 looked over the new draft section 20.2.1.117**{EI(~ctronic** Reporting and Permit Applications) which vvould be added to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). I'm fine with the draft revision. It does not conflict with the Clean Air Act or the current 

### Sl') and references CROI\iERR. 

### if adopted one thing this means is that a facility will need to submit its air emissions report and certification to NMED electronically, unless they have a waiver.

Would you all like to resume work on your draft CROMERR applications? I don't know ifyou all are potentially open to or have already been looking at new approaches from what you were working on before, but there's now an approved COTS system for SIP air emissions reporting. With a system like this, there's very little that the state needs to document for the CROMERR application- meaning approvals typically can be quick. Or I don't know if perhaps NM has any plans for a system to cover electronic reporting under all EPA-authorized programs {as well as state reports)- for states that have a lot of authorized programs, most are opting for an "enterprise" approved. Please let us know how we can help. Regards, Karen Seeh CROMERR Program Manager U.S. EPA Office of Environmental Information 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460 Room 6408]
- EPA West (2823T) Phone: 202-566-1175 Fax: 202-566-1684 Email: seeh.karen@epa.gov http://www.epa.gov/cromerr

From: Butt, Neal, NMENV [mailto:Neai.Butt@state.nm.us] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 5:47PM To: Seeh, Karen; Ruple, Rhonda 

### Cc: Singleton,Kerwin, NMENV; Samaniego, Robert, NMENV Subject: FW: Notice ofAvailability of EPA Review Draft, 20.2.1 NMAC, General Provisions (re: CROMERR) Dear Ms. Seeh and Ruple, I attempted to copy Ms. Evi Huffer on this communique, but it bounced back, so I am forwarding it along to you for your information. Thank you, 2Neal T. Butt Environmental Scientist 

### & Specialist NMED- Air Quality Bureau (505) 476-4317 (505} 476-4375 (FAX} 525 Camino de los Marquez, Suite 1B Santa Fe, NM 87505-1816 

### From: Butt, Neal, NMENV 

### Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 3:14PM 

### To: John Walser (Walser.john@Epa.gov) 

### Cc: Evi Huffer (Huffer.Evi@epamail.epa.gov); Singleton,Kerwin, NMENV; Verheul, John, NMENV 

### Subject: Notice of Availability of EPA Review Draft, 20.2.1 NMAC, General Provisions (re: CROMERR) Good Afternoon John, The Air Quality Bureau is drafting revisions to 20.2.1 NMAC- 

### General Provisions, to allow for electronic reporting of submittals in compliance with EPA's 

### Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR). Proposed draft rule revisions are attached. We request comments from EPA by September 12, 2014 so that we can prepare a petition for a hearing to the Environmental Improvement Board for a hearing this winter. Please let me know ifyou have any comments or need additional information. Thank you,



### Neal T. Butt Environmental Scientist & 

### Specialist NMED -Air Quality Bureau (505) 476-4317 (505) 476-4375 (FAX) 525 Camino de los Marquez, Suite 1B Santa Fe, NM 87505-1816

3

### Butt, Neal, NMENV From: Sent: To: 

### Cc: Subject:
Categories:

Good day Karen, Samaniego, Robert, NMENV Thursday, September 18, 2014 10:20 AM Seeh.Karen@epa.gov Butt, Neal, NMENV; Singleton,Kerwin, NMENV; Verheul, John, NMENV; Bates, Rita, NMENV; Schooley, Ted, NMENV; Ely, Sandra, NMENV Re: Notice of Availability of EPA Review Draft, 20.2.1 NMAC, General Provisions (re: CROMERR) EPA

As we discussed yesterday, we are intending to resume work on our CROMERR application. The approved COTS system for SIP air emissions reporting that you mention below will not be useful to us since we already have custom built applications that address annual emissions inventory and excess emissions reporting. We do have plans to develop a system for electronic reporting under a number of EPA-authorized air programs. Therefore our CROMERR application will request "enterprise" approval as you mentioned in your email below. Ifyou have any questions, let me know. Thanks.

Robert A. Samaniego Major Sources Permitting Program Manager New Mexico Environment Department I Air Quality Bureau 525 Camino de Los Marquez- Suite 1 I Santa Fe, NM, 87505 Phone: (505) 476-4360 I Cell: (505) 467-9457 I Fax: (505) 476-4375 Email: robert.samaniego@state.nm.us Please consider the environment before printing this e mail. 

### From: Seeh, Karen [mailto:Seeh.Karen@epa.gg_y] 

### Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:34PM To: Butt, Neal, NMENV Cc: Singleton,Kerwin, NMENV; Samaniego, Robert, NMENV; Ruple, Rhonda 

### Subject: FW: Notice of Availability of EPA Review Draft, 20.2.1 NMAC, General Provisions (re: CROMERR)NealEPA's Region 6 air counsel team reviewed this document and had no comments on the language itself but -from an implementation standpoint-- did take note that it seems e-reporting will be required once this is enacted? Here are their comments:

I looked over the new draft section 20.2.1.117 (Electronic Reporting and Permit Applications) which would be added to the State Implementation Plan (SIP}. I'm fine with the draft revision. It does not conflict with the Clean Air Act or the current SIP and references CROIV!ERR.If adopted one thing this means is that a facility will need to submit its air emissions report and certiFication to**I'Ji\~ED** electronically, unless they have a waiver.

Would you all like to resume work on your draft CROMERR applications? I don't know ifyou all are potentially open to or have already been looking at new approaches from what you were working on before, but there's now an approved COTS system for SIP air emissions reporting. With a system like this, there's very little that the state needs to document for the CROMERR application- meaning approvals typically can be quick. Or I don't know if perhaps NM has any plans for a system to cover electronic reporting under all EPA-authorized programs (as well as state reports)- for states that have a lot of authorized programs, most are opting for an "enterprise" approved. Please let us know how we can help. Regards, Karen Seeh CROMERR Program Manager U.S. EPA Office of Environmental Information 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460 Room 6408J
- EPA West (2823T) Phone: 202-566-1175 Fax: 202-566-1684 Email: seeh.karen@epa.QQY. http://www.epa.gov/cromerr From: Butt, Neal, NMENV [mailto:Neai.Butt@state.nm.us] 

### Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 5:47PM To: Seeh, Karen; Ruple, Rhonda 

### Cc: Singleton,Kerwin, NMENV; Samaniego, Robert, NMENV 

### Subject: FW: Notice of Availability of EPA Review Draft, 20.2.1 NMAC, General Provisions (re: CROMERR} Dear Ms. Seeh and Ruple, I attempted to copy Ms. Evi Huffer on this communique, but it bounced back, so I am forwarding it along to you for your information. Thank you, Neal T. Butt Environmental Scientist & Specialist NMED- Air Quality Bureau (505} 476-4317 (505} 476-4375 (FAX} 525 Camino de los Marquez, Suite 18 Santa Fe, NM 87505-1816 

### From: Butt, Neal, NMENV 

### Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 3:14PM 

### To: John Walser (Walser.john@Epa.oov)
2

### Cc: Evi Huffer (Huffer.Evi@epamail.epa.gov); Singleton,Kerwin, NMENV; Verheul, John, NMENV 

### Subject: Notice of Availability of EPA Review Draft, 20.2.1 NMAC, General Provisions (re: CROMERR) Good Afternoon John, The Air Quality Bureau is drafting revisions to 20.2.1 NMAC- General Provisions, to allow for electronic reporting of submittals in compliance with EPA's Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR). Proposed draft rule rev·rs'rons are attached. We request comments from EPA by September 12, 2014 so that we can prepare a petition for a hearing to the Environmental Improvement Board for a hearing this winter. Please let me know ifyou have any comments or need additional information. Thank you,



### Neal T. Butt Environmental Scientist & 

### Specialist NMED- Air Quality Bureau (505) 476-4317 (505) 476-4375 (FAX) 525 Camino de los Marquez, Suite 1B Santa Fe, NM 87505-1816

3

# Attorney General ofNew Mexico GARYK.IUNG Attorney General

John Verheul, Esq. Assistant General Counsel NM Environment Department 1190 Saint Francis Drive PO Box 5469 Santa Fe, NM 87502-5469 Re: Special Commission Dear Mr. Verheul: December 8, 2014 ELIZABETHA. GLENN 

### ChiefDeputyAttorney General



### Effective the date of the request, Attorney General Gary K. King appoints you a Special Assistant Attorney General for the sole purpose of representing the New Mexico Environment Department ("NMED") for the purpose of certifYing to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that the NMED Air Quality Control Bureau has the legal authority to enforce its authorized programs using electronically submitted documents. This commission and title should be used only in connection with the aforementioned representation and for no other purpose and may be revoked at any time for failure to comply with the conditions described in this letter or as deemed appropriate by the Attorney General in his sole discretion. This commission shall automatically terminate on the date this case is ultimately resolved, the date your employment with NMED is terminated, or the expiration of Attorney General King's term ofoffice, whichever occurs first. Please refer to the enclosed Revised Litigation Protocol specifYing the Attorney General-state agency relationship. Your commission is expressly conditioned upon adherence with the requirements of the protocol. We trust that you will assist us in implementing the protocol in a timely and efficient manner. We request that you advise Scott Fuqua, Litigation Division Director, prior to initiating or responding to any unusual or significant matters during the course of the above specified case. Upon notification, we will determine whether it is necessary to impart any authority beyond that granted to you by this commission or otherwise act to resolve the matter. Thank you for your cooperation and efforts to protect the best interests ofNew Mexico and its citizens.

P.O. Drawer 1508 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-1508 (505) 827-6000 www.nmag.gQY 

## NMED EXHIBIT 9

### Sincerely,

# ~cj}}tjQ, cy(

# ~,!/1~ ELIZABETH GLENN /

# ~ ChiefDeputy Attorney General enclosure

cc: Jeffrey Kendall, General Counsel, NMED Scott Fuqua, Litigation Division Director, AGO

## NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT 

## Office of General Counsel

SUSANA MARTINEZ Governor JOHN A. SANCHEZ Lieutenant Governor 

### Harold Runnels Building 1190 Saint Francis Drive (87505) PO Box 5469, Santa Fe, NM 87502-5469 Phone (505) 827-2990 Fax (505) 827-1628



### To:

From: Date: www.nmenv.state.nm.u.s Ryan Flynn, General Counsel



### MEMORANDUM Richard Goodyear, Acting Bureau Chief, AQB Debra McElroy, Program Manager, AQB Robert Samaniego, Sr. Environmental Compliance Specialist, AQB Jennifer 

### L. Hower, Assistant General Counsel

# ~~~ April24, 2012 

# 0 , DAVE MARTIN Cabinet Secretary BUTCHTONGATE Deputy Secretary



### Subject: Legal Analysis ofState Authority to Implement Electronic Submittal Programs

SUMMARY 

### All U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")-authorized state programs that accept required submittals electronically in lieu ofpaper submittals must comply with the federal Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule ("CROM:ERR"). CROMERR establishes requirements for the acceptance ofelectronic submittals. States that have existing electronic submittal programs, along 

### with states that would like to accept electronic submittals, arerequired to submit an application to the EPA for approval ofsuch programs. The Air Quality Bureau ("AQB") has several existing submittal programs that need to be approved by EPA. The AQB is also seeking approval ofa program for the electronic submittal ofpermitting documents. This legal memorandum addresses whether the state has the authority to implement such electronic submittal programs. Based on the following research, the AQB has the statutory and regulatory authority to accept electronic submittals ofexcess emissions reporting and emissions inventory data. It is less clear whether the Air Quality Bureau currently has the authority to accept permitting submittals electronically. There are also several other issues such as confidentiality and adherence to state Electronic Records rules that must be taken into consideration when planning electronic submittal programs. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

### The final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule was published in the Federal Register on October 13, 2005. 70 Fed. Reg 59848 (October 13, 2005). The rule was promulgated to 1 

## NMED EXHIBIT 10

### ensure that documents submitted electronically "are as legally dependable as their paper counterparts.'; 70 Fed. Reg. 59850. The final rule mandated numerous categories ofstandards that state govemments utilizing electronic submittal systems would have to satisfy, including: 1) timeliness ofdata generation (40 CFR 3.2000(b)); 2) copy ofrecord (40 CFR 3.2000(b)); 3) integrity ofthe electronic document (40 CFR 3.2000(b)(l)-(2)); 4) submission knowingly (40 CFR 3.2000(b )(3)); 5) opportunity to review and repudiate copy ofrecord ( 40 CFR 3.2000(b)(4)); 6) validity ofthe electronic signature (40 CFR 3.2000(b)(5)(i)); 7) binding the signature to the document (40 CFR 3.2000(b)(5)(ii)); 8) opportunity to review ( 40 CFR 3.2000(b)(5)(iii)); 9) nnderstanding the act ofsigning (40 CFR 3.2000(b)(5)(iv)); 10) the electronic signature or subscriber agreement (40 CFR 3.2000(b)(5)(v)); 11) acknowledgement of receipt (40 CFR 3.2000(b)(5)(vi)); and 12) determining the identity ofthe individual uniquely entitled to use a signature device (40 CFR 3.2000(b)(5)(vii)). States that actively utilize an electronic submittal program in lieu ofpaper docu1nents or are planning on implementing such a program must provide an application to the EPA to ensure that the electronic program meets the requirements ofCROMERR. 70 Fed. Reg. 59882 (citing 40 CFR 3.1000(a)(1)). States with electronic programs in existence upon the publication ofthe final rule had until October 13, 2007 to submit a CROMERR application to the EPA. 70 Fed. Reg. 59882 (citing 40 CPR 3.1000(a)(3)).

ANALYSIS 

### One ofthe requisites ofthe EPA CROMERR application is that the state Attorney General must certify that the state has sufficient legal authority to implement electronic reporting. The New Mexico Air Pollution Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 

### 74-2-1 to -22, does not specify the manner 

### in which repmis and applications must be submitted to the AQB. Therefore, one must look to the New Mexico Administrative Code ("NMAC") to determine ifthe specific rules for each submittal allowfor electronic submission. The Air Quality regulations found within the NMAC me promulgated by the Environmental Improvement Bomd ("EIB"). 

### In addition to the Air Quality regulations, otherNewMexico statutes may berefened to when seeking legal authority for electronic submittal programs. The following is a description ofcunent and future Air Quality Bureau electronic reporting programs, along with a discussion ofany specific legal authorities that would allow such electronic repmiing to occur. Emissions Inventories 

### The AQB**cu~Tently** 

### accepts emissions inventory reports via an online system. Therefore, it is obligated to submit a CROMERR application to the EPA. Requirements for emissions inventory reporting are contained in 20.2.73 NMAC. Fairly consistent language is used throughout, mandating that entities "shall submit an emissions report annually." See 

### 10.2.73.300.B(l), (2); 

### (3), (4); (6) and (7)NMAC. The regulations do notmandate the format in which the**repo~is** 

### should be submitted (e.g., written, electronic). So, it can be mgued based upon the regulatory language that any submission methodology required bythe AQB would be acceptable, giving the AQB the authority to accept emission inventories electronically. Additional language in suppmi ofelectronic submittals ofemissions inventory reporting can be found in the state statutes. The NewMexico legislature passed the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act ("UETA") in 2001. The UETA establishes standards for transactions that are 2

### to occur electronically. The UETA is applicable to both private and governmental entities. There are transactions that are exempt from the UETA, 

### but none ofthe exemptions would applyto the submittalsto be accepted bythe AQB. See 

### NMSA 1978, § 14-16-3(b). The VETA 

### does not mandate that governmental entities to utilize electronic records or signatures. NMSA 1978, § 14- 16-18(c). However, the UETA does allow that"

...each governmental agency ofthis state shall determine whether, and the extent to which, it will send and accept electronic records and electronic signatures to and from other persons and otherwise create, generate, communicate, store, process, use and rely upon electronic records and electronic signatures." NMSA 1978, 

## § 14-16-18(a). This language is permissive, in that it gives departments the option to allow for electronic records and submittals. However, as the Environmental Improvement Board has been provided with the statutory authority to adopt and promulgate the air quality regulations under NMSA 1978, § 74-2-5(B), it would be beneficial to gain approval by the EIB via a regulatory amendment ifthe AQB were going to solely rely on the UETA for its authority to implement an electronic submittal system. Excess Emissions Reporting 

### The requirements for excess emissions reporting are found in 20.2.7 NMAC. This portion ofthe air quality regulations specifically mentions electronic reporting, stating that "[t]he owner or operator ofa source having an excess emission shall report the following information to the department on forms provided by the department. The department may authorize the submittal of such reports in electronic format." 20.2.7.110.A NMAC. Thus, in the case ofexcess emissions reporting, the Environmental Improvement Board has explicitly allowed for the department to accept electronic submittals. Also, as in the previous discussion regarding emissions inventories, the UETA allows government agencies to determine whether it would like to accept electronic records submittals. But, to base the AQB's authority onthe UETA may require EIB approval through an amendment to the regulations. Since the EIB has already allowed for electronic excess emissions reporting, this would be duplicative and unnecessary. Cunently, excess emissions are being reported via e-mail. However, there are plans to implement an actual electronic submittal system for excess emissions. EPA representatives have told AQB staffthat e-mail submittals fall under CROMERR, and therefore necessitate an application. But, anEPA-issued CROMERR "Frequently Asked Questions" document states that "CROMERR does not affect the submission ofany electronic document via magnetic or optical media (e.g., diskette, compact disk, or tape) or via fax." 1 

### It could be argued that a submittal viaemail is no different than someone submitting the same information on a CD or via fax, and therefore a CROMERR application may not be necessary until a new electronic submittal system is implemented. The AQB would have to decide ifthis is an argument that it would like to put before the EPA Ifthe AQB plans on creating a new electronic submittal system for excess emissions then it will still be necessary to submit an application, but it would not be as time sensitive as one correlated to the e-mailed submittals. PermitApplications 

### The AQB currently does not accept pennit applications electronically. However, it is in the initial stages ofcreating a program which would allow the Bureau to accept such submittals. The permit application provisions ofthe air quality regulations provide specific language 

### in

1 httn:!/w"Vfi-v.epa.swv/CROMERRR/pdfiCROJvfERR F AQs Februarv 09.pdf(last viewed April24, 20 12).

### regards to submittals. For operating permits, 20.2.70.300.D NMAC states that "[a]nyperson seeking a pe1mit under this part shall do so by filing a written application with the department." The construction permitprovisions at 20.2.72.203.A NMAC contain similar language, stating "[a]nyperson seeking a permit under Subsection A of20.2.72.200 NMAC shall do so by filing a written application with the department." Both the operating and construction permit provisions also specify the number ofcopies to be submitted. The use ofthe term "written" makes the electronic submittal ofpetmitapplications somewhat more questionable, as itimplies that there will be the submittal of"hard copy" applications. This is suppmied by the fact that the regulations also specify that multiple copies of applications must be submitted foi" each permit, which would be unnecessary in an electronic, submittal system. However, The UETA provides that "[i]fa law requires a record to be in writing, and electronic record satisfies the law." NMSA 1978, § 

### 14-16-7(c). So, ifthe UETA applies to such electronic submittals, than the UETA seems to clear up the ambiguity ofthe permitting regulations in regards to the requirement for a written application. That being said, the Environmental Improvement Boardmay view the implementation ofan electronic submittal system for permit applications as the AQB circumventing the EIB's authority, since the EIB expressly adopted regulations that require written submittals. As it is bene.ficial for the AQB to maintain a good relationship with the EIB, the conservative approach would be to ptopose an amendment to the regulations that would allow for electronic submittal ofpermit applications;. OtherIssues Confidentiality It should be notedthat both the operating and construction pe1mit provisions ofthe Air Qualityregulations have clauses relating to confidential infonnation sub1nitted with pennit applications. See 20.2.70.301 and 20.2.72.204 NMAC. Ifthe permitting program opts to implement an electronic submittal program for permit applications, it will needto determine how to manage the submittal ofdocuments that permittees are claiming as confidential. Ifthe submittal program is going to have a searchable database that will be accessible to the public, it will need to find a way to isolate the electronic documents that are confirmed as confidential by the department. State Management ofElectronic Records Requirements Any electronic submittal systemthat the. AQB implements will have to adhere to the New Mexico Management ofElectronic Records regulations, 1.13 .3 NMAC. The Management of Electronic Records regulations have also been incorporated into an intemal NMED policy, 05- 02. Electronic submittal systems will have to be able to not only retain documents that are public records, but the system will also have to make the submittals retrievable in an easily accessible electronic fmmat. A system may comply with CROMERR requirements, but ifit does not adhere to requirements found in Management ofElectronic Records regulations it is out ofcompliance for the purpose ofstate requirements. Therefore, any system created needs to be designed to accommodate the state regulation requirements.



### 4CONCLUSION 

### The AQB has the statutory and regulatory authority to accept electronic submittals of excess emissions reporting and emissions inventory data. Itis less clear whether the Air Quality Bureau currently has the authority to accept permitting submittals electronically. Therefore, the AQB can proceed with its CROMERR applications for excess emissions and emissions inventory reporting, but it may want to contemplate proposing amendments to its permitting regulations to specifically allow for electronic submittals. Ifthe AQB chooses to follow that route, it would have to wait until the regulations were amended to proceed with the permitting CROMERR application. Additionally, it appears to be questionable as to whether the excess emissions reporting via e-mail is truly subject to CROMERR. It appears that there may be an argument that it is not, which would alleviate the immediacy ofthat specific CROMERR application. Finally, there are also several other issues such as confidentiality and adherence to state Electronic Records rules that must be taken into consideration when planning any electronic submittal programs.

5SUSANA MARTINEZ Governor JOHN A. SANCHEZ Lieutenant Governor 

## NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPARTJ\1ENT 

## Office of General Counsel

Harold Runnels Building 1190 Saint Francis Drive (87505) PO Box 5469, Santa Fe, NM 87502-5469 Phone (505) 827-2990 Fax (505) 827-1628 wvvw.nn1env.state.nm.us Jeffrey M. Kendall, General Counsel 

### MEMORANDUM To: Robert Samaniego, Field Inspections Section Supervisor, AQB Richard Goodyear, Bureau Chief, AQB From: Hess Yntema, Extern, Office ofGeneral Counsel RYAN FLYNN Cabinet Secretary-Designate BUTCHTONGATE Deputy Secretary



### Through: Date: Jennifer L. Hower, Deputy General Counsel, Office ofGeneral Counsel November

## X, 2013 RE: CROMERR Legal Analysis Addendum
Summary

. The Air Quality Bureau ("AQB") is currently planning to move forward with development ofnew web-based applications for the submittal ofelectronic reports. These report types include reports for Routine Report Submittals, Stack Testing Protocols and Reports, and Asbestos Notifications. In accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation ("CROMERR"), the AQB has requested a legal analysis to determine whether or not the AQB has sufficient authority to lawfully execute such changes. In a memorandum dated April24, 2012, Jennifer Hower, Deputy General Counsel, set out the basic rules, along with some concerns, associated with switching over to an electronic filing system. Ms. Hower noted different types oflanguage that appear in statutes and regulations in relation to granting the AQB authority to accept electronic submissions. Generally, there is language that is pennissive ofelectronic filing (where there is no formatting requirement for submissions), but there is also language within the current regulations (where the pertinent regulation requires a "written" submission) that does not grant authority. These passages would require a change ofregulatory language before the AQB would have proper authority to accept electronic filings. Many ofthe rules that this memo examines follow a similar pattern. Additionally, there are portions ofthe AQB's regulations that incorporate a federal rule in its entirety. Presently, the federal government is in the process ofamending its rules to allow for electronic submittals. This has been a piecemeal process over many years. As such, often the rule version adopted by NMED predates the federal government's adoption ofan electronic submittal standard. However, for the most part, NMED has the authority to accept electronic filings under federal regulations.



## NMED EXHIBIT 11

### In the past year, there have also been amendments to the state Uniform Electronic Transactions Act ("UETA"), NMSA 1978, §§14-16-1 to 21 (2013). As Ms. Hower noted, the UET A provides NMED with the authority to accept electronic submissions. This is still the case. While the UET A amendment eliminates language that determines to what extent an agency will permit the use ofelectronic records, the UET A allows for government agencies to issue their own rules. It is in the AQB's interest to have such agency-approved rules in place. In sum, while electronic filing is possible, there is a lack ofuniformity in the current regulations. The best solution to remedy this would be a small addition to the General Provisions section ofthe Air QualityRules, 20.2.1 NMAC. The addition would simply state that all required submittals to the department under the Air Quality Rules maybe submitted electronically, as long as the method ofsubmittal is in compliance with federal and state standards for electronic submissions. 

## Factual Background CROMERR establishes requirements for the acceptance ofelectronic submittals for documents mandated by the EPA and collected by states with primacy over specific federal envirorunental programs. States must seek approval from the EPA for both existing and new state electronic filing systems. Part ofthis approval process requires that the state Attorney General certify that NMED has sufficient legal authority to receive electronic filings. Authority to create an EPA-permissible electronic submittal system under CROMERR could either come from the legislature or from the Envirorunental Improvement Board ("EIB"), whom the legislature has given the statutory authority to "adopt, promulgate, publish, amend and repeal regulations consistent with the Air Quality Control Act to attain and maintain national ambient air quality standards and prevent or abate air pollution, including regulations prescribing air standards, within the geographic area ofthe envirorunental improvement board'sjurisdiction or the local board'sjurisdiction, or any part thereof' NMSA 1978, § 74-2-S(B)(l). This would presumably include the adoption ofregulations COITelated with the submittal ofcorrelated reporting. As Ms. Hower noted, the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act does not specify the manner in which applications and reports must be submitted. As such, the air quality regulations must be consulted. In addition, the UETA also establishes state standards for transactions that are to occur electronically. The contents ofthe UET A are not environment-specific, but instead apply to all state agencies pursuant to NMSA 1978, § 14-16-18. Therefore, UETA applies to NMED. Under the UETA, each government agency may issue rules that specify "the manner and format in which the electronic records must be created, generated, sent, communicated, received and stored and the systems established for those purposes." NMSA 1978, § 14-16-18(A). This language is slightly different from that which Ms. Hower cites. 1 

### This change is the result ofan amendment to the UETA from the 2013 legislative session. This amendment does not have a substantive effect on the conclusion ofeither Ms. Hower's memo or this memo. While the NMSA 1978, § 14-16- 18 directs the state records administrator to promulgate rules related to the UET A for all administrative agencies, the statute still provides NMED the authority to promulgate its own rules pertaining to the acceptance ofelectronic records. 

### See §14-16-18. ("[A] governmental

1 

### The version Ms. Hower cites states "each government agency ofthis state shall determine whether, and the extent to which, it will send and accept electronic records and electronic signatures to and from other persons and otherwise create, generate, communicate, store, process, use, and rely upon electronic records and electronic signature." NMSA 1978, §14-16- 18(A) (2012, amended 2013). 2

### agency, giving due consideration to security, may instead issue its own rules.") To date, no rules have been promulgated bythe state records administrator. However, in discussions with state records, they said that the earliest these rules would be proposed is July of2014. Analysis The following is a discussion ofthe specific legal authorities that allow or do not allow electronic reporting for the specific reporting categories provided by AQB in electronic correspondence to Jennifer Hower dated August 21, 2013. In keeping with the position from Ms. Hower's memo, this memo also assumes that the use ofthe term "written" within the air quality regulations makes the application ofthe UET A questionable. Ifthere is no specification, it is considered permissible to have an electronic submission. Additionally, the EIB has elected to adopt whole parts ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations ("C.F.R.") as they stand. Therefore authority to accept electronic submissions will be inferred from those parts as they were adopted. Routine Reporting Submittals Routine Reporting Submittals are submitted qumierly, semi-annually, or annually, depending on the applicable air quality regulations. These reports include Annual Compliance Certifications, required by 20.2.70.302E NMAC, periodic reports for gas sulfur emission, as found in 20.2.35 NMAC, and reports for refineries, pursuant to 20.2.36 NMAC. Similarly, there are a number offederal reporting requirements that are submitted to NMED. These reporting requirements are derived from 40 C.F.R. § 60 (201 0), Subparts A, Da, Db, J, KKK, QQQ, and 40 C.F.R. § 

### 63 (2010), Subparts A, CC, HH, and UUU. Finally, anticipated startup and actual startup reports are required by state in a number ofdifferent portions ofthe air quality regulations (see discussion below). While many ofthese reports can be submitted electronically under state and federal regulations, NMED does in fact lack the authority to accept a number ofthese reports under CROMERR's standards. Annual Compliance Reports 

### are required under 20.2.70.302.E NMAC, in the Operating Pennits p01iion ofthe air quality regulations. The reporting requirements of20.2.70.302.E NMAC simply require "reporting sufficient to assure and verify compliance with the tenns and conditions ofthe pennit and all applicable requirements, including all ofthe following." In particular, armual "compliance certifications shall be submitted to the administrator as well as to the department." 20.2.70.302.E(3) NMAC. Here there is no written requirement, whereas other sections ofthe same Part explicitly require written submittals. See"

.. .shall do so by filing a written application with the department." 20.2.70.300.D NMAC and "the permittee shall provide written notification to the department and the administrator." 20.2.70.302.H(l)(b) NMAC. As such, it appears that the absence ofa written requirement (especially since a written document is explicitly required in the same Part ofthe Chapter) and the provisions ofthe UETA would allow the AQB the authority to receive these submissions electronically. Reports for 

### gas sulfur emissions 

### are required under 20.2.35 NMAC. Specifically, "[t]he owner or operator ofa natural gas processing plant to which this Part applies shall submit to the Department quarterly reports." 20.2.35.112.A NMAC. There is no mention ofa written requirement in this provision. This may be distinguished from language used in 20.2.35.113.E NMAC, where the department "shall notify the applicant or petitioner and all interested persons who submitted written comments ofthe Department's action." (Emphasis added). As with 3

### Annual Compliance Reports, the EIB elected to mandate a written requirement for portions of the Part, but did not do so for periodic reports. As such, due to the UETA and the omission ofthe word "written," AQB presumablyhas authority to accept electronic submissions ofgas sulfur emissions reporting. Reports for Refineries are required under 20.2.36 NMAC. The language contained within the Part is very similar to that of20.2.35 NMAC, which was previously discussed. Specifically, it states that "[t]he owner or operator ofa petroleum refinery shall submit to the department quarterly reports." 20.2.36.113.A NMAC. Given the nearly identical language to 20.2.35 NMAC and the mandate ofthe UETA, it is safe to assume that electronic submissions of refinery reports are also acceptable. Periodic reports for New Source Performance Standards ("NSPS") and Maximum Achievable Control Technology Source Categories for Hazardous Air Pollutants ("NESHAP") are two Parts ofthe air qualityregulations that simply adopt federal regulations in their entirety, with limited exceptions. For NSPS, "[e]xcept as otherwise provided, the new source performance standards as promulgated by the United States environmental protection agency, 40 C.P.R.§ 60, as amended in the Federal Register through December 31, 2010 are herebyincorporated into this part [20.2.77 NMAC]. 20.2.77.9 NMAC. Similarly, for NESHAP, "[e]xcept as otherwise provided in section 20.2.82.10 NMAC, the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for source categories as promulgated bythe US EPA, 40 C.P.R. § 63, as amended in the Federal Register through December 31, 2010 are hereby incorporated into this part (20.2.82 NMAC)." 20.2.82.8 NMAC. In this instance, the pure adoption ofthe federal code creates the problem ofwhether the AQB has authority to accept electronic submittals. There is no mention in the state regulations about what would be an acceptable means ofreceiving such submissions related to NSPS and NESHAP. The language ofadoption is rather explicit. "Except as otherwise provided" implies that only things that are explicitly excluded in the regulations would not be adopted. There is no additional language provided in the air quality regulations that would address the submittal of reports and documents. As such, it appears that the EIB has bound NMED to accept submissions in the manner contemplated by the federal NSPS and NEHAP regulations. In 2005, the EPA began using the Central Data Exchange ("CDX") to receive electronic submission offilings. The adoption ofan electronic submission clause for each subpart ofan EPA federal regulation would be done bypublication ofa program-specific notice. 

### See Cross-Media Electronic Repo1iing, 70 Fed. Reg. 59848-01 (Oct. 13, 2005). Since then, electronic reporting has been allowed through amendment to the C.P.R. For example, 

### see 40 C.P.R. § 60.47(b) (2010), adopted Jan. 20 2011 (Stating that as ofJanuary 1, 2012 submissions for performance tests must be made electronically to EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using the Electronic Reporting Tool ("ERT")). 2 

### However, since both the NSPS and NESHAP were adopted by the EIB in their 2010 versions, no electronic filing regulatory change that occurred after that point would have an effect on the AQB unless the EIB updated the C.P.R. version adopted. Below is a briefrunthrough ofthe applicable federal regulations, as they were adopted by the EIB in 2010. 

### 40 CF.R. §§ 

### 60.1 To -60.19 (SubpartA) (2010). SubpartA (General Provisions) contains the general notification and reporting requirements for the federal air quality regulations. Section 60.7, Notification and Record Keeping, allows for electronic filing. Specifically, it states that "ifacceptable to both the Administrator and the owner or operator ofa

2 

### For a list ofwhich subsections now use CDX, 

### see http://www.epa.gov/ttn!chief/e1i/ert rules.html. 4

### source, electronic notification" maybe used. 40 C.P.R. § 

### 60.7(a) (201 0). Similarly, §60.19, GeneralNotification andReportingRequirements, also allows for electronic submittal. For the entirepart (i.e. 40 C.P.R.§ 60 et seq.), when there is no postmark requirement for a written submission to the administrator, Section 60.19(b) states that "[t]he use ofreliable nonGovernment mail carriers that provide indications ofverifiable delivery ofinformation required to be submitted to the Administrator, similar to the postmark provided by the U.S. Postal Service, or alternative means ofdelivery, including the use ofelectronic media, agreed to by the pennitting authority, is acceptable." Therefore, as a background rule, the Administrator may accept electronic submissions when there is no postmark date for a written requirement thought all ofthe Subpart of40 C.P.R. §60. 40 CF.R. §§ 

### 60.40da to -60.52da (SubpartDa) (2010). SubpartDa 

### (Standards of Performance for Electric Utility Steam Generating) contains very specific language about what can be submitted electronically. According to § 

### 60.51 da(k), "[t]he owner or operator ofan affected facility may submit electronic quarterly reports for S02 

### and/or NOx and/or opacity in lieu ofsubmitting the written reports required under paragraphs (b) and (i) ofthis section. The fonnat ofeach quarterly electronic report shall be coordinated with the permitting authority." As such, onlypmiions ofthis section may be submitted electronically. This type ofexclusive language says that the AQB lacks the authority to accept electronic filings other than for paragraphs (b), (g), and (i). 40 CF.R. §§ 

### 60.40b- 60.49b (SubpartDb) (2010). SubpartDb, 

### (Standards of Performance for Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units) has been amended by CDX regulations since the adoption ofthe 2010 version bythe EIB. Therefore, the version used by the AQB is not the most current version. The 2010 version ofSubpart Db has a limited number ofdocuments that may be submitted electronically. Specifically, "[t]he owner or operator ofan affected facility may submit electronic quarterly reports for S02 

### and/or NOx and/or opacity in lieu ofsubmitting the written repmis required under paragraphs (h), (i), G), 

### (k) or (I) 

### ofthis section." 40 C.P.R. § 

### 60.49b(v). The AQB lacks authority to receive electronic submissions for other paragraphs not listed. 40 CF.R. §§ 

### 60.100 to -60.109 (Subpart J) 

### (2010). Subpart J 

### (Standards ofPerfonnance for Petroleum Refineries) requires that all "semiannual reports shall be postmarked by the 30th day following the end ofeach six-month period."40 C.P.R. § 

### 60.107 (201 0). As there is an explicit postmark requirements, and no exception present that allows for electronic submittals, AQB does not have the proper authority to accept electronic filings under Subpmi J. 

### 40 CF.R. §§ 

### 60.630 to -60.636 (SubpartKkk) (2010). SubpartKkk 

### (Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks ofVoc from Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plants for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After January 20, 1984, and on or Before August 23, 2011) allows for the use ofelectronic media. Section 603.636(a) states that each "owner or operator subject to the provisions ofthis subpart shall comply with the requirements ofparagraphs (b) and (c) ofthis section in addition to the requirements of §60.487." Paragraphs (b) and (c) have no explicit requirement that they be postmarked by a certain date or in written form. Section 60.487 does not either. Therefore, the default ofSubpart A,§ 60.19(b), which applies to all of40 C.P.R. §60 when the reporting requirements lack an explicit postmark, applies. Therefore, electronic submissions maybe used in Subpart Kkk. 40 CF.R. §§ 

### 60.960 to -60.699 (Subpart Qqq) (2010). Subpart Qqq 

### (Standards of Performance for Voc Emissions from Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Systems), only states a deadline for filing, and does not specify the form in which something should be filed. It 

### states that"[e]ach owner or operator ofa facility subject to this subpart shall submit to the Administrator within 60 days after initial startup a certification

... " §60.698(a). For the same reasons as stated above for Subpart Kid:, 

### the AQB has authority to accept electronic submissions. 5

### 40 C.F.R. §§ 

### 63.1 to -63.16 (SubpartA) (201 0). Subpart A (General Provisions) contains nearly identical language to that of40 C.F.R. § 60.7 (201 0) when a postmark is not explicitly mentioned. Notably missing however, is the language that permits the use ofelectronic media. (Compare the language in §63.l(a)(11), "[t]he use ofreliable non-Government mail carriers that provide indications ofverifiable delivery ofinformation required to be submitted to the Administrator, similar to the postmark provided by the U.S. Postal Service, or alternative means ofdelivery agreed to by the pennitting authority, is acceptable" to § 60.19(b), "[t]he use ofreliable non-Government mail carriers that provide indications ofverifiable delivery of infonnation required to be submitted to the Administrator, similar to the postmark provided by the U.S. Postal Service, or alternative means ofdelivery, including the use ofelectronic media, agreed to by the permitting authority, is acceptable.") Given this difference, the conservative assumption is that electronic submissions, when a postmark is not explicitly mentioned, are not allowed. However, the prohibitions on electronic submissions may not always be the case. As §63.1 0(d) notes, the owner or operator "shall submit reports to the Administrator in accordance with the reporting requirements in the relevant standard(s)." There is only one standard that allows explicitly for electronic submissions within Subpart A, when the administrator requests a copy ofany startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. Specifically, it states that "[u]pon receipt ofsuch a request, the owner or operator must promptly submit a copy ofthe requested plan (or a portion thereof) to the Administrator. The owner or operator may elect to submit the required copy ofany startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan to the Administrator in an electronic fonnat." 40 C.F.R. §63.6(e)(3)(v) (2010). 40 C.F.R. §§ 

### 63.640 to -63.657 (Subpart Cc) (2010). Subpart Cc (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Petroleum Refineries) provides for electronic reporting. Specifically, "[a]ll reports required under this subpart shall be sent to the Administrator at the addresses listed in §63 .13 ofsubpart A ofthis part. Ifacceptable to both the Administrator and the owner or operator ofa source, reports may be submitted on electronic media." 40 C.F.R §63.642 (f) (201 0). Therefore, the AQB has proper authority to receive electronic submission, should the owner or operator agree. 40 C.F.R. §§ 

### 63.760 to -63.779 (SubpartHh) (2010). Subpart Hh (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities) contains similar language to Subpart Cc. The language states that "[a]ll reports required under this subpart shall be sent to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in §63 .13. Reports may be submitted on electronic media." 40 C.F.R. §63.764(b) (2010). Therefore, the AQB has proper authority to receive electronic submission, should the owner or operator agree. 40 CF.R. §§ 

### 63.1560 to -63.1579 (Subpart Uuu) (2010). Subpart Uuu (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Petroleum Refineries: Catalytic Cracking Units, Catalytic Refonning Units, and Sulfur Recovery Units.) contains no language that would allow for electronic submissions. Given the fact the other subparts explicitly provide for electronic submissions and that there is no default rule that allows electronic submissions, there is a strong argument that Subpart Uuu does not grant authority for the use ofelectronic reporting. Anticipated and actual startup reports are required in a number ofsections ofthe state air quality regulations. Insomuch as they are required by the subparts to 40 C.F.R. § 63 (2010) mentioned above, the same analysis applies. The AQB would have the authority to accept electronic submittals in Subparts Cc and Hh, but not for Subparts A and Uuu. Additionally, air quality regulations mention actual and anticipated startup filings in 20.2.62 NMAC, Municipal waste combustion, 20.2.63 NMAC, Biomedical waste combustion, 20.2.70 NMAC, Operating

6

### permits 20.2.10 NMAC, Woodwaste burners, 20.2.7 NMAC, Excess emissions, and 20.2.72 NMAC, Construction, each ofwhich will be discussed separately below. Municipal waste combustion requires filings at least 45 days before an anticipated startup and the department has those 45 days to approve or disapprove. 20.2.62.203.A(2) NMAC. The language omits the word "written" and simply requires that the "owner or operator shall submit a report to the Department which describes for each monitor the location, specifications, procedures for calibration, operation, maintenance, data evaluation, and reporting." Id. Per the UETA and the lack ofthe use ofthe term "written,", there is a strong argument that the AQB has the authority to accept electronic submissions for Municipal waste combustion. Biomedical waste combustion requires filings at least 90 days prior to anticipated startup. 20.2.63.204.A(3) NMAC. As above, there is no use ofthe word written within the regulatory provision: "[t]he owner or operator shall submit a report to the Department which describes, for each monitor, the location, specifications, procedures for calibration, operation, maintenance, data evaluation, and reporting." 

## !d. These requirements also omit the "written" language. See 20.2.63 .204.C( 4) NMAC. (Here, the word "written is explicitly used for a different filing requirement.) Therefore, per the UETA and the lack ofthe use ofthe term "written," there is again a strong argument that the AQB has the authority to accept electronic submissions for biomedical waste combustion. Operating Permits have reporting requirements pursuant to the air quality regulations. As with Biomedical waste pennits there is no use ofthe tenn "written". NMED need only "require reporting sufficient to assure and verify compliance with the terms and conditions ofthe pennit and all applicable requirements" 20.2.70.302.E NMAC. Therefore, per the UETA and the lack of the use ofthe term "written," there is a strong argument that the AQB has the authority to accept the electronic submission ofreports required in pennits. Woodwaste burners must notify AQB ofthe use ofa "contingency-use woodwaste burner" with 24 hours ofthe initial startup. 20.2.10.11l.B NMAC. As with all previous startup notifications discussed, no mention ofa written requirement is present. Hence, AQB likely has authority to accept electronic submissions. Construction pennittees shall notify the department in writing ofthe "[a]nticipated date ofinitial startup ofa source not less than thirty (3 0) days prior to the date" and the " [a]ctual date ofinitial startup ofa source within fifteen (15) days after the startup date." 20.2.72.212.A, B NMAC. Hence, the department does not have the authority to take electronic submissions for anticipated startup and actual startup under construction pennits due to the use ofthe "in writing'' language. Stack Testing Protocols andReports Stack Testing Protocols and Reports are required explicitly in the NMAC or are pmt of incorporated federal standards. A list ofregulatory provisions that require such protocols and reports are provided below. In the case ofincorporated federal standards, these requirements arise from 40 C.F.R. § 60.8 (2010) and 40 C.P.R.§ 63.7 (2010). All stack testing protocols explicitly mentioned in the state air quality regulations allow for electronic submissions. For 20.2.16 NMAC (Nonferrous Smelters (New and Existing)- Pmiiculate Matter), 20.2.17 NMAC (Nonferrous Smelters (Existing)- Particulate Matter), 20.2.18 NMAC (Oil Burning Equipment- Particulate Matter), 20.2.37 NMAC (Petroleum Processing Facilities), and 20.2.40 NMAC (Sulfuric Acid Production Units- Sulfur Dioxide, Acid Mist and Visible Emissions), very similar language to the following is used: "[u]pon request ofthe Department, the owner or operator.
.. shall perform stack testing according to the 7

### method stated above and report the results ofsuch tests in the format and time period specified by the Depmiment." See 

### 20.2.16.110 NMAC, 20.2.17.111 NMAC, 20.2.18.112 NMAC, 20.2.37.202.D NMAC, and 20.2.40.110 NMAC. Given that the department is allowed its own choice for a means ofsubmission, electronic filings would be permissible. For 20.2.19 NMAC (Potash, Salt or Sodium Sulfate Processing Equipment- Particulate Matter) and 20.2.20 NMAC (Lime Manufacturing Plants- Particulate Matter), there is no explicit language that would allow for written documentation. Simple "shall submit" language is used. See 

### 20.2.19.111 NMAC and 20.2.20.113 NMAC. As such, per the UETA, it is likely that electronic submittals are permitted due to that lack ofspecific language that would require written submittals. In the case of20.2.72.213 NMAC (Construction), there is an explicit written requirement: "[a] written report ofthe results ofthe test shall be submitted to the Department by the owner or operator." Therefore, the AQB could not accept electronic submittals without a regulatory change.40 C.P.R.§ 

### 60.8 (2010) and 40 C.P.R.§ 

### 63.7 (2010) additionally provide procedures and test methods for stack testing. See 

### Clean Air Act Stack Testing Guidance (Nov .1 0, 2013). http

## :!1-wvvvv. epa.gov/compliancelresourceslpolicies/monitorinq;lcaa/stacktestinq;.pdf

### For NSPS permits under 40 C.P.R. 

### § 60.8 (201 0), there is an explicit written requirement for submissions to the department. "[T]he owner or operator ofsuch facility shall conduct performance test(s) and furnish the Administrator a written report ofthe results ofsuch perfonnance test(s)." 40 C.F.R. § 60.8(a) (2010). However, in the case ofNESHAP permits under 40 C.P.R. 

### § 63.7 (2010), (and all of§63 for that matter), the aforementioned "[i]facceptable to both the Administrator and the owner or operator ofa source, notifications and rep01is may be submitted on electronic media." found in 40 C.P.R.§ 

### 63.04(b) (2010), applies. Hence for NESHAP submissions, so long as the owner or operator and the department agree, electronic submissions are acceptable. Asbestos 

### Asbestos regulations are contained in 20.2.78 NMAC, which incorporates byreference 40 C.F.R. § 61 (2010), as amended in the Federal Register through December 31, 2010. 20.2.78.9 NMAC. In particular, 40 C.P.R.§§ 

### 61.140 to -61.157 (Subpart M) (2010) addresses the regulation ofasbestos. Subpart M contains a provision that allows the Administrator, with the consent ofthe operator, to determine what is the appropriate means is for making a submission. Specifically, it states that "[i]facceptable to both the Administrator and the owner or operator of a source, notifications and reports may be submitted on electronic media." 40 C.P.R. 

### § 61.04(b) (201 0). Hence, the AQB has proper authority to accept submissions electronically, ifagreed upon by the owner or operator ofa specific source.

Conclusion 

### Within the state and federal air quality regulations, there are a number ofdifferent standards for submissions to the AQB, none ofwhich apply unifonnly. At times, the AQB has proper authority to accept electronic submissions; other times it does not. Only in 40 C.P.R. 

### §61, portions of40 C.P.R. 

### §60, §63, 20.2.7 NMAC, and some stack testing protocols is the language truly explicit that electronic submittals are acceptable. In all other cases, the authority to accept electronic submissions must be inferred or is prohibited entirely. Within the state air quality regulations, there is a reasonable argument that when the word "written" is not used, an electronic submission is acceptable. For C.P.R. 

### parts that are adopted by 8

### the state air quality regulations, there can be tremendous uncertainty. There is no indication that the EIB was looking to grant the AQB additional authority to accept electronic submission outside ofwhat is contained in the C.P.R. rules. Many sections ofsubparts provide explicit authority to use electronic submissions, but as there are limited default provisions, much ofthe adopted federal provisions cannot have electronic submission authority read in. For the sake ofuniformity and predictability for both the AQB and regulated entities, it would be a good idea to request a change in the air quality regulations to allow for all submittals to be electronic, assuming the minimum requirements to comply with state and federal requirements are met.

9CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Introduction



### INTRODUCTION: BACKGROUND TO 

# CROMERR Welcome to Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR) 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments. This course is designed for states, tribes, and local governments who:

• Administer EPA-authorized programs under Title 

### 40 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations 

### (40 CFR); and • Accept or wish to accept electronic reports. The course consists of nine lessons, which are listed to the left in the menu bar. You may select any lesson from this menu at any time or use the back and next buttons to access the training in sequence. Throughout the course, you will encounter certain words and phrases that appear as blue, underlined, hyperlinked text. These are key terms that have specific meaning. By selecting the blue words, which are hyperlinks, the CROMERR definition of that term will appear in a pop up box. In addition, print icons are provided in the top right-hand corner of each page. By selecting these icons, you may print the entire content of each page, 

### even if that content is minimized or hidden. If you are accessing this training with a screen reader, you may print all content on each page by using the browser's normal print functionality. Also, back and next links are provided to the right 

### above and below all page content to allow quick navigation through the course pages. On pages where course content is particularly substantive, these back and next links will instead move you through important sub-points.Please note that this training does not apply to direct reporters. If you report directly to EPA, please refer to the section on COX at the end ofthis document. States-For purposes of CROMERR, the term "states" includes the District of Columbia and the United States Territories, as specified in the applicable statutes. EPA-Authorized Programs-States, tribes, and local governments that have been delegated, authorized, or approved, or that seek delegation, authorization, or approval to administer a federal environmental program under Title 

### 40 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Title 

### 40-The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the codification ofthe general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies ofthe federal government. The CFR is divided into 

### 50 sections, called "titles." Title 

### 40 is the section of the CFR that deals with EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment. 

### WHAT IS 

### CROMERR?



## NMED EXHIBIT 12CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Introduction CROMERR provides the legal framework for electronic reporting from regulated entities to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to states, tribes, and local governments that are authorized to administer EPA programs. The intent of CROMERR is to maintain the same level of corporate and individual responsibility and accountability that exists in the paper environment when reporting is done electronically. CROMERR supports many of the benefits of electronic reporting, including:

• Allowing government agencies and regulated entities to interact electronically; • Fostering more rapid and accurate environmental reporting and posting of compliance information; • Simplifying facility reporting processes; • Making data more readily available; and • Maintaining consistency with emerging industry practices.
THE CROMERR TIMELINE CROMERR was codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40, Part 3 on October 13, 2005. It was then amended on December 24, 2008 to extend compliance dates for existing systems. Under this amendment, programs with an existing e-reporting system were required to submit an application for EPA approval no later than January 13, 2010. This is an extension from the original deadline of October 13, 2007. New e-reporting systems are also required to submit an application for EPA approval priorto receiving e-reports. Existing Systems: An existing electronic document receiving system is one that:

• Received e-documents, in lieu of paper, on or before October 13, 2005; or • Was substantially developed on or before October 13, 2005, as evidenced by the establishment of system services or specifications by contract or other binding agreement. REGULATED ENTITIES REPORTING DIRECTLY TO EPA Under CROMERR, electronic reporting directly to EPA requires submission through EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX), or to another system designated by the EPA Administratorforthe receipt ofthe electronic report in question. Following the procedures established by CDX for document preparation, signature, and submission ensures submitted documents are not only successfully received by CDX, but also comply with CROMERR. Note that submissions must include valid electronic signatures in those cases where handwritten signatures would have been required for the paper-base submissions, and the electronic signatures will have the same legal force as the handwritten signatures.

iiCROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Introduction Valid electronic signatures: Valid electronic signature refers to an electronic signature on an electronic document that has been created with an electronic signature device. The identified signatory is uniquely entitled to use the signature device for signing that document provided that this device has not been compromised, and where the signatory is an individual who is authorized to sign the document by virtue of his or her legal status or his or her relationship to the entity on whose behalfthe signature is executed.
THE CENTRAL DATA EXCHANGE (COX) The COX enables fast, efficient and more accurate environmental data submissions from states, tribes, local governments, and industry to EPA and participating program offices. EPA's COX is the point of entry on the Environmental Information Exchange Network (Exchange Network) for environmental data submissions to the Agency. COX works with both EPA p.rogram offices looking for a way to better manage incoming data, and stakeholders looking for a way to reduce time and money spent to meet EPA reporting requirements. COX provides stakeholders with the ability to:

• Submit data through one centralized point of access; • Fill out a single electronic form that can be submitted instantaneously instead of mailing multiple paper forms; • Receive Agency confirmation when submissions are received; • Submit data in a variety offormats including Webs Forms, XML, binary, or flat-file; • Exchange data with target systems using Web services; • Reduce costs associated with submitting and processing data submissions; • Utilize publishing services to share information collected by EPA with other stakeholders, including states and tribes. Information on the submissions that COX currently accepts can be found on the COX website. Whenever COX or another EPA-designated system is ready to accept additional electronic submissions, EPA will publish an announcement in the Federal Register, and will provide information with the procedures for electronic submission of the affected reports. For submissions that COX accepts, the COX website will provide instructions concerning the format required for data submission, registration procedures, and requirements for electronic signatures.

iii

# ( CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 1



### LESSON 

## 1: OVERVIEW OF THE fiNAL RULE This lesson provides an overview of CROMERR, as codified in the CFR. Topics covered in this lesson include:

• What does the rule do? • What does the rule NOT do? • Who is affected? • When does the rule NOT apply? (Or "What are the exceptions to the rule?") • What are the compliance dates?
WHAT DOES THE RULE 

## Do?

• Sets Standards for e-Reporting: The rule sets standards for systems that states, tribes, and local governments use to receive e-reports under their EPA-authorized programs. The standards are performance-based requirements that systems must meet to ensure the authenticity and integrity of the electronic documents and electronic signatures that they receive. EPA systems that receive ere ports from direct reporters are also required to meet these CROMERR standards. • Removes Regulatory Obstacles: The rule removes regulatory obstacles toe-reporting under EPA and EPA-authorized programs by overriding references to paper-based requirements in Title 40 ofthe CFR. Examples include "file copies" or "return receipts." Sets Requirements for:

• Direct e-Reporting to EPA: The rule sets requirements for regulated entities that report directly to EPA and wish to report electronically. The requirements identify the EPA systems to which they may e-report and set conditions on the execution of any signatures associated with the submitted reports. • Authorized Programs That Receive or Wish to Receive e-Re ports: The rule requires state, tribal, and local governments that receive or wish to receive e-reports in lieu of paper under their authorized programs to seek EPA approval of modifications or revisions to those programs to incorporate ereporting. EPA will make approval decisions based primarily on two criteria: The applicant must have sufficient legal authorityto enforce its authorized programs using electronically submitted documents; and The system the applicant proposes to use to receive the e-reports must meet the CROMERR standards fore-reporting systems. These criteria reflect the need to ensure that the applicant preserves the enforceability of its authorized programs when replacing paper reports with e-reports.

1-1CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and local Governments lesson 1

• Applications for EPA Approval of Authorized Program e-Reporting: The rule sets requirements for completing and submitting an application for approval of an authorized program modification or revision, including a specification ofthe items that the application must include. And:

• Provides a Special, Streamlined EPA Approval Process: CROMERR provides a streamlined approval process for program modifications or revisions related toe-reporting that allows state, tribal, and local governments to submit a single, consolidated application for multiple authorized programs. State, tribal, and local governments may also use applicable program approval or revision processes under other Parts of Title 40 that are specific to a particular authorized program. WHAT DOES THE RULE 

### NOT Do?
• Does NOT Set Requirements for e-Recordkeeping: The rule does NOT set requirements for regulated entities that maintain records required under EPA and EPA-authorized programs that wish to maintain those records electronically. • Does NOT Make e-Reporting Mandatory: CROMERR does NOT mandate that authorized programs institute electronic reporting or accept documents electronically. It also does NOT require that regulated entities use electronic reporting to report directly to EPA. • Does NOT Prohibit Mandatory e-Reporting: CROMERR does NOT prohibit mandatory e-reporting under other federal, state, tribal, or local laws. WHO IS AFFECTED? The final rule applies to two groups:

• Regulated Entities-CROMERR applies to persons or entities that submit electronic reports or documents in lieu of paper, to EPA under Title 40 when they are the regulated entity. For example, 40 CFR 51.211 requires that operators of stationary sources of air emissions, such as power plants, must periodically report those emissions. If a regulated entity submits this report electronically directly to EPA, it is subject to CROMERR.

• Entities Acting as a Regulator for an EPA Program-States, tribes, or local governments that administer authorized programs under Title 40 that receive or wish to receive electronic reports or documents in lieu of paper. The Clean Water Act (CWA) Program is an example of how states, tribes, or local governments can act as a regulator for an EPA program. The CWA gives EPA the authority to set effluent limits on an industry-wide (technology-based) basis and on a water-quality basis. These limits will ensure protection of the receiving water. The CWA requires anyone who wants to discharge pollutants to first obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.



### 1-2

# ( CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 1 The CWA allows EPA to authorize the NPDES Permit Program to state governments, enabling states to perform many of the permitting, administrative, and enforcement aspects ofthe NPDES Program. In lieu of paper: An electronic report is considered to be submitted "in lieu of paper" when it takes the place of a paper report submitted to satisfy the requirements under another part of 40 CFR. In some states, the electronic reporting is done to make data collection and management easier, but the state requires that each report submitted electronically also be submitted as a signed paper copy. In this case, the electronic submission would not be in lieu of paper and CROMERR does not apply to the state. Some electronic reporting systems use a combined approach, where part or all ofthe data are submitted only electronically, but a wet ink signature on paper is also required. In these cases, theereport (or at least the portions of it that are not also submitted on paper) is considered to be submitted "in lieu of paper" and CROMERR applies. In addition, there are special CROMERR rules under 40 CFR 3.2000(a) that govern the use of a wet ink signature on paper in conjunction with an e-report. (Additional detail on this combined approach is provided in Lesson 6.)
WHEN DOES THE RULE 

### NOT APPLY? CROMERR does NOT apply to: 1. Documents submitted via fax, or magnetic or optical media, including: Facsimile transmissions; Tape; Diskette; Compact Disc (CD); and Digital Video Disc (DVD). 2. Data transfers between EPA and state, tribal, or local governments when the transfers are: Part oftheir authorized programs; or Part of administrative arrangements with EPA. 3. Submissions to EPA not under Title 40 4. Submissions to state, tribal, or local governments not under their authorized programs

1-3CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 1 WHAT ARE THE COMPLIANCE DATES FOR STATES, TRIBES, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS' AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS? Authorized programs must meet CROMERR's compliance dates:

• New e-Re porting Systems: Programs with a new e-reporting system, as defined in CROMERR, must seek EPA approval before using that system to receive e-reports in lieu of paper. • Existing e-Reporting Systems: Programs with an existing e-reporting system were required to submit an application for EPA approval no later than January 13, 2010. Note: The requirement was forprograms to submit the application by this deadline; theprogram neednot receive EPA approval by that deadline. The program may continue to operate the existing e-reporting system while the application is under review.



### 1-4CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and local Governments Lesson 2



### lESSON 

## 2: QUICK TOUR OF THE FINAL RULE This lesson provides an introduction to how the rule is structured, the subparts of the rule, and what each subpart contains. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

• CROMERR Federal Register Notice Preamble and Regulation (PDF); • CROMERR Concurrent Federal Register Notice (PDF); and • CROMERR Final Rule (PDF).
SUBPART A: GENERAL PROVISIONS Subpart A answers the following questions:
TO WHOM DOES THIS PART APPLY? This section provides a description ofthe persons and entities impacted by the rule.
HOW DOES THIS PART PROVIDE FOR ELECTRONIC REPORTING? Subpart A describes how the regulation makes provision for electronic reporting.

WHAT DEFINITIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO THIS PART? Many terms used throughout the rule have very specific definitions in regard to the rule and are therefore defined in Section 3.3 ofthe CROMERR Regulation.
HOW DOES THIS PART AFFECT THE ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE PROVISIONS OF TITLE 40? This section describes how the rule relates to compliance with Title 40 and the enforcement provisions therein. SUBPART 

### B: ELECTRONIC REPORTING TO EPA Subpart B answers the following questions:

WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRONIC REPORTING TO 

### EPA? Subpart B describes when e-reporting can be used and under what circumstances.
HOW WILL EPA PROVIDE NOTICE OF CHANGES TO THE CENTRAL DATA EXCHANGE {COX}? Subpart B also describes how and when EPA will provide notification of changes to hardware and software associated with the COX that may impact electronic transmission. SUBPART 

## C HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK FOR NOW. IT IS RESERVED FOR ELECTRONIC RECORD KEEPING PROVISIONS, WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN FINALIZED.

2-1CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and local Governments lesson 2 SUBPART 

## 0: ELECTRONIC REPORTING UNDER EPA-AUTHORIZED STATE, TRIBAL, AND LOCAL PROGRAMS Subpart D contains the majority ofthe CROMERR requirements and answers the following questions:

HOW DO STATES, TRIBES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS REVISE OR MODIFY AN AUTHORIZED PROGRAM TO ALLOW ELECTRONIC REPORTING? Subpart D describes what is necessary in order to conduct e-reporting, including the processes for application and EPA approval.

WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS THAT AUTHORIZED STATES, TRIBES, AND LOCAL PROGRAMS' ELECTRONIC REPORT RECEIVING SYSTEMS MUST MEET? This subpart provides a detailed listing ofthe requirements that must be met in order to have a CROMERR-compliant system. Central Data Exchange (CDX) refers to EPA's centralized electronic document receiving system, or its successors, including associated instructions for submitting electronic documents. More information on the CDX is available in the "Helpful Resources" section of this training, accessible through the main menu.

2-2CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 3



### LESSON 

# 3: APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
This lesson is for states that plan to submit CROMERR applications to EPA to modify or revise their authorized programs to incorporate electronic reporting. This lesson includes details about the application as well as instructions for submission. The result of EPA approval is to modify or revise those programs. This lesson covers:

• Required elements of a CROMERR application; • Typical application components used to meet the requirements; and • Submitting the application. These topics are covered from the perspective of states using the CROMERR Part 3 Application Process. States may apply for their program revisions or modifications using processes provided under other parts ofTitle 40, but their applications must still include the same required elements described in this lesson.
WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU SUBMITTING THE APPLICATION FOR? WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR APPLICATION APPROVAL? The application submitted to EPA is for approval of modifications or revisions to allow electronic reporting for one or more of the EPA-authorized programs implemented by your state. That is, you are seeking EPA approval to allow you to accept electronic documents in lieu of paper for submissions made by facilities regulated under your state's authorized programs. For EPA to approve the program modifications, your state attorney general, or AG, must be able to certify that the state can continue to enforce these authorized programs based on electronic submissions. In addition, the system used to receive the electronic submissions must meet the standards spelled out in Section 3.2000 of CROMERR. These standards are discussed in detail in Lessons 5, 6, and 7 ofthis course.
USING PROCESSES PROVIDED UNDER OTHER PARTS OF TITLE 

### 40 There are two ways to submit a CROMERR application. This lesson is focused on the special40 CFR Part 3 Application Process, but applications may also be submitted under other parts of Title 40. Applications submitted to EPA Program or Regional Offices under other parts of Title 40 must:

• Use applicable program approval or revision processes under other Parts ofTitle 40; • Meet the application requirements under§ 3.1000; and • Demonstrate conformance with § 3.2000 requirements. Regardless ofthe process used, the required application elements are the same. However, non-Part 3 applications can only address a single program. 3-1CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 3
REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF A CROMERR APPLICATION Under§ 3.1000(b)(1), to obtain EPA approval of program revisions or modifications to incorporate electronic reporting, a state, tribe, or local government must submit an application to the EPA Administrator that includes the four elements below.

• AG Certification-The AG Certification demonstrates that the state has sufficient legal authority to enforce the program using electronic reports as described in §3.2000(c). §3.1000(b)(1)(i) A certification that the state, tribe, or local government has sufficient legal authority provided by lawfully enacted or promulgated statutes, or regulations that are in full force and effect on the date ofthe certification, to implement the electronic reporting component of its authorized programs covered by the application in conformance with §3.2000 and to enforce the affected programs using electronic documents collected underthese programs-together with copies ofthe relevant statutes and regulations, signed by the state AG, their designee, or, in the case of an authorized tribe or local government program, by the chief executive or administrative official or officer, also known as the CAO, ofthe governmental entity, or their designee.

• System Descriptions-The System Description(s) section demonstrates that systems used to receive e-reports meet the CROMERR standards listed in §3.2000(b}, and provide fore-signatures (or followon paper signatures) that meet the requirements of §3.2000(a). (ii) A listing of all the state, tribe, or local government electronic document receiving systems that will accept the electronic documents addressed by the program revisions or modifications covered by the application, together with a description for each such system that specifies how the system meets the applicable requirements in §3.2000 with respect to those electronic documents.

• System Upgades-The System Upgrades section identifies any system changes that may affect CROMERR compliance. (iii) A schedule of upgrades for the electronic document receiving systems listed under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) ofthis section that have the potential to affect the program's continued conformance with §3.2000.

• Other Information-The Other Information section provides additional information that should be considered by EPA during evaluation ofthe application. (iv) Other information that the EPA Administrator may request to fully evaluate the application. A note about non-Part 3 applications-These requirements are applicable for Part 3 and Non-Part 3 Applications. However, rememberthat Non-Part 3 Applications can generally address only one program.
3-2CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 3

TYPICAL APPLICATION COMPONENTS Typical CROMERR applications include a minimum ofthree components, which are listed below. The first component, the two-page Cover Sheet, is not listed on the previous page as a required element; however, it represents a best practice for organizing basic application information. The other two application components directly reflect CROMERR-required elements.

• The two-page Cover Sheet captures basic contact and program information and identifies the programs to be modified or revised by EPA approval of the application, along with the associated reports and systems. • As previously described, the AG Certification demonstrates that the state has sufficient legal authority to enforce the program using e-reports as described in§ 3.2000(c). • The System Description(s) component demonstrates that systems used to receive e-reports meet the CROMERR standards included in§ 3.2000(b), and provide fore-signatures (or follow-on paper signatures) that meet the requirements of§ 3.2000(a). This component also documents any anticipated system upgrades that will affect conformance with the CROMERR standards. These application components are described in greater detail in the following pages. Note that EPA offers a number oftools and templates to help states develop these application components. These tools and templates are described in greater detail in later lessons.

COVER SHEETS The two-page Cover Sheet documents basic information about who is submitting the application and what they are applying for. Although the Cover Sheet format is not required, EPA needs the information on the Cover Sheet in order to process your application. For example, program citations for reports addressed by your state's application are requested to ensure that EPA approval actually modifies or revises the programs to cover the electronic reporting you want to implement. Page 1 includes data fields for type of agency, application point of contact, list of programs covered by the application, types of reports and system(s) the application covers, and information about the AG Certification. Page 2 includes fields for a list ofthe electronic reports accepted by the system, a brief system overview, and a list of attachments included with the application. Ifthe application is for multiple systems, Page 2 should be completed for each system.

RELATED RESOURCES: • Blank Cover Sheets: Page 1 (PDF) (1 pg, 20 K) and Page 2 (PDF) (1 pg, 18 K); and • Sample North Dakota Completed Cover Sheets (PDF) (2 pp. 16K). 3-3CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 3 

### Cover Sheet: Page 1**CROWERR~clllon** CovtrShott**~,.,.,., l!J:t••f·~-Jtat.-.,.qiiTt6a8LkfiiO.C..--.......~,**  frit111t**GIEPA~t?*"'Pl"uttiiEPA~tt11Ctl'll""-'****~** MMP.,...,..,..

...-..nawlt•nc

...... ••tahl• 

## ,..,.,.,.C.

..... l

......... t • .- lhrH·**liia~·** 

# ....... iliil' 

# - ..**~Ad**fin• [!ll"'.o&.U,..u.**JJ.W<'Ootl•~.** (

# ..... 

# .,Pt.,.
liil.ra.lo Ctl•l 

# .. '" 

## iiiiii'

..,!Pl

..... 

# .. '**-s.t...;...,c~w..~~~~....,.** '••lllln"' 

# , 

# ___ J:'t?dM 

## iii' 

# - .. "':!'1, -'lou•l'tl•"" ""-U·•u.**u.ec~~·** (-

# .. iii'p,..,.**iii~'.,**

## .. r. c ...., 

# .. '"**~iii'.-,""',.** 

# ..

r..-.,.rc.tkal

....._.....**dfiH{dofdOIC~** ..**thf~ -~~t9trfl** **8NM--~~·** ..... CrUMtt**8C~:if11"""' mr~a**  ce**CA~nn** •tf'k.., ct.-cl'hJ**~•** 11

...**~h•** atf$c.e.t"**~ "~••r"""•»-.-.tti<ftl"'-tNI<il~** **IIC:.ck..,•clk.lt<•Jtlltt,.t•..,....,,b)~...,_.«lt1f"<.nra"""1t-r ,,~~,,..,....**  

### Jud,bTtf- 

### 1'''*..**~Mrc:;;-.;;~** 1110:

.. 1**-~-..,.,..** '-": tr4"rJ.It:IQ•• ntlt>&all#lt.-J.r**~._~, .,.,tot~UJ** 

• The first section of Page 1 asks the applicant organization to categorize itself. • The second section asks for both a primary and secondary point of contact. • The third section asks for a list of all ofthe programs, reports, and systems addressed in the application. • The last section of Page 1 documents the certifying official for the AG's statement.



### 3-4

# ( CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 3

COVER SHEET: PAGE 

### 2**~,.,** !!lftlmtfiiJ'N 

### 1-**"'tH~---~~.,.U.,tc#tlill'lt~rt<ff'o'f4l'tfYI~ tor~,.~.,.._.,..t~••.,..J'>•JI'**  fttP')f,fWt• .ll1IIl!ll**t'$(1R~** f;;;-'IIAQAi•**~~~lt(P""•IflA** 

# -

..............,. Qfn(l""t 

# ,,_t>_•**DlttC'*~****,,,~,.··~** Qft1Qtol)**··~:,..._** 

### 1- &J C1R C.bloA f;;;-'UAO&:•**~~tot-£FAt~** 

# - p_,.,....**~** OYnQt.iO**ll'K_.,u~t** D'»tCt#

### I"""'""·~ 0l't'JQt.t.) 

## "



## ...**~.,~** 

# -**~,..,..,.ft(..,t-fiflt4.art4f~lt-ftt4f(1tlm****CO.«~dkl-\t-"~r~'*"'CiiOM£Utttq~rll!onHfA0{1A))((O** Cf'<t.Hl..**f;I~** ..**...,..CI",~UNM'-'1 ei:".lti<ltTotl'lS~tt=to** 

• Cover Sheet Page 2 asks about each system addressed by the application. • Page 2 also asks for information about each report associated with the systems addressed in the application. • Page 2 should include a 

### briefoverview ofthe system. The full system description will come later in the application. • The last section of Page 2 documents what attachments are included with the application.

ATTORNEY GENERAL (AG) CERTIFICATION The AG Certification is a letter confirming legal authority to implement the electronic reporting covered by the application and enforce the affected programs using the electronic documents received under those programs.

• For states, the AG, or his or her designee, must sign the certification letter. • For tribes and local governments, the chief administrative official or officer (CAO), or his or her designee, must sign the certification letter. • In either case, letters signed by a designee must explicitly state that this individual has delegated authority from the AG (or CAO) to sign the certification letter.

3-5( CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 3 The certification must include copies of all state, tribal, or local statutes and regulations relevant to the application. EPA suggests also including a description specifically linking applicable portions of40 CFR Part 3 to relevant portions of the state, tribe, or locality's statutes and regulations to facilitate EPA's review. RESOURCES: • Blank Cover Sheets: AG Certification Outline {PDF) {4 pg, 20K) • Sample AG Certification {PDF) {4 pp. 22K)

SYSTEM OESCRIPTION(S) The System Description component documents how the system{s) meet the CROMERR standards. To help applicants complete this description, EPA has developed a CROMERR System Checklist Template and strongly encourages you to use it. The template reflects the Checklist Requirements Road map, which lays out the CROMERR standards as a list of 20 performance-based system requirements. These requirements are divided into five categories: Registration, Signature Process, Submission Process, Signature Validation, and Creation ofthe Copy of Record {COR). The descriptions that an applicant provides for each of the 20 checklist requirements reflect how the applicant's system{s)**~ill** meet the CROMERR standards. When applicable, supporting documentation should be attached to the descriptions. Such attachments may include the Electronic Signature Agreement, system users' guides, various process diagrams, and system screenshots and/or printouts. The CROMERR standards are explained in Lesson 6. Lesson 7 then describes how the CROMERR standards are expressed as checklist requirements, and explains how to use the System Checklist Template. RESOURCES: CROMERR System Checklist Template {PDF) (13 pp, 60 K}; • CROMERR System Checklist {XLS) (71 K); and • Sample Approved Delaware CROMERR System Checklist {PDF) (35 pp, 1017 K). SUBMITTING THE APPLICATION Applications submitted using the 40 CFR Part 3 approval process must be sent to the attention of Director, at either ofthe following addresses: U.S. Postal Service Deliveries: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental Information Office of Information Collection Attn: Director 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.



### 3-6CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 3 Mail Code: 2821T Washington, DC 20460 Overnight/Courier/Mail Deliveries: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental Information Office of Information Collection Attn: Director 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W. 6th Floor, #6130 Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 566-1630 Also, please submit an electronic courtesy copy of the application to the following email address: TRC@epa.gov. And remember the application submission date requirements: Programs without an *existing ereporting system must seek EPA approval 

### before receiving e-reports. Programs with an existing ereporting system were required to submit the application for EPA approval no laterthan January 13, 2010. An "existing" electronic document receiving system receives e-documents in lieu of paper on or before October 13,2005 or is substantially developed on or before that date as evidenced by establishment of system services or specifications by contract or other binding agreement.

3-7CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 4



### lESSON 

# 4: THE EPA REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS UNDER PART 

# 3 While Lesson 4 focused on the preparation and submission of an application using the CROMERR Part 3 process, this lesson describes what happens next, that is, the CROMERR application review and approval process. 

# Technical Review Committee

# ~

# .........**~~~--------~** 

# r "

Submit appllcotion

to EPA Compfet.notSs Re'Wiew

Topics covered in this lesson include:

• The Technical Review Committee {TRC); • EPA's Completeness Review; • EPA's Approval Review; Iflncompletot opportunity to ;omend appllcatfon Approval Re'Wiew

• The Public Hearing Provision for Public Water System Programs; and • Special Notes Regarding the Application Process. TECHNICAL REVIEW (OMMITIEE 

## (TRC) Ifapproved,. EPA Publ!shn notfce ln the

Federall!eJister

Applications formally submitted to the EPA are reviewed by an Agency-wide TRC, which includes representatives from the following offices:

• Office of Environmental Information {OEI); • Office of General Council {OGC); • Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance {OECA); • Office ofAir and Radiation {OAR); • Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response {OSWER); • Office of Water {OW); • Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention {OCSPP); • Office ofthe Inspector General {OIG); and • Each of the 10 EPA Regions. 

### 4-1CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 4 The TRC conducts both the completeness reviews and the approval reviews. The approval reviews conclude with a recommendation to the EPA Administrator, or their designee, to either approve or deny the application for program revision or modification. CHECKING FOR COMPLETENESS EPA first reviews an application for completeness, as described in§ 3.1000(b)(3)(i)of CROMERR. Within 75 calendar days of receiving an application, EPA will send a letterto the applicant specifying whether or not the application is complete. For incomplete applications, the letter includes information on the application deficiencies. States, tribes, and local governments may amend an application after EPA has determined the application package to be incomplete. For EPA to review an amended application, it must be resubmitted within "a reasonable period of time." If application deficiencies are not remedied within a "reasonable period oftime," EPA may act to approve or disapprove an incomplete application.



### 75-day Completeness Determination

EPA receives application

RESOURCES: • CROMERR § 3.1000(b)(3)(i)



### 4-2CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 4 AMENDING THE APPLICATION Applicants who receive a notice of deficiencies and then correct the issues in the application may resubmit the application. EPA then has 30 calendar days from time of receipt to respond with a new complete or incomplete determination.

Applicant receives letter from EPA

RESOURCES: CROMERR § 3.1000(b}(3)(i)
APPROVAL REVIEW 

### Amending the Application

EPA receives

amended application Response from EPA to applicant

Once EPA determines that an application is complete, the next step is to determine whether the application is approvable by reviewing it for compliance with CROMERR requirements spelled out in§ 3.2000 of CROMERR. For new systems, the Agency has 180 days from notification of completeness to conduct the approval review. If EPA does not act on a program revision or modification by the end ofthe 180-day approval review period, then that revision or modification is automatically approved. For existing systems, the Agency has 360 days to evaluate the application for approval, and, again, failure to act before the review period ends results in automatic approval. CROMERR does not require EPA to take the same action on all the program revisions or modifications in a consolidated application. EPA may approve some ofthe program revisions or modifications in the consolidated application, and disapprove others, as provided under§ 3.1000(c)(2). The approval generally becomes effective as ofthe date that EPA publishes a notice ofthe approval in the Federal Register.

4-3CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 4

## ~·~~~ro~~~;,~~~~~;~;:J.~~ Review for Approval

If EPA does 

### not take action within the allotted time period, the request for program revisions or modifications is automatically approved {unless the review period is extended at the request ofthe applicant).
RESOURCES: • CROMERR § 3.1000{c); • CROMERR § 3.1000{c){4){ii); • CROMERR § 3.1000{d); and • Sample EPA Response from the Federal Register. PUBLIC HEARING PROVISION FOR PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM PROGRAMS Applications for authorized public water system programs under Part 142 must provide the opportunity for a public hearing. Once EPA makes a preliminary determination to approve or deny the request for program revision or modification, EPA will publish a notice in the Federal Register. Requests for hearings must be submitted to EPA within 30 days after publication. If a hearing is requested, EPA will announce the hearing in the Federal Register at least 15 days before the scheduled date. Based upon the results of the hearing, EPA will issue an order, either affirming or rescinding its preliminary determination, and will publish a Final Notice in the Federal Register. Ifthe order is to approve the program revision or modification, EPA's approval is effective upon publication ofthe Final Notice. However, if no hearing is requested, EPA's preliminary determination will be effective 30 days afterthe first notice was published.
RESOURCES: • CROMERR § 3.1000{f) {PDF) {43 pp, 520 K)

4-4CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 4 SPECIAL NOTES REGARDING THE APPLICATION PROCESS Remember that in consolidated applications, EPA is not required to take the same action on all revisions and modifications. For more information on this topic, reference§ 3.1000(c)(2) of CROMERR. Also note that authorized programs with approved program modifications or revisions to incorporate electronic reporting must apprise EPA of any changes (including laws, policies, and systems) that may affect program compliance with CROMERR requirements. For further information on this topic, reference§ 3.1000(a)(4) of the CROMERR.
RESOURCES: • CROMERR § 3.1000(c)(2); and • CROMERR § 3.1000(a)(4).



### 4-5CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 5



## lESSON 

# 5: CROMERR-COMPLIANT ElECTRONIC REPORTING
This lesson describes the legal, system, and procedural requirements forCROMERR-compliant reporting. Topics covered in this lesson include:

• Valid electronic signature requirements; • Requirements for systems that receive electronic reports: Requirements for receiving any electronic report, and Requirements for receiving electronic reports that include electronic signatures; and

• Additional enforcement-related requirements. This lesson describes the various requirements as they are articulated in CROMERR. INTRODUCTION: OVERVIEW OF 

## CROMERR REQUIREMENTS FOR ElECTRONIC REPORTING The purpose ofthe CROMERR requirements is to ensure that authorized programs that receive electronic documents in lieu of paper can rely on those documents for purposes of enforcement-related litigation. Before examining the actual requirements, it is important to understand that their overarching purpose is to ensure that electronic reports can provide the same evidence of what was submitted-and ofthe submitter's and signer's intent-as their paper counterparts, particularly in support of civil or criminal litigation. This will be important, for example, where the government is prosecuting false or fraudulent reporting based on electronic submissions. In CROMERR, these requirements are presented in three sections. Select each section below to learn more.

• Section 3.2000(a): Overall Requirements for Implementing Electronic Reporting provides an introduction to the requirements for using electronic reports in lieu of paper. It outlines that authorized programs must: (1) use an acceptable e-document receiving system that meets CROMERR standards; and (2) require that any e-document bear a valid e-signature ifthe signatory is required to sign the paper document, unless EPA has approved a process for handwritten signatures on separate paper submissions. • Section 3.2000(b): Electronic Document Receiving System Requirements, the main focus ofthis lesson, provides the requirements for document receiving systems themselves. Again, it is important to remember that the purpose of the individual provisions ofthis section is to ensure that a system captures and maintains sufficient evidence to support the use of electronically received documents as evidence in civil or criminal litigation. The system must be able to demonstrate the authenticity of the reports it receives and any signatures these reports contain. 

### 5-1CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 5

• Section 3.2000(c): Provisions of Enforceability contains the provisions to ensure that authorized programs can be enforced based on the receipt of electronic reports in lieu of paper. REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZED PROGRAM E-REPORTING § 3.2000{a) states that authorized programs must use an acceptable electronic document receiving system, as specified by the criteria set forth in§ 3.2000(b) and (c), which are described later in this lesson. § 3.2000(a) also requires that for any paper document that requires a signature, the corresponding edocument must bear a valid electronic signature. And it also outlines the conditions under which EPA will accept a paper follow on signature or certification as an alternative. The next portion ofthis lesson will explain concepts while the remainder ofthe lesson will address CROMERR requirements for authorized program electronic reporting approaches.

VALID ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES Valid electronic signature refers to electronic signature on an electronic document that has been created with an electronic signature device. The identified signatory is uniquely entitled to use the signature device for signing that document provided that this device has not been compromised, and where the signatory is an individual who is authorized to sign the document by virtue of his or her legal status and his or her relationship to the entity on whose behalf the signature is executed. CROMERR states that e-docuhlents must have valid e-signatures ifTitle 40 requires handwritten signatures on the paper documents they replace unless:

• EPA approves the process by which the system accepts a hand-written signature on separate paper submission; and • The signatory provides a handwritten signature. Valid electronic signatures are explained in greater detail later in this lesson. STANDARDS FOR AN ACCEPTABLE ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT RECEIVING SYSTEM CROMERR requires that all acceptable electronic document receiving systems are able to generate legally-defensible data to prove document integrity according to the five standards below.

• Thee-document is not alterable without detection: The system must be able to prove that its electronic documents cannot be altered without detection during transmission or at any time after receipt. This is a basic data integrity requirement that ensures what was sent is what was received. • Alterations to thee-document are documented by the system: The system must provide a record of any alterations to the electronic document during transmission or after receipt. • Thee-document can only be submitted intentionally: The system must be designed so that the electronic document can only be submitted knowingly, and with intent, and not by accident. 

### 5-2CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 

### 5

• Submitters and signatories can review the COR ofthee-document: Submitters and signatories must have: (1} the opportunity to review the Copy of Record (COR) in a human-readable format that clearly and accurately associates the electronic document information with descriptions; and 

### (2) the opportunity to repudiate the electronic document based on this review. COR refers to atrue and correct copy ofan electronic document received by an electronic document receiving system, which can be viewed in a human-readable format that clearly and accurately associates all the information provided in the electronic document with descriptions or labeling ofthe information. A COR includes: 

### 1. All electronic signatures contained in or logically associated with that document; 

### 2. The date and time of receipt; and 

### 3. Any other information used to record the meaning ofthe document or the circumstances of its receipt. For example, ifthe COR is maintained as an XML file, then the COR should include the XSL style sheet used in conjunction with the file to present it back to the signer.

• If an e-signature is required, then thee-document meets e-signature requirements: If an e-document requires an e-signature, then it must meet the following requirements: E-signatures must be valid at the time of signing. E-documents cannot be altered without detection after signing. Each signatory must have an opportunity to:

• Review thee-document content, in human-readable format, before signing; and Review the required certification statement, which includes criminal penalty implications of false certification, at the time of signing. Signatories must sign either an electronic signature agreement or subscriber agreement for the e-signature device used to create his or here-signature.

The system must automatically respond to the receipt of an e-document with an acknowledgement identifying thee-document received, the signatory, and the date and time of receipt. It must also be sent to at least one address that does not share the same access controls as the account used to make the electronic submission.

For each e-signature device, the identity of its unique user and the users' relationship to the entity for which he or she is signing has been determined by the state, tribe, or local government. DEFINING "VALID ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES"



### 5-3CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 5 So what makes a valid electronic signature? A valid electronic signature on an electronic document is one that is created with an electronic signature device that is:

• Uniquely entitled to a signatory; • Not compromised; and • Used by a signatory who is authorized to sign the electronic document.

RESOURCES: • The**~~common** Application Challenges" section ofthe CROMERR Application Challenges and Solutions (PDF) (19 pp, 292 K) guidance; • Challenge Question Second Factor Approach (PDF) (3 pp, 161 K) guidance; and • CROMERR Frequently Asked Questions (PDF) (8 pp, 187 K) guidance. Valid electronic signature refers to an electronic signature on an electronic document that has been created with an electronic signature device. The identified signatory is uniquely entitled to use the signature device for signing that document provided that this device has not been compromised, and where the signatory is an individual who is authorized to sign the document by virtue of his or her legal status or his or her relationship to the entity on whose behalf the signature is executed. Electronic signature device refers to a code or other mechanism that is used to create electronic signatures. Where the device is used to create an individual's electronic signature, the code or mechanism must be unique to that individual at the time the signature is created and he or she must be uniquely entitled to use it. The device is compromised ifthe code or mechanism is available for use by any other person. SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS FOR RECEIVING E-SIGNATURES This lesson has already described the requirements for acceptable e-document receiving systems, per § 3.2000(b) of CROMERR. § 3.2000 also stipulates that systems receiving e-documents with e-signatures must also demonstrate certain functionality requirements. An approvable system must be able to provide proof of the following requirements.

THE SYSTEM MUST BE ABLE TO PROVE THAT THEE-SIGNATURE IS VALID AT THE TIME OF SIGNING. When the document is signed, thee-signature must meet the requirements of a valid e-signature, as previously described in this lesson. 

### Note: This requirement must be met at the time the signature is executed.

THE SYSTEM MUST BE ABLE TO PROVE THEE-DOCUMENT CANNOT BE ALTERED WITHOUT DETECTION AFTER SIGNING. E-documents withe-signatures cannot be altered at any time-during or after transmission-after signing without detection. A system must be able to prove that the document content is the same as the content at the time of signing. Currently, this generally involves some sort of encryption software. 

### 5-4CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 5 

### Note: This requirement mustbe met at the time the signature is executed.

THE SYSTEM MUST BE ABLE TO PROVE SIGNATORIES HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW CONTENT. Before actually signing, signatories must have an opportunity to review the content for which their signature is being requested. 

### Note: This requirement mustbe met at the time the signature is executed.

THE SYSTEM MUST BE ABLE TO PROVE SIGNATORIES REVIEWED THE CERTIFICATION STATEMENT. Before actually signing, signatories must have an opportunity to review certification statements, including warnings that false certification carries criminal penalties, to establish that they understood the implications oftheir signature and meant to sign. This is important should someone ever be prosecuted for criminal fraud. 

### Note: This requirement must be met at the time the signature is executed.
THE SYSTEM MUST BE ABLE TO PROVE AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT. The system automatically sends an acknowledgment of receipt ofthe document to an "out-of-band" address. This is usually paper mail or an email address that does not share the same controls as those used to access the online submission account. This ensures that if, by chance, the signature device was compromised, the owner of the device will be notified outside ofthe system that someone made submissions in their name. This is a common practice used by online shopping sites-after making a purchase on a site, you are notified that the purchase was made with a confirmation in a separate email system. 

### Note: This requirement must be met at the time of signatory registration.
THE SYSTEM MUST BE ABLE TO PROVE SIGNATORIES HAVE SIGNED E-SIGNATURE AGREEMENTS. Signatories have executed e-signature agreements related to using their signature devices. The esignature agreement can be done electronically, but can also be done on paper. The agreement must include the following:

• The signatory agrees to protect their signature device, such as a password or hardware token, from compromise; • The signatory agrees to report any evidence of compromise; and • The signatory understands that the signature they submit electronically with the device carries the same legal force and obligation as a hand written signature. Usually, signatories execute this agreement when they register with the system to receive their electronic signature device: 

### Note: This requirement must be met at the time of signatory registration.



### 5-SCROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 5

THE SYSTEM MUST BE ABLE TO PROVE IDENTITIES WITH LEGAL CERTAINTY. This is a requirement that serves to establish the identity of an individual who is issued (or registers) an electronic signature device with enough evidence that it will hold up in a court of law. This is the one instance in all these requirements in which CROMERR is tiered in terms of priority and non-priority reports.

• For Non-Priority Reports, the requirement does not specify how identity proofing is to be carried out. • For Priority Reports, the identity proofing must be done prior to signature execution, and must be done with one of two specified methods. Priority reports and their associated identity proofing requirements will be discussed in more detail later in this lesson. 

### Note: This requirement mustbe metat the time of signatory registration. PRIORITY VS. NON-PRIORITY REPORTS Under§ 3.2000(b)(S)(vii), CROMERR requires that more specific conditions be met where the electronically signed documents have been designated as Priority Reports. Priority Reports are those that EPA has identified as likely to be material to potential enforcement litigation. Given this likelihood, it is important to provide not only for the provability of signature device ownership in principle, but for the practical need to make this proofwith the resources typically available to enforcement staff and within the constraints ofthe judicial process in criminal and civil proceedings. A list ofthese reports can be found under Appendix 1 to Part 3 of CROMERR. The CROMERR requirements for determining the identity of someone submitting an electronic report are different for Priority and Non-Priority reports. Select each ofthe buttons below for information on these requirements. For Priority Reports, the system must determine identity before thee-signature is received by means of either:

• Wet-ink-on-paper e-signature agreements (i.e., subscriber agreements) either submitted to the state or maintained by a responsible company official. While some systems with CROMERR approval require that they be notarized, notarization is not a CROMERR requirement; OR • Electronic identity-proofing by a disinterested party (such as a public key infrastructure [PKI] certificate authority or an agency official) using objectively verifiable information, including at least one government-issued identifier such as a driver's license number or passport; OR • Identity-proofing using an approach no less stringent than electronic identity-proofing as specified above.

5-6CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 5 Note: Disinterestedparty refers to an individual who is not connected with theperson in whose name the electronic signature device is issued. A disinterested individual is not any ofthe following:

• The person's employer or employer's corporate parent, subsidiary, or affiliate; • The person's contracting agent; • A memberofthe person's household; or • A relative with whom the person has a personal relationship. For Non-Priority Reports, the system must determine identity by collecting and maintaining information sufficient to prove the identity of individuals that sign and submit electronic documents. Note that CROMERR does not specify when or how this goal is to be achieved. ENFORCEABILITY PROVISIONS In § 3.2000(c), CROMERR outlines the last ofthe requirements-the enforceability provisions for authorized programs implementing electronic reporting. Specifically, this section states:

• Failure to comply with the CROMERR e-reporting provisions subjects a person to penalties for noncompliance with the associated reporting requirement. • E-signatures legally bind or obligate the signatory to the same extent as handwritten signatures. • Proof that a particular e-signature device was used to sign an e-document will suffice to establish intent to sign thee-document and give it effect. • Nothing in CROMERR limits the use of e-documents or information derived from e-documents in enforcement proceedings. A program's compliance with these requirements is addressed in the AG Certification Statement, which was described in Lesson 3 .



## •

5-7CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 6



### LESSON 

# 6: USING THE CHECKLIST TO WORK THROUGH SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
Lesson 5 described how CROMERR presents the system requirements for receiving electronic reports, with a focus on the system- and enforcement-related requirements. Lesson 6 describes how these same requirements are presented in the CROMERR System Checklist (which was introduced in Lesson 4). You may want to refer to the checklist as you step through this lesson. The CROM ERR System Checklist describes the CROMERR system requirements as they affect the following five system processes: 1. Registration; 2. Signature Process; 3. Submission Process; 4. Signature Validation; and 5. COR. This lesson covers these five processes in detail, and:

• Shows how the CROMERR requirements and checklist processes are interrelated; and • Suggests how to use the CROMERR System Checklist Template in conjunction with the CROMERR System Checklist to describe how your system meets the CROMERR system requirements. Note: The CROMERR System Checklist is not a requiredpart of your CROMERR application; instead, it is a tool created to assist you as you work toward meeting the requirements. Processes three and five are involved in electronic submissions, while processes one, two, and four are only involved where the submissions include an electronic signature. REGISTRATION Checklist items 1 through 4 are grouped under the Registration Process, where users establish their accounts in the system. This process typically requires users to provide information about them. The system administrator then reviews this information and provides the users with system privileges and signing credentials. Checklist items 1 through 4 represent CROMERR requirements that this registration process must satisfy. 1. Identity-Proofing of Registrant-For users who will sign electronic reports, CROMERR requires that the system determine the individual's identity, usually as a part ofthe registration process.


### 6-1CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 6 This identity-proofing is the one CROMERR requirement that is more stringent for users who will sign Priority Reports. For users who will sign Priority Reports, CROMERR requires that the system establish their identity before accepting reports with theirelectronic signatures. There are two ways to do this. One is to establish identity through verification by, and attestation of, a disinterested party, based on identifiers-at least one ofwhich is government-issued. The other way is to include the registrant's handwritten signature as part ofthe electronic signature agreement (ESA) process. Where the ESA is executed on paper with a handwritten signature, it is called a "subscriber agreement." For users who sign only Non-Priority Reports, CROMERR does not specify when or how the identity proofing must be done, although either method specified for Priority Reports will satisfy the requirement in the non-priority case. Reference: CROMERR § 3.2000(b)(S)(vii) "(b) An electronic document receiving system that receives electronic documents submitted in lieu of paper documents to satisfy requirements under an authorized program must be able to generate data with respect to any such electronic document, as needed and in atimely manner, including a copy of record for the electronic document, sufficient to prove, in private litigation, civil enforcement proceedings, and criminal proceedings, that

... (5) In the case of an electronic document that must bear electronic signatures of individuals as provided under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, that:

... (vii) For each electronic signature device used to create an electronic signature on the document, the identity of the individual uniquely entitled to use the device and his or her relation to any entity for which he or she will sign electronic documents has been determined with legal certainty 

### by the issuing state, tribe, or local government. In the case of priority reports identified in the table in Appendix 1 of Part 3, this determination has been made before the electronic document is received, by means of: 

### (A) Identifiers or attributes that are verified (and that may be re-verified at any time) by attestation of disinterested individuals to be uniquely true of (or attributable to) the individual in whose name the application is submitted, based on information or objects of independent origin, at least one item of which is not subject to change without governmental action or authorization; or (B) A method of determining identity no less stringent than would be permitted under paragraph (b)(S)(vii)(A) ofthis section; or 

### (C) Collection of either a subscriber agreement or a certification from a local registration authority that such an agreement has been received and securely stored.



### 6-2CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 6 A disinterested individual is an individual who is not connected with the person in whose name the electronic signature device is issued. A disinterested individual is not any ofthe following: The person's employer or employer's corporate parent, subsidiary, or affiliate; the person's contracting agent; member of the person's household; or relative with whom the person has a personal relationship. A subscriber agreement is an electronic signature agreement signed by an individual with a handwritten signature. This agreement must be stored until five years after the associated electronic signature device has been deactivated. A local registration authority is an individual who is authorized by a state, tribe, or local government to issue an agreement collection certification, whose identity has been established by notarized affidavit, and who is authorized in writing by a regulated entity to issue agreement collection certifications on its behalf. An agreement collection certification is a signed statement by which a local registration authority certifies that a subscriber agreement has been received from a registrant; the agreement has been stored in a manner that prevents unauthorized access to these agreements by anyone other than the local registration authority; and the local registration authority has no basis to believe that any ofthe collected agreements have been tampered with or prematurely destroyed. 2. Determination of Registrant's Authority-CROMERR requires the system to determine that users who will sign reports are actually authorized to do so on behalf ofthe specified regulated entities. This determination is usually based on some combination ofthe program's existing knowledge of the regulated entities, information submitted by the users or officials ofthe regulated entities, and some follow-up verification-such as phone calls or as a part of routine inspections. Reference: § 3.2000{b)(S)(vii) "(b) An electronic document receiving system that receives electronic documents submitted in lieu of paper documents to satisfy requirements under an authorized program must be able to generate data with respect to any such electronic document, as needed and in a timely manner, including a copy of record for the electronic document, sufficient to prove, in private litigation, civil enforcement proceedings, and criminal proceedings, that... (5) In the case of an electronic document that must bear electronic signatures of individuals as provided under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, that:

... {vii) For each electronic signature device used to create an electronic signature on the document, the identity of the individual uniquely entitled to use the device and his or her relation to any entity for which he or she will sign electronic documents has been determined with legal certainty by the issuing state, tribe, or local government. In the case of priority reports identified in the table in Appendix 1 of Part 3, this determination has been made before the electronic document is received, by means of:



### 6-3CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 6 (A) Identifiers or attributes that are verified (and that may be re-verified at any time) by attestation of disinterested individuals to be uniquely true of (or attributable to) the individual in whose name the application is submitted, based on information or objects of independent origin, at least one item ofwhich is not subject to change without governmental action or authorization; OR (B) A method of determining identity no less stringent than would be permitted under paragraph (b)(S)(vii)(A) of this section; OR 

### (C) Collection of either a subscriber agreement or a certification from a local registration authority that such an agreement has been received and securely stored. 3. Issuance (or Registration) of a Signing Credential in a Way that Protects it from CompromiseCROMERR requires the system to provide users who will sign electronic reports with electronic signature devices (or credentials) to execute their electronic signatures. These devices could be passwords, PINs, PKI certificates associated with private-public key pairs, physical tokens such as a USB device, or devices incorporating biometrics (e.g., fingerprints). Whatever device is issued (or registered), there are two basic requirements that need to be met. The first is to ensure that a device intended for a specific, identified user is issued only to that individual. The second is to ensure that the process of issuing that device-and maintaining a record of it on the systemprotects the device from compromise. Reference:§ 3.2000(b)(S)(i) "(b) An electronic document receiving system that receives electronic documents submitted in lieu of paper documents to satisfy requirements under an authorized program must be able to generate data with respect to any such electronic document, as needed and in a timely manner, including a copy of record for the electronic document, sufficient to prove, in private litigation, civil enforcement proceedings, and criminal proceedings, that

... (5) In the case of an electronic document that must bear electronic signatures of individuals as provided under paragraph (a)(2) ofthis section, that: (i) Each electronic signature was a valid electronic signature at the time ofsigning" A valid electronic signature is an electronic signature on an electronic document that has been created with an electronic signature device that the identified signatory is uniquely entitled to use for signing that document, where this device has not been compromised, and where the signatory is an individual.

.. who is authorized to sign the document by virtue of his or her legal status and/or his or her relationship to the entity on whose behalf the signature is executed. An electronic signature device is a code or other mechanism that is used to create electronic signatures. Where the device is used to create an individual's electronic signature, then the code or mechanism must be unique to that individual at the time the signature is created and he orshe



### 6-4CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 6 must be uniquely

... entitled to use it. The device is compromised ifthe code or mechanism is available for use by any other person. 4. Electronic Signature Agreement-CROMERR requires that users sign an Electronic Signature Agreement, and this is normally part ofthe registration process. This agreement must include language that obligates the registrant to protect the credential from compromise, and to immediately report any evidence of compromise to the system administrator. The agreement must also include a statement that the registrant understands that any electronic signature executed with the electronic signature device is as legally binding as a handwritten signature. Reference:§ 3.2000(b)(S)(v) "(b) An electronic document receiving system that receives electronic documents submitted in lieu of paper documents to satisfy requirements under an authorized program must be able to generate data with respect to any such electronic document, as needed and in a timely manner, including a copy of record for the electronic document, sufficient to prove, in private litigation, civil enforcement proceedings, and criminal proceedings, that

... (5) In the case of an electronic document that must bear electronic signatures of individuals as provided under paragraph (a)(2) ofthis section, that:

... (v) Each signatory has signed either an electronic signature agreement or a subscriber agreement with respeCt to the electronic signature device used to create his or her electronic signature on the electronic document." An electronic signature agreement is an agreement signed by an individual with respect to an electronic signature device that the individual will use to create his or her electronic signatures requiring such individual to protect the electronic signature device from compromise; to promptly report to the agency... or agencies relying on the electronic signatures created any evidence discovered that the device has been compromised; and to be held as legally bound, obligated, or responsible by the electronic signatures created as by a handwritten signature. A subscriber agreement is an electronic signature agreement signed by an individual with a handwritten signature. This agreement must be stored until five years after the associated electronic signature device has been deactivated. SIGNATURE PROCESS Checklist items 5 through 7 are grouped under the Signature Process and represent CROMERR requirements that this process must satisfy. 5. Binding of Signatures to Document Content-CROMERR requires that all electronic signatures be bound to the document content. This means that the system must provide a way to ensure that the document content is, in effect, "locked" so that it cannot be subject to undetectable changes once the signature is executed. 

### 6-5

# ( CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 6 Reference: § 3.2000(b)(S)(ii)

11(b) An electronic document receiving system that receives electronic documents submitted in lieu of paper documents to satisfy requirements under an authorized program must be able to generate data with respect to any such electronic document, as needed and in a timely manner, including a copy of record for the electronic document, sufficient to prove, in private litigation, civil enforcement proceedings, and criminal proceedings, that... (5) In the case of an electronic document that must bear electronic signatures of individuals as provided under paragraph (a)(2) ofthis section, that... (ii) The electronic document cannot be altered without detection at any time after being signed." 6. Opportunity to Review Document Content-CROMERR also requires that the signature process provide the signers with the opportunity to review the content ofthe document they are signing. Reference:§ 3.2000(b)(5)(iii)

11(b) An electronic document receiving system that receives electronic documents submitted in lieu of paper documents to satisfy requirements under an authorized program must be able to generate data with respect to any such electronic document, as needed and in a timely manner, including a copy of record for the electronic document, sufficient to prove, in private litigation, civil enforcement proceedings, and criminal proceedings, that... (5) In the case of an electronic document that must bear electronic signatures of individuals as provided under paragraph (a)(2) ofthis section, that... (iii) Each signatory had the opportunity to review in a human-readable format the content ofthe electronic documentthat he or she was certifying to, attesting to or agreeing to by signing." 7. Opportunity to Review Certification Statements and Warnings-Along with the opportunity to review document content, CROMERR also requires that signers have the opportunity to review certification statements-including any applicable warnings of criminal penalties for false certifications-before asking them to execute their electronic signatures. Reference:§ 3.2000(b)(5)(iv) "(b) An electronic document receiving system that receives electronic documents submitted in lieu of paper documents to satisfy requirements under an authorized program must be able to generate data with respect to any such electronic document, as needed and in a timely manner, including a copy of record for the electronic document, sufficient to prove, in private litigation, civil enforcement proceedings, and criminal proceedings, that

... (5) In the case of an electronic document that must bear electronic signatures of individuals as provided under paragraph (a)(2) ofthis section, that... 6-6CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 6 (iv) Each signatory had the opportunity, at the time ofsigning, to review the content or meaning ofthe required certification statement, including any applicable provisions that false certification carries criminal penalties." SUBMISSION PROCESS Checklist items 8 through 12 are grouped under the Submission Process, and represent the CROMERR requirements that must be satisfied as the report or document is transferred to the system during a formal submission. Items 8 through 11 are required for all submittals, whether or not an electronic signature is included. 8. Transmission Error Checking and Documentation-CROMERR requires that the system be able to assure that it received the electronic report through an error-free transmission or that any errors in transmission are documented. This normally involves the use of cryptographic technologies (e.g., secure socket layer). Reference:§ 3.2000(b)(1)-(2) "(b) An electronic document receiving system that receives electronic documents submitted in lieu of paper documents to satisfy requirements under an authorized program must be able to generate data with respect to any such electronic document, as needed and in· a timely manner, including a copy of record for the electronic document, sufficient to prove, in private litigation, civil enforcement proceedings, and criminal proceedings, that

... (1) The electronic document was not altered without detection during transmission or at any time after receipt; (2) Any alterations to the electronic document during transmission or after receipt are fully documented." A Copy of Record is a true and correct copy of an electronic document received by an electronic document receiving system, which copy can be viewed in a human-readable format that clearly and accurately associates all the information provided in the electronic document with descriptions or... labeling of the information. A copy of record includes: 1) All electronic signatures contained in or logically associated with that document; 2) The date and time of receipt; and 3) Any other information used to record the meaning ofthe document or the circumstances of its receipt. 9. Opportunity to Review COR-CROMERR requires that the system provide the submitter and any signers with the opportunity to review the Copy of Record (COR) ofthe submittal after it is formally received. This is distinct from the requirement that signers have the opportunity to review document content and certification statements prior to signing and submitting, which are addressed in items 6 and 7. The requirement here has three elements. First, the system must 

### 6-7CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 6 notify the submitter and any signers that the COR is available for their review. Second, the system must produce aversion ofthe COR in a human-readable format. Third, and finally, the system must provide the signers and submitter with access to the COR in this human-readable format. Reference:§ 3.2000(b)(4) "(b) An electronic document receiving system that receives electronic documents submitted in lieu of paper documents to satisfy requirements under an authorized program must be able to generate data with respect to any such electronic document, as needed and in a timely manner, including a copy of record for the electronic document, sufficient to prove, in private litigation, civil enforcement proceedings, and criminal proceedings, that

... (4) Any individual identified in the electronic document submission as a submitter or signatory had the opportunity to review the copy of record in a human-readable format that clearly and accurately associates all the information provided in the electronic document with descriptions or labeling of the information and had the opportunityto repudiate the electronic document based on this review." A Copy of Record is a true and correct copy of an electronic document received by an electronic document receiving system, which copy can be viewed in a human-readable format that clearly and accurately associates all the information provided in the electronic document with descriptions or... labeling ofthe information. A copy of record includes: 1) All electronic signatures contained in or logically associated with that document; 2) The date and time of receipt; and 3) Any other information used to record the meaning ofthe document or the circumstances of its receipt. 10. Procedures to Address Repudiation COR-CROMERR requires that the submitter and any signers have the opportunity to repudiate the Copy of Record (COR) in part or in total, ifthey disagree with how the COR represents the submission. The system must also have a way to address any cases of repudiation and to document the history of the submission in those cases. Reference:§ 3.2000(b)(1)-(2) "(b) An electronic document receiving system that receives electronic documents submitted in lieu of paper documents to satisfy requirements under an authorized program must be able to generate data with respect to any such electronic document, as needed and in a timely manner, including a copy of record for the electronic document, sufficient to prove, in private litigation, civil enforcement proceedings, and criminal proceedings, that

... (1) The electronic document was not altered without detection during transmission or at any time after receipt; (2) Any alterations to the electronic document during transmission or after receipt are fully documented." 

### 6-8CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 6 A Copy of Record is a true and correct copy of an electronic document received by an electronic document receiving system, which copy can be viewed in a human-readable format that clearly and accurately associates all the information provided in the electronic document with descriptions or... labeling ofthe information. A copy of record includes: 1) All electronic signatures contained in or logically associated with that document; 2) The date and time of receipt; and 3) Any other information used to record the meaning ofthe document or the circumstances of its receipt. 11. Procedure to Flag Accidental Submissions-CROMERR requires that the system be able to identify accidental or counterfeit submissions and have a way of addressing user repudiations of submissions as forged or accidental. For those cases, the system must also be able to document the submission's history. Reference: § 3.2000(b)(3) "(b) An electronic document receiving system that receives electronic documents submitted in lieu of paper documents to satisfy requirements under an authorized program must be able to generate data with respect to any such electronic document, as needed and in a timely manner, including a copy of record for the electronic document, sufficient to prove, in private litigation, civil enforcement proceedings, and criminal proceedings, that

... (3) The electronic document was submitted knowingly and not by accident." 12. Automatic Acknowledgement of Submission-Where the submission includes an electronic signature, CROMERR requires that the system automatically send an acknowledgement to the individual identified as the signer at the time of submittal. The acknowledgement must identify the submittal, the signers, and the date and time the submittal was received. This automatic acknowledgement must be sent to an "out-of-band" address-that is, an address that does not share the same access controls like the username, PIN, or password-as the account used to make the electronic submission. This address is typically an email address, but it could be a U.S. Postal address or even a phone number. One purpose ofthis requirement is to help system users detect any compromise oftheir signature devices. If a submission includes a signature executed with a device by someone other than its registered owner, the owner will be alerted by the acknowledgement he or she receives at the out-of-band address. Given this purpose, the system must include procedures to follow-up when the acknowledgement cannot be delivered to determine whetherthe email or U.S. Postal address associated with the account is still valid. Reference: § 3.2000(b)(S)(vi) "(b) An electronic document receiving system that receives electronic documents submitted in lieu of paper documents to satisfy requirements under an authorized program must be able to 6-9

# ( CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 6 generate data with respect to any such electronic document, as needed and in a timely manner, including a copy of record for the electronic document, sufficient to prove, in private litigation, civil enforcement proceedings, and criminal proceedings, that... (5) In the case of an electronic document that must bear electronic signatures of individuals as provided under paragraph (a)(2) ofthis section, that... (vi) The electronic document receiving system has automatically responded to the receipt ofthe electronic document with an acknowledgment that identifies the electronic document received, including the signatory and the date and time of receipt, and is sent to at least one address that does not share the same access controls as the account used to make the electronic submission." SIGNATURE VALIDATION Checklist items 

### 13 through 17 are grouped under the Signature Validation Process, and represent CROMERR requirements that the system must satisfy as part ofensuring that electronic signatures it receives are valid. 13. Credential Validation-For each electronic signature received, CROMERR requires that the system verify that the identified signer is actually authorized to sign the submittal. Reference:§ 3.2000(b)(5)(i) "(b) An electronic document receiving system that receives electronic documents submitted in lieu of paper documents to satisfy requirements under an authorized program must be able to generate data with respect to any such electronic document, as needed and in a timely manner, including a copy of record for the electronic document, sufficient to prove, in private litigation, civil enforcement proceedings, and criminal proceedings, that

... (5) In the case of an electronic document that must bear electronic signatures of individuals as provided under paragraph (a)(2) ofthis section, that: (i) Each electronic signature was a valid electronic signature at the time of signing." A valid electronic signature is an electronic signature on an electronic document that has been created with an electronic signature device that the identified signatory is uniquely entitled to use for signing that document, where this device has not been compromised, and where the signatory is an individual

... who is authorized to sign the document by virtue of his or her legal status and/or his or her relationship to the entity on whose behalfthe signature is executed. An electronic signature device is a code or other mechanism that is used to create electronic signatures. Where the device is used to create an individual's electronic signature, then the code or mechanism must be unique to that individual at the time the signature is created and he or she

6-10CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 6 must be uniquely

... entitled to use it. The device is compromised ifthe code or mechanism is available for use by any other person. 14. Signatory Authorization-Underthe Submission Process, CROMERR requires that the system be able to flag counterfeit submittals. Under the Signature Validation Process, CROM ERR also requires that the system be able to flag counterfeit credential use, which would indicate that the credential has been compromised. Reference: § 3.2000(b)(S)(i) "(b) An electronic document receiving system that receives electronic documents submitted in lieu of paper documents to satisfy requirements under an authorized program must be able to generate data with respect to any such electronic document, as needed and in a timely manner, including a copy of record for the electronic document, sufficient to prove, in private litigation, civil enforcement proceedings, and criminal proceedings, that... (5) In the case of an electronic document that must bear electronic signatures of individuals as provided under paragraph (a)(2) ofthis section, that: (i) Each electronic signature was a valid electronic signature at the time ofsigning." A valid electronic signature is an electronic signature on an electronic document that has been created with an electronic signature device that the identified signatory is uniquely entitled to use for signing that document, where this device has not been compromised, and where the signatory is an individual

... who is authorized to sign the document by virtue of his or her legal status and/or his or her relationship to the entity on whose behalf the signature is executed. An electronic signature device is a code or other mechanism that is used to create electronic signatures. Where the device is used to create an individual's electronic signature, then the code or mechanism must be unique to that individual at the time the signature is created and he or she must be uniquely

... entitled to use it. The device is compromised ifthe code or mechanism is available for use by any other person. 15. Procedures to Flag Counterfeit Credential Use-CROMERR requires that the system include procedures to follow up on evidence and reports of credential compromise, including procedures to revoke a credential when compromise is indicated. Correspondingly, the system must be able to reject submissions that include e-sigrratures executed with revoked credentials. Reference:§ 3.2000(b)(S)(i) "(b) An electronic document receiving system that receives electronic documents submitted in lieu of paper documents to satisfy requirements under an authorized program must be able to generate data with respect to any such electronic document, as needed and in atimely manner,



### 6-11( CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 6 including a copy of record for the electronic document, sufficient to prove, in private litigation, civil enforcement proceedings, and criminal proceedings, that

... 

### (5) In the case of an electronic document that must bear electronic signatures of individuals as provided under paragraph (a)(2) ofthis section, that: (i) Each electronic signature was avalid electronic signature at the time of signing." A valid electronic signature is an electronic signature on an electronic document that has been created with an electronic signature device that the identified signatory is uniquely entitled to use for signing that document, where this device has not been compromised, and where the signatory is an individual.

.. who is authorized to sign the document by virtue of his or her legal status and/or his or her relationship to the entity on whose behalf the signature is executed. An electronic signature device is a code or other mechanism that is used to create electronic signatures. Where the device is used to create an individual's electronic signature, then the code or mechanism must be unique to that individual at the time the signature is created and he or she must be uniquely

... entitled to use it. The device is compromised ifthe code or mechanism is available for use by any other person. 16. Procedures to Revoke or Reject Compromised Credentials-CROMERR requires that the system include procedures to follow up on evidence and reports of credential compromise, including procedures to revoke a credential when compromise is indicated. Correspondingly, the system must be able to reject submissions that include e-signatures executed with revoked credentials. Reference:§ 3.2000(b)(S)(i) "(b) An electronic document receiving system that receives electronic documents submitted in lieu of paper documents to satisfy requirements under an authorized program must be able to generate data with respect to any such electronic document, as needed and in a timely manner, including a copy of record for the electronic document, sufficient to prove, in private litigation, civil enforcement proceedings, and criminal proceedings, that

... (5) In the case of an electronic document that must bear electronic signatures of individuals as provided under paragraph (a)(2) ofthis section, that: (i) Each electronic signature was a valid electronic signature at the time of signing." A valid electronic signature is an electronic signature on an electronic document that has been created with an electronic signature device that the identified signatory is uniquely entitled to use for signing that document, where this device has not been compromised, and where the signatory is an individual.

.. who is authorized to sign the document by virtue of his or her legal status and/or his or her relationship to the entity on whose behalf the signature is executed.

6-12CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 6 An electronic signature device is a code or other mechanism that is used to create electronic signatures. Where the device is used to create an individual's electronic signature, then the code or mechanism must be unique to that individual at the time the signature is created and he or she must be uniquely

... entitled to use it. The device is compromised if the code or mechanism is available for use by any other person. 17. Confirmation of Signature Bindings to Document Content-Related to item 5-requiring signature binding-CROMERR requires that the system be able to determine whether the content of an electronically-signed submittal matches the content at the time the signature was executed. Reference:§ 3.2000(b)(5)(ii) "(b) An electronic document receiving system that receives electronic documents submitted in lieu of paper documents to satisfy requirements under an authorized program must be able to generate data with respect to any such electronic document, as needed and in a timely manner, including a copy of record for the electronic document, sufficient to prove, in private litigation, civil enforcement proceedings, and criminal proceedings, that

... (5) In the case of an electronic document that must bear electronic signatures of individuals as provided under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, that... (ii) The electronic document cannot be altered without detection at any time after being signed." COPY OF RECORD (COR) Checklist items 18 through 20 are grouped under the fifth and final process, the COR Process. These items represent CROMERR requirements that the system must satisfy in creating and maintaining CORs. The items address:

• What data CORs must capture; • How access to CORs must be provided to program and enforcement staff; and • How the CORs must be maintained. 18. Creation of COR-§ 3.2000(b)(l) through (2): For each legitimate submittal received, CROMERR requires the system to create a COR. The COR must be a "true and correct copy" ofthe submittal, in the sense that it must have exactly the same informational content as the submittal; otherwise, it must document any changes to this content after submittal. The COR must include all associated signatures, the date and time of receipt, and any other information necessary to interpret the submittal. Finally, the COR must be viewable in a human-readable format that makes the meaning of each information item clear; although it need not be maintained in this format or in the format in which the submittal was originally received.


### 6-13

# ( CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 6 Reference:§ 3.2000(b)(1)-(2) "(b) An electronic document receiving system that receives electronic documents submitted in lieu of paper documents to satisfy requirements under an authorized program must be able to generate data with respect to any such electronic document, as needed and in a timely manner, including a copy of record for the electronic document, sufficient to prove, in private litigation, civil enforcement proceedings, and criminal proceedings, that... (1) The electronic document was not altered without detection during transmission or at any time after receipt; (2) Any alterations to the electronic document during transmission or after receipt are fully documented." A Copy of Record is a true and correct copy of an electronic document received by an electronic document receiving system, which copy can be viewed in a human-readable format that clearly and accurately associates all the information provided in the electronic document with descriptions or... labeling of the information. A copy of record includes: 1) All electronic signatures contained in or logically associated with that document; 2) The date and time of receipt; and 3) Any other information used to record the meaning ofthe document or the circumstances of its receipt. 19. Timely Availability of COR, as needed-§ 3.2000(b)(1) through (2): CROMERR requires the system to provide program and enforcement staff with timely access to the CORs and the associated documentation. Reference:§ 3.2000(b)(1)-(2) "(b) An electronic document receiving system that receives electronic documents submitted in lieu of paper documents to satisfy requirements under an authorized program must be able to generate data with respect to any such electronic document, as needed and in a timely manner, including a copy of record for the electronic document, sufficient to prove, in private litigation, civil enforcement proceedings, and criminal proceedings, that... (1) The electronic document was not altered without detection during transmission or at anytime after receipt; (2) Any alterations to the electronic document during transmission or after receipt are fully documented." A Copy of Record is a true and correct copy of an electronic document received by an electronic document receiving system, which copy can be viewed in a human-readable format that clearly and accurately associates all the information provided in the electronic document with descriptions or... labeling ofthe information. A copy of record includes: 1) All electronic signatures 

### 6-14CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 6 contained in or logically associated with that document; 2) The date and time of receipt; and 3) Any other information used to record the meaning ofthe document or the circumstances of its receipt. 20. Maintenance of COR-CROMERR requires the system to maintain the CORs for as long as needed by program or enforcement staff. The CORs must be maintained together with any information needed to document their integrity, such as records or logs of associated signature validation processes. Finally, the CORs must be maintained in a way that protects them from alteration or deletion on a system that is electronically and physically secure. Reference:§ 3.2000(b){1)-(2) "(b) An electronic document receiving system that receives electronic documents submitted in lieu of paper documents to satisfy requirements under an authorized program must be able to generate data with respect to any such electronic document, as needed and in a timely manner, including a copy of record for the electronic document, sufficient to prove, in private litigation, civil enforcement proceedings, and criminal proceedings, that... (1) The electronic document was not altered without detection during transmission or at any time after receipt; (2) Any alterations to the electronic document during transmission or after receipt are fully documented." A Copy of Record is a true and correct copy of an electronic document received by an electronic document receiving system, which copy can be viewed in a human-readable format that clearly and accurately associates all the information provided in the electronic document with descriptions or... labeling ofthe information. A copy of record includes: 1) All electronic signatures contained in or logically associated with that document; 2) The date and time of receipt; and 3) Any other information used to record the meaning ofthe document or the circumstances of its receipt.
THE CROMERR REQUIREMENTS AND THE CHECKLIST ITEMS From the detailed discussion of the CROMERR System Checklist items, it should be evident that each checklist item corresponds to specific CROMERR requirements, and vice versa. The tables on the next two pages make this correspondence explicit.

• The first table maps CROMERR requirements to the corresponding checklist items. • The second table maps checklist items to the corresponding CROMERR requirements.
THE CROMERR REQUIREMENTS AND THE RELATED CHECKLIST ITEMS 

### 6-15CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 6 System Requirements § 3.2000(b)(1): Thee-document is not alterable without detection. Related Checklist Items 

### § 3.2000(b)(2): Alterations to thee-document are documented by the system. 

### § 3.2000(b)(3): Thee-document can only be submitted intentionally. Items 8, 10, 18 Items 8, 10, 18 Item 11 

### § 3.2000(b)(4): Submitters and signers can review the COR of thee-document. § 3.2000(b)(5): If an e-signature is required, then thee-document meets esignature requirements: Item 9

(i) Signature valid at time of signing (ii) Document cannot be altered without detection after signing (iii) Opportunity to review content (iv) Opportunity to review certifications statement (v) Receipt Acknowledgement (vi) E-signature agreements (vii) Identity proofing with legal certainty

MAPPING PROCESSES AND CHECKLIST ITEMS TO REQUIREMENTS Checklist Items Registration 1. Identity-Proofing of Registrant 2. Determination of Registrants Signing Authority 3. Issuance (or Registration) of a Signing Credential in a Way that Protects it from Compromise 4. Electronic Signature Agreement Signature Process 5. Binding of Signatures to Document Content 6. Opportunity to Review Document Content 7. Opportunity to Review Certification Statements and Warnings Submission Process 8. Transmission Error Checking and Documentation 9. Opportunity to Review COR 10. Procedures to Address Submitter or Signatory 11. Procedure to Flag Accidental Submissions 12. Automatic Acknowledgement of Submission Signature Validation 13. Credential Validation 14. Signatory Authorization 15. Procedures to Flag Counterfeit Credential Use 6-16 Items 1, 2, 3, 13, 14, 15, 16 Items 5, 17 Item 6 Item 7 Item 4 Item 12 Items 1, 2

System Requirement § 3.2000(b)(5)(vii) § 3.2000(b)(5)(vii) § 3.2000(b)(5)(i) § 3.2000(b)(5)(i) § 3.2000(b)(5)(v) § 3.2000(b)(5)(ii) § 3.2000(b)(5)(iii) § 3.2000(b)(5)(iv) § 3.2000(b)(1)(2) § 3.2000(b)(4) § 3.2000(b)(1)(2) § 3.2000(b)(3) § 3.2000(b)(5)(vi) § 3.2000(b)(5)(i) § 3.2000(b)(S)(i) § 3.2000(b)(5)(i)CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 6 Checklist Items 16. Procedures to Revoke or Reject Compromised Credentials 17. Confirmation of Signature Binding to Document Content COR 18. Creation of COR 19. Timely Availability of COR, as needed 20. Maintenance of COR System Requirement § 3.2000(b)(S)(i) § 3.2000(b)(S)(ii) § 3.2000(b)(1)(2) § 3.2000(b)(1)(2) § 3.2000(b)(1)(2)
THE CROMERR SYSTEM CHECKLIST AND THE SYSTEM CHECKLIST TEMPLATE The CROMERR System Checklist can help states that are preparing their CROMERR applications in two ways:

• First, it explains the CROMERR system requirements as specific system processes. • Second, it provides an approach for documenting how a system meets CROMERR requirements, by describing how the system provides for each ofthe Roadmap items. To support the second use of the checklist, EPA has also developed a corresponding CROMERR System Checklist Template-a document that provides a format for describing how the states system satisfies each ofthe checklist items. While the CROMERR System Template is not required for application, EPA strongly recommends its use. For each checklist item, the template provides three blank spaces, for:

• Business Practices • System Functions • Supporting Documentation (a list of attachments) Depending on the systems solution for the item, the description may fit into one, two, or all of these blanks. The CROMERR Web site, at http:/ /www.epa.gov/cromerr, provides several examples of how to use the CROMERR System Checklist Template to successfully document CROMERR-compliant systems for receiving electronic reports.

6-17CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 7



### LESSON 

# 7: FROM REQUIREMENTS TO SOLUTIONS So far, this training has examined the CROMERR requirements in a couple of different ways. Lesson 5 presented the requirements as they are stated in the regulation. Lesson 6 examined the requirements by associating them with particular processes outlined in the CROMERR System Checklist. Lesson 7 will provide another perspective on the requirements. It will provide examples of different approaches for meeting CROMERR requirements. To help you choose solutions to comply with these requirements, Lesson 7 highlights:

• The relation between the CROMERR requirements and specific approaches to compliance; and • Some key decisions in your compliance strategy that will affect your overall system design. FROM REQUIREMENTS TO SPECIFIC SOLUTIONS CROMERR REQUIREMENTS SET PERFORMANCE GOALS: • They specify the WHAT your system must be able to do. • But, they do not specify HOW your system does what it does-except, to a very limited extent, for the identity-proofing requirements in the case of Priority Reports.
CROMERR REQUIREMENTS DO NOT DICTATE SPECIFIC APPROACHES TO: • System functions; • Operating procedures; • System architecture; and • Technologies used. While currently available technologies may limit the choice of solutions for some of CROMERR's requirements, the requirements are written to allow the range of choices to expand as new technologies and products emerge. FROM REQUIREMENTS TO SPECIFIC SOLUTIONS The task is to decide on particular solutions to meet the general performance goals. Consider these two examples: 1. CROMERR Requirement: Provide an opportunity to review COR in a human-readable format.

• Requirement allows: Delivery on paper, on magnetic or optical media, or electronically; Delivery via online session, offline electronic transfer, or freight or postal carrier; and Creation from data in a database or a copy of what was submitted. 

### 7-1CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 7

• Solution could involve: Printing to paper or disks; Client-servertransactions, file-transfer or email, or the U.S. Postal Service; and XML or XSL formatting, PDF file capture, or other report generation functionality. 2. CROMERR Requirement: Issue (or register) a signing credential in a way that minimizes risk of compromise.

• Requirement allows: Creation of credential by registrant, system, or third party; and Credentials based on shared secrets (PINs or passwords), encrypted objects, biometrics, or physical tokens.

• Requirement could involve: Cryptography, biometric readers, security of "secure socket layer" sessions, or the security provided by paper envelopes; and Password- or PIN-generation functionality, enforcement ofstrength requirements for usergenerated credentials, issuance and maintenance of user hardware, or interface with third party credential services. FROM REQUIREMENTS TO SPECIFIC SOLUTIONS-TWO KEY DECISIONS As you consider particularsolutions to meet the general performance goals, two decisions are especially important because oftheir broader implications for your system. These key decisions are: 1. Type of credential used; and 2. What the system defines as the COR. Consider these key decisions before establishing system specifications and design. The following pages discuss these key decisions and describe their impacts on overall system design. As you think about different approaches, remember the implications and trade-offs associated with each decision.



### 7-2CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 7

KEY DECISION 

### 1: TYPE OF CREDENTIAL USED Type ofcredential used determines:

• How Credentials are IssuedMost credentials issued by or registered with the system require protection as they travel between registrant and system.

- Credentials that are registered (rather than issued) may need the system to enforce strength requirements and-where issued by a third party-ensure authenticity.

- Credentials that incorporate biometrics or include cryptographic keys will need specialized technologies to support them.

- Credentials issued in connection with hardware tokens will require support for users' implementation.

• Approach to Binding Signatures to Document Content-

- Credentials that include cryptographic keys may execute signatures that are automatically bound to the document being signed by incorporating a message digest or hash value uniquely related to the document content.

- Other kinds of credentials lack this functionality, and so require an independent approach to signature binding.

• How Signatures are Validated-

- Signatures executed with third party credentials require interaction with the issuing authority to determine that the credentials are authentic.

- Credentials that provide cryptographic keys may require decryption functionality for validation of the signatures they execute.

• How Signatures are Included in the COR-

- Credentials that are included "in the clear" in the signatures they execute (for example, as a PIN or password) need to be "shielded" in some way on the copies of record (COR), for example, by being encrypted or hashed. Hash Value-Cryptographic hash functions are one-way mathematical algorithms that take an arbitrary length input and produce afixed-length output string. The output is the hash value. A hash value is a unique and extremely compact numerical representation of a piece of data. It is computationally improbable to find two distinct inputs that hash to the same value (or "collide"). For example, consider the following two types of credentials:

• Shared secrets in the form of PINs or passwords; and 

### 7-3CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 7

• Certificates associated with private-public key pairs that are used to execute digital signatures.
Example Solutions Solution A Solution B**~** PINs or Passwords Private-Public Key Pairs Requires Secure Socket Layer (SSL), The private key-which is used to Transport Layer Security (TLS) or execute the signatures-can be Issuing Credential another technology during setup to generated at the user's work protect them as they travel station, so may not need to travel between registrant and system. between registrant and system. Execution of a PIN- or password- The digital signature executed with Binding Signature based signature does not bind it to the private key is bound to the the document signed, so the system document signed because the to Document must provide additional signature is just the hash value of Content functionality to provide for the document content encrypted signature binding. with the private key. Where the certificate associated
I with the key pair is issued by a third Signature Can rely wholly on internal system party-for example, where this is a records ofPINs or passwords PKI certificate-then validation Validation registered or issued by the system. requires interaction with the issuing authority to determine that the certificate is valid. Signatures consisting ofthe PIN or Access to a digital signature on a password 11 in the clear" need COR does not raise any issues of Including 11Shielding" on the CORs-for credential compromise because a Signatures in example by being encrypted or digital signature does not includeCopies of Record hashed-so that PINs and and provides no way to derive-the passwords are not compromised by private key needed to execute it. providing access to the CORs.

Private-Public Key Pairs-Each user has a pair of cryptographic keys-a public key and a private key. The private key is kept secret, while the public key may be widely distributed.

7-4CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 7 Digital Signatures-A digital signature (not to be confused with a digital certificate) is an electronic signature that can be used to authenticate the identity ofthe sender of a message or the signer of a document and possibly to ensure that the original content of the message or document that has been sent is unchanged. Digital signatures are easily transportable, cannot be imitated by someone else, and can be automatically time-stamped. Public Key Infrastructure (PKI)-PKI enables users of a basically unsecure public network, such as the Internet, to securely and privately exchange data and money through the use of a public and a private cryptographic key pair that is obtained and shared through a trusted authority. The public key infrastructure provides for a digital certificate that can identify an individual or an organization and directory services that can store and, when necessary, revoke the certificates.

KEY DECISION 

### 2: DEFINING THE COPY OF RECORD 

### (COR) What the system defines as the COR determines:

• How the COR is Shown to be "True and Correct"- The closer the COR is to the file received, the easier a 11

### true and correct" showing may be, since there will be few or no transformations of that file to account for. For CORs that do not have an associated hash value, a "true and correct" showing will depend heavily on how their access is secured, controlled, and logged. If CORs can incorporate changes to their content-for example, to accommodate submitter corrections-then a "true and correct" showing will depend heavily on a chain of custody that documents all such changes and their circumstances.

• How the Opportunity to Review is ProvidedThe COR's format will determine what processing is needed for a "human-readable" version.

- The medium in which the COR is maintained (e.g. electronic or paper) will affect how it can be provided for review. For example, consider the following ways a system can define the COR:

• A PDF capture ofthe on-screen appearance of the file submitted, associated with the signature, the date and time ofsubmission, and a hash value of the file submitted • The submitted data as stored in a database, associated with the signature and the date and time of submission. • A print-out of the submitted data, including the signature and the date and time ofsubmission.



### 7-5( CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 

### 7

Example Solutions:**~**

Opportunity to Review the COR Solution A PDF Capture of the

Submitted File

Requires making the PDF available online or sending it to the signer or submitter-as an email attachment or by other means-assuming the PDF captures a humanreadable format.

Requires a demonstration ofthe integrity ofthe PDF file, Solution B Data in a Database

Requires: (1) system functions to put the data into a humanreadable format; and (2) making the formatted data available online or sending it to the signer or submitter by other means, such as an email attachment. Requires a demonstration that: (1) the processing that placed the data in the database did not, in any for example, by showing COR is Shown that it has been secured way, affect its

to be "True against tampering or that informational content; and Correct" and (2) that the a hash value calculated database has been from the file matches the secured against hash calculated when it was received. tampering and any undocumented changes.

FROM KEY DECISIONS TO CROM ERR-COMPLIANT SOLUTIONS To recap, two key decisions addressed in this lesson include:



## • 

## • Decision 1-thetype of credential you use; and Decision 2-how you define the COR

. 

### 7-6 Solution C A Paper Print-Out

Requires procedures to: (1) receive requests; (2) produce paper copies; and (3) deliver the copies.

Requires procedures to: (1) produce an accurate printout of the submittal; (2) certify the print-out's accuracy; and (3) secure the print-out against any tampering or destruction.( CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 7 These will determine the available solutions for many, if not most, ofthe CROMERR System Checklist items that express the CROMERR requirements for your systems. In the next, and final, 

### lesson, we will focus on four critical checklist items that have an especially close connection with these two key decisions.

7-7CROM ERR 101: Funda menta Is for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 8



### LESSON 

# 8: FROM KEY DECISIONS TO CROMERR-COMPLIANT SOLUTIONS

FOUR CRITICAL ROADMAP ITEMS Lesson 8 focuses on four CROMERR System Checklist items that are closely related to the two key decisions discussed in Lesson 7, namely:

• Item 

### 3: Issuance {or Registration) of a Signing Credential in a Way that Protects it from Compromise; • Item 

### 5: Binding of Signatures to Document Content; • Item 

### 13: Credential Validation; and • Item 18: Creation of COR. These four Roadmap items are especially important to assuring both that:

• CORs maintained by your system truly represent what was submitted; and • Any associated electronic signatures can be proved to be authentic. For each ofthese items, Lesson 8 provides both:

• General advice on how they can be addressed; and • Specific examples of successful solutions drawn from already approved applications.

ITEM 

### #3: ISSUANCE OF A SIGNING CREDENTIAL As described in Lesson 

### 7, Decision 1-the type of credential used-affects what is required to ensure that the credential is protected from compromise, as required by checklist Item 

### 3. Item 

### 3 is critical to proving the authenticity ofthe signatures it is used to create-ifthe credential is compromised, then there would be no way to control who may use it to create associated signatures. Generally, the solution for Item 

### 3 needs to include answers to the following questions:

HOW IS THE CREDENTIAL ISSUANCE PROCESS LINKED TO IDENTITY PROOFING {ITEM 1)? Ifthere is any uncertainty about who the credential was actually issued to {or registered for), then there is no way to tell who has it. Some approved systems send an email to the email address provided by the user on the Subscriber Agreement submitted to satisfy identify-proofing requirements. In one approach to credential issuance, the link is provided by a verification key generated by the system and sent to the email address that the user provided on the Subscriber Agreement {which was submitted to satisfy identity-proofing requirements). The verification key is supplemented by requiring the user to enter the answer to a preset security question. In another approach, the link is provided by a hyperlink generated by the system and sent to the email address that the user has provided on the Subscriber Agreement {which was submitted to satisfy 8-1( CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 8 identity-proofing requirements). The hyperlink is supplemented by requiring the user to enter a password and provide the answers to two preset security questions.

WHAT KIND OF CREDENTIAL IS IT? For example, is it a PIN or a password combined with the answer to a challenge question? Is it PKI certificate associated with a private-public key pair?

WHAT IS THE ACTUAL PROCESS FOR ISSUING OR REGISTERING THE CREDENTIAL? What are the actual steps a user takes to receive or register his or her credential? Does the user log into the system or enter a password? One process could involve having each user log on to the system with a verification key received via email, answer a security question, and create a password subject to password-strength requirements. Another process could be to have the user log on to the system with the hyperlink received via email, provide his or her password, answer two security questions, and download the certificate package created by the PKI certificate authority.

HOW IS THE CREDENTIAL PROTECTED FROM COMPROMISE AS IT IS ISSUED OR REGISTERED? That is, what kind ofsecurity is provided for the transaction (e.g., is SSL orTLS used)? One approach could be to use a password creation session protected with SSL or TLS. An alternative approach could be to encrypt the private key and secure the download session with SSL.

HOW IS THE CREDENTIAL PROTECTED FROM COMPROMISE OR TAMPERING AS IT IS STORED IN YOUR SYSTEM? That is, what kind ofsecurity is there, and does it include some kind of encryption ofthe credentials? Some systems use passwords and security question answers that are one-way hashed, and stored in the system in that form. Other systems use a private key that is encrypted and stored only on the user's workstation. The private key may only be decrypted with a password available only to the user.
IS THERE A PROCESS TO ALLOW THE USER TO CHANGE HIS OR HER CREDENTIAL? And if so, how does your system ensure that only the legitimate account holder is able to do this? One process could require users who wish to change their password to enter the account's current password and answer a security question. Alternatively, in cases where the credential or password is lost or compromised, the user could be required to re-register and apply for a new credential.

ITEM 

### #5: BINDING SIGNATURE TO DOCUMENT CONTENT Both key decisions-type of credential and definition of COR-affect Item 5.



### 8-2CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 8 Recall that Decision 1-type of credential-affects signature binding in terms ofthe added functionality provided by PKI-based digital signatures. Decision 2-definition of COR-also affects this item. The COR will have to include both the locked document and the mechanism that provides the lock. Locking a document to be maintained as a discrete file will be very different than locking data elements in a database or on a paper printout. Item 5 is critical to proving that the COR reflects what was signed and submitted. If the COR can be changed without detection after signature and submission, then there is no way to confirm the actual submission or to what the signer attested. Generally, the solution for Item 5 needs to include answers to the following questions:

WHAT ARE THE STEPS IN THE SIGNATURE PROCESS? For example, when does the signer provide the credential that executes the signature? What happens before and after? Which steps occur online or offline? Signing could require an offline digital signature executed for the file containing the submission and an online entry of a password in conjunction with a review ofthe Certification Statement. Alternatively, the process could include having a user log into the system by entering his or her password and answering a challenge question. The user would then be presented with the opportunity to review the document being signed and the certification statement. To sign, the user would then enter his or her password again and press aSubmit button.

WHAT CONSTITUTES THE ACTUAL SIGNATURE? Fo.r example, is it the PIN and answerto a challenge question provided by the signer? Or is it the digital signature created with the signer's private key? Like the Signature Process, the signature could have two parts: a digital signature executed offline and a password entered by the user in conjunction with viewing the Certification Statement. Or, the signature could simply be the password entered by the user.

AT WHAT POINT IN THE SUBMISSION PROCESS IS THE DOCUMENT ACTUALLY LOCKED, AND WHAT IS THE LOCKING MECHANISM? For example, is the document locked by the execution of the signer's digital signature? Or is this a hashing function (or digital signature) executed by your system once the submission reaches your server? For example, execution ofthe digital signature could lock the document. It would be created by calculating the hash value ofthe content being signed and then encrypting the hash with the user's private key. 8-3

# ( CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 8 Or, upon receiving the submission, the system could calculate a hash value for the submitted data file. HOW ARE THE LOCKED DOCUMENT AND THE LOCK (E.G., THE HASH VALUE) INCORPORATED INTO THE COR? For example, are these components of the COR? The COR could include the document content (the locked document) together with its digital signature (the lock). The COR could also include the submitted data file (the locked document) and the hash value (the lock) of that file. HOW IS THE LOCK PROTECTED FROM TAMPERING? For example, ifthe lock is a hash value, what would prevent someone with back-end access to your system from changing the COR, recalculating the associated hash, and substituting these for the originals? The lock could be the user's digital signature, which is the hash ofthe document content encrypted with the user's private key. Someone who wishes to hide a change in the document content by replacing the lock with a new one would have to access the user's private key to execute a new digital signature with it. So, the security ofthe user's private key protects the lock from tampering. Alternatively, the hash value could be protected from tampering by tightly controlled system access, redundant storage, and providing it back to the signer or submitter. Someone who wishes to replace this hash value with a recalculated version-to hide changes in the COR-would have to defeat system access controls and access all the copies ofthe original, including the one in the signer's or submitter's custody.
ITEM 

### #13: CREDENTIAL VALIDATION Decision 1-thetype of credential used-affects what is required to validate it. Item 13 is critical to proving the authenticity ofthe signatures it is used to create. Ifthe credential is not valid, then it may not belong to the signer identified in the submittal, or it may be compromised. In either case, there would be no way to prove that the identified signer is the individual who actually signed the submittal. Generally, the solution for Item 13 needs to include answers to the following questions: HOW DOES THE SYSTEM DETERMINE THAT THE CREDENTIAL IS GENUINE-THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY ISSUED AS A PART OF THE REGISTRATION PROCESS? In the case of PINs and passwords, this may simply be a matter of looking up the credential in a table maintained by the system. In the case of a third-party credential, such as a PKI certification issued by a certificate authority, this may require interaction with the third-party.

8-4CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 8 For example, a system could verify that the certificate presented by the user was issued by the organization and has not been placed on any certificate revocation list {CRL). Or, a system could compare the hashed version of a password entered by the user with the hashed version the system stores with the user's account information to confirm that they match.

HOW DOES THE SYSTEM DETERMINE THAT THE CREDENTIAL ACTUALLY BELONGS TO THE SIGNER IDENTIFIED IN THE SUBMITTAL? For PINs and passwords, this may be a simple table look-up function, but for third-party credentials, this may require interaction with that party to verify identifying information embedded in the credential itself. For example, a system could confirm that the identified signer is the individual identified by the certificate, which associates that person with a public key. Or, similar to the way a system determines a credential is genuine, a system could compare and match the hashedversion of a password entered with the hashed version ofthe password stored in the user's account.

HOW DOES THE SYSTEM DETERMINE THAT THE CREDENTIAL WAS NOT COMPROMISED AT THE TIME OF SIGNATURE? Addressing this issue normally requires the validation ofa second-factor {known as second-factor authentication), whi!=h is some item uniquely within the control ofthe identified signer that can be used to prove that it was this individual-and no one else-who presented the credential to sign the submittal. One approach to do this is to have the public key decrypt the digital signature, and thus confirm that it was executed with the associated private key. The private key would be protected by a password. To confirm that the password has remained within the exclusive control of the identified user, he or she would be required to answer a challenge question at log-in, which provides a second authenticating factor. Or, a system could rely on a challenge question as a second authenticating factor in conjunction with a PIN- or password-based credential. The most commonly used second-factor is the answer{s) to one or more pre-set challenge questionsalthough there are also more technologically sophisticated options available.
ITEM 

### #18: CREATION OF 

### COR Both key decisions affect Item 18. Recall how Decision 2-definition of COR-affects the process of creating the COR and showing that it represents what was submitted. Decision 1-type of credential

### 8-5CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 8 also affects Item 18. By helping to determine the Signature-Binding Process (Item 5}, the choice oftype of credential also affects how the COR can be shown to be a "true and correct" copy ofthe submittal. Item 18 is closely connected with Item 5, and many successful applications address both items together under Item 5. In any case, both items are critical to proving that the COR reflects what was signed and submitted. Generally, the solution for Item 18 needs to include answers to the following questions: WHAT CONSTITUTES THE COR FOR YOUR SYSTEM? Ifyou have not addressed this question under earlier items (for example, under Item 5}, Item 18 is the place to list, in detail, the components of the COR and how they are packaged together. For example, the COR could include the submitted data, date and time of receipt, associated electronic signatures, and metadata to document the COR's integrity. HOW DOES THE COR PROVIDE A "TRUE AND CORRECT" COPY OF THE SUBMITTAL-"TRUE AND CORRECT" REFERS TO HAVING THE SAME INFORMATIONAL CONTENT (BUT NOT NECESSARILY IN THE SAME FORMAT)? The solution to this question may be closely related to the solution for Item 5, since, for example, the secured hash value that binds the signature to the document content may also help show that the COR containing this content is true and correct. A solution will also need to explain how the COR and any associated metadata (such as the hash value} are secured from tampering or destruction. The contents ofthe COR could be digitally signed with a system certificate as soon as the submission is received, with both the digital signature and associated key secured by the system. Or, the submission could be digitally signed at the user's workstation with a temporary private key that is not recoverable once the user session concludes. Decrypting the signature (with the associated public key stored with the COR} and comparing it with a recalculated hash of the signed document could assure the COR's integrity. Since the private key is not recoverable, no counterfeit signature could be generated to hide unauthorized changes to the COR. HOW DOES THE COR INCLUDE ANY ASSOCIATED E-SIGNATURES, AND HOW DOES THEIR INCLUSION AVOID CREDENTIAL COMPROMISE? CROMERR requires that the COR include any associated electronic signatures. When the signature includes the entry of a PIN or password, they are often included in an encrypted or hashed form to avoid compromising the PIN- or password-based credential. For example, the COR could include e-signatures as hashed or encrypted passwords.



### 8-6CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 8
HOW DOES THE COR PRESERVE EVIDENCE OF HOW IT APPEARED TO THE SIGNER WHEN PRESENTED IN A HUMAN-READABLE FORMAT? Ifthe COR is simply a PDF in a human-readable format, then this fact provides the answer. Otherwise, CORs for electronically signed submittals will need to include the formatting mechanism. For example, ifthe COR is maintained as an XML file, then the COR should include the XSL style sheet used in conjunction with the file to present it back to the signer. ADDITIONAL SAMPLE SOLUTIONS The U.S. EPA CROMERR website includes a number of state-developed and approved CROMERR applications that are available for reference. These sample applications include resources such as completed CROMERR System Checklists, completed Cover Sheets {Pages 1 and 2}, and success stories ofthe related effort. Another resource provided by EPA to help applicants is the CROMERR Application Challenges and Solutions document {first introduced in Lesson 3 ofthis training), which is available on the Tools for States, Tribes, and Local Governments page of the CROMERR site. This document describes common challenges identified in CROMERR applications but also provides examples of solutions used by CROMERR-approved systems. All of**thes~** resources are provided by EPA to help applicants identify ways to meet CROMERR requirements.
HELPFUL RESOURCES Below is a list ofthe various tools and resources referenced in this training, which are also available through the CROMERR website.

Cover Sheet Page 1 This two-page application cover sheet template provides a format for capturing and Page 2 specific and necessary information for the application. CROM ERR System This 13-page template provides a format for capturing information regarding ChecklistTemplate the system and how it meets specific CROMERR requirements. Sample Successful These are examples of EPA-approved application checklists that describe how Application Checklists the electronic document receiving system meets the applicable§ 3.2000 CROMERR requirements and the application documents that provide an overview of the systems and the electronic submissions received by the 8-7

# ( CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments Lesson 8

systems. CROMERR Application This document presents common challenges identified in CROMERR Challenges and applications received by EPA. For each challenge, it presents the CROMERR Solutions issue or deficiency, examples of effective approaches to resolving them, and the EPA-approved systems that use these effective approaches. This document should be used by state and local environmental agency officials and system managers to help them in planning systems that are CROMERR-compliant, preparing CROMERR applications, and responding to notices from EPA of issues and deficiencies for submitted applications. Challenge Question Second Factor Approach

Fact Sheets This document describes the requirements and potential approaches to using a second factor. EPA has determined that to meet the CROMERR requirements for priority reports, a system using PIN or password must be accompanied by some other identifier that together with the PIN or password will be sufficient to prove that thee-signature has not been compromised. One approach is to use the PIN or password in conjunction with a challenge question to create an e-signature. These files contain information about how CROMERR affects agencies, submission reports, and EPA offices in headquarters and regions. CROMERR Definitions This document contains a list of special terms used throughout the regulation.



## U.S. EPA DISCLAIMER Please note that each of the examples listed in this training provides an approach that could help satisfy the associated CROMERR requirement, depending on:

• How it is implemented; and • How it is combined with approaches to meet the other CROMERR System Checklist items. Adopting these example approaches does not guarantee that EPA will find the resulting system satisfies the CROMERR requirements.

8-8

### 59848 Federal Register/Val. 70, No. 197/Thursday, October 13, 2005 /Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 3, 9, 51, 60, 63, 69, 70, 71,123,142,145,162,233,257,258, 271,281, 403,501,745 and 763 [FRL-7977-1] RJN 2025-AA07 Cross-Media Electronic Reporting AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is establishingthe framework by which it will accept electronic reports from regulated entities in satisfaction ofcertain document submission requirements in EPA's regulations. EPA will provide public notice when the Agency is ready to receive direct submissions ofcertain documents from regulated entities in electronic form consistent with this rulemaking via an EPA electronic document receiving system. This rule does not mandate that regulated entities utilize electronic methods to submit documents in lieu ofpaper-based submissions. In addition, EPA is not taking final action on the electronic recordkeeping requirements at this time.

States, tribes, and local governments will be able to seek EPA approval to accept electronic documents to satisfy reporting requirements under Category environmental programs that EPA has delegated, authorized, or approved them to administer. This rule includes performance standards against which a state's, tribe's, or local government's electronic document receiving system will be evaluated before EPA will approve changes to the delegated, authorized, or approved program to provide electronic reporting, and establishes a streamlined process that states, tribes, and local governments can use to seek and obtain such approvals. DATES: This rule shall become effective January 11, 2006. ADDRESSES: The public record for this rulemaking has been established under docket number OEI-2003-0001 and is located in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/ DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket CenterPublic Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. (See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information on this final rule, contact the docket above. For more detailed information on specific aspects ofthis rulemaking, contact David Schwarz (2823T), Office of Environmental Information, U.S. Environmimtal Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-1704, schwarz.david@epa.gov, or Evi Huffer (2823T), Office ofEnvironmental Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-1697, huffer.evi@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: General Information A. AffectedEntities

This rule will potentially affect states, tribes, and local governments that have been delegated, authorized, or approved, or which seek delegation, authorization, or approval to administer a federal environmental program under Title 40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR). For purposes ofthis rulemaking, the term "state" includes the District ofColumbia and the United States territories, as specified in the applicable statutes. That is, the term "state" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth ofPuerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of Northern Marina Islands, and the Trust Territory ofthe Pacific Islands, depending on the statute.

The rule will also potentially affect private parties subject to any requirements in Title 40 ofthe CFR that require a document to be submitted to EPA. Affected Entities include, but are not necessarily limited to: Examples of affected entities Local government
............... Publicly owned treatment works, owners and operators of treatment works treating domestic sewage, local and re- gional air boards, local and regional waste management authorities, and municipal and other drinking water au- thorities. Private

................................ Industry owners and operators, waste transporters, privately owned treatment works or other treatment works treating domestic sewage, privately owned water works, small businesses of various kinds, sponsors such as laboratories that submit or initiate/support studies, and testing facilities that both initiate and conducts studies. Tribe and State governments. States, tribes or territories that administer any federal environmental programs delegated, authorized, or approved by EPA under Title 40 of the CFR. Federal government
.......... . Federally owned treatment works and industrial dischargers, and federal facilities subject to hazardous waste regulation.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. This table lists the types ofentities that EPA is now aware can potentially be affected by this action. Other types ofentities not listed in the table can also be affected. Ifyou have questions regarding the applicability ofthis action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. B. How Can I Get Copies ofThis Document and OtherRelated Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OEI-2003-0001. The official public docket consists ofthe documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part ofthe official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection ofmaterials that is available for public viewing at the Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Office ofEnvironmental Information Docket is (202) 566-1752. You may have to pay a reasonable fee for copying.

An electronic version ofthe public docket is available through EPA's


## NMED EXHIBIT 13

### 59849 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations electronic public docket and comment system, EDOCKET. You may use EDOCKET at http://www.epa.gov/ edocket/ to view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials. After selecting the

‘‘Using EDOCKET’’icon, select ‘‘quick search,’’then key in the appropriate docket identification number. Double click on the document identification number to bring up the docket contents.

2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the ‘‘Federal Register’’listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/

. Organization of This Document

Information in this Preamble is organized as follows: I. Overview

A. Why does the Agency seek to provide

electronic alternatives to paper-based reporting and recordkeeping? B. What does the electronic reporting rule

do? C. What is the status of the proposed

electronic recordkeeping provisions? D. How were stakeholders consulted

during the development of today’s final rule? E. What alternatives to today’s final rule

did EPA consider? II. Background

A. What has been EPA’s electronic

reporting policy? B. How does today’s final rule change

EPA’s electronic reporting policy? III. Scope of the Electronic Reporting Rule

A. Who may submit electronic documents? B. Which documents can be filed

electronically? C. How does this final rule implement

electronic reporting? IV. Major Changes from Proposed Electronic Reporting Provisions A. How does the rule streamline the

approval of electronic reporting under authorized state, tribe, and local government programs? 1. Review of the proposal 2. Comments on the proposal 3. Revisions in the final rule B. How has EPA revised the requirements

that state, tribe, and local government electronic reporting programs must satisfy? 1. Review of the proposal 2. Comments on the proposed criteria for

electronic document receiving systems 3. Revisions to the criteria in the final rule C. How has EPA accommodated electronic

submissions with follow-on paper certifications? D. How has EPA changed proposed

definitions of terms? 1. Definition of ‘‘acknowledgment’’ 2. Definition of ‘‘electronic document’’ 3. Definition of ‘‘electronic signature’’ 4. Definition of ‘‘electronic signature

device’’ 5. Definition of ‘‘transmit’’ 6. Definition of ‘‘valid electronic signature’’ V. Requirements for Direct Electronic Reporting to EPA A. What are the requirements for electronic

reporting to EPA? B. What is the status of existing electronic

reporting to EPA? C. What is EPA’s Central Data Exchange? 1. Overview of general goals 2. Comments on the proposal 3. The aspects of CDX that have not

changed since proposal 4. The major changes that EPA has made

to CDX since proposal D. How will EPA provide notice of changes

to CDX? VI. Requirements for Electronic Reporting under EPA-Authorized Programs A. What is the general regulatory

approach? B. When must authorized state, tribe, or

local government programs revise or modify their programs to allow electronic reporting? 1. The general requirement 2. Deferred compliance for existing systems C. What alternative procedures does EPA

provide for revising or modifying authorized state, tribe, or local government programs for electronic reporting? 1. The application 2. Review for completeness 3. EPA actions on applications 4. Revisions or modifications associated

with existing systems 5. Public hearings for Part 142 revisions or

modifications 6. Re-submissions and amendments D. What general requirements must state,

tribe, and local government electronic reporting programs satisfy? E. What standards must state, tribe, and

local government electronic document receiving systems satisfy? 1. Timeliness of data generation 2. Copy of record 3. Integrity of the electronic document 4. Submission knowingly 5. Opportunity to review and repudiate

copy of record 6. Validity of the electronic signature 7. Binding the signature to the document 8. Opportunity to review 9. Understanding the act of signing 10. The electronic signature or subscriber

agreement 11. Acknowledgment of receipt 12. Determining the identity of the

individual uniquely entitled to use a signature device VII. What are the Costs of Today’s Rule?

A. Summary of proposal analysis B. Final rule costs C. General changes to methodology and

assumptions VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866 B. Executive Order 13132 C. Paperwork Reduction Act D. Regulatory Flexibility Act E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act F. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act G. Executive Order 13045 H. Executive Order 13175 I. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects) J. Congressional Review Act I. Overview A. Why does the Agency seek to provide electronic alternatives to paper-based reporting and recordkeeping?

In the Federal Register of August 31, 2001 (66 FR 46162), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking, announcing the goal of making electronic reporting and electronic recordkeeping available under EPA regulatory programs. The Agency believes that the submission and storage of electronic documents in lieu of paper documents can:

• Reduce the cost and burden of data transfer and maintenance for all parties to the data exchanges;

• Improve the data and the various business processes associated with its use in ways that may not be reflected directly in cost-reduction, e.g., through improvements in data quality, and the speed and convenience with which data may be transferred and used; and

• Maintain the level of corporate and individual responsibility and accountability for electronic reports and records that currently exists in the paper environment. Recent federal policy and law are also strong drivers of electronic alternatives to traditional reporting and recordkeeping. The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) of 1998, Title XVII of Public Law 105

–277, requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to ensure that executive agencies provide for the option of the electronic maintenance, submission, or disclosure of information as a substitute for paper when practicable, and for the use and acceptance of electronic signatures, when practicable. See GPEA section 1704. Given the enormous strides in data transfer and management technologies, particularly in connection with the Internet, replacing paper with electronic data transfer now promises increased productivity across almost all facets of business and government.

In seeking to make electronic alternatives available that were not contemplated when most existing EPA regulations were written, EPA was mindful of the need to maintain our ability to carry out our statutory environmental and health protection mission, in part through ensuring the integrity of environmental compliance documents. Accordingly, the intended


### This page added by EPA Region 6



# This 43 page Federal Register is available at: Cross-Media Electronic Reporting 

# Regulations.gov document EPA-HQ-OEI-2003-0001-0270

### Federal Register 

### I Vol. 73, No. 248 

### IWednesday, December 24, 2008 

### I Rules and Regulations 

### 78991 Executive Branch, or the Postal Service regulations supplemental thereto, from the General Counsel or a designated assistant.

(c) Ifthe General Counsel determines that a Governor is engaged in activity which involves a violation offederal statute or regulation, including the ethical conduct regulations contained in 5 CFR parts 2635 and 7001, or conduct which creates the appearance ofsuch a violation, he or she shall bring this to the attention ofthe Governor or shall notify the Chairman ofthe Board of Governors, or the Vice Chairman, as appropriate. § 10.3 Post-employment activities.

Governors are subject to the restrictions on the post-employment activities ofspecial Government employees imposed by 18 U.S.C. 207. Guidance concerning post-employment restrictions applicable to Governors may be obtainedin accordance with section 10.2(b). § 10.4 Financial disclosure reports.

(a) Requirement of submission of reports. At the time oftheir nomination, Governors complete a financial disclosure report which, under the practice ofthe Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, is kept confidential. Because the Director ofthe Office of GovernmentEthics has ruled that Governors who do not perform the duties oftheir office for more than 60 days in any calendar year are not required to file financial disclosure reports that are open to the public, Governors file non-public reports annually, in accordance with this section. A Governor who performs the duties ofhis or her office for more than 60 days in a particular calendar year is required to file a public report in accordance with 5 CFR 2634.204(c).

(b) Person with whom reports should befiled and timeforfiling. (1) A Governor shall file a financial disclosure report with the General Counsel on or before May 15 ofeach year when the Governor hasbeen in office for more than 60 consecutive calendar days during the previous year.··

(2) The General Counsel may, for good cause shown, grant to a Governor an extension ofup to 45 days. An additional extension ofup to 45 days may be granted by the Director ofthe Office of Government Ethics for good cause shown.

(c) Information required to be reported. Each report shall be a full and complete statement, on the form prescribed bythe General Counsel and the Office of Government Ethics and in accordance with instructions issued by him or her. The form currently in use is Standard Form 278.

(d) Reviewingreports. (1) Financial disclosure reports filed in accordance with the provisions ofthis section shall, within 60 days after the date offiling, be reviewed by the General Counsel who shall either approve the report, or make an initial determination that a conflict or appearance thereofexists. If the General Counsel determines initially that a conflict or the appearance ofa conflict exists, he or she shall inform the Governor ofhis determination.

(2) Ifthe General Counsel considers that additional information is needed to complete the report or to allow an adequate review to be conducted, he or she shall request the reporting Governor to furnish that information by a specified date.

(3) The General Counsel shall refer to the Chairman ofthe Board of Governors or the Vice Chairman the name of any Governor he or she has reasonable cause to believe has wrongfully failed to file a report or has falsified or wrongfully failed to report required information.

(e) Custody of andpublic access to reports. (1) Retention of reports. Each report filed wifh the General Counsel shall be retained by him or her for a period of sixyears. After the six-year period, the report shall be destroyed unless needed in connection with an investigation then pending.

(2) Confidentiality of reports. Unless a public report is required by this section, the financial disclosure reports filed by Governors shall not be made public. PART 11-ADVISORY BOARDS (ARTICLE XI)

Authority: 39 U.S.C. 202, 205, 401(2), (10), 402, 403. § 11.1 Establishment.

The Board of Governors may create such advisory boards as it may deem appropriate and may appoint persons to serve thereon or may delegate such latter authority to the Postmaster General. Stanley F. Mires, ChiefCounsel, Legislative. [FR Doc. E8-30020 Filed 12-23-08; 8:45am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P



## NMED EXHIBIT 14 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part3 [EPA-HQ-OEI-2003-Q001; FRL-8757-2] Extension of Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule Deadline for Authorized Programs AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is amending the Final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) deadline for authorized programs (states, tribes, or local governments) with existing electronic document receiving systems to submit an application for EPA approval to revise or modify their authorized programs. This action will extend the current October 13; 2008, deadline until January 13, 2010. DATES: This rule is effective on December 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: The public record for this rulemaking has been established under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEI-2003- 0001, and may be accessed online at http:/ /www.regulations.gov. Docket materials are also available in hard copy at the CROMERR Docket, EP AIDC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the CROMERR Docket is (202) 566-1752.

For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http:// www.epa.gov/epahome!dockets.htm. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evi Huffer, Office ofEnvironmental Information (2823T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; (202) 566-1697; huffer.evi@epa.gov, or David Schwarz, Office ofEnvironmental Information (2823T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; (202) 566-1704; schwarz.david@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. What Does This Rule Do?

This rule provides temporary regulatory reliefto states, tribes, and local governments with "authorized programs" as defined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 3.3. Any such authorized program that operates an

### 78992 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Rules and Regulations ‘‘existing electronic document receiving system’’ as defined in 40 CFR 3.3 will have an additional 15 months to submit an application to revise or modify its authorized program to meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part 3. Specifically, this final rule amends 40 CFR 3.1000(a)(3) by extending the October 13, 2008, deadline to January 13, 2010. II. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking on October 17, 2008 (73 FR 61773). As discussed in that proposal, after setting the current deadline, EPA learned that some states and local agencies currently working to comply with CROMERR have experienced an unanticipated delay in the completion of necessary upgrades to their electronic document receiving systems. EPA believes it is appropriate to extend the submission deadline for applications related to existing systems by an additional 15 months. III. Response to Comments

EPA received two comments on the proposed rule. The comments opposed the extension of the application deadline on the basis that the extension would prevent enforcement of environmental laws. The commenters stated that states, tribes, and local governments have had sufficient time to submit applications. One commenter noted that those states who were not able to meet the October 13, 2008 deadline could apply for case-by-case extensions.

EPA’s Response: EPA disagrees that the extension will prevent enforcement of environmental laws. As noted in both comments, CROMERR does not require that states comply with CROMERR by the deadline, but rather directs them to submit an application to EPA. The mere submission of an application under CROMERR does not materially impact the enforceability of environmental programs. In the three years since CROMERR was issued, EPA has been working closely with states, tribes, and local governments. While some states and local agencies submitted their applications before the deadline, other states and local agencies have been working on completing the necessary upgrades to their electronic document receiving systems before submitting their application. EPA believes that requiring states, tribes, and local agencies to file an incomplete or inadequate application just to meet a regulatory deadline would be a waste of resources, both for EPA and the state, tribe, or local agency. Further, some states, tribes, or local agencies may not qualify for the CROMERR case-by-case extension because it applies only where the ‘‘state, tribe, or local government needs additional time to make legislative or regulatory changes. * * *’’ EPA believes extension of the deadline until January 13, 2010, appropriately balances the purposes of the CROMERR standards and the legitimate need of states, tribes, and local governments to have additional time to complete the necessary upgrades to their systems and submit complete applications. IV. Does This Action Apply to Me?

This action will affect states, tribes, and local governments that have an authorized program as defined in 40 CFR 3.3 and also have an existing electronic document receiving system, as defined in 40 CFR 3.3. For purposes of this rulemaking, the term ‘‘state’’ includes the District of Columbia and the United States territories, as specified in the applicable statutes. That is, the term ‘‘state’’ includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of Northern Marina Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, depending on the statute. Category Examples of affected entities Local government ................. Publicly owned treatment works, owners and operators of treatment works treating domestic sewage, local and regional air boards, local and regional waste management authorities, and municipal and other drinking water authorities. Tribe and State governments States, tribes or territories that administer any federal environmental programs delegated, authorized, or approved by EPA under Title 40 of the CFR.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**  section. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

This action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is, therefore, not subject to review under the EO. B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose any new information collection burden. This action merely extends the current due date for submitting applications under CROMERR for authorized programs with existing electronic document receiving systems, and imposes no additional requirements. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations (40 CFR Part 3) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2025–0003, EPA ICR number 2002.04. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that meets the definition for small businesses based on SBA size standards at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000 (Under the RFA definition, States and tribal governments are not considered small governmental jurisdictions.); and (3) asmall organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the possibility of economic impacts of today’s final rule on small entities, I certify that this


### 78993 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Rules and Regulations action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small entities directly regulated by this final rule are small governmental jurisdictions. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives ‘‘which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule.

This final rule merely extends the current regulatory schedule for submitting applications under CROMERR for authorized programs with existing electronic document receiving systems. EPA has therefore concluded that today’s final rule will relieve regulatory burden for all affected small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 1538 for state, tribe, or local governments or the private sector. This action merely extends the current due date for submitting applications under CROMERR for authorized programs with existing electronic document receiving systems, and imposes no additional requirements. EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for states, tribes, and local governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Thus, today’s action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action merely extends the current due date for submitting applications under CROMERR for authorized programs with existing electronic document receiving systems, and imposes no additional requirements. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have federalism implications’’ is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.’’

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This action merely extends the current due date for submitting applications under CROMERR for authorized programs with existing electronic document receiving systems, and imposes no additional requirements. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. This action merely extends the current due date for submitting applications under CROMERR for authorized programs with existing electronic document receiving systems, and imposes no additional requirements. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. G. Executive Order 13045: Children’s Health Protection

Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that (1) is determined to be ‘‘economically significant’’ as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5–501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation.

This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant action as defined by Executive Order 12866 and it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. This action merely extends the current regulatory schedule for submitting applications under CROMERR for authorized programs with existing electronic document receiving systems, and imposes no additional requirements. H. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

Today’s action does not involve technical standards. EPA’s compliance with section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)) has been addressed in the preamble of the underlying final rule (70 FR 59848, October 13, 2007).


### 78994 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Rules and Regulations J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This final rule merely extends the current regulatory schedule for submitting applications under CROMERR for authorized programs with existing electronic document receiving systems. K. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is publishedin the Federal Register

. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will become effective on December 24, 2008. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 3

Environmental protection, Conflict of interests, Electronic records, Electronic reporting requirements, Electronic reports, Intergovernmental relations.

Dated: December 19, 2008. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. ■ Therefore, title 40 chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: **PART 3—ELECTRONIC REPORTING** ■ 1. The authority citation for Part 3 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 to 136y; 15 U.S.C. 2601 to 2692; 33 U.S.C. 1251 to 1387; 33 U.S.C. 1401 to 1445; 33 U.S.C. 2701 to 2761; 42 U.S.C. 300f to 300j–26; 42 U.S.C. 4852d; 42 U.S.C. 6901–6992k; 42 U.S.C. 7401 to 7671q; 42 U.S.C. 9601 to 9675; 42 U.S.C. 11001 to 11050; 15 U.S.C. 7001; 44 U.S.C. 3504 to 3506. **Subpart D—Electronic Reporting Under EPA-Authorized State, Tribe,**  **and Local Programs** ■ 2. Section 3.1000 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows: **§ 3.1000 How does a state, tribe, or local government revise or modify its authorized**  **program to allow electronic reporting?**

(a) * * * (3) Programs already receiving electronic documents under an authorized program: A state, tribe, or local government with an existing electronic document receiving system for an authorized program must submit an application to revise or modify such authorized program in compliance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section no later than January 13, 2010. On a case-by-case basis, this deadline may be extended by the Administrator, upon request of the state, tribe, or local government, where the Administrator determines that the state, tribe, or local government needs additional time to make legislative or regulatory changes in order to meet the requirements of this part. * * * * * [FR Doc. E8–30680 Filed 12–23–08; 8:45 am] **BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**  **AGENCY 40 CFR Part 59**  **[EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0971; FRL–8757–1] RIN 2060–AP33**  **National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol**  **Coatings AGENCY** **:** Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). **ACTION :**  Final rule; withdrawal of direct final rule. **SUMMARY :**  EPA published a direct final rule and parallel proposal on November 7, 2008 (73 FR 66184) to amend the national volatile organic compound (VOC) emission standards for aerosol coatings, which EPA promulgated on March 24, 2008 (73 FR 15604), by extending the compliance date and changing the submittal date for initial notification reports. Because we received an adverse comment during the comment period on the direct final rule and parallel proposal, in this action we are both withdrawing the direct final rule and issuing a final rule based on the notice of proposed rulemaking after considering the comment. **DATES :**  This final rule revision is effective on December 24, 2008. The withdrawal of the direct final rule published on November 7, 2008 (73 FR 66184) is effective on December 24, 2008. **ADDRESSES :**  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0971. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available (e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute). Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0971, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566–1742. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Ms. J. Kaye Whitfield, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143–03), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541– 2509; facsimile number (919) 541–3470; e-mail address: whitfield.kaye@epa.gov. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  On November 7, 2008, EPA published a direct final rule and parallel proposal (73 FR 66184) to amend the national VOC emission standards for aerosol coatings (73 FR 15604). In today’s action, we withdraw the direct final rule, respond to the comment received, and issue a final rule based on the November 7, 2008, notice of proposed rulemaking.

We stated in the direct final rule that if we received adverse comments by December 8, 2008, the direct final rule would not take effect and we would


### This page added by EPA Region 6



# This 4 page Federal Register is available at: Extension of Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule Deadline for Authorized Programs 

# Regulations.gov document EPA-HQ-OEI-2003-0001-0282

## ELECTRONIC CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 

## e-CFR Data is current as of December 1, 2014

Title 40 -7 

### Chapter I -7 

### Subchapter A -7 

### Part 3

Title 40: Protection of Environment


### PART 3-CROSS-MEDIA ELECTRONIC REPORTING Contents Subpart A-General Provisions §3.1 Who does this part apply to? §3.2 How does this part provide for electronic reporting? §3.3 What definitions are applicable to this part? .§3.4 How does this part affect enforcement and compliance provisions ofTitle 40? 

### Subpart 8-Eiectronic Reporting to EPA §3. 10 What are the requirements for electronic reporting to EPA? §3.20 How will EPA provide notice of changes to the Central Data Exchange? 

### Subpart C [Reserved] 

### rage 1 

### ot D



### Subpart D-Eiectronic Reporting Under EPA-Authorized State, Tribe, and Local Programs §3. 1000 How does a state, tribe, or local government revise or modify its authorized program to allow electronic reporting? §3.2000 What are the requirements authorized state, tribe, and local programs' reporting systems must meet? Appendix 1 to Part 3-Priority Reports

AUTHORITY: 7 U.S.C. 136 to 136y; 15 U.S.C. 2601 to 2692; 33 U.S.C. 1251 to 1387; 33 U.S.C. 1401 to 1445; 33 U.S.C. 2701 to 2761; 42 U.S.C. 300fto 300j-26; 42 U.S.C. 4852d; 42 U.S.C. 6901-6992k; 42 U.S.C. 7401 to 7671 q; 42 U.S.C. 9601 to 9675; 42 U.S.C. 11001 to 11 050; 15 U.S.C. 7001; 44 U.S.C. 3504 to 3506. 

### SouRcE: 70 FR 59879, 

### Oct. 13, 2005, unless otherwise noted. 

## t. Back to Top 

## Subpart A-General Provisions 

## t. Back to Top 

### §3.1 Who does this part apply to? (a) This part applies to: (1) Persons who submit reports or other documents to EPA to satisfy requirements under Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR); and 

## NMED EXHIBIT 15 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ddfO 11973d902c6b87fb 150d12d8fdb4&node=p.

.. 12/3/2014

### Yage Lot 

### 15

(2) States, tribes, and local governments administering or seeking to administer authorized programs under Title 40 ofthe CFR. (b) This part does not apply to: (1) Documents submitted 

### via facsimile in satisfaction of reporting requirements as permitted under other parts of Title 40 or under authorized programs; (2) Electronic documents submitted 

### via magnetic or optical media such as diskette, compact disc, digital 

### video disc, or tape in satisfaction of reporting requirements, as permitted under other parts of Title 40 or under authorized programs; or (3) Documents and information submitted under grants, cooperative agreements, or financial assistant regulations contained in Title 40. (c) This part does not apply to any data transfers between EPA and states, tribes, or local governments as a part oftheir authorized programs or as a part of administrative arrangements between states, tribes, or local governments and EPA to share data. [70 FR 59879, 

### Oct. 13, 2005, as amended at 74 FR 59106, Nov. 17, 2009] 

## t. Back to Top 

### §3.2 How does this part provide for electronic reporting? (a) 

### Electronic reporting to EPA. Except as provided in §3.1 (b), any person who is required under Title 40 to create and submit or otherwise provide a document to EPA may satisfy this requirement with an electronic document, in lieu of a paper document, provided that: (1) He or she satisfies the requirements of §3.1 0; and (2) EPA has first published a notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER 

### announcing that EPA is prepared to receive, in electronic form, documents required or permitted by the identified part or subpart of Title 40. (b) 

### Electronic reporting underan EPA-authorized state, tribe, orlocalprogram. (1) An authorized program may allow any document submission requirement under that program to be satisfied with an electronic document provided that the state, tribe, or local government seeks and obtains revision or modification of that program in accordance with §3.1 000 and also meets the requirements of §3.2000 for such electronic reporting. (2) A state, tribe, or local government that is applying for initial delegation, authorization, or approval to administer a federal program or a program in lieu ofthe federal program, and that will allow document submission requirements under the program to be satisfied with an electronic document, must use the procedures for obtaining delegation, authorization, or approval under the relevant part of Title 40 and may not use the procedures set forth in §3.1 000; but the application must contain the information required by §3.1000(b)(1) and the state, tribe, or local government must meet the requirements of §3.2000. (c) 

### Limitations. This part does not require submission of electronic documents in lieu of paper. This part confers no right or privilege to submit data electronically and does not obligate EPA, states, tribes, or local governments to accept electronic documents. 

### t Back to Top 

### §3.3 What definitions are applicable to this part? The definitions set forth in this section apply when used in this part. 

### Acknowledgment means a confirmation of electronic document receipt.



### http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ddfO 11973d902c6b87fb150d12d8fdb4&node=p... 12/3/2014----- --- --------**---o--~~-~~~**........**rctg~-'** 

### or 1;)



### Administrator means the Administrator of the EPA. 

### Agency means the EPA or a state, tribe, or local government that administers or seeks to administer an authorized program. 

### Agreement collection certification means a signed statement by which a local registration authority certifies that a subscriber agreement has been received from a registrant; the agreement has been stored in a manner that prevents unauthorized access to these agreements by anyone other than the local registration authority; and the local registration authority has no basis to believe that any of the collected agreements have been tampered with or prematurely destroyed. 

### Authorizedprogram means a Federal program that EPA has delegated, authorized, or approved a state, tribe, or local government to administer, or a program that EPA has delegated, authorized, or approved a state, tribe or local government to administer in lieu of a Federal program, under other provisions of Title 40 and such delegation, authorization, or approval has not been withdrawn or expired. 

### Central Data Exchange means EPA's centralized electronic document receiving system, or its successors, including associated instructions for submitting electronic documents. 

### ChiefInformation Officermeans the EPA official assigned the functions described in section 5125 ofthe Clinger Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-1 06). 

### Copy ofrecord means a true and correct copy of an electronic document received by an electronic document receiving system, which copy can be viewed in a human-readable format that clearly and accurately associates all the information provided in the electronic document with descriptions or labeling of the information. A 

### copy ofrecord includes: (1) All electronic signatures contained in or logically associated with that document; (2) The date and time of receipt; and (3) Any other information used to record the meaning of the document or the circumstances of its receipt. 

### Disinterestedindividual means an individual who is not connected with the person in whose name the electronic signature device is issued. A 

### disinterested individual is not any ofthe following: The person's employer or employer's corporate parent, subsidiary, or affrliate; the person's contracting agent; member of the person's household; or relative with whom the person has a personal relationship. 

### Electronic document means any information in digital form that is conveyed to an agency or thirdparty, where "information" may include data, text, sounds, codes, computer programs, software, or databases. "Data," in this context, refers to a delimited set of data elements, each ofwhich consists of a content or value together with an understanding ofwhat the content or value means; where the electronic document includes data, this understanding ofwhat the data element content or value means must be explicitly included in the electronic document itself or else be readily available to the electronic document recipient. 

### Electronic document receiving system means any set of apparatus, procedures, software, records, or documentation used to receive electronic documents. 

### Electronic signature means any information in digital form that is included in or logically associated with an electronic document for the purpose of expressing the same meaning and intention as would a handwritten signature if affixed to an equivalent paper document with the same reference to the same content. The electronic document bears or has on it an electronic signature where it includes or has logically associated with it such information.



### http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ddf011973d902c6b87fb150d12d8fdb4&node=p... 12/3/2014

### Yage 4 

### ot 15

Electronic signature agreement means an agreement signed by an individual with respect to an electronic signature device that the individual will use to create his or her electronic signatures requiring such individual to protect the electronic signature device from compromise; to promptly report to the agency or agencies relying on the electronic signatures created any evidence discovered that the device has been compromised; and to be held as legally bound, obligated, or responsible by the electronic signatures created as by a handwritten signature. Electronic signature device means a code or other mechanism that is used to create electronic signatures. Where the device is used to create an individual's electronic signature, then the code or mechanism must be unique to that individual at the time the signature is created and he or she must be uniquely entitled to use it. The device is compromised ifthe code or mechanism is available for use by any other person. EPA means the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Existing electronic document receiving system means an electronic document receiving system that is being used to receive electronic documents in lieu of paper to satisfy requirements under an authorized program on October 13, 2005 or the system, if not in use, has been substantially developed on or before that date as evidenced by the establishment of system services or specifications by contract or other binding agreement. Federalprogram means any program administered by EPA under any other provision ofTitle 40. Federal reporting requirement means a requirement to report information directly to EPA under any other provision of Title 40. Handwritten signature means the scripted name or legal mark of an individual, handwritten by that individual with a marking-or writing-instrument such as a pen or stylus and executed or adopted with the present intention to authenticate a writing in a permanent form, where "a writing" means any intentional recording ofwords in a visual form, whether in the form of handwriting, printing, typewriting, or any other tangible form. The physical instance of the scripted name or mark so created constitutes the handwritten signature. The scripted name or legal mark, while conventionally applied to paper, may also be applied to other media. Information or objects ofindependent origin means data or items that originate from a disinterested individual or are forensic evidence of a unique, immutable trait which is (and may at any time be) attributed to the individual in whose name the device is issued. Local registration authority means an individual who is authorized by a state, tribe, or local government to issue an agreement collection certification, whose identity has been established by notarized affidavit, and who is authorized in writing by a regulated entity to issue agreement collection certifications on its behalf. Priority reports means the reports listed in Appendix 1 to part 3. Subscriberagreement means an electronic signature agreement signed by an individual with a handwritten signature. This agreement must be stored until five years after the associated electronic signature device has been deactivated. Transmit means to successfully and accurately convey an electronic document so that it is received by the intended recipient in a format that can be processed by the electronic document receiving system. Valid electronic signature means an electronic signature on an electronic document that has been created with an electronic signature device that the identified signatory is uniquely entitled to use for signing that document, where this device has not been compromised, and where the signatory is an individual who is authorized to sign the document by virtue of his or her legal status and/or his or her relationship to the entity on whose behalf the signature is executed.



### http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ddfO 11973d902c6b87fb150d12d8fdb4&node=p... 12/3/2014rugc .J 

### or 1:::>



### t Back to Top 

### §3.4 How does this part affect enforcement and compliance provisions of Title 40? (a) A person is subject to any applicable federal 

### civil, criminal, or other penalties and remedies for failure to comply with a federal reporting requirement ifthe person submits an electronic document to EPA under this part that fails to comply with the provisions of §3.10. (b) A person is subject to any applicable federal 

### civil, criminal, or other penalties or remedies for failure to comply with a State, tribe, or local reporting requirement if the person submits an electronic document to a State, tribe, or local government under an authorized program and fails to comply with the applicable provisions for electronic reporting. (c) Where an electronic document submitted to satisfy a federal or authorized program reporting requirement bears an electronic signature, the electronic signature legally binds, obligates, and makes the signatory responsible, to the same extent as the signatory's handwritten signature would on a paper document submitted to satisfy the same federal or authorized program reporting requirement. (d) Proof that a particular signature device was used to create an electronic signature will suffice to establish that the individual uniquely entitled to use the device did so with the intent to sign the electronic document and give it effect. (e) Nothing in this part limits the use of electronic documents or information 

### derived from electronic documents as evidence in enforcement or other proceedings. 

### t Back to Top 

## Subpart 8-Eiectronic Reporting to EPA t Back to Top 

### §3.10 What are the requirements for electronic reporting to EPA? (a) A person may use an electronic document to satisfy a federal reporting requirement or otherwise substitute for a paper document or submission permitted or required under other provisions of Title 40 only if: (1) The person transmits the electronic document to EPA's Central Data Exchange, or to another EPA electronic document receiving system that the Administrator may designate for the receipt of specified submissions, complying with the system's requirements for submission; and (2) The electronic document bears all valid electronic signatures that are required under paragraph (b) of this section. (b) An electronic document must bear the 

### valid electronic signature of a signatory if that signatory would be required under Title 40 to sign the paper document for which the electronic document substitutes, unless EPA announces special provisions to accept a handwritten signature on a separate paper submission and the signatory provides that handwritten signature. 

## t Back to Top 

### §3.20 How will EPA provide notice of changes to the Central Data Exchange? (a) Except as provided under paragraph (b) of this section, whenever EPA plans to change Central Data Exchange hardware or software in ways that would affect the transmission process, EPA will provide notice as follows: (1) Significant changes to COX: 

### Where the equipment, software, or seNices needed to transmit electronic documents to the Central Data Exchange would be changed significantly, EPA will provide



### http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ddfO 11973d902c6b87fb15Od12d8fdb4&node=p... 12/3/2014

### Page 6 

### of 15

public notice and seek comment on the change and the proposed implementation schedule through the FEDERAL REGISTER; (2) 

### Otherchanges to CDX EPA will provide notice ofother changes to Central Data Exchange users at least sixty (60) days in advance of implementation. (3) 

### De minimis ortransparent changes to CDX For 

### de minimis or transparent changes that have minimal or no impact on the transmission process, EPA may provide notice if appropriate on a caseby-case basis. (b) 

### Emergency changes to CDX: Any change which EPA's Chief Information Officer or his or her designee determines is needed to ensure the security and integrity ofthe Central Data Exchange is exempt from the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section. However, to the extent consistent with ensuring the security and integrity of the system, EPA will provide notice for any change other than 

### de minimis or transparent changes to the Central Data Exchange. 

## t. Back to Top 

## Subpart C [Reserved] 

## t. Back to Top 

## Subpart D-Eiectronic Reporting Under EPA-Authorized State, Tribe, and Local Programs 

## t. Back to Top 

### §3.1000 How does a state, tribe, or local government revise or modify its authorized program to allow electronic reporting? (a) A state, tribe, or local government that receives or plans to begin receiving electronic documents in lieu of paper documents to satisfy requirements under an authorized program must revise or modify such authorized program to ensure that it meets the requirements of this part. (1) 

### Generalprocedures forprogram modification orrevision: To revise or modify an authorized program to meet the requirements of this part, a state, tribe, or local government must submit an application that complies with paragraph (b)(1) ofthis section and must follow either the applicable procedures for program revision or modification in other parts of Title 40, or, at the applicant's option, the procedures provided in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section. (2) 

### Programs planning to receive electronic documents underan authorizedprogram: A state, tribe, or local government that does not have an existing electronic document receiving system for an authorized program must receive EPA approval of revisions or modifications to such program in compliance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section before the program may receive 

### electronic documents in lieu of paper documents to satisfy program requirements. (3) 

### Programs already receiving electronic documents underan authorizedprogram: A state, tribe, or local government with an existing electronic document receiving system for an authorized program must submit an application to revise or modify such authorized program in compliance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section no later than January 13, 2010. On a case-by-case basis, this deadline may be extended by the Administrator, upon request of the state, tribe, or local government, where the Administrator determines that the state, tribe, or local government needs additional time to make legislative or regulatory changes in order to meet the requirements of this part. (4) 

### Programs with approved electronic document receiving systems: An authorized program that has EPA's approval to accept electronic documents in lieu of paper documents must keep EPA apprised of those changes to laws, policies, or the electronic document receiving systems that have the potential to affect program compliance with §3.2000. Where the Administrator determines that



### http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ddf011973d902c6b87fb150d12d8fdb4&node=p... 12/3/2014u --------- .l a1:5c; I Ul l.J



### such changes require EPA review and approval, EPA may request that the state, tribe, or local government submit an application for program revision or modification; additionally, a state, tribe, or local government on its own initiative may submit an application for program revision or modification respecting their receipt of electronic documents. Such applications must comply with paragraph (a)(1) of this section. (5) 

### Restrictions on the use of procedures in this section: The procedures provided in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section may only be used for revising or modifying an authorized program to provide for electronic reporting and for subsequent revisions or modifications to the electronic reporting elements of an authorized program as provided under paragraph (a)(4) ofthis section. (b)(1) To obtain EPA approval of program revisions or modifications using procedures provided under this section, a state, tribe, or local government must submit an application to the Administrator that includes the following elements: (i) A certification that the state, tribe, or local government has sufficient legal authority provided by lawfully enacted or promulgated statutes or regulations that are in full force and effect on the date of the certification to implement the electronic reporting component of its authorized programs covered by the application in conformance with §3.2000 and to enforce the affected programs using electronic documents collected under these programs, together with copies ofthe relevant statutes and regulations, signed by the State Attorney General or his or her designee, or, in the case of an authorized tribe or local government program, by the chief executive or administrative official or officer ofthe governmental entity, or his or her designee; (ii) A listing ofall the state, tribe, or local government electronic document receiving systems to accept the electronic documents being addressed by the program revisions or modifications that are covered by the applipation, togetherwith a description for each such system that specifies how the system meets the applicable requirements in §3.2000 with respect to those electronic documents; (iii) A schedule of upgrades for the electronic document receiving systems listed under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section that have the potential to affect the program's continued conformance with §3.2000; and (iv) Other information that the Administrator may request to fully evaluate the application. (2) A state, tribe, or local government that revises or modifies more than one authorized program for receipt of electronic documents in lieu of paper documents may submit a consolidated application under this section covering more than one authorized program, provided the consolidated application complies with paragraph (b)(1) of this section for each authorized program. (3)(i) Within 75 calendar days of receiving an application for program revision or modification submitted under paragraph (b)(1) ofthis section, the Administrator will respond with a letter that either notifies the state, tribe, or local government that the application is complete or identifies deficiencies in the application that render the application incomplete. The state, tribe, or local government receiving a notice of deficiencies may amend the application and resubmit it. Within 30 calendar days of receiving the amended application, the Administrator will respond with a letter that either notifies the applicant that the amended application is complete or identifies remaining deficiencies that render the application incomplete. 

### (ii) If a state, tribe, or local government receiving notice of deficiencies under paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section does not remedy the deficiencies and resubmit the subject application within a reasonable period oftime, the Administrator may act on the incomplete application under paragraph (c) of this section. (c)(1) The Administrator will act on an application by approving or denying the state's, tribe's or local government's request for program revision or modification. (2) Where a consolidated application submitted under paragraph (b)(2) of this section addresses revisions or modifications to more than one authorized program, the Administrator may approve or



### http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ddfD 11973d902c6b87fb150d12d8fdb4&node=p... 12/3/2014

### Yage**~** 

### ot 15

deny the request for revision or modification of each authorized program in the application separately; the Administrator need not take the same action with respect to the requested revisions or modifications for each such program. (3) When an application under paragraph (b) of this section requests revision or modification of an authorized public water system program under part 142 of this title, the Administrator will, in accordance with the procedures in paragraph 

### (f) of this section, provide an opportunity for a public hearing before a final determination pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of this section with respect to that component ofthe application. (4) Except as provided under paragraph (c)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section, ifthe Administrator does not take any action under paragraph (c)(1) of this section on a specific request for revision or modification ofa specific authorized program addressed by an application submitted under paragraph (b) ofthis section within 180 calendar days of notifying the state, tribe, or local government under paragraph (b)(3) of this section that the application is complete, the specific request for program revision or modification for the specific authorized program is considered automatically approved by EPA at the end of the 180 calendar days unless the review period is extended at the request of the state, tribe, or local government submitting the application. (i) Where an opportunity for public hearing is required under paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the Administrator's action on the requested revision or modification will be in accordance with paragraph 

### (f) ofthis section. (ii) Where a requested revision or modification addressed by an application submitted under paragraph (b) of this section is to an authorized program with an existing electronic document receiving system, and where notification under paragraph (b)(3) of this section that the application is complete is executed after October 13, 2007, if the Administrator does not take any action under paragraph (c)(1) of this section on the specific request for revision or modification within 360 calendar days of such notification, the specific request is considered automatically approved by EPA at the end of the 360 calendar days unless the review period is extended at the request of the state, tribe, or local government submitting the application. (d) Except where an opportunity for public hearing is required under paragraph (c)(3) ofthis section, EPA's approval of a program revision or modification under this section will be effective upon publication of a notice of EPA's approval of the program revision or modification in the FEDERAL REGISTER. EPA will publish such a notice promptly after approving a program revision or modification under paragraph (c)(1) ofthis section or after an EPA approval occurs automatically under paragraph (c)(4) ofthis section. (e) If a state, tribe, or local government submits material to amend its application under paragraph (b)(1) of this section after the date that the Administrator sends notification under paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section that the application is complete, this new submission will constitute withdrawal of the pending application and submission of a new, amended application for program revision or modification under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, and the 180-day time period in paragraph (c)(4) of this section or the 360-day time period in paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this section will begin again only when the Administrator makes a new determination and notifies the state, tribe, or local government under paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section that the amended application is complete. 

### (f) For an application under this section that requests revision or modification of an authorized public water system program under part 142 of this chapter: (1) The Administrator will publish notice ofthe Administrator's preliminary determination under paragraph (c)(1) ofthis section in the FEDERAL REGISTER, stating the reasons for the determination and informing interested persons that they may request a public hearing on the Administrator's determination. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing may be denied by the Administrator; (2) Requests for a hearing submitted under this section must be submitted to the Administrator within 30 days after publication of the notice of opportunity for hearing in the FEDERAL REGISTER. The Administrator will give notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER of any hearing to be held pursuant to a request



### http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ddfO 11973d902c6b87fb150dl2d8fdb4&node=p... 12/3/2014/ u --------- .t**ae;~;;** 7 Ul l.J



### submitted by an interested person or on the Administrator's own motion. Notice of hearing will be given not less than 15 days prior to the time scheduled for the hearing; (3) The hearing will be conducted by a designated hearing officer in an informal, orderly, and expeditious manner. The hearing officer will have authority to take such action as may be necessary to assure the fair and efficient conduct of the hearing; and (4) After reviewing the record of the hearing, the Administrator will issue an order either affirming the determination the Administrator made under paragraph (c)(1) of this section or rescinding such determination and will promptly publish a notice of the order in the FEDERAL REGISTER. Ifthe order is to approve the program revision or modification, EPA's approval will be effective upon publication of the notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER. If no timely request for a hearing is received and the Administrator does not determine to hold a hearing on the Administrator's own motion, the Administrator's determination made under paragraph (c)(1) of this section will be effective 30 days after notice is published pursuant to paragraph (f)(1) of this section. [70 FR 59879, Oct. 13, 2005, as amended at 72 FR 43169, Aug. 3, 2007; 73 FR 78994, Dec. 24, 2008] 

## t Back to Top 

### §3.2000 What are the requirements authorized state, tribe, and local programs' reporting systems must meet? (a) Authorized programs**~hat** 

### receive electronic documents in lieu of paper to satisfy requirements under such programs must: (1) Use an acceptable electronicdocument receiving system as specified under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section; and (2) Require that any electronic document must bear the valid electronic signature of a signatory if that signatory would be required under the authorized program to sign the paper document for which the electronic document substi.tutes, unless the program has been approved by EPA to accept a handwritten signature on a separate paper submission. The paper submission must contain references to the electronic document sufficient for legal certainty that the signature was executed with the intention to certify to, attest to, or agree to the content ofthat electronic document. (b) An electronic document receiving system that receives electronic documents submitted in lieu of paper documents to satisfy requirements under an authorized program must be able to generate data with respect to any such electronic document, as needed and in a timely manner, including a copy of record for the electronic document, sufficient to prove, in private litigation, civil enforcement proceedings, and criminal proceedings, that: (1) The electronic document was not altered without detection during transmission or at any time after receipt; (2) Any alterations to the electronic document during transmission or after receipt are fully documented; (3) The electronic document was submitted knowingly and not by accident; (4) Any individual identified in the electronic document submission as a submitter or signatory had the opportunity to review the copy of record in a human-readable format that clearly and accurately assoCiates all the information provided in the electronic document with descriptions or labeling of the information and had the opportunity to repudiate the electronic document based on this review; and (5) In the case of an electronic document that must bear electronic signatures of individuals as provided under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, that: (i) Each electronic signature was a valid electronic signature at the time of signing;



### http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ddfO 11973d902c6b87fb 150dl2d8fdb4&node=p... 12/3/2014

### Yage lU 

### ot 15

(ii) The electronic document cannot be altered without detection at any time after being signed; (iii) Each signatory had the opportunity to review in a human-readable format the content of the electronic document that he or she was certifying to, attesting to or agreeing to by signing; (iv) Each signatory had the opportunity, at the time of signing, to review the content or meaning of the required certification statement, including any applicable provisions that false certification carries criminal penalties; (v) Each signatory has signed either an electronic signature agreement or a subscriber agreement with respect to the electronic signature device used to create his or her electronic signature on the electronic document; (vi) The electronic document receiving system has automatically responded to the receipt of the electronic document with an acknowledgment that identifies the electronic document received, including the signatory and the date and time of receipt, and is sent to at least one address that does not share the same access controls as the account used to make the electronic submission; and (vii) For each electronic signature device used to create an electronic signature on the document, the identity of the individual uniquely entitled to use the device and his or her relation to any entity for which he or she will sign electronic documents has been determined with legal certainty by the issuing state, tribe, or local government. In the case of priority reports identified in the table in Appendix 1 of Part 3, this determination has been made before the electronic document is received, by means of: (A) Identifiers or attributes that are verified (and that may be re-verified at any time) by attestation of disinterested individuals to be uniquely true of (or attributable to) the individual in whose name the application is submitted, based on information or objects of independent origin, at least one item of which is not subject to change without governmental action or authorization; or (B) A method of determining identity no less stringent than would be permitted under paragraph (b)(5)(vii)(A) of this section; or (C) Collection of either a subscriber agreement or a certification from a local registration authority that such an agreement has been received and securely stored. (c) An authorized program that receives electronic documents in lieu of paper documents must ensure that: (1) A person is subject to any appropriate civil, criminal penalties or other remedies under state, tribe, or local law for failure to comply with a reporting requirement if the person fails to comply with the applicable provisions for electronic reporting. (2) Where an electronic document submitted to satisfy a state, tribe, or local reporting requirement bears an electronic signature, the electronic signature legally binds or obligates the signatory, or makes the signatory responsible, to the same extent as the signatory's handwritten signature on a paper document submitted to satisfy the same reporting requirement. (3) Proof that a particular electronic signature device was used to create an electronic signature that is included in or logically associated with an electronic document submitted to satisfy a state, tribe, or local reporting requirement will suffice to establish that the individual uniquely entitled to use the device at the time of signature did so with the intent to sign the electronic document and give it effect. (4) Nothing in the authorized program limits the use of electronic documents or information derived from electronic documents as evidence in enforcement proceedings. 

## t Back to Top 

### Appendix 1 to Part 3-Priority Reports

## ~ Category Description 40 CFR Citation 

# I

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ddf011973d902c6b87fb150d12d8fdb4&node=p... 12/3/2014.1**<~-~:>~;:;** 11 Ul l:J



### Required Reports State Implementation Emissions data reports for mobile sources 51.60(c). Plan Excess Emissions and Excess emissions and monitoring 60.7(c), 60.7(d). Monitoring performance report detailing the magnitude Performance Report of excess emissions, and provides the date, Compliance time, and system status at the time of the Notification Report excess emission New Source Semi-annual reports (quarterly, if report is 60.49a(e) & 

### U) & (v), 60.49b(v). Performance approved for electronic submission by the Standards Reporting permitting authority) on sulfur dioxide, Requirements nitrous oxides and particulate matter emission (includes reporting requirements in Subparts A through 

### DODD) Semi-annual Semi-annual report provides information on 60.107(c), 60.107(d). Operations and a company's exceedance of its sulfur dioxide Corrective Action emission rate, sulfur content of the fresh Reports feed, and the average percent reduction and average concentration of sulfur dioxide. When emissions data is unavailable, a signed statement is required which documents the changes, if any, made to the emissions control system that would impact the company's compliance with emission limits National Emission Include such reports as: Annual compliance, 61.11, 61.24(a)(3) & (a)(S), Standards for calculation, initial startup, compliance status, 61.70(c)(1) & (c)(2)(v) & (c)(3) Hazardous Air certifications of compliance, waivers from & (c)(4)(iv), 61.94(a) & (b)(9), Pollutants Reporting compliance certifications, quarterly 61.104(a) & (a)(1)(x) & (a)(1) Requirements inspection certifications, operations, and (xi) & (a)(1)(xvi), 61.138(e) & operations and process change (f), 61.165(d)(2) & (d)(3) & (d) (4) & (f)(1) & (f)(2) &(f)(3), 61.177(a)(2) & (c)(1) & (c)(2) & (c)(3) & (e)(1) & (e)(3), 61.186 (b)(1) & (b)(2) & (b)(3) & (c)(1) & (f)(1), 61.247(a)(1) & (a)(4) & (a)(5)(v) & (b)(5) & (d), 61.254 (a)(4), 61.275(a) & (b) & (c), 61.305(f) & (i), 61.357(a) & (b) & (c) & (d), 63.9(h). Hazardous Air Reports containing results from performance 63.10(d), 63.10(e)(1), 63.10(e) Pollutants Compliance test, opacity tests, and visible emissions (3). Report tests. Progress reports; periodic and immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports; results from continuous monitoring system performance evaluations; excess emissions and continuous monitoring system performance report; or summary report Notifications and Reports that document a facility's initial 65.5(d), 65.5(e). Reports compliance status, notification of initial startup, and periodic reports which includes the startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports discussed in 40 CFR 65.6(c) Continuous Emissions 75.64, 75.65. Monitoring



### http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ddfO 11973d902c6b87fb 150d12d8fdb4&node=p... 12/3/2014

### rage lL or D

Quarterly emissions monitoring reports and opacity reports which document a facility's excess emission Notice of Fuel or Fuel Registration of new fuels and additives, and 79.10, 79.11, 79.20, 79.21, Additive Registration the submission and certification of health 79.51. and Health Effects effect data Testing Manufacture In-Use Reports that document the emissions testing 86.1845,86.1846,86.1847, and Product Line results generated from the in-use testing 90.113, 90.1205, 90.704, Emissions Testing program for new and in-use highway vehicle 91.805, 91.504, 92.607, ignition engines; non-road spark-ignition 92.508, 92.509. engines; marine spark-ignition engines; and locomotives and locomotive engines Industrial and Publicly Discharge monitoring reports for all 122.41(1)(4)(i), 403.12(b) & (d) Owned Treatment individual permittees-including baseline & (e) & (h). Works Reports reports, pretreatment standards report, periodic compliance reports, and reports made by significant industrial users 

### Event Driven Notices State Implementation Owners report emissions data from 51.211. Plan stationary sources Report For Initial Report that provides the initial performance 60.2200 (initial performance Performance Test test results, site-specific operating limits, tests). and, if installed, information on the bag leak detection device used by the facility Emissions Control Report submitted by new sources within 90 61.153(a)(1), 61.153(a)(4)(i), Report days of set-up which describes emission 61.153(a)(5)(ii). control equipment used, processes which generate asbestos-containing waste material, and disposal information State Operating Monitoring and deviation reports under the 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), 70.6(a)(3)(iii) Permits-Permit State Operating Permit (B). Content Title V Monitoring and deviation reports under the 71.6(a)(3)(iii). Permits-Permit Federal Operating Permit Content Annual Export Report Annual report summarizing the amount and 262.56(a). type of hazardous waste exported Exceptions Reports Reports submitted by a generator when the 262.42, 262.55. generator has not received confirmation from the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility (TSDF) that it received the generator's waste and when hazardous waste shipment was received by the TSDF. For exports, reports submitted when the generator has not received a copy of the manifest from the transporter with departure date and place of export indicated; and confirmation from the consignee that the hazardous waste was received or when the hazardous waste is returned to the U.S Contingency Plan Follow-up reports made to the Agency for all 264.560), 265.560). Implementation incidents noted in the operating record which Reports required the implementation of a facility's contingency plan



### http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ddf011973d902c6b87fb150d12d8fdb4&node=p... 12/3/2014----0-----------**.ra~c** 1.) or l:J



### Significant Manifest Report filed by Treatment, Storage, and 264. 72(b), 265. 72(b). Discrepancy Report Disposal Facilities (TSDF) within 15 days of receiving wastes, when the TSDF is unable to resolve manifest discrepancies with the generator Unmanifested Waste Report that documents hazardous waste 264.76, 265.76. Report received by a Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility without an accompanying manifest Noncompliance Report An owner/operator submitted report which 264.1090. documents hazardous waste that was placed in hazardous waste management units in noncompliance with 40 CFR sections 264.1082(c)(1) and (c)(2); 264.1084 (b); 264.1035(c)(4); or264.1033(d) Notification-Low One-time notification concerning 266.345. Level Mixed Waste transportation and disposal of conditionally exempted waste Notification-Land One-time notification and certification that 268.9(d). Disposal Restrictions characteristic waste is no longer hazardous Underground Storage Underground Storage Tank system 280.22. Tank Notification notifications concerning design, construction, and installation. As well as when systems are being placed in operation. (EPA Form 7530-1 or state version.) Free Product Removal Report written and submitted within 45 days 280.64, 280.65. Report and after confirming a free product release, Subsequent including information on the release and Investigation Report recovery methods used for the free product, and when test indicate presence of free product, response measures Manufacture or Import Premanufacture notification of intent to begin 720.102, 721.25. Premanufacture manufacturing, importing, or processing Notification chemicals identified in Subpart E for significant new use (forms 7710-56 and 771 0-25) Permit Applications1 

### State Implementation Information describing the source, its 52.21 (n). Plan construction schedule, and the planned continuous emissions reductions system State Operating Reports, notices, or other written 70.6(c)(1). Permits submissions required by a State Operating Permit Title V Reports, notices, or other written 71.6(c)(1), 71.25(c)(1). Permits-Permit submissions required by a Title V Operating Content Permit Title V Permits Specific criteria for permit modifications and 71.7(e(2)(ii)(c). or revisions, including a certification statement by a responsible official Reclaimer Certification Certification made by a reclaimer that the 82.164. refrigerant was reprocessed according to specifications and that no more than 1.5% of the refrigerant was released during the reclamation



### http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ddfO 11973d902c6b87fb150d12d8fdb4&node=p... 12/3/2014

### rage 14 

## or D



### Application for Control of Emissions for New and In-Use 86.007-21 (heavy duty), 1844- Certification and Highway Vehicles and Engines statement of 01 (light duty). Statement of compliance made by manufacturer, attesting Compliance that the engine family complies with standards for new and in-use highway vehicles and engines Application for Application made by engine manufacturer to 89.115, 90.107, 91.107, Certification obtain certificate of conformity 92.203, 94.203. National Pollutant National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 122.21. Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits and Renewals System (includes individual permit applications, NPDES General Form 1, and NPDES Forms 2A-F, and 2S) Resource Signatures for permit applications and 270.11, 270.42. Conservation and reports; submission of permit modifications. Recovery Act Permit (This category excludes Class I permit Applications and modifications (40 CFR 270.42, Appendix I) Modifications that do not require prior approval) Certifications of Compliance/Non-Applicability State Implementation State implementation plan certifications for 51.212(c), 51.214(e). Plan Requirements testing, inspection, enforcement, and continuous emissions monitoring Certification Statement Chemical Accident Prevention 68.185. Provisions-Risk Management Plan certification statements Title V Permits Federal compliance certifications and permit 70.5(c)(9), 70.5(d), 70.6(c)(5). applications State Operating State compliance certifications and permit 71.5(c)(9), 71.5(d), 71.24(f). Permits applications Annual and Other Annual compliance certification report and is 72.90. Compliance submitted by units subject to acid rain Certification Reports emissions limitations Annual Compliance Annual compliance certification report which 74.43. Certification Report, is submitted in lieu of annual compliance Opt-In Report, and certification report listed in Subpart I of Part Confirmation Report 72 Quarterly Reports and Continuous Emission Monitoring 75.73. Compliance certifications, monitoring plans, and quarterly Certifications reports for NOx emissions Certification Letters Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 79.4, 80.161, 82.162, 82.42. Recovery and Recycling & 

### Emissions Reduction. Recycling Equipment, Acquisition of equipment for recovery or Motor Vehicle Air recycling made by auto repair service Conditioners Recycling technician and Fuels and Fuel Additives Program, Detergent Detergent additive certification Package Response Plan Cover Oil Pollution Prevention certification to the 112 (Appendix f). Sheet truth and accuracy of information Closure Report Report which documents that closure was in 146.71. accordance with closure plan and/or details difference between actual closure and the procedures outlined in the closure plan Certification of Closure Certification that Treatment, Storage, and 264.115,264.119, 264.119(b) and Post Closure Disposal Facilities (TSDF) are closed in (2), 264.120, 265.115, 265.119 (b)(2), 265.120, 265.19.



### http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ddf011973d902c6b87fbl50d12d8fdb4&node=p... 12/3/2014-- ----- ---o----------- r a15c; l.J Ul l:J



### Care, Post-Closure accordance with approved closure plan or Notices post-closure plan Certification of Testing Certification that the testing and/or lab 270.63. Lab Analysis analyses required for the treatment demonstration phase of a two-phase permit was conducted Periodic Certification Certification that facility is operating its 437.41(b). system to provide equivalent treatment as in initial certification

1 

### 1ncluded within each permit application category, though sometimes not listed, are the permits submitted to run/operate/maintain facilities and/or equipment/products under EPA or authorized programs. 

## t Back to Top

For questions or comments regarding e-CFR editorial content, features, or design, email 

### ecfr@nara.gov. For questions concerning e-CFR programming and delivery issues, email 

### webteam@gpo.gov.



### http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ddf011973d902c6b87fb150d12d8fdb4&node=p... 12/3/2014

### STATEOFNEWMEXICO BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT BOARD IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO: 20.2.1 NMAC- 

### GeneralProvisions EIB 14-0S(R)

ORDER AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO 20.2.1 NMAC

This matter comes before the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board ("Board") upon a petition filed by the New Mexico Environment Department ("NMED" or "Department"), proposing amendments to New Mexico's Air QualityRegulations, in order to authorize and require the electronic submittal ofdata, reports and permit applications in lieu ofpaper submittals. A public hearing was held in Santa Fe, New Mexico on January 23, 2015, with a quorum ofthe Board present during the hearing. The Board heard technical testimony from the Department and other parties and.admitted exhibits into the record. On January 23, 2015, the Board deliberated and voted to adopt the proposed amendments for the reasons that follow: I. STATEMENT OF REASONS 1. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") requires state agencies which currently accept required submittals electronically, in lieu ofpaper submittals, to comply with the federal Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule ("CROMERR"). 40 C.P.R. Part 3. 2. The Air QualityBureau ("AQB") ofthe Department has several electronic submittal programs that require EPA approval. Therefore, it was obligated to submit a CROMERR application to EPA.

EIB No. 14-0S(R) Statement ofReasons and Order Page 1 of5 

## NMED EXHIBIT 16

## 3. The AQB submitted a CROMERR application to EPA in August, 2012, and received comments in March, 2013. 4. Requiring electronic submissions is not expressly prohibited by any state law or regulation. The New Mexico Air Quality Control Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 74-2-1 to22 (1967, as amended through 2009), does not specify the manner in which reports and applications mustbe submitted to the AQB. 5. The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), NMSA 1978, Sections 14-16-1 to -21 (2001, as amended through 2013), allows state agencies to issue rules relating to electronic transactions. 6. A certification from the State Attorney General or his designee that the NMED has sufficient regulatory authority to accept and require electronic submittals is required for EPA to issue final approval ofthe AQB's application. 40 C.P.R.§ 3.1000(b)(1)(i). 7. In order to remove any question as to whether the NMED has the authority to accept and require electronic submissions, on advice from the Attorney General's designee in this matter, the NMED proposed the rule amendment at 20.2.1.117.A NMAC, as contained in their September 16, 2014 petition and request for hearing. 8. The AQB is working with EPA to ensure that the AQB's electronic reporting system is adequate, and complies with the requirements ofCROMERR, 40 C.P.R. § 3.2000. In 

## addition, the Department has proposed amendments at 20.2.1.117.B NMAC, to accommodate computer system or network failure on the part ofthe AQB or the regulated entity. 9. Additionally, the Department proposed amendments at 20.2.1.108 NMAC, to correct a grammatical error; at 20.2.1.111 NMAC, to remove outdated and inaccurate information

BIB No. 14-05(R) Statement ofReasons and Order Page 2 of5

## regarding physical addresses from the rule language; and at 20.2.1.116 NMAC, to reformat the Section's hierarchyin a more logical fashion without any change to the rule language itself. 10. Pursuant to 20.1.1.300.A NMAC, any person may petition the Board for amendment of regulations within thejurisdiction ofthe Board. 11. On September 16, 2014 NMED filed a petition with the Board for a public hearing in this matter. The petition proposed a new section 20.2.1.117 be added to the existing General Provisions ofthe Air Quality Regulations. 12. On October 23, 2014, at a meeting conducted in compliance with the Open Meetings Act and other applicable requirements, the Board granted the Department's request for a hearing and scheduled the hearing for January 23, 2015. The Board appointed member John Volkerding as the Hearing Officer. 13. Public notice ofthe hearing was published on the NMED AQB website on November 12, 2014, on the NMED AQB electronic mail list on November 10,2014, in the Albuquerque Journal (in English and Spanish) on November 2, 2014 and in the New Mexico Register

on November 13, 2014. The notice stated that the Board may make a decision on the proposed amendments at the conclusion ofthe hearing, or may convene at a later date to consider action on the proposal. 14. NMED filed a Notice oflntent to Present Technical Testimony (NOI) on December 24, 2014, in accordance with 20.1.1.302 NMAC. 15. No other parties filed NOis. 16. A hearing in this matter was held in Santa Fe, New Mexico on January 23, 2015, at which

a reasonable opportunity for all persons to be heard was provided.

EIB No. 14-05(R) Statement ofReasons and Order Page 3 of5

# ( 17. The Board has the authority to adopt the proposed amendments pursuant to NMSA 1978, §§ 

### 74-2-S.B & 

### C. 18. In considering the proposed amendments, the Board is required by the Air Quality Control Act, NMSA 1978, Section 74-2-S.E, to give weight it deems appropriate to all facts and circumstances, including but not limited to (1) character and degree ofinjuryto

or interference with health, welfare, visibility and property; (2) the public interest, including the social and economic value ofthe sources and subjects ofair contaminants; and (3) technical practicability and economic reasonableness ofreducing or eliminating air contaminants from the sources involved and previous experience with equipment and methods available to control the air contaminants involved. 19. The proposed amendments do not cause injury or interfere with health, welfare, visibility and property, in accordance with NMSA, Section 74-2-5.E(1); nor do they relate to the technical practicability and economic reasonableness ofreducing or eliminating air contaminants, in accordance with NMSA, Section 74-2-5.E(3). 20. In addition, in accordance with NMSA, Section 74-2-5.E(2), the Board concludes that the public interest will be served by implementation ofthe proposed amendments. Specifically, implementation ofthe electronic reporting system as authorized by this amendment will reduce the burden and operating costs incurred by Department staff required to transfer data contained in paper reports, reduce the economic and environmental cost to the regulated source ofprinting and mailing, foster more rapid and
accurate environmental reporting and posting ofcompliance information, and make reporting and application submission simpler and more efficient.

EIB No. 14-05(R) Statement ofReasons and Order Page 4 of5

## 21. The Board concludes that the factors specified byNMSA 1978, Section 74-2-5.E all weigh in favor ofadopting the proposed amendments. 22. The notice and hearing requirements ofNMSA 1978 Section 74-2-6 and 20.1.1 NMAC

were satisfied in this rulemak:ing process. 23. The proposed amendments are adopted for any or all ofthe reasons stated above. II. ORDER 

## Bymajority vote ofa quorum ofthe Board members, the proposed revisions to New Mexico's Air Quality Regulations, in order to authorize and require the electronic submittal of data, reports and permit applications in lieu ofpaper submittals, as contained in NMED's September 16, 2014 petition and request for hearing, were approved bythe Board on January 23, 2015.

On Behalfofthe Board

EIB No. 14-05(R) Statement ofReasons and Order Page 5 of5 Dated:



# ---------------------Submittal Requirements of Rules Potentially Affected by Proposed Amendments to 20.2.1 NMAC, General Provisions 

### I Submittal Electrome Format Submittal Rule 

### I Program Citations Requirement Required Allowed? AnnUd: Emissions Emissions Inventory, 20.2.73 NMAC 20.2.73.300.B.{1), {2), {3), {4), {6) & (7) NMAC Report None Yes**~xcess** Emissions Form supplied Excess Emissions, 20.2.7 NMAC 20.2.7.110.A NMAC Report by Department Yes Permit Operating Permits, 20.2.70 NMAC 20.2.70.300 D NMAC, Content of Application Application Written No 20.2.70.302.H.(1).(b) NMAC, "Section 502{b){10) Written changes" Notification Written No 20.2.70.302.E NMAC, Reporting Reporting None Yes Permit Construction Permits, 20.2.72 NMAC 20.2.72.203.A NMAC Application Written No Performance 20.2.72.213 NMAC, Startup and Followup Testing Test Results Written No Performance 20.2.72.305.C.{4) NMAC Test Results Written No 20.2.16 NMAC, Nonferrous Smelters New & Existing Protocols 

### I Stack Testing and Reporting -Particulate Matter Reports None Yes 20.2.17 NMAC, Nonferrous Smelters Existing- Protocols 

### I Particulate Motter Reports None Yes 20.2.18 NMAC, Oil Burning Equipment- Particulate Protocols 

### I Matter Reports None Yes 20.2.19 NMAC, Potash, Salt or Sodium Sulfate Protocols 

### I Processing Equipment- Particulate Matter Reports None Yes 20.2.20 NMAC, Lime Manufacturing Plants- Protocols 

### I Particulate Matter Reports None Yes Protocols 

### I 20.2.37 NMAC, Petroleum Processing Facilities Reports None Yes 20.2. 40 NMAC, Sulfuric Acid Production Units- Protocols 

### I Sulfur Dioxide, Acid Mist and Visible Emissions Reports None Yes 20.2.35 NMAC, Natural Gas Processing Quarterly Plant- Sulfur 20.2.35.112.A NMAC Reports None Yes Department Notification of 20.2.35.113.E NMAC Action Certified Mail No 20.2.36 NMAC, Petroleum Refinery- Quarterly Sulfur 20.2.36.113.A NMAC Reports None Yes 20.2.77 NMAC, New Source Performance Incorporated by reference through September 23, Determined Standards 2013 Various Various by EPA 20.2.78 NMAC, Emissions Standards for Incorporated by reference through December 31, Determined Hazardous Air Pollutants 2013 Various Various by EPA

20.2.82 NMAC, Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards for Source Determined Categories ofHazardous Air Pollutants Incorporated by reference through August 29, 2013 Various Various by EPA



## NMED EXHIBIT 17 NMED Exhibit 17

### STATE OF NEW MEXICO BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT BOARD IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO: 20.2.1 NMAC - 

### GeneralProvisions EIB 14-0S(R)

NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT'S NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH SMALL BUSINESS REGULATORY RELIEF ACT

The New Mexico Environment Department gives notice that it has filed in the record of this proceeding a letter dated January 22, 2015, to the Small Business Regulatory Advisory Commission, a copy ofwhich is attached hereto, as required by NMSA 1978, Section 14-4A-4 of the Small Business Regulatory ReliefAct. Respectfully submitted,

I 

### John B. Verheul Assistant General Counsel 1190 St. Francis Drive Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 (505) 827-0528 John.Verheul@state.nrn.us

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy ofthe foregoing Notice ofCompliance was sent to the following via electronic mail on the 22nd day ofJanuary, 2015: Joseph Dworak, Board Counsel Office ofthe Attorney General P.O. Drawer 1508 Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508 jdworak@nmag.govSUSANA MARTINEZ Governor JOHN A. SANCHEZ Lieutenant Governor 

### NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT 

## Office of General Counsel

Harold Runnels Building 1190 Saint Francis Drive (87505) PO Box 5469, Santa Fe, NM 87502-5469 Phone (505) 827-2990 Fax (505) 827-1628 www.nmenv.state.nm.us 

### Via Electronic Mail: Dora.Dominguez@state.nm.us January 22, 2015 Small Business Regulatory Advisory Commission c/o Ms. Dora Dominguez New Mexico Economic Development Department 1100 St. Francis Drive Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501



### Re: Proposed Revisions to 20.2.1 NMAC - GeneralProvisions Dear Ms. Dominguez, RYAN FLYNN Cabinet Secretary BUTCH TONGATE Deputy Secretary



### The New Mexico Environment Department ("Department") hereby provides notice to the Small Business Regulatory Advisory Commission, pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Relief Act ("Act"), NMSA 1978, Sections 14-4A-1 to -5 (2005), that the Environmental Protection Division, Air Quality Bureau ("Bureau") has submitted a petition to the Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) for regulatory amendments to portions of20.2.1 New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC). The purpose ofproposed amendments to 20.2.1 NMAC is to codify the Department's authority to request and receive documents required from regulated sources in an electronic format. The proposed amendment would stipulate that: pursuant to the 

### Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) as defined by Title 40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations (CPR) Part 3; and the 

### Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 14-16-1 to -21 (2001 as amended through 2013); any submittal to the department required by any part under Chapter 2, 

### Air Quality (Statewide), ofTitle 20, 

### Environmental Protection, ofthe New Mexico Administrative Code, for which the department is accepting specified electronic documents in lieu ofpaper, shall be submitted electronically, provided that the method ofsubmittal complies with applicable federal and state standards for electronic submissions. The department may grant a waiver ofthis requirement on a case-by-case basis ifrequested by the regulated source. The proposed amendments will also address potential problems encountered with electronic reporting due to problems with computer systems and internet service providers. The proposed amendments will also include minor corrections to formatting and style. Upon adoption by the Board, the amended 20.2.1 NMAC would be submitted to the United States Environmental

### Protection Agency for incorporation into New Mexico's Air Quality State Implementation Plan (SIP). The EIB will hold a hearing on the proposed regulatory amendments (Docket No. EIB 14-05(R)) currently scheduled for Friday, January 23, 2015. For details regarding the time and location of the hearing please check the EIB website at: http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/eib/. Pursuant to Section 14-4A-4 ofthe Act, the Department does not anticipate that the proposed regulatory amendments will have any adverse effect on small businesses. Ifyou require further information about these proposed regulatory amendments, please call me at (505) 827-0528. Sincerely, 

# 0/U

John B. Verheul Assistant General Counsel New Mexico Environment Department

cc: Jeffrey Kendall, General Counsel Michael Vonderheide, Environmental Protection Division Director Richard Goodyear, Air Quality Bureau Chief Rita Bates, Air Quality Bureau Section Chief

# Attachment D 

# Attachment D contains a copy of the Hearing Record Transcript forJanuary23, 2015.

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1

STATE OF NEW MEXICO BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT BOARD

EIB 14

- 05 (R)

IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 20 . 2. 1 NMAC
- GENERAL PROVISIONS

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BE IT REMEMBERED that on the 23rd day of January, 2015 , this matter came on for hearing before the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, taken at the Old PERA Building, 1120 Paseo de Peralta , Apodaca Hall , Santa Fe , Mexico , at the hour of 9: 12

a .m .

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2

A P P E A R A N C E S For the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board : MR . JOHN M . VOLKERDING, Chair/Hearing Officer MR . JAMES R . CASCIANO MR . GREGORY FULFER MR . TIM MORROW For the New Mexico Environment Department : MR . JOHN VERHEUL OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 1190 St . Francis Drive , Suite N- 4050 Santa Fe , New Mexico 87505 ( 505 ) 827

- 0528 john . verheul@ state . nm . us

I N D E X PAGE Opening Remarks by Mr . Volkerding 4 NEAL BUTT Direct Examination by Mr . Verheul 8 Examination by the Board 20 RITA BATES Direct Testimony 21 Deliberations 34

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3

E X H I B I T S MARKED/ADMITTED NMED EXHIBIT : Exhibit 1. Petition for Regulatory Change 23 Exhibit 2. Written Testimony of Neal Butt 10 Exhibit 3. Resume of Neal Butt 23 Exhibit 4. Resume of Robert Samaniego 23 Exhibit 5. Resume of Rita Bates 23 Exhibits 6a through 6d . Legal Notices 23 Exhibit 7. Summary of Stakeholder Comments and

AQB Response 23 Exhibit 8. EPA Comments and ABQ Response 23 Exhibit 9. Special Commission Letter 23 Exhibit 10 . Memo from Jennifer Hower 23 Exhibit 11 . Memo from Hess Yntema 23 Exhibit 12 . CROMERR 101 : Fundamentals for

States , Tribes , and Local Governments 23 Exhibit 13 . Federal Register , Volume 70 , No . 197 ,

59848

- 89 , 10 / 13 / 05 23 Exhibit 14 . Federal Register , Volume 73 , No . 248 ,

78991

- 4, 12 /24 / 08 23 Exhibit 15 . CROMERR, 40 CFR 3 23 Exhibit 16 . Proposed Order and Statement of

Reasons 23 Exhibit 17 . Submittal Requirements of Rules

Potentially Affected by Proposed Amendments to 20 .2 .1 NMAC , General Provisions 23 Exhibit 18 . New Mexico Environment Department ' s

Notice of Compliance with Small Business Regulatory Relief Act 23

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4

MR . VOLKERDING : Okay . Agenda item nine , EIB- 14

- 05 , Proposed Amendments to 20 . 2. 1 NMAC , General Provisions . All right . Good morning . My name is John Volkerding, and I was designated by the Department to act as the Hearing Officer in this matter .

The hearing is being held to consider the regulatory change of 20 .2.1 NMAC , General Provisions . The rulemaking petition was filed by the Environment Department and docketed by the Administrator as EIB 14

- 05 (R) . The hearing will be conducted in accordance with the Board ' s rulemaking procedure set out in 20 . 1. 1 NMAC . Pursuant to those procedures , I will conduct the hearing so as to provide reasonable opportunity for all persons to be heard without making the hearing unreasonably lengthy .

The Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Evidence do not apply, but I will make whatever orders are necessary to preserve decorum . All testimony will be taken under oath, and all persons giving testimony will be subject to cross-examination by any other person in attendance on the subject matter of their testimony and matters affecting their credibility . I may limit cross

-examination , if necessary, to avoid harassment , intimidation , or repetition .

This hearing is being recorded and

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5

transcribed by Denise Kopan of Kathy Townsend Court Reporters . You may obtain a copy of the transcript directly from the court reporter . It also eventually does become public record viewable in the office of the Board Administrator . If you have not signed in , please do so , regardless of whether you wish to present testimony . If you have a phone or pager with you , please silence it now .

Members of the Board, the file contains the Petition for Hearing, the Department ' s Notice of Intent to Present Technical Testimony . No other parties have filed motions . There will be an opportunity for comments by members of the public . If any members of the public intend to comment , please do sign in on the register so the amount of time needed can be calculated and a schedule determined .

And I will turn it over to Mr . -- I' m going to pronounce your name wrong -- Verheul . Please make your appearance and introduce your witnesses .

MR . VERHEUL : Good morning, Mr . Hearing Officer , Members of the Board . My name is John Verheul , and I am here representing the New Mexico Environment Department Air Quality Bureau . With me are Rita Bates , who is Section Chief from the Air Quality Bureau , and Neal Butt , who is an Environmental

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6

Specialist from the Air Quality Bureau .

MR . VOLKERDING : Okay . MR . VERHEUL : They will be witnesses . MR . VOLKERDING : Thank you . Are there any preliminary matters that we need to address ?

MR . VERHEUL : No preliminary matters . I handed out an additional Exhibit 17 , which I believe was given to you , that will come into play during Mr . Butt 's testimony .

MR . VOLKERDING : Okay . Thank you . So I guess we will swear in the witnesses .

(Witnesses sworn . ) MR . VOLKERDING : All right . I will turn it

over to counsel .

MR . VERHEUL : Thank you . As a brief overview, as we noted, this is proposed revision to 20 . 2 .1 New Mexico Administrative Code . Those are the general provisions for the air quality regulations . The basic

-- the primary change

-- if you have read the prefiled testimony, the basic change is to allow electronic submissions of various air quality reports and permit applications .

We are proposing this change , in part , to comply with federal regulations from EPA, and, in addition , this is just going to really improve the way

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7

that information goes back and forth between the Air Quality Bureau and regulated entities . And we will get into those details a little bit more in Mr . Butt ' s testimony . The reason we need to make this rule change is that the current air quality regulations are inconsistent as to whether or not they require a written or they don ' t require a written submission . And there is a legal argument that the word "written"

means on paper .

So by this change , we will remove any ambiguity as to whether or not the electronic submissions are allowed . And that ' s really the purpose here . There are a couple more formatting and typographical errors that are in the existing rule which we are also proposing a change to . We figure

once we are in the rule , we may as well fix those .

And with that , I' ll call my witness , Mr . Butt .

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8

NEAL BUTT after having been first duly sworn under oath ,

was questioned and testified as follows :

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR . VERHEUL : Q. Would you please state your name for the record? A. Neal Butt . Q. Where do you work? A. In the Control Strategies Unit of the New Mexico Environment Department Air Quality Bureau . Q. What do you do for the Air Quality Bureau? A. I am an Environmental Scientist and Specialist . I develop air quality regulations and State Implementation Plans to regulate air pollution emissions in New Mexico . I also research assigned air pollution topics , analyze data , prepare reports , and present summaries and conclusions to management . Q. How long have you held this position? A. Since March of 2014 . Q. What did you do before taking this position? A. I worked for the City of Albuquerque ' s Environmental Health Department for 17 years , the last 12 of which were as an Environmental Health Scientist in the Air Quality Division . I served as the lead for

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9

promulgating air quality regulations and State Implementation Plans governing air quality in Bernalillo County under the jurisdiction of the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board . Q. What is your educational background? A. I hold a Master of Science degree in biology from the University of North Dakota , a Bachelor of Science degree in biology from the University of New Mexico , a Bachelor of Arts degree in environmental planning and design from UNM, an Associate of Applied Science in environmental protection from Central New Mexico Community College , and an Associate of Applied Science in criminal justice from CNM . Q. Did you provide written testimony for inclusion in the Notice of Intent to Present Technical Testimony? A. Yes . It was included as NMED Exhibit 2 . Q. Do you adopt that testimony as your own under oath here today? A. Yes . Q. Do you have a summary of your written testimony that you would like to present ? A. Yes . MR . VERHEUL : At this point , I 'd like to move

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10

for admission of NMED Exhibit 2 into evidence as Mr . Butt 's prefiled testimony .

MR . VOLKERDING : Can I ask one question about the exhibit ? My copy, and maybe mine is just wrong, it

seems to reference EIB 09

-14 instead of 14

- 05 , and maybe mine just has a typo on it . I just want to make

sure we correct that before we go further . On the front page .

MR . MORROW : Top right . MR . VERHEUL : Yes . MR . VOLKERDING : Okay . MR . VERHEUL : You are correct , that is a typographical error .

MR . VOLKERDING : Okay . So we will make that change and accept the exhibit .

(NMED Exhibit 2 admitted . ) MR . VERHEUL : Thank you , Mr . Hearing Officer . MR . VOLKERDING : Thank you . Q. (By Mr . Verheul ) Mr . Butt , if you would like to proceed with the summary of your written testimony . A. Thank you . Mr . Hearing Officer , Chair, Members of the Board, I am here to present the New Mexico Environment Department Air Quality Bureau ' s proposed amendments to 20 .2 . 1 New Mexico Administrative Code , or NMAC , entitled " General Provisions , " which I

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11

will refer to as " Part 1. " NMED Exhibit 1 is the Petition for Regulatory Change , Number EIB 14

- 05 (R) , which includes the Department ' s proposed amendments to Part 1 in the current NMAC format .

The purpose of the proposed amendments to Part 1 is to codify the Department ' s authority to request and receive required documents from regulated

sources in electronic format .

As a way of background, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, requires state agencies which currently accept required submittals electronically, in lieu of paper submittals , to comply with the federal Cross
-Media Electronic Reporting Rule . To comply with CROMERR, the Department must codify its authority to request and receive documents required from regulated sources in electronic format . Therefore , the Department proposes to amend Part 1 to include language requiring the electronic submittal of data , reports , and permit applications in lieu of paper submittals .

The Petition for Regulatory Change , Number EIB 14

- 05 (R), filed on September 16th , 2014 , is shown

as NMED Exhibit 1 and includes the Department ' s proposed amendments . The overall purpose of Part 1 is

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12

to establish general provisions which apply to all parts of Chapter 2 , Air Quality Statewide , of Title 20 , Environmental Protection , to include 20 . 2. 1 NMAC through 20 . 2. 99 NMAC .

So what is CROMERR? CROMERR was promulgated in the Federal Register on October 13th , 2005 , shown as NMED Exhibit 13 , and was amended on December 24th , 2008 , in the Federal Register , shown as NMED Exhibit 14 . This extended compliance dates for existing electronic document

-receiving systems ; that is , those that accepted electronic reports , or "e

-reports ," in lieu of paper on or before October 13th , 2005 . The amendment extended the deadline for programs with an existing e-reporting system to submit an application for EPA approval from October 13th of 2007 to January 13th of 2010 .

The Air Quality Bureau has existing

e-reporting programs for Air Emissions Inventory Reports and Excess Emissions Reports , it also has plans for new electronic submittal programs that will also require EPA approval .

These proposed new programs include air quality permit applications , routine report submittals , stack testing protocols and reports , and asbestos

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13

notifications . Therefore , the Air Quality Bureau submitted a draft CROMERR application to EPA in August of 2012 , receiving comments back from EPA in March of 2013 . EPA CROMERR Guidance , shown as NMED Exhibit 12 , allows the Air Quality Bureau to continue operation of existing e-reporting systems while the application was still under review . According to EPA, " The CROMERR rule provides the legal framework for electronic reporting to EPA and states , tribes , and local governments that are authorized to administer EPA programs . The intent is to maintain the same level of corporate and individual responsibility and accountability that exists in the paper environment when the reporting is done electronically, " and to

ensure the documents submitted electronically are " as legally dependable as their paper counterparts . "

So what are some of the specific requirements in CROMERR? EPA guidance requires that an authorized program that receives e-reports in lieu of paper must meet the following two requirements : One , the authorized program must have sufficient legal authority to enforce its authorized program using electronically submitted documents .

The demonstration of legal authority must be

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14

a certification from the State Attorney General or his designee that the Department can continue to enforce these authorized programs based on electronic submissions .

The Air Quality Bureau already has the statutory and regulatory authority to accept

e-submittals for Air Emissions Inventory Reports and Excess Emissions Reports because the rule language for these programs does not require written submittals .

The Air Quality Bureau also intends to accept all compliance reports and permitting submittals electronically . Therefore , in order to remove any question as to whether the Department has the authority to accept and require electronic submissions and to

ensure that the Air Quality Bureau has sufficient authority to enforce these programs based on electronic submissions , the Air Quality Bureau is proposing to amend Part 1 to require the data , reports , and permit applications be submitted electronically for any rule under Chapter 2 , Air Quality Statewide , of Title 20 , Environmental Protection , for which the Air Quality Bureau is accepting electronic submittals .

A Special Commission letter from the Attorney General ' s Office appointing a " Special Assistant Attorney General for the sole purpose of representing

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15

the New Mexico Environment Department for the purpose of certifying to the United States EPA that the NMED Air Quality Bureau has the legal authority to enforce its authorized programs using electronically submitted documents " is shown as NMED Exhibit 9 .

The proposed new language , which reflects comments received from stakeholders , would be inserted

as Subsection A under a new Section 117 of Part 1 , entitled "Applicability," shown in NMED Exhibit 1 . Two , the authorized program must also meet the CROMERR standards for e-reporting systems pursuant to 40 CFR 3 . 2000 , shown as NMED Exhibit 15 .

The Air Quality Bureau is working with EPA to

ensure that the Air Quality Bureau ' s e-reporting system is adequate . In addition , the Air Quality Bureau is proposing amendments to Part 1 to accommodate computer system failure or network failures . The proposed new language would be inserted as Subsection B of the new Section 117 of Part 1, entitled " Deadline extension due to computer system failure . "

So what are the legal foundations for this ? Requiring e-reporting is not prohibited by any state law or regulation . The New Mexico Air Quality Control Act does not specify the manner in which reports and applications must be submitted to the Air Quality

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16

Bureau , and the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act , or UETA, allowed state agencies to issue rules relating to electronic transactions .

So what is our current ability and authority to accept e-reports and applications ? Within the state air quality regulations , we can conclude that when the word "written" is not used, an electronic submission is acceptable .

A list of existing programs that require reporting to the Air Quality Bureau and which could be affected by the proposed rule amendments are shown in the table shown as NMED Exhibit 17 . As you can see , there are a number of reports and permit applications with the word "written" in the rule language and some that do not .

So what are some of the benefits of electronic reporting? Facilitating and encouraging the electronic submittal of required reports and permit applications in lieu of paper by regulated sources will benefit both the regulated source and the Air Quality Bureau . This is because electronic reporting makes reporting and applications submission simpler and more efficient ; it reduces the economic and environmental cost to the regulated source of printing and mailing;

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17

fosters more rapid and accurate environmental reporting and posting of compliance information ; diminishes transcription errors ; and reduces the staff time and operating costs incurred by the Air Quality Bureau required to transfer data contained in paper reports .

So what is the impact on the regulated community? The proposed new Section 20 . 2. 1. 117 NMAC , Electronic Reporting and Permit Applications , would apply to persons and signatories who submit electronic reports or other documents for which the Air Quality Bureau is accepting specified electronic documents in lieu of paper , except for documents submitted via facsimile , and electronic documents submitted via magnetic or optical media , such as diskette , compact disk, DVD, or tape , which are not subject to CROMERR .

Regulated sources that have not already submitted an Electronic Subscriber Application and Agreement to the Air Quality Bureau for any existing or

new on-line application ; for example , excess emissions reporting or emissions inventory reporting, will need to submit one .

An Electronic Signature Agreement ensures the data submitted to the Air Quality Bureau is being submitted by an authorized representative of that

source . The Air Quality Bureau anticipates that if the

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18

proposed amendments are adopted and the Air Quality Bureau is prepared to go live with a new on-line submittal program; for example , permit applications , the following procedure will generally be followed : Stakeholders will be notified via e-mails and on the Air Quality Bureau website ; volunteers will be recruited for a limited live beta test of the software ;

a phased roll

-out will commence after completion of the beta test ; and no penalty will be assessed for any entity that did not receive notification of the

e-reporting system .

Some additional proposed amendments include

an amendment to Section 108 , Saving Clause , is proposed to correct a grammatical error . Amendments to Section 111 , Availability of Materials Incorporated by Reference , would remove outdated and inaccurate information regarding physical addresses from the rule language and replace it with the correct information within brackets in the History Note , which is not subject to the legal constraints of rulemaking procedures , thereby facilitating administrative changes in the future without necessitating a rulemaking hearing . And finally, an amendment to Section 116 , Significant Figures , reformats the section 's hierarchy in a more logical fashion without a change to the rule

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19

language , itself .

So what type of public notice and outreach

were conducted? Public notice of the hearing was published in the Albuquerque Journal on November 2nd, 2014 , both in English, shown as NMED Exhibit 6a and in Spanish, shown as NMED Exhibit 6b; in the New Mexico Register , there was a notice of proposed rulemaking on November 13th , 2014 , shown as NMED Exhibit 6d; on the New Mexico Environment Department ' s Air Quality Bureau electronic mail system on November 10th , 2014 , shown as NMED Exhibit 6c ; and on the NMED Air Quality Bureau ' s website on November 12th, 2014 . Additional outreach was conducted for the proposed revisions to Part 1 in the form of a dedicated web page explaining CROMERR . Also , we held an Open House at the New Mexico Environment Department here in Santa Fe on September 30th , 2014 .

The Department received no negative comments from the public in response to these notices . A summary of comments from stakeholders and the Air Quality Bureau ' s responses are shown as NMED Exhibit 7 . Comments from EPA and the Air Quality Bureau ' s responses are shown as NMED Exhibit 8 .

That concludes my testimony on the Department ' s proposed amendments to Part 1 , and I

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20

respectfully request that the Board adopt these proposed amendments and concomitant SIP revision at the conclusion of this hearing .

The Department also requests that the Board authorize the proposed non-substantive changes to correct the typographical errors and to reflect formatting changes required by the Administrative Law Division of the New Mexico Commission of Public Records for compilation into the New Mexico Administrative Code . Thank you .

MR . VERHEUL : And that concludes Mr . Butt ' s summary of his prefiled testimony . Mr . Hearing Officer , Members of the Board, are there questions ?

MR . VOLKERDING : Are there questions from any of the Board?

MR . CASCIANO : Yes . MR . VOLKERDING : Okay . MR . CASCIANO : Go ahead .

EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD :

MR . FULFER : What is an electronic signature ?What is required for it to be considered an electronic signature ?

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21

RITA BATES after having been first duly sworn under oath ,

was questioned and testified as follows :

DIRECT TESTIMONY MS . BATES : So I can look at you , I will stand over here . Hi . That ' s a good question , and, actually, we don 't really use electronic signatures . What we require is a wet signature , a real signature that is mailed to us , which we then file and we keep in our files so that we can -- so that we know we received it from the source , and it needs to be notarized .

So that is something that 's required by CROMERR by the federal rule , and we have a system set up in place right now that meets that requirement so that we do have that paper copy with a pen-and

-ink signature , and once we have received that , that person is then allowed to be in our system .

MR . FULFER : So on the submissions , after you have that , or you require that for every submission ?

MS . BATES : We require it once , and then once

we have it on file , it ' s on file for all of our programs . So we only require it one time for each person that 's going to report into that system, or certify into that system, into any of our systems for the Air Quality Bureau .

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22

MR . FULFER : Okay . Thank you . MS . BATES : Uh

-huh . MR . VOLKERDING : Mr . Casciano ? MR . CASCIANO : Kind of a procedural matter , Mr . Hearing Officer , before I ask questions . Mr . Butt has referred to numerous exhibits . I am not sure if we entered those .

MR . VOLKERDING : I don ' t think we have , other than just Exhibit 2.

MR . CASCIANO : I didn ' t know if that was necessary . MR . VOLKERDING : Yes , it will be .

MR . VERHEUL : At this point , Mr . Hearing Officer , I would offer all of the exhibits , in addition to Exhibit 2, and that includes Exhibit 17 , which was handed out just prior to the hearing . There is an additional exhibit , NMED Exhibit 18 , which I would offer, which was filed yesterday .

Ms . Castaneda , was that provided, copies of that , to the Board this morning?

MS . CASTANEDA : Yes . MR . VOLKERDING : Yes , it was , this morning . MR . VERHEUL : Yes . That ' s the Notice of Compliance with the Small Business Regulatory Relief Act .

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23

MR . VOLKERDING : Yes . Okay . Exhibits 1 through 18 are all accepted .

MR . VERHEUL : Thank you , Mr . Hearing Officer . (NMED Exhibits 1 and 3 through 17 admitted .)

MR . CASCIANO : So , Mr . Butt , Exhibit 12 , CROMERR 101 , I can 't find the source . It looks like an excerpt from a training class , CROMERR 101 .

Is EPA the author of that material ? MR . BUTT : Yes . It ' s on an EPA website , and I can find the URL if it ' s required .

MR . CASCIANO : Yes , that would be helpful , in the list of exhibits , if the source was clearly identified, and, also , with the titles of the exhibits . Some of them are generic . So just a comment for the Department .

Are you going to get into the specifics of it , Exhibit 17 , and where records are allowed electronic submission and where they are not ? Because I am unclear if your proposal will allow all electronic records to be considered acceptable because the document here lists -- I don 't know if this is the current state , or is this the

-- what will be proposed . You have got two columns on the right side ,

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24

" Submittal Format Required, " and then "Electronic Submittal Allowed, " question mark, and some say " yes " and some say "no ." Permit applications , for instance , say "no . " MR . VERHEUL : What this gets at is , as we noted, there were inconsistencies in the current air quality regulations with regard to whether or not the word "written" is used or not . The purpose of this grid was to provide the Board with really a checklist of which air quality regulations currently use the word

"written" and what those really apply to .

For example , Operating Permits . The application , itself , currently, it says it 's required in a written format . Again , there is a legal argument that any time the word "written" is used, that means it

can be an electronically submitted .

So by this rule change and putting it in the General Provisions section of the air quality regulations , we are simply removing any ambiguity as to whether or not -- as to whether or not the report may be

-- the permit application in this case

-- may be submitted and accepted electronically .

There are not currently electronic systems in place for every one of these documents , but we don ' t want to come back before the Board every time a new

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25

system comes in place and say, " Can we change this rule ? Can we change this rule ," piecemeal , piecemeal . This is simply saying we can now accept anything electronically that we have the capacity to , provided that we do it in a way that ' s compliant with the standards of the EPA .

MR . CASCIANO : Okay . So this is more the current state of the Department ' s capability?

MR . VERHEUL : Yes , that is correct . MR . CASCIANO : Rather than what you would expect if the change is approved?

MR . VERHEUL : That is correct . We have a few systems that are ready to go on-line if this rule change is approved, but then after that , the additional

ones would be over the next few years .

MR . CASCIANO : So you reference the legal opinion that "written" can be interpreted as a physical document different than an electronic document .

Did the legislature not address that in 2001 with the Uniform Electronic Transfer Act ? I am concerned why this , you know, controversy persists when my understanding was that it 's kind of widely accepted that electronic submissions are legally effective and binding . MR . VERHEUL : It is widely accepted .

## 1

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

However , the Air Quality Bureau also has an enforcement section , among others , and we wanted to remove any legal argument that anything that was submitted to the Air Quality Bureau , whether it be an Excess Emissions Report , a permit application , any such thing, that that was invalid and that the Air Quality Bureau couldn ' t regulate on the basis of that because it was submitted in a way that was not legal .

In addition , while the Air Quality Act does not state the word "written , " the air quality regulations , which , of course , this Board promulgates , are the ones where the word "written" is used . And so rather than assume that UETA, the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act , rather than assume that that covered

us , we wanted to come to this Board and state that we

were attempting to make it clear that the Air Quality Bureau could receive all these documents electronically .

MR . CASCIANO : I think it 's good to do that cleanup and add that , but , you know, in Exhibit 10 , your own Memorandum from the Office of General Counsel , NMED, summarizes the UETA, stating that "Each government agency of this state , " you know, " shall determine whether and the extent which it will send and accept electronic records ."

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27

So I am just kind of encouraging you to exercise that and clarify and not perpetuate this uncertainty when the legislature has spoken , and, you know, empowered your department to create operating rules , practical rules , you know, in these matters of electronic records .

So I am just encouraging you not to , you know, kind of promulgate or allow the notion that this should be challenged or could be challenged . It seems like the state has had an act on the books for over ten years to clarify that legal point .

MR . VERHEUL : Understood . MR . CASCIANO : I think that ' s it for my comments of Mr . Butt 's testimony .

MR . VOLKERDING : Okay . Any other questions ? I have three .

During the verbal testimony, there was a description of how people would get an on-line subscription , I think was the phraseology .

Is there a fee for that , or is that free for people who are required to do electronic submittal ?

MS . BATES : Mr . Chair

-- Mr . Hearing Officer and Mr . Chair , no , there is no fee .

MR . VOLKERDING : Okay . And then on the public

-- on the stakeholder comments , I saw that there

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28

were comments made and then the NMED responded .

Were there any follow

-up from any of those stakeholders on the response that the Bureau gave those folks ? MR . BUTT : There was no more communication that I am aware of besides what ' s in your exhibits .

MR . VOLKERDING : Okay . MR . BUTT : What EPA said and what the stakeholders have said and our responses were the extent of it . I don 't have anything else on top of that . MR . VOLKERDING : Okay . My last one -- all right . Let me just start off, in 20 . 2. 1 . 117 , on line 35 , the word " shall " is used . It says , " Specify electronic documents in lieu of paper shall be submitted electronically . "

And that caught my eye because all of the exhibits use the word " allow ." It was -- and that ' s how the petition was put forth , was that we just wanted to clarify the regulation so that electronic could be allowed, and the wording seems a step further .

It seems to say that written , i. e. , a piece of paper , would no longer be allowed . And so I want to

-- I just kind of want to chat about that and see if that is exactly what the Department 's intention is .

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29

MS . BATES : Mr . Hearing Officer , Members of the Board, our intent is to require that if we have an electronic system in place that that will be used . However , we did add the sentence at the end of Subsection A that the Department may grant a waiver of this requirement under specific circumstances .

I think it says " on a case-by

-case-basis , " and that is if there really is a serious problem that

someone is unable to do this that we would allow them to submit written . What we really don ' t want to get is

a combination of written and electronic .

Once we have an electronic system in place ,

we want that to be the primary system, only not used in

cases where we have determined, "Yes , that 's okay to not submit electronically . You have a valid reason for not being able to submit electronically . "

I would see that , perhaps , happening mostly with very small businesses that might have an issue and would be unable to do this kind of reporting . We have

a Small Business Assistance Program that helps people that are small businesses with their permit applications , and I could see them helping them with this , and perhaps to the extent of filling out the electronic application for them .

To have a combination just is going to --

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30

means that we will continue to be entering that information . Our permitters , our compliance people , would continue to have to put all that information , perpetuating the potential for transcription errors .

We have in place currently an air emissions inventory system that Mr . Butt discussed a little bit . It ' s been in place for , I think, six or seven years already, and people have really done well using it , and I think they really appreciate being able to use it , as opposed to having to prepare spreadsheets and fill those out and send them in .

And then there are transcription errors , that

we have got inaccurate data going to EPA because there

are a lot of numbers in that , and it was a real nightmare to do that . Now, I think once we get people

on board with these electronic systems and we roll them out slowly, people get used to using them, they will like them as soon as they understand how to use them .

We do provide training and we do roll it out in piecemeal fashion , you know, beta testing first . We tested it internally, we tried to break it ; beta test in the TV industry, try to break it , and then roll it out on a smaller , you know, basis , and then do a complete roll

-out .

So we work with people through the whole

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31

process of rolling it out . We do find errors as we go forward and we work with people and we fix errors and it ' s been a real success , the systems we currently have in place . MR . VOLKERDING : Okay . Thank you . That was very helpful . I didn ' t really see anything in the written that really addressed that , and so I think the verbal testimony did a good job , for the record .

So thank you . MS . BATES : Sure . MR . VOLKERDING : Any further questions ? Mr . Fulfer? MR . FULFER : In your enforcement process , have you had any cases argued on the written versus electronic ?

MR . VERHEUL : Not that I am aware of . And do

we have anyone from Enforcement here ?

MS . BATES : I see Mr . Goodyear in the back, who is the Bureau Chief , shaking his head no , we have not had any, and that was my understanding, as well , that I have not heard any in the Bureau .

MR . FULFER : Okay . Thank you . MR . VOLKERDING : All right . With no further questions from the Board, are there any questions from anyone in the audience ? No . All right .

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32

Mr . Verheul , would you like to make any closing statements ?

MR . VERHEUL : No . Thank you , Mr . Hearing Officer , Members of the Board, for your time today . Thank you . MR . VOLKERDING : Thank you . Anyone see any

reason to leave the record open? No . Okay . Then the record is closed . The hearing is adjourned, and I am open for discussion on the matter .

Any questions or comments that anyone has among ourselves ?

MR . CASCIANO : No . I think the materials were well

-organized and presented and I am in favor of the changes .

MR . VOLKERDING : Okay . Is there a motion? MR . CASCIANO : I would move that we adopt the changes to 20 .1 . 1. 302 ( a ) NMAC as proposed by the Department .

MR . VOLKERDING : 20 . 2. 1 NMAC ? MR . CASCIANO : Have I got the wrong one ? MR . VOLKERDING : I think you ' re looking at the other one .

MR . CASCIANO : Okay . 20 . 2. 1 , okay, as presented in EIB 14

- 05 .

MR . VOLKERDING : Okay . Is there a second?

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33

MR . MORROW : Second . MR . VOLKERDING : Second . All in favor, or is there discussion or no ? No . All right . All in favor? MR . CASCIANO : Aye .

MR . MORROW : Aye . MR . FULFER : Aye . MR . VOLKERDING : Aye . MR . FULFER : I am a little hung up on those electronic signatures , but I am okay .

MR . VOLKERDING : Okay . So unanimously approved, yes ? Okay . It 's been approved . Thank you .

( Proceedings concluded at 10 : 47 a. m. )

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34

STATE OF NEW MEXICO ) ) COUNTY OF BERNALILLO )

I, DENISE KOPAN, the undersigned Court Reporter , HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing hearing was recorded by me by machine shorthand; that I later caused my notes to be transcribed under my personal supervision ; and that the foregoing is a true and accurate record, to the best of my ability, of said proceedings .

I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not a relative or employee of any of the parties or attorneys involved in this matter and that I have no personal interest in the final disposition of this matter .

DATED this

_

_____ day of

____ __, 2015 .

___________

_______

____ _______

__ DENISE KOPAN, NM CSR # 124 License Expiration : 12 / 31 / 15

## #

**# 124**  [1] - 34:20 

## 0

**09 -** **14** [1] - 10:5 

## 1

**1** [17] - 3:3, 11 :1, 11 :4, 11 :6, 11 :18, 11 :24, 11 :25, 14: 18, 15:8, 15:9, 15:16, 15: 19, 19: 13, 19:25, 23:1, 23:5 **10** [3] - 3:4, 3: 13, 26:20 **10 /** **13 /** **05** [1] - 3: 17 **101** [3] - 3:15, 23:7, 23:8 **108** [1] - 18: 13 **10 :** **47** [1] - 33: 13 **10 th**  [1] - 19: 10 **11** [1] - 3: 14 **111** [1] - 18: 15 **1120** [1] - 1: 19 **116** [1] - 18:23 **117** [2] - 15:8, 15: 19 **1190** [1] - 2:7 **12** [4] - 3: 15, 8:24, 13:6, 23:6 **12 /** **24 /** **08** [1] - 3: 18 **12 /** **31 /** **15** [1] - 34:20 **12 th**  [1] - 19: 12 **13** [2] - 3: 16, 12:7 **13 th**  [5] - 12:6, 12: 13, 12: 16, 12: 17, 19:8 **14** [2] - 3: 18, 12:9 **14 -** **05** [2] - 10:5, 32:24 **14 -** **05 (R**  [3] - 1:2, 11 :2, 11 :23 **14 -** **05 (R)**  [1] - 4:9 **15** [2] - 3: 19, 15: 12 **16** [1] - 3:20 **16 th**  [1] - 11 :23 **17** [7] - 3:22, 6:7, 8:23, 16: 12, 22: 15, 23:5, 23: 18 **18** [3] - 3:24, 22: 17, 23:2 **197** [1] - 3:16 

## 2

**2** [8] - 3:4, 9: 18, 10:1, 10: 16, 12:2, 14:20, 22:9, 22: 15 **20** [3] - 2: 15, 12:2, 14:20 **20 .1.1**  [1] - 4:11 **20 .1.1.** **302 (a**  [1] - 32: 17 **20 .2.1**  [9] - 1:5, 3:23, 4:1, 4:6, 6:17, 10:24, 12:3, 32: 19, 32:23 **20 .2.1.** **117** [2] - 17:7, 28: 13 **20 .2.** **99** [1] - 12:4 **2001** [1] - 25: 19 **2005** [2] - 12:6, 12: 13 **2007** [1] - 12: 16 **2008** [1] - 12:8 **2010** [1] - 12: 17 **2012** [1] - 13:3 **2013** [1] - 13:4 **2014** [7] - 8:20, 11 :23, 19:5, 19:8, 19: 10, 19: 12, 19: 17 **2015** [2] - 1: 17, 34: 15 **21** [1] - 2: 17 **23** [17] - 3:3, 3:5, 3:6, 3:7, 3:8, 3:10, 3: 11 , 3:12, 3: 13, 3: 14, 3: 15, 3:17, 3: 18, 3: 19, 3:21 , 3:23, 3:25 **23 rd**  [1] - 1: 16 **248** [1] - 3:18 **24 th**  [1] - 12:7 **2 nd**  [1] - 19:4 

## 3

**3** [3] - 3:5, 3: 19, 23:5 **3. 2000**  [1] - 15: 12 **30 th**  [1] - 19: 17 **34** [1] - 2: 18 **35** [1] - 28:14 

## 4

**4** [2] - 2: 12, 3:6 **40** [2] - 3: 19, 15: 11 

## 5

**5** [1] - 3:7 **505** [1] - 2:8 **59848 -** **89** [1] - 3: 17 

## 6

**6a** [2] - 3:8, 19:5 **6b** [1] - 19:6 **6c** [1] - 19:11 **6d** [2] - 3:8, 19:8 

## 7

**7** [2] - 3:9, 19:22 **70** [1] - 3: 16 **73** [1] - 3: 18 **78991 -4**  [1] - 3:18 

## 8

**8** [3] - 2: 14, 3: 11 , 19:23 **827 -** **0528** [1] - 2:8 **87505** [1] - 2:8 

## 9

**9** [2] - 3: 12, 15:5 **9: 12**  [1] - 1:20 

## A

**a.m** [2] - 1:21 , 33:13 **ability** [2] - 16:4, 34:9 **able** [2] - 29: 16, 30:9 **ABQ** [1] - 3: 11 **accept** [8] - 10: 15, 11 : 11 , 14:6, 14: 10, 14: 14, 16:5, 25:3, 26:25 **acceptable** [2] - 16:8, 23:21 **accepted** [5] - 12: 12, 23:2, 24:22, 25:22, 25:25 **accepting** [2] - 14:22, 17: 11 **accommodate** [1] - 15: 16 **accordance** [1] - 4:10 **According** [1] - 13:8 **accountability** [1] - 13: 14 **accurate** [2] - 17:1, 34:9 **Act** [7] - 3:25, 15:24, 16:1, 22:25, 25:20, 26:9, 26: 14 **act** [2] - 4:4, 27: 10 **add** [2] - 26:20, 29:4 **addition** [4] - 6:25, 15: 15, 22: 14, 26:9 **additional** [4] - 6:7, 18: 12, 22: 17, 25: 14 **Ad ditional**  [1] - 19: 12 **address** [2] - 6:5, 25: 19 **addressed** [1] - 31 :7 **addresses** [1] - 18: 17 **adequate** [1] - 15: 15 **adjourned** [1] - 32:8 **administer** [1] - 13: 11 **Ad ministrative**  [4] - 6:17, 10:24, 20:7, 20:9 **administrative** [1] - 18:21 **Ad ministrator**  [2] - 4:8, 5:5 **admission** [1] - 10:1 **admitted** [2] - 10: 16, 23:5 **adopt** [3] - 9: 19, 20:1, 32: 16 **adopted** [1] - 18:1 **Affected** [1] - 3:22 **affected** [1] - 16: 11 **affecting** [1] - 4:22 **agencies** [2] - 11 : 11 , 16:2 **agency** [1] - 26:23 **Ag ency**  [1] - 11 : 10 **Ag enda**  [1] - 4:1 **Ag reement**  [2] - 17: 18, 17:22 **ahead** [1] - 20: 19 **Ai r**  [46] - 5:23, 5:24, 6:1, 7:1, 8:11 , 8: 12, 8:25, 9:4, 10:23, 12:2, 12: 18, 12: 19, 13:1, 13:6, 14:5, 14:7, 14: 10, 14: 15, 14: 17, 14:20, 14:21 , 15:3, 15: 13, 15: 14, 15: 15, 15:23, 15:25, 16: 10, 16:20, 17:4, 17: 10, 17: 18, 17:23, 17:25, 18:1, 18:6, 19:9, 19: 11 , 19:20, 19:22, 21 :25, 26:1, 26:4, 26:6, 26:9, 26:16 **air** [15] - 6: 18, 6:21 , 7:6, 8: 14, 8: 15, 8:16, 9:1, 9:2, 12:23, 16:6, 24:6, 24: 10, 24: 18, 

## 1

26: 10, 30:5 **Al buquerque**  [1] - 19:4 **Al buquerque** **'s** [1] - 8:22 **Al buquerque** **/ Bernalillo**  [1] - 9:4 **allow** [5] - 6:20, 23:20, 27:8, 28: 18, 29:9 **Al lowed**  [1] - 24:2 **allowed** [6] - 7:13, 16:2, 21 : 17, 23: 18, 28:21 , 28:23 **allows** [1] - 13:6 **ambiguity** [2] - 7: 12, 24: 19 **amend** [2] - 11 : 18, 14: 18 **amended** [1] - 12:7 **amendment** [3] - 12: 14, 18: 13, 18:23 **AME NDMENTS**  [1] - 1:5 **Amendments** [3] - 3:23, 4:1, 18: 14 **amendments** [10] - 10:24, 11 :3, 11 :5, 11 :25, 15: 16, 16: 11 , 18:1, 18: 12, 19:25, 20:2 **amount** [1] - 5:15 **analyze** [1] - 8: 17 **anticipates** [1] - 17:25 **Ap odaca**  [1] - 1:20 **appearance** [1] - 5:19 **Ap plicability**  [1] - 15:9 **application** [8] - 12: 15, 13:2, 13:7, 17: 19, 24: 13, 24:21 , 26:5, 29:24 **Ap plication**  [1] - 17: 17 **Ap plications**  [1] - 17:8 **applications** [12] - 6:22, 11 :20, 12:24, 14: 19, 15:25, 16:5, 16: 13, 16: 19, 16:23, 18:3, 24:3, 29:22 **Ap plied**  [2] - 9: 11 , 9:13 **apply** [4] - 4: 17, 12:1, 17:9, 24:11 **appointing** [1] - 14:24 **appreciate** [1] - 30:9**approval** [2] - 12: 16,

12:22 **approved** [4] - 25: 11 , 25: 14, 33: 12 **AQ B**  [1] - 3: 10 **argued** [1] - 31 : 14 **argument** [3] - 7:9, 24: 14, 26:3 **Arts** [1] - 9: 10 **asbestos** [1] - 12:25 **assessed** [1] - 18:9 **assigned** [1] - 8: 16 **Assistance** [1] - 29:20 **Assistant** [1] - 14:24 **Associate** [2] - 9: 11 , 9:13 **assume** [2] - 26: 13, 26: 14 **attempting** [1] - 26: 16 **attendance** [1] - 4:21 **Attorney** [3] - 14:1, 14:23, 14:25 **attorneys** [1] - 34: 12 **audience** [1] - 31 :25 **Au gust**  [1] - 13:2 **author** [1] - 23:9 **authority** [9] - 11 :6, 11 : 16, 13:22, 13:25, 14:6, 14: 13, 14: 16, 15:3, 16:4 **authorize** [1] - 20:5 **authorized** [8] - 13: 11 , 13: 19, 13:22, 13:23, 14:3, 15:4, 15: 10, 17:24 **Availability** [1] - 18: 15 **avoid** [1] - 4:23 **aw are**  [2] - 28:6, 31 : 16 **Aye** [4] - 33:5, 33:6, 33:7, 33:8 

## B

**Bachelor** [2] - 9:8, 9:10 **background** [2] - 9:6, 11 :9 **based** [2] - 14:3, 14: 16 **basic** [2] - 6: 19, 6:20 **bas is**  [3] - 26:7, 29:7, 30:23 **BATES** [9] - 2:16, 21 :1, 21 :5, 21 :20, 22:2, 27:22, 29:1, 31 : 10, 31 : 18 **Bates** [2] - 3:7, 5:24 **BE** [1] - 1:16 **become** [1] - 5:4 **BEFORE** [1] - 1:1 **benefit** [1] - 16:20 **benefits** [1] - 16: 16 **BERNALILLO** [1] - 34:3 **Bernalillo** [1] - 9:3 **best** [1] - 34:9 **beta** [4] - 18:7, 18:9, 30:20, 30:21 **between** [1] - 7:1 **binding** [1] - 25:24 **biology** [2] - 9:7, 9:9 **bit** [2] - 7:3, 30:6 **BOARD** [2] - 1:1, 20:21 **board** [1] - 30: 16 **Board** [20] - 1:18, 2:2, 2: 15, 5:5, 5:9, 5:21 , 9:5, 10:22, 20:1, 20:4, 20: 14, 20: 16, 22:20, 24:9, 24:25, 26: 11 , 26: 15, 29:2, 31 :24, 32:4 **Board 's**  [1] - 4:11 **books** [1] - 27: 10 **brackets** [1] - 18: 19 **break** [2] - 30:21 , 30:22 **brief** [1] - 6: 15 **Building** [1] - 1: 19 **Bureau** [36] - 5:23, 5:25, 6:1, 7:2, 8: 11 , 8:12, 12: 18, 13:1, 13:6, 14:5, 14:10, 14: 15, 14: 17, 14:22, 15:3, 15: 13, 15: 15, 16:1, 16: 10, 16:21 , 17:4, 17: 11 , 17: 18, 17:23, 17:25, 18:2, 18:6, 19:9, 21 :25, 26:1, 26:4, 26:6, 26: 17, 28:3, 31 : 19, 31 :21 **Bureau 's**  [5] - 10:23, 15: 14, 19: 11 , 19:21 , 19:22 **Business** [3] - 3:24, 22:24, 29:20 **businesses** [2] - 29: 18, 29:21 **BUTT** [5] - 2:13, 8:1, 23: 10, 28:5, 28:8 **Butt** [9] - 3:4, 3:5, 5:25, 7: 19, 8:8, 10: 19, 22:5, 23:6, 30:6 **Butt 's**  [5] - 6:9, 7:3, 10:2, 20: 12, 27: 14 **BY** [2] - 8:5, 20:21 

## C

**calculated** [1] - 5: 15 **capability** [1] - 25:8 **capacity** [1] - 25:4 **CASCIANO** [17] - 2:3, 20: 17, 20:19, 22:4, 22: 10, 23:6, 23: 12, 25:7, 25: 10, 25: 16, 26: 19, 27: 13, 32: 12, 32: 16, 32:20, 32:23, 33:5 **Casciano** [1] - 22:3 **case** [3] - 24:21 , 29:7 **case -** **by -** **case -** **basis** [1] - 29:7 **cases** [2] - 29:14, 31 : 14 **Castaneda** [1] - 22: 19 **CASTANEDA** [1] - 22:21 **caught** [1] - 28: 17 **caused** [1] - 34:7 **Central** [1] - 9: 12 **certification** [1] - 14:1 **certify** [1] - 21 :24 **CERTIFY** [2] - 34:5, 34: 11 **certifying** [1] - 15:2 **CFR** [2] - 3: 19, 15: 11 **Chair** [3] - 10:21 , 27:22, 27:23 **Chair /** **Hearing** [1] - 2:3 **challenged** [2] - 27:9 **change** [14] - 4:6, 6:19, 6:20, 6:23, 7:5, 7:11 , 7: 16, 10:15, 18:25, 24: 17, 25:1, 25:2, 25: 11 , 25: 14 **Change** [3] - 3:3, 11 :2, 11 :22 **changes** [5] - 18:21 , 20:5, 20:7, 32:14, 32: 17 **Chapter** [2] - 12:2, 14:20 **chat** [1] - 28:24 **checklist** [1] - 24:9 **Chief** [2] - 5:24, 31 : 19 **circumstances** [1] - 29:6 **City** [1] - 8:22 **Civil** [1] - 4:16 **clarify** [3] - 27:2, 27: 11 , 28:20 **class** [1] - 23:8 **Clause** [1] - 18:13 **cleanup** [1] - 26:20 **clear** [1] - 26: 16 **clearly** [1] - 23:13 **closed** [1] - 32:8 **closing** [1] - 32:2 **CNM** [1] - 9: 14 **Code** [3] - 6: 17, 10:25, 20: 10 **codify** [2] - 11 :6, 11 : 16 **College** [1] - 9: 13 **columns** [1] - 23:25 **combination** [2] - 29: 11 , 29:25 **commence** [1] - 18:8 **comment** [2] - 5: 14, 23: 15 **Comments** [3] - 3:9, 3:11 , 19:22 **comments** [9] - 5: 13, 13:3, 15:7, 19:18, 19:20, 27: 14, 27:25, 28:1, 32: 10 **Commission** [3] - 3:12, 14:23, 20:8 **communication** [1] - 28:5 **Community** [1] - 9:13 **community** [1] - 17:7 **compact** [1] - 17:14 **compilation** [1] - 20:9 **complete** [1] - 30:24 **completion** [1] - 18:8 **Compliance** [2] - 3:24, 22:24 **compliance** [4] - 12: 10, 14: 11 , 17:2, 30:2 **compliant** [1] - 25:5 **comply** [3] - 6:24, 11 : 12, 11 : 15 **computer** [2] - 15: 16, 15:20 **concerned** [1] - 25:21 **conclude** [1] - 16:6 **concluded** [1] - 33: 13 **concludes** [2] - 19:24, 20: 12 **conclusion** [1] - 20:3 **conclusions** [1] - 8:18 

## 2

**concomitant** [1] - 20:2 **conduct** [1] - 4: 12 **conducted** [3] - 4: 10, 19:3, 19: 13 **consider** [1] - 4:5 **considered** [2] - 20:24, 23:21 **constraints** [1] - 18:20 **contained** [1] - 17:5 **contains** [1] - 5:9 **continue** [4] - 13:6, 14:2, 30:1, 30:3 **Control** [3] - 8: 10, 9:4, 15:23 **controversy** [1] - 25:21 **copies** [1] - 22:19 **copy** [3] - 5:2, 10:4, 21 : 15 **corporate** [1] - 13:13 **correct** [7] - 10:7, 10: 12, 18: 14, 18: 18, 20:6, 25:9, 25:12 **cost** [1] - 16:25 **costs** [1] - 17:4 **CO UNSEL**  [1] - 2:7 **Counsel** [1] - 26:21 **counsel** [1] - 6: 14 **counterparts** [1] - 13: 17 **CO UNTY**  [1] - 34:3 **County** [2] - 9:3, 9:4 **couple** [1] - 7: 14 **course** [1] - 26: 11 **Court** [2] - 5:1, 34:4 **court** [1] - 5:3 **covered** [1] - 26: 14 **create** [1] - 27:4 **credibility** [1] - 4:22 **criminal** [1] - 9: 14 **CROMERR** [15] - 3:15, 3:19, 11 :15, 12:5, 13:2, 13:5, 13:8, 13: 19, 15: 10, 17: 15, 19: 14, 21 : 13, 23:7, 23:8 **Cross** [1] - 11 :13 **cross** [2] - 4:20, 4:23 **cross -** **examination** [2] - 4:20, 4:23 **Cross -** **Media** [1] - 11 : 13 **CSR** [1] - 34:20 **current** [6] - 7:6, 11 :4, 16:4, 23:23, 24:6, 25:8

## D

**Dakota** [1] - 9:8 **data** [6] - 8: 17, 11 :20, 14: 18, 17:5, 17:23, 30: 13 **DATED** [1] - 34: 15 **dates** [1] - 12: 10 **de** [1] - 1: 19 **Deadline** [1] - 15: 19 **deadline** [1] - 12: 14 **December** [1] - 12:7 **decorum** [1] - 4:18 **dedicated** [1] - 19: 14 **degree** [3] - 9:7, 9:9, 9:10 **Deliberations** [1] - 2:18 **demonstration** [1] - 13:25 **Denise** [1] - 5:1 **DENISE** [2] - 34:4, 34:20 **department** [1] - 27:4 **Department** [18] - 2:5, 4:3, 4:8, 5:23, 8:11 , 8:23, 10:23, 11 : 15, 11 : 18, 14:2, 14: 13, 15:1, 19: 16, 19: 18, 20:4, 23: 16, 29:5, 32: 18 **Department 's**  [9] - 3:24, 5: 10, 11 :3, 11 :6, 11 :24, 19:9, 19:25, 25:8, 28:25 **dependable** [1] - 13: 17 **description** [1] - 27: 18 **design** [1] - 9: 11 **designated** [1] - 4:3 **designee** [1] - 14:2 **details** [1] - 7:3 **determine** [1] - 26:24 **determined** [2] - 5:16, 29: 14 **develop** [1] - 8: 14 **different** [1] - 25:18 **diminishes** [1] - 17:2 **DIRECT** [2] - 8:4, 21 :4 **Direct** [2] - 2: 14, 2: 17 **directly** [1] - 5:3 **discussed** [1] - 30:6 **discussion** [2] - 32:9, 33:3 **disk** [1] - 17: 15 **diskette** [1] - 17:14 **disposition** [1] - 34: 14 **Division** [2] - 8:25, 20:8 **docketed** [1] - 4:8 **document** [4] - 12: 11 , 23:22, 25: 18 **document****** **receiving** [1] - 12: 11 **documents** [12] - 11 :7, 11 : 16, 13: 16, 13:24, 15:5, 17: 10, 17: 11 , 17: 12, 17: 13, 24:24, 26: 17, 28: 15 **done** [2] - 13: 15, 30:8 **draft** [1] - 13:2 **Drive** [1] - 2:7 **due** [1] - 15:19 **duly** [2] - 8:2, 21 :2 **During** [1] - 27: 17 **during** [1] - 6:8 **DVD** [1] - 17: 15 

## E

**e- mails**  [1] - 18:5 **e- reporting**  [7] - 12: 15, 12: 19, 13:7, 15: 11 , 15: 14, 15:22, 18: 11 **e- reports**  [3] - 12: 12, 13:20, 16:5 **e- submittals**  [1] - 14:7 **economic** [1] - 16:24 **educational** [1] - 9:6 **effective** [1] - 25:23 **efficient** [1] - 16:24 **EIB** [6] - 1:2, 4:8, 10:5, 11 :2, 11 :23, 32:24 **EIB -** **14 -** **05** [1] - 4:1 **Electronic** [8] - 11 : 13, 16:1, 17:8, 17: 17, 17:22, 24:1, 25:20, 26: 13 **electronic** [42] - 6:21 , 7: 12, 11 :8, 11 : 17, 11 : 19, 12: 11 , 12: 12, 12:21 , 13:9, 14:3, 14: 14, 14: 16, 14:22, 16:3, 16:7, 16: 17, 16: 18, 16:22, 17:9, 17: 11 , 17: 13, 19: 10, 20:22, 20:25, 21 :7, 23: 19, 23:20, 24:23, 25: 18, 25:23, 26:25, 27:6, 27:21 , 28: 15, 28:20, 29:3, 29: 11 , 29: 12, 29:24, 30: 16, 31 : 15, 33: 10 **electronically** [14] - 11 : 12, 13: 15, 13: 16, 13:23, 14: 12, 14: 19, 15:4, 24: 16, 24:22, 25:4, 26: 18, 28: 16, 29: 15, 29: 16 **emissions** [4] - 8: 16, 17: 19, 17:20, 30:5 **Emissions** [5] - 12: 19, 12:20, 14:7, 14:8, 26:4 **employee** [1] - 34: 12 **empowered** [1] - 27:4 **encouraging** [3] - 16: 17, 27:1, 27:7 **end** [1] - 29:4 **enforce** [4] - 13:23, 14:2, 14: 16, 15:3 **Enforcement** [1] - 31 : 17 **enforcement** [2] - 26:1, 31 : 13 **English** [1] - 19:5 **ensure** [3] - 13: 16, 14: 15, 15: 14 **ensures** [1] - 17:22 **entered** [1] - 22:7 **entering** [1] - 30:1 **entities** [1] - 7:2 **entitled** [3] - 10:25, 15:9, 15: 19 **entity** [1] - 18: 10 **Environment** [9] - 2:5, 3:24, 4:7, 5:23, 8:11 , 10:23, 15:1, 19:9, 19: 16 **environment** [1] - 13: 14 **environmental** [4] - 9:10, 9: 12, 16:24, 17:1 **ENVIRONMENTAL** [1] - 1:1 **Environmental** [9] - 1:18, 2:2, 5:25, 8:13, 8:23, 8:24, 11 :10, 12:3, 14:21 **EPA** [20] - 3:11 , 6:24, 11 : 10, 12: 16, 12:22, 13:2, 13:3, 13:5, 13:8, 13: 10, 13: 11 , 13: 19, 15:2, 15: 13, 19:22, 23:9, 23: 10, 25:6, 28:8, 30: 13 **error** [2] - 10: 13, 18: 14 **errors** [7] - 7: 15, 17:3, 20:6, 30:4, 30: 12, 31 :1, 31 :2 **establish** [1] - 12:1 **eventually** [1] - 5:3 **evidence** [1] - 10:1 **Evidence** [1] - 4: 17 **exactly** [1] - 28:25 **Examination** [2] - 2:14, 2: 15 **examination** [2] - 4:20, 4:23 **EXAMINATION** [2] - 8:4, 20:20 **example** [3] - 17: 19, 18:3, 24: 12 **except** [1] - 17: 12 **excerpt** [1] - 23:8 **excess** [1] - 17: 19 **Excess** [3] - 12:20, 14:8, 26:4 **exercise** [1] - 27:2 **EXHIBIT** [1] - 3:2 **exhibit** [3] - 10:4, 10: 15, 22: 17 **Exhibit** [43] - 3:3, 3:4, 3:5, 3:6, 3:7, 3:9, 3:11 , 3: 12, 3: 13, 3: 14, 3:15, 3: 16, 3: 18, 3: 19, 3:20, 3:22, 3:24, 6:7, 9:18, 10:1, 10:16, 11 :1, 11 :24, 12:7, 12:8, 13:5, 15:5, 15:9, 15: 12, 16: 12, 19:5, 19:6, 19:8, 19:11 , 19:21 , 19:23, 22:9, 22: 15, 22: 17, 23:6, 23: 18, 26:20 **exhibits** [6] - 22:6, 22: 14, 23: 13, 23: 15, 28:6, 28: 18 **Exhibits** [3] - 3:8, 23:1, 23:5 **existing** [7] - 7: 15, 12: 10, 12: 15, 12: 18, 13:7, 16:9, 17:18 **exists** [1] - 13:14 **expect** [1] - 25: 11 **Expiration** [1] - 34:20 **explaining** [1] - 19: 14 **extended** [2] - 12: 10, 12: 14 **extension** [1] - 15: 19 **extent** [3] - 26:24, 28: 10, 29:23 **eye** [1] - 28: 17 

## 3

**F Facilitating**  [1] - 16: 17 **facilitating** [1] - 18:21 **facsimile** [1] - 17: 13 **failure** [2] - 15: 17, 15:20 **failures** [1] - 15: 17 **fashion** [2] - 18:25, 30:20 **favor** [3] - 32: 13, 33:2, 33:4 **Fe** [3] - 1:20, 2:8, 19: 16 **Federal** [4] - 3: 16, 3:18, 12:6, 12:8 **federal** [3] - 6:24, 11 : 13, 21 : 13 **fee** [2] - 27:20, 27:23 **few** [2] - 25: 12, 25: 15 **figure** [1] - 7: 16 **Figures** [1] - 18:24 **file** [4] - 5:9, 21 :9, 21 :21 **filed** [4] - 4:7, 5: 12, 11 :23, 22: 18 **files** [1] - 21 : 10 **fill** [1] - 30:10 **filling** [1] - 29:23 **final** [1] - 34: 14 **finally** [1] - 18:23 **first** [3] - 8:2, 21 :2, 30:20 **fix** [2] - 7: 17, 31 :2 **folks** [1] - 28:4 **follow** [1] - 28:2 **follow -** **up** [1] - 28:2 **followed** [1] - 18:4 **following** [2] - 13:21 , 18:4 **follows** [2] - 8:3, 21 :3 **foregoing** [2] - 34:5, 34:8 **form** [1] - 19: 14 **Format** [1] - 24:1 **format** [4] - 11 :4, 11 :8, 11 : 17, 24: 14 **formatting** [2] - 7: 14, 20:7 **forth** [2] - 7:1, 28: 19 **forward** [1] - 31 :2 **fosters** [1] - 17:1 **foundations** [1] - 15:21 **framework** [1] - 13:9 **Francis** [1] - 2:7**free** [1] - 27:20 **front** [1] - 10:8 **FULFER** [8] - 2:4, 20:22, 21 : 18, 22:1, 31 : 13, 31 :22, 33:7, 33:9 **Fulfer** [1] - 31 : 12 **Fundamentals** [1] - 3:15 **FURTHER** [1] - 34: 11 **future** [1] - 18:22 

## G **general** [2] - 6: 18, 12:1 **GENERAL** [2] - 1:5, 2:7 **General** [8] - 3:23, 4:1, 4:6, 10:25, 14:1, 14:25, 24: 18, 26:21 **General 's**  [1] - 14:24 **generally** [1] - 18:4 **generic** [1] - 23: 15 **given** [1] - 6:8 **Goodyear** [1] - 31 : 18 **governing** [1] - 9:2 **government** [1] - 26:23 **Governments** [1] - 3:15 **governments** [1] - 13: 11 **grammatical** [1] - 18: 14 **grant** [1] - 29:5 **GREGORY** [1] - 2:4 **grid** [1] - 24:9 **guess** [1] - 6: 11 **Guidance** [1] - 13:5 **guidance** [1] - 13: 19 

## H

**Hall** [1] - 1:20 **handed** [2] - 6:7, 22: 16 **harassment** [1] - 4:24 **head** [1] - 31 : 19 **Health** [2] - 8:23, 8:24 **heard** [2] - 4: 14, 31 :21 **hearing** [12] - 1: 17, 4:5, 4: 10, 4: 13, 4:14, 4:25, 18:23, 19:3, 20:3, 22: 16, 32:8, 34:5 **Hearing** [12] - 4:4, 5:10, 5:20, 10:17, 10:21 , 20: 13, 22:5, 22: 13, 23:3, 27:22, 29:1, 32:3 **held** [3] - 4:5, 8: 19, 19: 15 **helpful** [2] - 23: 12, 31 :6 **helping** [1] - 29:22 **helps** [1] - 29:20 **HEREBY** [1] - 34:5 **Hess** [1] - 3: 14 **Hi** [1] - 21 :6 **hierarchy** [1] - 18:24 **History** [1] - 18: 19 **hold** [1] - 9:7 **hour** [1] - 1:20 **House** [1] - 19: 15 **Hower** [1] - 3: 13 **hung** [1] - 33:9 

## I

**i.e** [1] - 28:22 **identified** [1] - 23: 14 **impact** [1] - 17:6 **Implementation** [2] - 8:15, 9:2 **improve** [1] - 6:25 **IMPROVEMENT** [1] - 1:1 **Improvement** [2] - 1:18, 2:2 **IN** [1] - 1:5 **inaccurate** [2] - 18: 16, 30: 13 **include** [4] - 11 :19, 12:3, 12:23, 18: 12 **included** [1] - 9:18 **includes** [3] - 11 :3, 11 :24, 22: 15 **inclusion** [1] - 9: 16 **inconsistencies** [1] - 24:6 **inconsistent** [1] - 7:7 **Incorporated** [1] - 18: 15 **incurred** [1] - 17:4 **individual** [1] - 13: 13 **industry** [1] - 30:22 **information** [6] - 7:1, 17:2, 18: 17, 18: 18, 30:2, 30:3 **ink** [1] - 21 : 15 **inserted** [2] - 15:7, 15: 18 **instance** [1] - 24:3 **instead** [1] - 10:5 **intend** [1] - 5:14 **intends** [1] - 14: 10 **Intent** [2] - 5: 10, 9: 16 **intent** [2] - 13: 12, 29:2 **intention** [1] - 28:25 **interest** [1] - 34: 13 **internally** [1] - 30:21 **interpreted** [1] - 25: 17 **intimidation** [1] - 4:24 **introduce** [1] - 5: 19 **invalid** [1] - 26:6 **Inventory** [2] - 12: 19, 14:7 **inventory** [2] - 17:20, 30:6 **involved** [1] - 34:12 **issue** [2] - 16:2, 29: 18 **IT** [1] - 1: 16 **item** [1] - 4:1 **itself** [2] - 19:1, 24: 13 

## J

**JAMES** [1] - 2:3 **January** [2] - 1: 17, 12: 16 **Jennifer** [1] - 3: 13 **job** [1] - 31 :8 **John** [2] - 4:2, 5:21 **JOHN** [2] - 2:3, 2:6 **john**
**. verheul** **@ state** **. nm** **. us**  [1] - 2:9 **Journal** [1] - 19:4 **jurisdiction** [1] - 9:3 **justice** [1] - 9: 14 

## K **Kathy** [1] - 5:1 **keep** [1] - 21 :9 **kind** [5] - 25:22, 27:1, 27:8, 28:24, 29: 19 **Kind** [1] - 22:4 **KO PAN**  [2] - 34:4, 34:20 **Kopan** [1] - 5:1 

## L **language** [7] - 11 : 19, 14:8, 15:6, 15:18, 16: 14, 18: 18, 19:1 **last** [2] - 8:23, 28:12 **law** [1] - 15:23 **Law** [1] - 20:7 **lead** [1] - 8:25 **leave** [1] - 32:7 **Legal** [1] - 3:8 **legal** [12] - 7:9, 13:9, 13:22, 13:25, 15:3, 15:21 , 18:20, 24: 14, 25: 16, 26:3, 26:8, 27: 11 **legally** [2] - 13: 17, 25:23 **legislature** [2] - 25: 19, 27:3 **lengthy** [1] - 4: 15 **Letter** [1] - 3: 12 **letter** [1] - 14:23 **level** [1] - 13: 12 **License** [1] - 34:20 **lieu** [7] - 11 : 12, 11 :20, 12: 13, 13:20, 16: 19, 17: 12, 28: 15 **limit** [1] - 4:23 **limited** [1] - 18:7 **line** [5] - 17: 19, 18:2, 25: 13, 27: 18, 28: 13 **list** [2] - 16:9, 23:13 **lists** [1] - 23:22 **live** [2] - 18:2, 18:7 **Local** [1] - 3: 15 **local** [1] - 13: 10 **logical** [1] - 18:25 **look** [1] - 21 :5 **looking** [1] - 32:21 **looks** [1] - 23:7 

## M

**machine** [1] - 34:6 **magnetic** [1] - 17: 14 **mail** [1] - 19: 10 **mailed** [1] - 21 :9 **mailing** [1] - 16:25 **mails** [1] - 18:5 **maintain** [1] - 13:12 **management** [1] - 8:18 **manner** [1] - 15:24 **March** [2] - 8:20, 13:3 **mark** [1] - 24:2 **MARKED /**  **ADMITTED** [1] - 3:1 **Master** [1] - 9:7 **material** [1] - 23:9 **materials** [1] - 32:12 **Materials** [1] - 18: 15 

## 4

**MATTER** [1] - 1:5 **matter** [7] - 1: 17, 4:4, 4:21 , 22:4, 32:9, 34: 13, 34: 14 **matters** [4] - 4:22, 6:5, 6:6, 27:5 **means** [3] - 7: 10, 24: 15, 30:1 **Media** [1] - 11 :13 **media** [1] - 17: 14 **meet** [2] - 13:21 , 15: 10 **meets** [1] - 21 : 14 **Members** [6] - 5:9, 5:21 , 10:22, 20: 14, 29:1, 32:4 **members** [2] - 5: 13 **Memo** [2] - 3: 13, 3:14 **Memorandum** [1] - 26:21 **MEXICO** [2] - 1:1, 34:1 **Mexico** [21] - 1: 18, 1:20, 2:2, 2:5, 2:8, 3:24, 5:22, 6: 17, 8: 11 , 8:16, 9: 10, 9: 13, 10:23, 10:24, 15:1, 15:23, 19:6, 19:9, 19: 15, 20:8, 20:9 **might** [1] - 29: 18 **mine** [2] - 10:4, 10:6 **morning** [4] - 4:2, 5:20, 22:20, 22:22 **MORROW** [4] - 2:4, 10:9, 33:1, 33:6 **mostly** [1] - 29:17 **motion** [1] - 32: 15 **motions** [1] - 5: 12 **move** [2] - 9:25, 32: 16 **MR** [85] - 2:3, 2:3, 2:4, 2:4, 2:6, 4:1, 5:20, 6:2, 6:3, 6:4, 6:6, 6: 10, 6: 13, 6:15, 8:5, 9:25, 10:3, 10:9, 10: 10, 10: 11 , 10: 12, 10: 14, 10: 17, 10: 18, 20: 12, 20: 15, 20: 17, 20: 18, 20: 19, 20:22, 21 : 18, 22:1, 22:3, 22:4, 22:8, 22:10, 22: 12, 22: 13, 22:22, 22:23, 23:1, 23:3, 23:6, 23: 10, 23: 12, 24:5, 25:7, 25:9, 25: 10, 25: 12, 25: 16, 25:25, 26: 19, 27: 12, 27: 13, 27: 15, 27:24, 28:5, 28:7, 28:8,28: 12, 31 :5, 31 : 11 ,

31 : 13, 31 : 16, 31 :22, 31 :23, 32:3, 32:6, 32: 12, 32: 15, 32: 16, 32: 19, 32:20, 32:21 , 32:23, 32:25, 33:1, 33:2, 33:5, 33:6, 33:7, 33:8, 33:9, 33:11 **MS** [8] - 21 :5, 21 :20, 22:2, 22:21 , 27:22, 29:1, 31 : 10, 31 : 18 **must** [6] - 11 :15, 13:20, 13:22, 13:25, 15: 10, 15:25 

## N

**N- 4050**  [1] - 2:7 **name** [4] - 4:2, 5: 18, 5:21 , 8:6 **NEAL** [2] - 2:13, 8:1 **Neal** [4] - 3:4, 3:5, 5:25, 8:8 **necessary** [3] - 4: 18, 4:23, 22: 11 **necessitating** [1] - 18:22 **need** [3] - 6:5, 7:5, 17:20 **needed** [1] - 5: 15 **needs** [1] - 21 : 11 **negative** [1] - 19:18 **network** [1] - 15: 17 **NEW** [2] - 1:1, 34:1 **new** [10] - 12:21 , 12:23, 15:6, 15:8, 15: 17, 15: 18, 17:7, 17: 19, 18:2, 24:25 **New** [20] - 1: 18, 2:2, 2:5, 2:8, 3:24, 5:22, 6:17, 8: 10, 8: 16, 9:9, 9:12, 10:22, 10:24, 15:1, 15:23, 19:6, 19:9, 19: 15, 20:8, 20:9 **next** [1] - 25: 15 **nightmare** [1] - 30: 15 **nine** [1] - 4:1 **NM** [1] - 34:20 **NMAC** [12] - 1:5, 3:23, 4:1, 4:6, 4: 12, 10:25, 11 :4, 12:3, 12:4, 17:7, 32:17, 32: 19 **NMED** [25] - 3:2, 9:18, 10:1, 10:16, 11 :1, 11 :24, 12:7, 12:8, 13:5, 15:2, 15:5, 15:9, 15: 12, 16: 12, 19:5, 19:6, 19:8, 19: 11 , 19:21 , 19:23, 22: 17, 23:5, 26:22, 28:1 **non** [1] - 20:5 **non -** **substantiv e**  [1]

- 20:5 **North** [1] - 9:8 **notarized** [1] - 21 :11 **Note** [1] - 18:19 **noted** [2] - 6: 16, 24:6 **notes** [1] - 34:7 **Notice** [4] - 3:24, 5:10, 9: 16, 22:23 **notice** [3] - 19:2, 19:3, 19:7 **Notices** [1] - 3:8 **notices** [1] - 19:19 **notification** [1] - 18: 10 **notifications** [1] - 13:1 **notified** [1] - 18:5 **notion** [1] - 27:8 **November** [4] - 19:4, 19:8, 19: 10, 19: 12 **number** [1] - 16:13 **Number** [2] - 11 :2, 11 :22 **numbers** [1] - 30: 14 **numerous** [1] - 22:6 

## O

**oath** [4] - 4: 19, 8:2, 9:20, 21 :2 **obtain** [1] - 5:2 **October** [3] - 12:6, 12: 13, 12: 16 **OF** [6] - 1:1, 1:5, 1:14, 2:7, 34:1, 34:3 **offer** [2] - 22: 14, 22: 18 **office** [1] - 5:4 **Office** [2] - 14:24, 26:21 **OFFICE** [1] - 2:7 **Officer** [12] - 2:3, 4:4, 5:21 , 10: 17, 10:21 , 20: 14, 22:5, 22: 14, 23:4, 27:22, 29:1, 32:4 **Old** [1] - 1: 19 **on -** **line** [4] - 17: 19, 18:2, 25: 13, 27: 18 **Once** [1] - 29: 12 **once** [5] - 7:17, 21 : 16, 21 :20, 30: 15 **One** [1] - 13:21 **one** [7] - 10:3, 17:21 , 21 :22, 24:24, 28: 12, 32:20, 32:22 **ones** [2] - 25: 15, 26: 12 **Open** [1] - 19:15 **open** [2] - 32:7, 32:9 **Opening** [1] - 2: 12 **Operating** [1] - 24: 12 **operating** [2] - 17:4, 27:4 **operation** [1] - 13:6 **opinion** [1] - 25: 17 **opportunity** [2] - 4:13, 5: 12 **opposed** [1] - 30:10 **optical** [1] - 17: 14 **order** [1] - 14: 12 **Order** [1] - 3:20 **orders** [1] - 4: 17 **organized** [1] - 32: 13 **ourselves** [1] - 32:11 **outdated** [1] - 18: 16 **outreach** [2] - 19:2, 19: 12 **overall** [1] - 11 :25 **overview** [1] - 6: 16 **own** [2] - 9:19, 26:21 

## P

**PAGE** [1] - 2: 11 **page** [2] - 10:8, 19: 14 **pager** [1] - 5:7 **paper** [13] - 7: 10, 11 : 12, 11 :20, 12: 13, 13: 14, 13: 17, 13:20, 16: 19, 17:5, 17: 12, 21 : 15, 28: 15, 28:23 **Part** [11] - 11 :1, 11 :4, 11 :6, 11 : 18, 11 :25, 14: 18, 15:8, 15: 16, 15: 19, 19: 13, 19:25 **part** [1] - 6:23 **parties** [2] - 5:11 , 34: 12 **parts** [1] - 12:2 **Paseo** [1] - 1:19 **pen** [1] - 21 :15 **pen -** **and -** **ink** [1] - 21 : 15 **penalty** [1] - 18:9 **people** [9] - 27: 18, 27:21 , 29:20, 30:2, 30:8, 30: 15, 30: 17, 30:25, 31 :2 **PERA** [1] - 1: 19 **Peralta** [1] - 1: 19 **perhaps** [2] - 29: 17, 29:23 **Permit** [2] - 17:8, 24:3 **permit** [10] - 6:22, 11 :20, 12:24, 14: 18, 16: 13, 16: 18, 18:3, 24:21 , 26:5, 29:21 **Permits** [1] - 24:12 **permitters** [1] - 30:2 **permitting** [1] - 14: 11 **perpetuate** [1] - 27:2 **perpetuating** [1] - 30:4 **persists** [1] - 25:21 **person** [3] - 4:21 , 21 : 16, 21 :23 **personal** [2] - 34:7, 34: 13 **persons** [3] - 4: 14, 4:19, 17:9 **Petition** [4] - 3:3, 5:10, 11 :2, 11 :22 **petition** [2] - 4:7, 28: 19 **phased** [1] - 18:8 **phone** [1] - 5:7 **phraseology** [1] - 27: 19 **physical** [2] - 18: 17, 25: 17 **piece** [1] - 28:22 **piecemeal** [3] - 25:2, 30:20 **place** [8] - 21 : 14, 24:24, 25:1, 29:3, 29: 12, 30:5, 30:7, 31 :4 **planning** [1] - 9: 11 **plans** [1] - 12:20 **Plans** [2] - 8:15, 9:2 **play** [1] - 6:8 **point** [3] - 9:25, 22: 13, 27: 11 **pollution** [2] - 8: 15, 8:17 **position** [2] - 8: 19, 8:21 **posting** [1] - 17:2 **potential** [1] - 30:4 **Potentially** [1] - 3:22 **practical** [1] - 27:5 **prefiled** [3] - 6:20, 10:2, 20: 13 **preliminary** [2] - 6:5, 6:6 **prepare** [2] - 8: 17, 30: 10 

## 5

**prepared** [1] - 18:2 **present** [4] - 5:6, 8:18, 9:23, 10:22 **Present** [2] - 5: 11 , 9:16 **presented** [2] - 32: 13, 32:24 **preserve** [1] - 4:18 **primary** [2] - 6: 19, 29: 13 **printing** [1] - 16:25 **problem** [1] - 29:8 **procedural** [1] - 22:4 **procedure** [2] - 4:11 , 18:4 **Procedure** [1] - 4: 16 **procedures** [2] - 4:12, 18:21 **proceed** [1] - 10:20 **proceedings** [1] - 34: 10 **PROCEEDINGS** [1] - 1:14 **Proceedings** [1] - 33: 13 **process** [2] - 31 :1, 31 : 13 **Program** [1] - 29:20 **program** [5] - 13:20, 13:22, 13:23, 15: 10, 18:3 **programs** [11] - 12: 14, 12: 19, 12:21 , 12:23, 13: 12, 14:3, 14:9, 14: 16, 15:4, 16:9, 21 :22 **prohibited** [1] - 15:22 **promulgate** [1] - 27:8 **promulgated** [1] - 12:5 **promulgates** [1] - 26: 11 **promulgating** [1] - 9:1 **pronounce** [1] - 5: 18 **proposal** [1] - 23:20 **Proposed** [3] - 3:20, 3:22, 4:1 **PROPOSED** [1] - 1:5 **proposed** [20] - 6: 16, 10:24, 11 :3, 11 :5, 11 :25, 12:23, 15:6, 15: 17, 16: 11 , 17:7, 18:1, 18: 12, 18: 13, 19:7, 19: 13, 19:25, 20:2, 20:5, 23:24, 32: 17 **proposes** [1] - 11 : 18**proposing** [4] - 6:23,

7:16, 14: 17, 15: 16 **protection** [1] - 9:12 **Protection** [3] - 11 : 10, 12:3, 14:21 **protocols** [1] - 12:25 **provide** [4] - 4:13, 9:15, 24:9, 30:19 **provided** [2] - 22: 19, 25:4 **provides** [1] - 13:9 **provisions** [2] - 6: 18, 12:1 **Provisions** [5] - 3:23, 4:2, 4:6, 10:25, 24: 18 **PROVISIONS** [1] - 1:5 **Public** [2] - 19:3, 20:8 **public** [6] - 5:4, 5: 13, 5:14, 19:2, 19:19, 27:25 **published** [1] - 19:4 **purpose** [6] - 7:13, 11 :5, 11 :25, 14:25, 15:1, 24:8 **Pursuant** [1] - 4: 12 **pursuant** [1] - 15: 11 **put** [2] - 28: 19, 30:3 **putting** [1] - 24: 17 

## Q **Quality** [44] - 5:23, 5:24, 6:1, 7:2, 8: 11 , 8:12, 8:25, 9:4, 10:23, 12:2, 12: 18, 13:1, 13:6, 14:5, 14:10, 14: 15, 14: 17, 14:20, 14:21 , 15:3, 15: 13, 15: 14, 15: 15, 15:23, 15:25, 16: 10, 16:20, 17:4, 17: 10, 17: 18, 17:23, 17:25, 18:1, 18:6, 19:9, 19:11 , 19:21 , 19:22, 21 :25, 26:1, 26:4, 26:6, 26:9, 26: 16 **quality** [12] - 6: 18, 6:21 , 7:6, 8: 14, 9:1, 9:2, 12:24, 16:6, 24:7, 24: 10, 24: 18, 26: 10 **questioned** [2] - 8:3, 21 :3 **questions** [8] - 20: 14, 20: 15, 22:5, 27: 15, 31 : 11 , 31 :24, 32: 10 

## R **rapid** [1] - 17:1 **Rather** [1] - 25: 10 **rather** [2] - 26: 13, 26: 14 **read** [1] - 6: 19 **ready** [1] - 25: 13 **real** [3] - 21 :8, 30: 14, 31 :3 **really** [11 ] - 6:25, 7:13, 21 :7, 24:9, 24: 11 , 29:8, 29: 10, 30:8, 30:9, 31 :6, 31 :7 **reason** [3] - 7:5, 29: 15, 32:7 **reasonable** [1] - 4:13 **Reasons** [1] - 3:21 **receive** [4] - 11 :7, 11 : 16, 18: 10, 26: 17 **received** [4] - 15:7, 19: 18, 21 : 10, 21 : 16 **receives** [1] - 13:20 **receiving** [2] - 12:11 , 13:3 **record** [6] - 5:4, 8:7, 31 :8, 32:7, 32:8, 34:9 **recorded** [2] - 4:25, 34:6 **Records** [1] - 20:8 **records** [4] - 23:18, 23:21 , 26:25, 27:6 **recruited** [1] - 18:7 **reduces** [2] - 16:24, 17:3 **refer** [1] - 11 :1 **Reference** [1] - 18: 16 **reference** [2] - 10:5, 25: 16 **referred** [1] - 22:6 **reflect** [1] - 20:6 **reflects** [1] - 15:6 **reformats** [1] - 18:24 **regard** [1] - 24:7 **regarding** [1] - 18: 17 **regardless** [1] - 5:6 **Register** [5] - 3:16, 3:18, 12:6, 12:8, 19:7 **register** [1] - 5: 15 **regulate** [2] - 8: 15, 26:7 **regulated** [7] - 7:2, 11 :7, 11 : 17, 16: 19, 16:20, 16:25, 17:6 **Regulated** [1] - 17: 16 **regulation** [2] - 15:23, 28:20 **regulations** [10] - 6:18, 6:24, 7:6, 8:14, 9:1, 16:6, 24:7, 24: 10, 24: 19, 26: 11 **Regulatory** [5] - 3:3, 3:25, 11 :2, 11 :22, 22:24 **regulatory** [2] - 4:6, 14:6 **relating** [1] - 16:2 **relative** [1] - 34: 11 **Relief** [2] - 3:25, 22:24 **Remarks** [1] - 2: 12 **REMEMBERED** [1] - 1:16 **remove** [4] - 7:11 , 14: 12, 18: 16, 26:2 **removing** [1] - 24: 19 **repetition** [1] - 4:24 **replace** [1] - 18: 18 **report** [3] - 12:24, 21 :23, 24:20 **Report** [1] - 26:5 **Reporter** [1] - 34:5 **reporter** [1] - 5:3 **Reporters** [1] - 5:2 **Reporting** [2] - 11 : 13, 17:8 **reporting** [17] - 12: 15, 12: 19, 13:7, 13: 10, 13: 15, 15: 11 , 15: 14, 15:22, 16: 10, 16: 17, 16:22, 16:23, 17:1, 17:20, 18: 11 , 29: 19 **reports** [15] - 6:21 , 8:17, 11 :20, 12: 12, 12:25, 13:20, 14: 11 , 14: 18, 15:24, 16:5, 16: 13, 16: 18, 17:5, 17: 10 **Reports** [4] - 12:20, 14:7, 14:8 **representative** [1] - 17:24 **representing** [2] - 5:22, 14:25 **request** [3] - 11 :7, 11 : 16, 20:1 **requests** [1] - 20:4 **require** [12] - 7:7, 7:8, 12:22, 14:9, 14: 14, 14: 18, 16:9, 21 :8, 21 : 19, 21 :20, 21 :22, 29:2 **Required** [1] - 24:1 **required** [11] - 11 :7, 11 : 11 , 11 : 17, 16: 18, 17:5, 20:7, 20:24, 21 : 12, 23: 11 , 24: 13, 27:21 **requirement** [2] - 21 : 14, 29:6 **requirements** [2] - 13: 18, 13:21 **Requirements** [1] - 3:22 **requires** [2] - 11 : 10, 13: 19 **Requiring** [1] - 15:22 **requiring** [1] - 11 :19 **research** [1] - 8:16 **respectfully** [1] - 20:1 **responded** [1] - 28:1 **Response** [2] - 3:10, 3:11 **response** [2] - 19: 19, 28:3 **responses** [3] - 19:21 , 19:23, 28:9 **responsibility** [1] - 13: 13 **Resume** [3] - 3:5, 3:6, 3:7 **review** [1] - 13:8 **revision** [2] - 6: 16, 20:2 **revisions** [1] - 19:13 **RITA** [2] - 2: 16, 21 :1 **Rita** [2] - 3:7, 5:24 **Robert** [1] - 3:6 **roll** [5] - 18:8, 30: 16, 30: 19, 30:22, 30:24 **roll -** **out** [2] - 18:8, 30:24 **rolling** [1] - 31 :1 **routine** [1] - 12:24 **Rule** [1] - 11 : 14 **rule** [15] - 7:5, 7: 15, 7:17, 13:9, 14:8, 14: 19, 16: 11 , 16: 14, 18: 17, 18:25, 21 : 13, 24: 17, 25:2, 25: 13 **rulemaking** [5] - 4:7, 4:11 , 18:20, 18:22, 19:7 **Rules** [3] - 3:22, 4:16 **rules** [3] - 16:2, 27:5 

## S **Samaniego** [1] - 3:6 **Santa** [3] - 1:20, 2:8, 19: 16 **Saving** [1] - 18: 13 **saw** [1] - 27:25 **schedule** [1] - 5: 16 

## 6

**Science** [4] - 9:7, 9:9, 9: 12, 9: 14 **Scientist** [2] - 8: 13, 8:24 **second** [1] - 32:25 **Second** [2] - 33:1, 33:2 **section** [2] - 24:18, 26:2 **Section** [7] - 5:24, 15:8, 15: 19, 17:7, 18: 13, 18: 14, 18:23 **section 's**  [1] - 18:24 **see** [7] - 16: 12, 28:24, 29: 17, 29:22, 31 :6, 31 : 18, 32:6 **send** [2] - 26:24, 30: 11 **sentence** [1] - 29:4 **September** [2] - 11 :23, 19: 16 **serious** [1] - 29:8 **served** [1] - 8:25 **set** [2] - 4: 11 , 21 : 13 **seven** [1] - 30:7 **shaking** [1] - 31 : 19 **shall** [3] - 26:23, 28: 14, 28: 15 **shorthand** [1] - 34:6 **shown** [15] - 11 :23, 12:6, 12:8, 13:5, 15:5, 15:9, 15: 12, 16: 11 , 16: 12, 19:5, 19:6, 19:8, 19: 10, 19:21 , 19:23 **side** [1] - 23:25 **sign** [1] - 5:14 **signatories** [1] - 17:9 **Signature** [1] - 17:22 **signature** [5] - 20:23, 20:25, 21 :8, 21 : 16 **signatures** [2] - 21 :7, 33: 10 **signed** [1] - 5:5 **Significant** [1] - 18:24 **silence** [1] - 5:8 **simpler** [1] - 16:23 **simply** [2] - 24: 19, 25:3 **SIP** [1] - 20:2 **six** [1] - 30:7 **slowly** [1] - 30: 17 **Small** [3] - 3:24, 22:24, 29:20 **small** [2] - 29: 18, 29:21 **smaller** [1] - 30:23 **software** [1] - 18:7 **sole** [1] - 14:25**someone** [1] - 29:9 **soon** [1] - 30: 18 **source** [6] - 16:20, 16:25, 17:25, 21 : 11 , 23:7, 23: 13 **sources** [4] - 11 :8, 11 : 17, 16: 19, 17: 16 **Spanish** [1] - 19:6 **Special** [3] - 3: 12, 14:23, 14:24 **Specialist** [2] - 6:1, 8:14 **specific** [2] - 13: 18, 29:6 **specifics** [1] - 23: 17 **specified** [1] - 17: 11 **Specify** [1] - 28: 14 **specify** [1] - 15:24 **spoken** [1] - 27:3 **spreadsheets** [1] - 30: 10 **St** [1] - 2:7 **stack** [1] - 12:25 **staff** [1] - 17:3 **Stakeholder** [1] - 3:9 **stakeholder** [1] - 27:25 **stakeholders** [4] - 15:7, 19:20, 28:3, 28:9 **Stakeholders** [1] - 18:5 **stand** [1] - 21 :6 **standards** [2] - 15: 11 , 25:6 **start** [1] - 28: 13 **STATE** [2] - 1:1, 34:1 **state** [11] - 8:6, 11 : 10, 15:22, 16:2, 16:5, 23:23, 25:8, 26: 10, 26: 15, 26:23, 27: 10 **State** [3] - 8: 15, 9:1, 14:1 **Statement** [1] - 3:20 **statements** [1] - 32:2 **states** [1] - 13: 10 **States** [3] - 3: 15, 11 :9, 15:2 **Statewide** [2] - 12:2, 14:20 **stating** [1] - 26:22 **statutory** [1] - 14:6 **step** [1] - 28:21 **still** [1] - 13:8 **Strategies** [1] - 8:10 **subject** [4] - 4:20, 4:21 , 17: 15, 18:20 **submission** [5] - 7:8, 16:7, 16:23, 21 : 19, 23: 19 **submissions** [7] - 6:21 , 7: 13, 14:4, 14: 14, 14: 17, 21 : 18, 25:23 **submit** [6] - 12: 15, 17:9, 17:21 , 29: 10, 29: 15, 29: 16 **Submittal** [3] - 3:22, 24:1, 24:2 **submittal** [5] - 11 :19, 12:21 , 16: 18, 18:3, 27:21 **submittals** [8] - 11 : 11 , 11 : 12, 11 :21 , 12:24, 14:7, 14:9, 14: 11 , 14:22 **submitted** [16] - 13:2, 13: 16, 13:24, 14: 19, 15:4, 15:25, 17: 12, 17: 13, 17: 17, 17:23, 17:24, 24: 16, 24:22, 26:3, 26:7, 28: 16 **Subscriber** [1] - 17: 17 **subscription** [1] - 27: 19 **Subsection** [3] - 15:8, 15: 18, 29:5 **substantive** [1] - 20:5 **success** [1] - 31 :3 **sufficient** [2] - 13:22, 14: 15 **Suite** [1] - 2:7 **summaries** [1] - 8:18 **summarizes** [1] - 26:22 **summary** [4] - 9:22, 10:20, 19:20, 20: 13 **Summary** [1] - 3:9 **supervision** [1] - 34:8 **sw ear**  [1] - 6: 11 **sw orn**  [3] - 6: 12, 8:2, 21 :2 **system** [15] - 12: 15, 15: 14, 15: 17, 15:20, 18: 11 , 19: 10, 21 : 13, 21 : 17, 21 :23, 21 :24, 25:1, 29:3, 29:12, 29: 13, 30:6 **systems** [8] - 12: 11 , 13:7, 15: 11 , 21 :24, 24:23, 25: 13, 30: 16, 31 :3 

## T

**table** [1] - 16: 12 **tape** [1] - 17: 15 **Technical** [2] - 5: 11 , 9:16 **ten** [1] - 27: 10 **test** [3] - 18:7, 18:9, 30:21 **tested** [1] - 30:21 **testified** [2] - 8:3, 21 :3 **TESTIMONY** [1] - 21 :4 **testimony** [17] - 4:18, 4: 19, 4:22, 5:7, 6:9, 6:20, 7:4, 9: 15, 9:19, 9:23, 10:2, 10:20, 19:24, 20: 13, 27: 14, 27: 17, 31 :8 **Testimony** [4] - 2: 17, 3:4, 5: 11 , 9: 17 **testing** [2] - 12:25, 30:20 **THE** [3] - 1:1, 1:5, 20:21 **thereby** [1] - 18:21 **Therefore** [3] - 11 : 18, 13:1, 14: 12 **three** [1] - 27: 16 **TI M**  [1] - 2:4 **Ti tle**  [2] - 12:2, 14:20 **titles** [1] - 23: 14 **TO** [1] - 1:5 **today** [2] - 9:20, 32:4 **top** [1] - 28: 10 **Top** [1] - 10:9 **topics** [1] - 8: 17 **Townsend** [1] - 5:1 **training** [2] - 23:8, 30: 19 **Transactions** [2] - 16:1, 26: 14 **transactions** [1] - 16:3 **transcribed** [2] - 5:1, 34:7 **TRANSCRIPT** [1] - 1:14 **transcript** [1] - 5:2 **transcription** [3] - 17:3, 30:4, 30:12 **Transfer** [1] - 25:20 **transfer** [1] - 17:5 **Tribes** [1] - 3: 15 **tribes** [1] - 13:10 **tried** [1] - 30:21 **true** [1] - 34:8 **try** [1] - 30:22 **turn** [2] - 5:17, 6: 13 **TV** [1] - 30:22 **two** [2] - 13:21 , 23:25 **Tw o**  [1] - 15: 10 **type** [1] - 19:2 **typo** [1] - 10:6 **typographical** [3] - 7:15, 10: 13, 20:6 

## U

**UETA** [3] - 16:2, 26: 13, 26:22 **unable** [2] - 29:9, 29: 19 **unanimously** [1] - 33: 11 **uncertainty** [1] - 27:3 **unclear** [1] - 23:20 **under** [10] - 4:19, 8:2, 9:3, 9:19, 13:8, 14:20, 15:8, 21 :2, 29:6, 34:7 **undersigned** [1] - 34:4 **Understood** [1] - 27: 12 **Uniform** [3] - 16:1, 25:20, 26: 13 **Unit** [1] - 8: 10 **United** [2] - 11 :9, 15:2 **University** [2] - 9:8, 9:9 **UNM** [1] - 9: 11 **unreasonably** [1] - 4:15 **up** [3] - 21 : 14, 28:2, 33:9 **URL** [1] - 23: 11 

## V

**valid** [1] - 29: 15 **various** [1] - 6:21 **verbal** [2] - 27: 17, 31 :8 **Verheul** [5] - 2: 14, 5:18, 5:22, 10:19, 32:1 **VERHEUL** [21] - 2:6, 5:20, 6:3, 6:6, 6: 15, 8:5, 9:25, 10: 10, 10: 12, 10: 17, 20: 12, 22: 13, 22:23, 23:3, 24:5, 25:9, 25:12, 25:25, 27: 12, 31 : 16, 32:3 

## 7

**versus** [1] - 31 : 14 **vi a**  [3] - 17: 12, 17: 13, 18:5 **vi ewable**  [1] - 5:4 **VOLKERDING** [32] - 2:3, 4:1, 6:2, 6:4, 6:10, 6: 13, 10:3, 10: 11 , 10: 14, 10: 18, 20: 15, 20: 18, 22:3, 22:8, 22: 12, 22:22, 23:1, 27: 15, 27:24, 28:7, 28: 12, 31 :5, 31 : 11 , 31 :23, 32:6, 32: 15, 32: 19, 32:21 , 32:25, 33:2, 33:8, 33: 11 **Volkerding** [2] - 2:12, 4:3 **Volume** [2] - 3:16, 3:18 **vo lunteers**  [1] - 18:6 

## W

**waiver** [1] - 29:5 **web** [1] - 19: 14 **website** [3] - 18:6, 19: 12, 23: 10 **well -** **organized** [1] - 32: 13 **wet** [1] - 21 :8 **whole** [1] - 30:25 **widely** [2] - 25:22, 25:25 **wish** [1] - 5:6 **witness** [1] - 7:18 **witnesses** [3] - 5: 19, 6:3, 6: 11 **Witnesses** [1] - 6: 12 **word** [10] - 7:9, 16:7, 16: 14, 24:8, 24: 10, 24: 15, 26: 10, 26: 12, 28: 14, 28: 18 **wording** [1] - 28:21 **written** [21] - 7:8, 7:9, 9: 15, 9:22, 10:20, 14:9, 16:7, 16:14, 24:8, 24: 11 , 24: 14, 24: 15, 25: 17, 26: 10, 26: 12, 28:22, 29: 10, 29: 11 , 31 :7, 31 : 14 **Written** [1] - 3:4 

## Y

**years** [4] - 8:23, 25: 15, 27: 11 , 30:7 **yesterday** [1] - 22: 18 **Yntema** [1] - 3: 14