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 Protection Agency, Region 6 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 

Dallas, TX 75202-2733 

Dear Mr. Curry: 

RYAN FLYNN 

Cabinet Secretary 

BUTCH TON GATE 

Deputy Secretary 

On behalf of the 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 hearing held on the same day. The public notice 

for the hearing was conducted in accordance with 40 CFR §51.1 02. The hearing record for the 

proposed SIP revision is attached, which includes the filed regulation, hearing transcript, 

exhibits, public notices, affidavits of publication, the Department's notice of intent to testify, and 

public comments. Included along with the attached hard copy of the SIP submittal is an 

electronic copy provided on disk which I certify to be an exact duplicate of the hard copy. 

If there are any questions concerning this SIP submittal, please contact Neal Butt ofmy staff at 

(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, Air Quality 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 

final 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 NMSRC signed 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 air pollution 

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 A contains 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 C contains 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 by the 

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: XXIV Issue: 3 Publication Date: 02 l 13 J 2015 [Sequence# 1 

1, Issuing Agency 2. ~gen~y DFA Code 

Environmental Improvement Board 667 

.2:..,_Agel!_cy_Address 

c/o New Mexico Environment Department, Alr Quality Bureau 

P.O. Box 5469 * 525 Camino de los Marquez Suite 1 - Santa Fe NM 87502-5469 

_i._fontaot Person-=---------------...----,-----------------! 

Name Neal Butt I Phone # I (505) 476-4317 

E-mail ncal.burtraJstate.nm.us 

Is. Type of Rule Action 

D New [!] Amendment 

G 1 number of pages: l1 

D Repeal D Repeal/ Replace O Renumber O emergency 

I [1. Hearing date: I 01/23/15 [js. Effective date: 

9. NMAC Nu'fber 

Title _,L~ a_pJte;;;.;. r __ _,Tf-"P....;; a;.;.. rt"------1 

20 12 11 

.,!0. NMAC Name 

Title 

Environmental Protection 

J c hapter 

I Air Quality (Statewide) I General Provisions 

1 02/27/15 

...!!.:. Amendment Description (Amendment filing only) 12. Amendment's NMAC Citation 'J! applicable) 

Amend three sections, add one section and amend 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. Are there any_ materials incorporated by reference? 

Reference 1 I nternet site 

No 0 v es 0 Please list attachments 1. and I nternet site(s) if 

applicable 2. 

3. 

15, tt materials are attached has coovriaht permission been received? 

No I I Yes I I Public domain I I 

16. Legal citation(s) that allows the Issuing Agency to regulate and the Issuing Authority to promulgate 

1 ~a io s on this sub ect (p_rovlde all that ;pl!!Yl. 

74-1-B NMSA 1978; Chapter 74, Article 2 NMSA 1978 

17. Signature & Tltle of ulng Authority (Delegation authority letter MUST be on fl/e with A.!£l...... __ -

:fo~" \lv ~ 'K.~ cd: ~ l., 

Check If delegated 

Name: authority 0 

_) 

Title: Chair 

~ \._ \.1 .._ -- c--.. 

Sig-n t ure [Black Ink Only] 

'0Ll>' D- te Signed 

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 of a 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 of any section in this part is [C>fiiOI/10] 02/27115] 

20.2.1.108 SAVING CLAUSE: Supersession of any Air Quality Control Regulation (AQCR) shall not 

[etle£-t] 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 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 of Title 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 off procedures 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) if the first digit discarded is greater than the number live, or if it 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) if the first digit discarded is exactly the number live, 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. 

[t4:)] D. The final result ofthe 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 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), of Title 20. Environmentul 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 mav· 

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. 

(I) If electronic 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) 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 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 the Air 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 so by filing a written petition with 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 procedures of 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’s information 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 to the public upon request (following the 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) days of 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 renumbered into 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 replaced by 20 NMAC 2.1, General Provisions, filed 

09/27/95. 

20 NMAC 2.1, General Provisions, filed 09/27/95 was renumbered, reformatted and replaced by 20.2.1 NMAC, 

General Provisions, effective 10/31/02. 
Attachment B 

Attachment B contains a copy of the amended 20.2.1 NMAC, 

as published in the New Mexico Register on February 13, 

2015 in the New Mexico 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 the January 23, 2015 hearing. 
STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT BOARD 

IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 

TO: 20.2.1 NMAC- General Provisions 

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 of each technical witness. 

Neal Butt. Mr. Butt is an Environmental Scientist & Specialist in the Control Strategies 

Unit of the Air Quality Bureau. He has worked in the Air Quality Bureau since March of2014. 

Prior to this he worked for the City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Deparhnent for 17 

years, the last 12 of which were as an Environmental Health Scientist in the Air Quality 

Division. Mr. Butt holds an M.S. Degree in Biology from the University of North 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 of the Air Quality Bureau. He supervises two 

Notice of Intent Page 1 of 4 
>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 Chief of the Planning Section of the Air Quality Bureau. 

She has 24 years of experience 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 of the Direct Testimony of Each Witness in Narrative Form 

A copy of the written direct testimony of Mr. 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 of Mr. Butt. 

4. Text of Recommended 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 of Exhibits 

The Department submits the following exhibits: 

Notice oflntent Page 2 of 4 
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 of Exhibit 

Petition For Regulatory Change, No. EIB 14-05(R), including Proposed 

Amendments to 20.2.1 NMAC, General Provisions 

Written testimony ofN eal Butt 

Resume ofN eal Butt 

Resume ofRobert Samaniego 

Resume of Rita 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 of Stakeholder 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 of General 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 of Reasons 

Notice oflntent Page 3 of 4 
7. Reservation of Rights 

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 of Intent Page 4 of 4 

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. V erheul@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 of Exhibit 

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 of Rita 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 of Stakeholder 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 of General 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 of Reasons 

Submittal Requirements of Rules Potentially Affected by Proposed 

Amendments to 20.2.1 NMAC, General Provisions 

NMED's Notice of Compliance with Small Business Regulatory Relief 

Act 
/ '"'% ~~~ /t.Q '0 

1:; 

~~ 

STATEOFNEWMEXICO ~ ., !1; 

BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT BOARD <'o.t ~?/ 

e I) a,.. .... c- '1. ,;:;:/ 

IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO: No. EIB 14-05 .(~ 20.2.1 NMAC- General Provisions 

PETITION FOR REGULATORY CHANGE 

The Air Quality Bureau in the Enviromnental Protection Division of the New Mexico 

Environment Department petitions the Enviromnental Improvement Board ("Board"), pursuant 

to 20.1.1 NMAC - Rulemaking Procedures, 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- General Provisions 

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 of paper submittals. The purpose of20.2.I NMAC is 

to establish general provisions which apply to all parts of Chapter 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 of paper 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, I 0/13/05]. 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 of paper 

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, 20 I 0. 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 of regulatory 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 A vail able at 

http://www.epa.gov/CROMERR/training/cromerr I 0 1/cromerr course summary.pdf 

Statement of Reasons 20 .2.1 NMAC, General Provisions, 9/I6114 Page 1 of 7 
"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). CROMERR requirements 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 of paper 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 of Reasons 20.2.1 NMAC, General Provisions, 9116114 Page 2 of 7 
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 of data generation [40 CFR 3.2000(b)]; 

2) copy of record [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 of signing [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) 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. 

Legal Foundation 

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

The NMAir Quality Control Act, 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 of Reasons 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 and Emission 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 

of such 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 Standards for Source Categories of Hazardous Air Pollutants. Since these 

are federal standards, the EPA regulates whether specific required information can be submitted 

electronically. 

Permit Applications 

Statement of Reasons 20.2.1 NMAC, General Provisions, 9/16/14 Page 4 of 7 
The AQB does not currently accept permit applications electronically; however, the proposed 

amendments to 20.2.1 NMAC will make this possible if adopted. 

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: "If a 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: "If a 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 and Followup 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 of the [performance] test within 30 days 

from the test date." 

Miscellaneous Rules 

Many rules do not explicitly require written submittal of information 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; 20.2.3 7 NMAC, Petroleum Processing Facilities; and 20.2. 40 NMAC, 

Sulfuric Acid Production Units- Sulfur Dioxide, Acid Mist 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 of required reports and permit applications 

in lieu of paper 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 staff required to 

transfer data contained in paper reports, and reduces the economic and environmental cost to the 

regulated source of printing and mailing. 

b. "Fosters more rapid and accurate environmental reporting and posting of compliance 

information." (EPA, 20 I4, CROMERR 1 OJ, 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 of rule language. 

20.2.1.108 SAVING CLAUSE: Supersession of any Air Quality Control Regulation 

(AQCR) shall not [effeet] 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 A QCR. 

[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 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]]. 

[09/05195; 20.2.1.111 NMAC- Rn, 20 NMAC 2.I.II1 I 0/31/02; 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 off procedures shall be used: 

Statement of Reasons 20.2.1 NMAC, General Provisions, 9/16/14 Page 6 of7 
(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-t]D. The final result of the 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. 

If a hearing is granted in this matter, the Department will present (in its Notice of Intent to 

present technical testimony) a more detailed analysis of the proposed amendments to 20.2.1 

NMAC on a section by section basis. 

Statement of Reasons 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 of this part apply to all parts of this chapter. 

[09105195; 20.2.1.2 NMAC- Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.1 01, 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 Control Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 74-2-1 et seq. 

[09/05/95; 20.2.1.3 NMAC - Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.1 02, 10/31102] 

20.2.1.4 DURATION: Pennanent. 

[09/05!95; 20.2.1.4 NMAC - Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.1 03, I 0/31102] 

20.2.1.5 EFFECTIVE DATE: October 27, 1995, unless a later date is cited at the end of a section. 

[09105/95, 1 0-27-95; 20.2.1.5 NMAC- Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.104 1 0/31/02; A, 06/01/1 0] 

[The latest effective date of any 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 of this 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; 20.2.1.1 06 NMAC - Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.1 06, 1 0/31/02] 

20.2.l.I 07 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. 

[09105195; 20.2.1.107 NMAC - Rn, 20 NMAC 2.l.l 07, 10/3 1102] 

20.2.l.I 08 SAVING CLAUSE: Supersession of any Air Quality Control Regulation (AQCR) shall not 

[ effe€t] 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. 

[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 Environmental Improvement Act, NMSA 1978, 74-1-1 et seq. and the Air Quality 

Control Act, 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 A 
I 20.2.1.110 COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER REGULATIONS: Compliance with any part under Chapter 2 

2 of Title 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 of Title 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) 

I 0 [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: If a 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 of Title 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 of the environmental improvement board or limitation prescribed under the Air Quality Control Act 

30 pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 74-2-8. 

31 B. Petition procedures: 

32 (I) Any person seeking a variance from a regulation of the environmental improvement board, or a 

33 pennit condition imposed by the department, or from the limitations prescribed under the Air Quality Control Act 

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 of the petition; 

39 (c) describe the facility or activity for which the variance is sought; 

40 (d) state the address or description of the 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 of the 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 of confidentiality. 

20.2.1 NMAC Public Review Draft 9/16114 2 
(2) "Confidential business information" refers broadly to information that, if made public, would 

2 harm a business' competitive position. This includes trade secrets and may include data relating to the profits and 

3 costs of the 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) of any air contaminant 

6 emission and includes a general description of the location and nature of the 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 of this section, at the discretion of the 

I 0 secretary. 

II (5) "Trade secret" refers to a secret plan or process, tool or mechanism unique to the owner or 

12 operator of a 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 if specifically 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 of confidentiality 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 of the 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 of the 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 of records and 

29 information: 

)0 (1) to other officers, employees or authorized representatives of the department, the local agency, the 

31 environmental improvement board, or the local board concerned with carrying out the Air Quality Control Act; 

32 (2) to officers, employees or authorized representatives of the United States environmental protection 

33 agency concerned with carrying out the federal act; 

34 (3) when relevant, in any proceeding under the Air Quality Control Act or the federal act; 

35 (4) of data concerning the nature and amount of emissions from any source; or 

36 (5) limit the use of such 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 of general 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 of receiving 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 of the decision 

55 by certified mail. 

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

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) 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) days of receiving the request for review. 

[10/27/95; 20.2.1.115 NMAC- Rn, 20 NMAC 2.1.115, 1 0/31/02] 

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, 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 of Federal 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), of Title 20, Environmental Protection, of the 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 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 ofthis requirement on a case-by-case basis if requested by the regulated source. 

B. Deadline extension due to computer system failure. 

( l) 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, 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 of Repealed 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 For Requesting A Variance Hearing, filed 10/07/75; and EIB/AQCR II 0, Air Quality 

2 Control Regulation II 0 - Confidential Information Protection, 05/29/90 was renumbered into first version of the 

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 I 0/31/02. 

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 of the Air Quality Bureau. He has worked in the Air Quality Bureau (AQB) since March of 

2014. Prior to this he worked for the City of Albuquerque 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 in Biology from the University of North 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 of paper 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), General Provisions, to include language authorizing and requiring the electronic 

submittal of data, reports and permit applications in lieu of paper submittals. Pursuant to 

20.1.1.300 NMAC: "Any person may file a petition with the Board to adopt, amend or repeal 

any regulation within the jurisdiction of the 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 of 20 .2.1 NMAC is to establish general provisions 

which apply to all parts of Chapter 2, Air Quality (Statewide), of Title 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 of Federal 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 of paper on or before 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 (AQP A), 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 of corporate and individual responsibility 

and accountability that exists in the paper environment when reporting is done electronically" 

and to ensure that documents submitted electronically "are as legally dependable as their paper 

counterparts." [70 FR 59850]. 

B. Requirements of CROMERR 

EPA guidance requires that an authorized program that receives e-reports in lieu of paper 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 

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 of the 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 

BUTT TESTIMONY- PAGE 2 
program, by the chief executive or administrative official or officer of the 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 of General 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 inventory reports (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, Environmental Protection, for which the AQB is accepting electronic submittals. A 

preliminary assessment of the ability of the 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 of the 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) 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. 

II. Legal Foundation 

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

The New Mexico Air Quality Control Act, 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 if the information is 

provided, sent or delivered, as the case may be, in an electronic record capable of retention by 

the recipient at the time of receipt. An electronic record is not capable of retention by the 

recipient if the sender or its infonnation processing system inhibits the ability of the 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., 20.2.1 0 NMAC, Woodwaste 

Burners; 20.2.62 NMAC, Municipal Waste Combustion; and 20.2.63 NMAC, Biomedical Waste 

Combustion). Examples of existing 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 and Emissions 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 I 0, 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 of a 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 of such reports in electronic format." [20.2.7.I1 O.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 I 0, p. 3) 

C. Permit Applications 

At present, provisions in 20.2. 70 NMAC, Operating Permits 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 if adopted. 

Operating Permits, 20.2.70 NMAC 

20.2.70.300.D. NMAC, Content Of Application, stipulates that: "Any person 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: "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." In addition, 

pursuant to 20.2.72.213 NMAC, Startup and Followup Testing, "a written report of the 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 of the results of the [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 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, 

Sulfuric Acid Production Units - Sulfur Dioxide, Acid Mist 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 Processing Plant 

-Sulfur, but can be submitted electronically. 

Specifically, "To aid the Department in determining compliance with this Part, the owner or 

operator of a 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 of a written 

requirement in this provision. This may be distinguished from language used in 20.2.35.113.E 

NMAC, which stipulates in part that: "The department shall notify the applicant or petitioner 

and all interested persons who submitted written comments of the Department's action on the 

application for certification or petition for modification of the 'sulfur release schedule' and the 

reasons therefore. The Department shall notify the applicant or petitioner by certified mail." 

Here, the word "written" is not used, but could be implied by the requirement to send the notice 

by mail. According to the 2013 memo, "due to the UETA and the omission of the word 'written' 

AQB presumably has authority to accept electronic submissions of gas 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 of a 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 of the UETA, it is safe to assume that electronic 

submissions ofrefineryreports are also acceptable." 

G. Federal Standards 

New Source Performance Standards (NSP S) promulgated by EPA through September 23, 2013 

are incorporated by reference in 20.2.77 NMAC, New Source Performance Standards. 

NESHAPs promulgated by EPA through December 31, 2013 are incorporated by reference in 

20.2.78 NMAC, Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. 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 Standards for Source 

Categories of Hazardous Air Pollutants. Since these are federal standards, the EPA regulates 

whether specific required information can be submitted electronically or not. A detailed analysis 

of the 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 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 AQB. This is 

because electronic reporting: 

A. reduces tl;le burden and operating costs incurred by AQB staff required to transfer data 

contained in paper reports, 

B. reduces the economic and environmental cost to the regulated source of printing and 

mailing, 

C. enables more rapid and accurate environmental reporting and posting of compliance 

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 Reporting And Permit Applications, 

would apply to persons and signatories who submit electronic reports or other documents for 

which the AQB 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 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 Signature Agreement (ESA) which is part of the ESAA, ensures that data 

submitted to the AQB is being submitted by an authorized representative of that source. 

The AQB anticipates that if the 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 generally be followed: 

• Stakeholders will be notified via emails, AQB website, etc.; 

• Volunteers will be recruited for a limited live beta test ofthe 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. 

VI. Additional Proposed Amendments 

A. The following amendment is proposed to conect a grammatical enor. 

20.2.1.108 SAVING CLAUSE: Supersession of any Air Quality Control Regulation 

(AQCR) shall not [e.ffee.t] 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 pe1mit issued 

pursuant to any AQCR. 

[09/05/95; 20.2.1.1 08 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 

History Note, which is not subject to the legal constraints of rulemaking procedures, thereby 

facilitating administrative changes in the future without a hearing. 

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 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 off procedures 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) 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) 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 if it is an even number. 

[(4J]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, xx/xx/xx] 

VII. Public Notice and Outreach 

Public notice of the 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 of comments 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 of injury to or interference with health, 

BUTT TESTIMONY- PAGE 9 
welfare, visibility and property; (2) the public interest, including the social and economic value 

of the sources and subjects of air contaminants; and (3) technical practicability and economic 

reasonableness of reducing 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 they relate to the technical 

practicability and economic reasonableness of reducing 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 of the proposed amendments. Specifically, 

implementation of the 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 report$, reduce the economic and environmental cost to the regulated source of printing 

and mailing, foster mor~ rapid and accurate environmental reporting and posting of compliance 

information, and make reporting and application submission simpler and more efficient. 

The Department concludes that the factors specified by NMSA 1978, §74-2-S.E all weigh in 

favor of adopting 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 of the New Mexico Commission of Public 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 of Arts 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 

• Honor Roll, School of Engineering - Chemical-Nuclear, Spring 1997 

A.A.S. Criminal Justice 

• Graduated with Honors 

TVI Communiry College 

Dean's List Fall2000 

2001 

Pre-Management Development Program COA Public Service Universiry 2006 

• Graduated with Distinction. Earned two years' service credit as a supervisor 

B.A. Environmental Planning and Design Universiry of New Mexico 2012 

• Community and Regional Planning, School of Architecture and Planning 

EXPERIENCE· 

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST & SPECIALIST 

Air Quality Bureau, New Mexico Environment Department 

525 Camino de los MarqueZ; Suite 1, Santa Fe, NM 87505 

3/ 14-present 

Develop control strategy plans to regulate air pollution emissions in New Mexico: 

developing concepts into detailed, functional air quality plans and regulations; effectively 

working with stakeholders with disparate interests to build consent on proposed plans and 

regulations that meet the goals of the Bureau and Department; and presenting testimony on 

proposed air quality plans 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 Quality Division, 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 Quality Division, Albuquerque Environmental Health Department 

Perlormed technical review of Air Quality 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 Quality Division, 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 Lomas Blvd., 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, Center for Radioactive Waste :Management (CeR.a1VJ) 

152 Farris Engineering Center 

Albuquerque, NM 87131 

Assisted project leader with: lab research on the bioremediation of uranium-contaminated 

soil and groundwater at sites in New Mexico, Arizona, and Germany; and research and field 

demonstration of principles and practices of in situ bioremediation as applied to a nitratecontaminated groundwater plume located in Albuquerque's South Valley. Emphasis placed 

on analyzing the behavior of native bacteria under field-like conditions when supplemented 

with different types and amounts of nutrient amendments. 
Robert A. Samaniego 

Education: 

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

Employment: 

New Mexico Environment Department- 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 Environment Department- Air Quality Bureau 

Environmental Scientist & Specialist-Supervisor 

Santa Fe, NM 

2013 to 2014 

• Supervised four FTEs in the Compliance Inspection Field 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 of excess emissions 

reporting online application and continuation of former duties until vacancy was filled. 

New Mexico Environment Department- 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 of inspectors while continuing with complex inspections. Participated in 

numerous settlement negotiations for enforcement cases with civil penalties. Required 

extensive problem solving through analysis and evaluation of facts. Included report 

reviews from permitted facilities. 

New Mexico Environment Department- Air Quality Bureau 

Environmental Scientist & Specialist-A, Supervisor 

SantaFe,NM 

2005 to 2008 

• In addition to continuing to carry a full load of complex 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 to ring, evaluation of work 

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 of facts. 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 of complex air emission sources such as Gas Processing 

Plants, Petroleum Refineries and the Intel Semiconductor Manufacturing Facility. 

Includes extensive knowledge of federal 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 of facts. Included report 

reviews from permitted facilities. 

New Mexico Environment Department- Air Quality Bureau 

Environmental Scientist & Specialist-0 

Santa Fe, NM 

1996 to 2004 

• Stationary source inspector of air 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 staff and 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 of facts. 

Included report reviews from permitted facilities. 

Nizhoni Institute 

Academic Director, Director Academy of Ecology 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 of people and resources. Also Director of Academy 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 of mathematics 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 of surface water discharge sources, such as landfills, petroleum refineries 

and chemical plants. Prepared post-inspection reports, and enforcement notices. 

Included extensive knowledge of Federal and California water regulations and water 

sampling methods. Required extensive problem solving through analysis and evaluation 

of facts. 

Bechtel Petroleum San Francisco, CA 

Project Engineer 1980 to 1981 

• Project engineer for Petroleum Refinery project. Included extensive mathematical 

analyses to verify calculations and source capacities to specify equipment sizes. Required 

extensive problem solving through analysis and evaluation of facts. 

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 of facts. 
RITA BATES 

EDUCATION 

HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY, ARCATA, CALIFORNIA 

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

EXPERIENCE 

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ENVIRONMENT DEP ARTl\1ENT 

AIR QUALITY BUREAU, PLANNING &POLICY SECTION 

Section Chiif, March 2005- present 

Program Manager (NaturalS ciences Manager-2), March 2000- March 2005 

Environmental Specialist, December 1998- March 2000 

Environmental Scientist, August 1998- December 1998 

The Planning & Policy section of the Air Quality Bureau is responsible for the control 

strategy, dispersion modeling, emission inventory and small business assistance programs in 

the Air Quality Bureau. The control strategy section of the Air Quality Bureau is responsible 

for preparing 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 quality regulatory requirements. 

E:MPIRE GROUP, LLC 

Empire, Nevada 

Environmental Coordinator, June 1996-]ufy 1998 

Empire Group, LLC is the parent company for several entities which own and operate a 

geothermal power plant, an onion and garlic dehydration plant, several ranches, and a garlic 

seed operation. In my position as environmental coordinator, I was responsible for 

permitting at all facilities. 

JBRENVIRONMENTAL CbNSULTANTS, INC. 

Reno, Nevada 

EnvironmentalAnafyst IV, Reno Office Coordinator/Manager,Jufy 1994- Jufy 1996 

EnvironmentalAnafyst III,Jufy 1993- Jufy 1994 

EnvironmentalAnafyst I, June 1990-]ufy 1993 

As the manager of the Reno office, I supetvised seven technical staff and one administrative 

employee. During my employment with JBR, I worked on and managed numerous NEP A, 

environmental permitting and baseline 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 of the hearing is to consider the matter of 

EIB 14-05 (R), a proposed amendment of the New Mexico State Implementation Plan ("SIP") 

regarding 20.2.1 NMAC, General Provisions. The proponent of this regulatory amendment is the 

New Mexico Environment Department ("NMED"). The purpose of the 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 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 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. 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 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_regs.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 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 7 4-2-6, 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 of intent to do so. The notice of intent 

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 of the witness, including a 

description of their education and work background; (3) include a copy of the 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 of any recommended modifications to the proposed 

new and revised regulations. Notices of intent for the hearing must be received in the Office of the 

Board not later than 5:00pm on January 2, 2015, and should reference the docket number, EIB 14-

05 (R), and the date of the hearing. Notices oflntent to present technical testimony should be 

http://legals.abqjournal.com/legals/print_legal/33 5197 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 of the testimony. A member of the 

general public who wishes to submit a written statement for the record, in lieu of providing 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 of this 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-mail juancarlos.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 of the hearing, or the Board may convene a meeting after the hearing to 

consider action on the proposal. Journal: November 2, 2014 

http:/ /legals.abqj ournal. com/legals/print_legal/3 3 5197 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, 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 p~~~shed in said paper in(\:he regular daily edition, 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 of New 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 1 de 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 a cada 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 o se 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 y su 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 a ofrecer 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, o lamb/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 and State Implementation Plan 

Developments and Actions 

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 of the hearing is to consider the matter ofEIB 14-05 (R), a proposed amendment of the New 

Mexico State Implementation Plan ("SIP") regarding 20.2.1 NMAC, General Provisions. 

The proponent of this regulatory amendment is the New Mexico Environment Department ("NMED"). 

The purpose of the 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 

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 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 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 of the Board not later than 5:00pm on January 

2, 2015, and should reference the docket number, EIB 14-05 (R), and the date of the 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 of the 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 of the testimony. 

A member of the general public who wishes to submit a written statement for the record, in lieu of providing 

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 of this 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 of the 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. 

If you would like to opt out of ALL of the 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 of Rulemaking 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! of the 

hearino- is to consider the matter of EIB 

14-05 (R), a proposed amendment of the 

New Mexico State Implementation Plan 

("SIP"') regarding 20.2.1 NMAC, General 

Provisions. 

The proponent of this regulatory 

amendment is the New Mexico 

Environment Department ("'NMED"). 

The purpose of 01e 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 reoulated sources in an electronic 

format. "'The proposed amendment would 

stipulate that: pursuant to the Cross-}vfedia 

Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) 

as defined by Title 40 of the Code of 

federal Regulations (CFR) Part 3: and 

the Uniform Electronic 1i·ansactions Act, 

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), of Title 

20, Environmental Protection, of the 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 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-bycase 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 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 505-4 76-4317 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- Environmemal 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 I3oard a written notice of intent 

to do so. The notice of intent 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 of the witness, including a 

description of their education and work 

background; 

(3) include a copy of the 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 of any recommended 

modifications to the proposed new and 

revised regulations. 

Notices of intent for the hearing must be 

received in the Office of the Board not 

later than 5:00pm on January 2, 2015, 

and should reference the docket number. 

EIB 14-05 (R), and the date of the hearing. 

Notices of Intent 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 of the 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 of the testimony. 

NMED EXHIBIT 6d 

A member of the general public who wishes 

to submit a written statement for the record, 

in lieu of providing 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 of this 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 of the hearing, or the Board 

may convene a meeting after the hearing to 

consider action on the proposal. 

NEW MEXICO 

DEPARTMENT 

OF FINANCE AND 

ADMINISTRATION 

NEW MEXICO COMJ'v!UNITY 

DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL 

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING 

The New Mexico Community Development 

Council {Council) through the Department 

of Finance and Administration gives notice 

that the Council will conduct a public 

hearing at Room 317 of the New Mexico 

State Capitol, 411 State Capitol, Santa Fe, 

New Mexico on Thursday, December 4, 

2014, at l 0:00a.m. The purpose of the 

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 of Finance and Administration, 

via email atJolcncM.Slowcnrpstate. 

nm.us, fax (505) 827-4948, or directed 

to Ms. Slowen at Department of Finance 

and Administration, Local Government 

Division, Bataan Memorial Building Room 

202, Santa Fe, New Mexico 8750 I. Written 

comments must be received no later than 

5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 3, 

2014. TI1c submission of written comments 

as soon as possible is encouraged. 

Copies of the proposed rules may be 

accessed on the Department's website 

(http:!/www.nmdfa.srate.nm.u;;L), or 
Ne'v Mexico Con1mission of Public Records 

Administrative La'v Division 

1205 Camino Carlos Rey 

Santa Fe, NM 87507 

505-476-7907 

Affidavit of Publication in !he_ New Mexit?o_ Register 

I, Matthew Ortiz , certify that the agency noted below has published legal notices or rules in 

the New Mexico Register, and that payment has been assessed by invoice for said legal notice 

or publication, which appeared on the date and in the volume and issue number noted below. 

Date of Publication: 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 of Rulcmaking Hearing 

State of New Mexico, County of Santa 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 the published material documented in !his affidavit are enclosedForm SRC-2002-04 Revised July 2007 
Stakeholder 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 of Title 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 of the 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. If you 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 of the 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 of Title 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), of Title 20, Environmental 

Protection, of the 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 8 
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-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 if you 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 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, 

2 
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 

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 if you 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. 

If you 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 if you 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 N MAC- 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 if you have any comments or need additional information. 

Thank you, 

Neal T. Butt 

Environmental Scientist & Specialist 

NMED- Air Quality Bureau 

(505) 4 76-4317 

(505) 476-4375 (FAX) 

525 Camino de los Marquez, Suite 1B 

Santa Fe, NM 87505-1816 

3 
Attorney General of New 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 

ELIZABETH A. GLENN 

Chief Deputy Attorney 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 

of office, 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 of State Authority to Implement Electronic Submittal Programs 

SUMMARY 

All U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")-authorized state programs that 

accept required submittals electronically in lieu of paper submittals must comply with the federal 

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule ("CROM:ERR"). CROMERR establishes requirements 

for the acceptance of electronic submittals. States that have existing electronic submittal 

programs, along with states that would like to accept electronic submittals, are required to submit 

an application to the EPA for approval of such programs. The Air Quality Bureau ("AQB") has 

several existing submittal programs that need to be approved by EPA. The AQB is also seeking 

approval of a program for the electronic submittal of permitting 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 of excess 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 of standards 

that state govemments utilizing electronic submittal systems would have to satisfy, including: 1) 

timeliness of data generation (40 CFR 3.2000(b)); 2) copy ofrecord (40 CFR 3.2000(b)); 3) 

integrity of the 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 of record ( 40 CFR 

3.2000(b)(4)); 6) validity of the 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 of signing ( 40 CFR 3.2000(b)(5)(iv)); 1 0) 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 of the 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 of paper 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 of the 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 of the requisites of the 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 if the specific rules 

for each submittal allow for 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, other New Mexico statutes may be refened to when seeking legal 

authority for electronic submittal programs. 

The following is a description of cunent and future Air Quality Bureau electronic 

reporting programs, along with a discussion of any 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 not mandate 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 by the AQB would be 

acceptable, giving the AQB the authority to accept emission inventories electronically. 

Additional language in suppmi of electronic submittals of emissions inventory reporting 

can be found in the state statutes. The New Mexico 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 UET A, but none of the exemptions would apply to the 

submittals to be accepted by the 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 of this 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 

of the air quality regulations specifically mentions electronic reporting, stating that "[t]he 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 of 

such reports in electronic format." 20.2.7.110.A NMAC. Thus, in the case of excess 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 on the 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 staff that e-mail submittals fall under CROMERR, and therefore necessitate an 

application. But, an EPA-issued CROMERR "Frequently Asked Questions" document states that 

"CROMERR does not affect the submission of any 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 if this is an argument that it would like to put 

before the EPA If the 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. 

Permit Applications 

The AQB currently does not accept pennit applications electronically. However, it is in 

the initial stages of creating 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]ny person 

seeking a pe1mit under this part shall do so by filing a written application with the department." 

The construction permit provisions at 20.2.72.203.A NMAC contain similar language, stating 

"[a]ny person 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 of copies to be submitted. 

The use of the term "written" makes the electronic submittal ofpetmit applications 

somewhat more questionable, as it implies 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]f a 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 of the 

permitting regulations in regards to the requirement for a written application. That being said, the 

Environmental Improvement Board may view the implementation of an 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 of permit applications;. 

Other Issues 

Confidentiality 

It should be noted that both the operating and construction pe1mit provisions of the Air 

Quality regulations have clauses relating to confidential infonnation sub1nitted with pennit 

applications. See 20.2.70.301 and 20.2.72.204 NMAC. If the permitting program opts to 

implement an electronic submittal program for permit applications, it will need to determine how 

to manage the submittal of documents that permittees are claiming as confidential. If the 

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 of Electronic Records Requirements 

Any electronic submittal system that the. AQB implements will have to adhere to the New 

Mexico Management of Electronic 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 if it does not adhere 

to requirements found in Management of Electronic Records regulations it is out of compliance 

for the purpose of state requirements. Therefore, any system created needs to be designed to 

accommodate the state regulation requirements. 

4 
CONCLUSION 

The AQB has the statutory and regulatory authority to accept electronic submittals of 

excess emissions reporting and emissions inventory data. It is 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. If the 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 of that 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. 

5 
SUSANA 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 Y ntema, Extern, Office of General Counsel 

RYAN FLYNN 

Cabinet Secretary-Designate 

BUTCHTONGATE 

Deputy Secretary 

Through: 

Date: 

Jennifer L. Hower, Deputy General Counsel, Office of General Counsel 

November X, 2013 

RE: CROMERR Legal Analysis Addendum 

Summary 

. The Air Quality Bureau ("AQB") is currently planning to move forward with 

development of new web-based applications for the submittal of electronic 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 of language that appear in statutes and regulations 

in relation to granting the AQB authority to accept electronic submissions. Generally, there is 

language that is pennissive of electronic 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 of regulatory language before the AQB would have proper authority to accept 

electronic filings. Many of the rules that this memo examines follow a similar pattern. 

Additionally, there are portions of the AQB's regulations that incorporate a federal rule in 

its entirety. Presently, the federal government is in the process of amending 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 of an 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 of electronic 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 of uniformity in the current 

regulations. The best solution to remedy this would be a small addition to the General 

Provisions section of the Air Quality Rules, 20.2.1 NMAC. The addition would simply state that 

all required submittals to the department under the Air Quality Rules may be submitted 

electronically, as long as the method of submittal is in compliance with federal and state 

standards for electronic submissions. 

Factual Background 

CROMERR establishes requirements for the acceptance of electronic 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 of this 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 of the envirorunental improvement board's jurisdiction 

or the local board's jurisdiction, or any part thereof' NMSA 1978, § 74-2-S(B)(l). This would 

presumably include the adoption of regulations COITelated with the submittal of correlated 

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 of the 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 of an amendment to 

the UETA from the 2013 legislative session. This amendment does not have a substantive effect 

on the conclusion of either 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 of electronic records. See § 14-16-18. ("[A] governmental 

1 The version Ms. Hower cites states "each government agency of this 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 by the state records administrator. However, in discussions with state 

records, they said that the earliest these rules would be proposed is July of 2014. 

Analysis 

The following is a discussion of the 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 of the UET A questionable. If there is no specification, it is 

considered permissible to have an electronic submission. Additionally, the EIB has elected to 

adopt whole parts of the Code of Federal 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 of federal 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 of different portions of the air quality 

regulations (see discussion below). 

While many of these reports can be submitted electronically under state and federal 

regulations, NMED does in fact lack the authority to accept a number of these reports under 

CROMERR's standards. 

Annual Compliance Reports are required under 20.2.70.302.E NMAC, in the Operating 

Pennits p01iion of the 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 of the pennit and all applicable requirements, including all of the 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 of a written requirement (especially since a written document is 

explicitly required in the same Part of the Chapter) and the provisions of the 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 of a 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 of a 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 of the 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 presumably has authority to accept electronic submissions of gas 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 of a 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 of the air quality regulations 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 

hereby incorporated into this part [20.2.77 NMAC]. 20.2.77.9 NMAC. Similarly, for NESHAP, 

"[ e ]xcept as otherwise provided in section 20.2.82.1 0 NMAC, the national emission standards 

for hazardous air pollutants for source categories as promulgated by the 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 of the federal code creates the problem of whether 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 of adoption 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 of filings. The 

adoption of an electronic submission clause for each subpart of an EPA federal regulation would 

be done by publication of a 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 of January 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 brief runthrough of the applicable federal regulations, as they were adopted by the EIB in 2010. 

40 CF.R. §§ 60.1 To -60.19 (Subpart A) (2010). Subpart A (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 "if acceptable to both the Administrator and the owner or operator of a 

2 For a list of which subsections now use CDX, see 

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

4 
source, electronic notification" may be used. 40 C.P.R. § 60. 7(a) (201 0). Similarly, §60.19, 

General Notification and Reporting Requirements, also allows for electronic submittal. For the 

entire part (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 of reliable nonGovernment mail carriers that provide indications of verifiable delivery of information required 

to be submitted to the Administrator, similar to the postmark provided by the U.S. Postal 

Service, or alternative means of delivery, including the use of electronic 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 of 40 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 of an 

affected facility may submit electronic quarterly reports for S02 and/or NOx and/or opacity in 

lieu of submitting the written reports required under paragraphs (b) and (i) of this section. The 

fonnat of each quarterly electronic report shall be coordinated with the permitting authority." As 

such, only pmiions of this section may be submitted electronically. This type of exclusive 

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 (Subpart Db) (2010). Subpart Db, (Standards of 

Performance for Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units) has been amended 

by CDX regulations since the adoption of the 2010 version by the EIB. Therefore, the version 

used by the AQB is not the most current version. The 2010 version of Subpart Db has a limited 

number of documents that may be submitted electronically. Specifically, "[t]he owner or 

operator of an affected facility may submit electronic quarterly reports for S02 and/or NOx 

and/or opacity in lieu of submitting the written repmis required under paragraphs (h), (i), G), (k) 

or (I) of this 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 of each 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 (Subpart Kkk) (2010). Subpart Kkk (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 of electronic media. Section 603.636(a) states 

that each "owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall comply with the 

requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 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 of Subpart 

A,§ 60.19(b), which applies to all of 40 C.P.R. §60 when the reporting requirements lack an 

explicit postmark, applies. Therefore, electronic submissions may be 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 of a 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 (Subpart A) (201 0). Subpart A (General Provisions) 

contains nearly identical language to that of 40 C.F.R. § 60.7 (201 0) when a postmark is not 

explicitly mentioned. Notably missing however, is the language that permits the use of electronic 

media. (Compare the language in §63.l(a)(11), "[t]he use of reliable non-Government mail 

carriers that provide indications of verifiable delivery of information required to be submitted to 

the Administrator, similar to the postmark provided by the U.S. Postal Service, or alternative 

means of delivery agreed to by the pennitting authority, is acceptable" to § 60.19(b ), "[t]he use 

of reliable non-Government mail carriers that provide indications of verifiable delivery of 

infonnation required to be submitted to the Administrator, similar to the postmark provided by 

the U.S. Postal Service, or alternative means of delivery, including the use of electronic 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 of any startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

plan. Specifically, it states that "[ u ]pon receipt of such a request, the owner or operator must 

promptly submit a copy of the requested plan (or a portion thereof) to the Administrator. The 

owner or operator may elect to submit the required copy of any 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 of subpart A of this part. If acceptable to both the 

Administrator and the owner or operator of a 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 (Subpart Hh) (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 of electronic reporting. 

Anticipated and actual startup reports are required in a number of sections of the 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 of which 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 of the use of the 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 of the 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 of the tenn "written". NMED need only "require 

reporting sufficient to assure and verify compliance with the terms and conditions of the pennit 

and all applicable requirements" 20.2.70.302.E NMAC. Therefore, per the UETA and the lack of 

the use of the term "written," there is a strong argument that the AQB has the authority to accept 

the electronic submission of reports required in pennits. 

Woodwaste burners must notify AQB of the use of a "contingency-use woodwaste 

burner" with 24 hours of the initial startup. 20.2.10.11l.B NMAC. As with all previous startup 

notifications discussed, no mention of a written requirement is present. Hence, AQB likely has 

authority to accept electronic submissions. 

Construction pennittees shall notify the department in writing of the "[a]nticipated date 

of initial startup of a source not less than thirty (3 0) days prior to the date" and the " [a ]ctual date 

of initial startup of a 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 of the "in 

writing'' language. 

Stack Testing Protocols and Reports 

Stack Testing Protocols and Reports are required explicitly in the NMAC or are pmt of 

incorporated federal standards. A list of regulatory provisions that require such protocols and 

reports are provided below. In the case of incorporated 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 of the Department, the owner or operator. .. shall perform stack testing according to the 

7 
method stated above and report the results of such tests in the format and time period specified 

by the Depmiment." See 20.2.16.11 0 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 of submission, 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 of specific 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 of the 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/co mp liancelresourceslpo licies/monitorin q;lcaa/s tacktes tin q;. pdf For NSP S 

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 of such facility shall conduct performance test(s) and 

furnish the Administrator a written report of the results of such 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]f acceptable to both the Administrator and the 

owner or operator of a 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 by reference 

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 of asbestos. Subpart M contains a provision that allows the Administrator, with the 

consent of the operator, to determine what is the appropriate means is for making a submission. 

Specifically, it states that "[i]f acceptable 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, if agreed 

upon by the owner or operator of a specific source. 

Conclusion 

Within the state and federal air quality regulations, there are a number of different 

standards for submissions to the AQB, none of which 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 of 40 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 of what is contained in the C.P.R. rules. Many sections of subparts provide explicit 

authority to use electronic submissions, but as there are limited default provisions, much of the 

adopted federal provisions cannot have electronic submission authority read in. 

For the sake of uniformity 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. 

9 
CROMERR 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 of the 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 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 

Title 40-The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the codification of the 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 12 
CROMERR 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 prior to receiving 

e-re ports. 

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 of the 

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. 

ii 
CROMERR 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 behalf the 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-Re porting: The rule sets standards for systems that states, tribes, and local 

governments use to receive e-re ports 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 authority to enforce its authorized programs using 

electronically submitted documents; and 

The system the applicant proposes to use to receive the e-re ports 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-re ports. 

1-1 
CROMERR 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 of the 

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 of the 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 

1-3 
CROMERR 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-re ports 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 for programs to submit the application by this deadline; the program need not receive 

EPA approval by that deadline. The program may continue to operate the existing e-reporting system while the 

application is under review. 

1-4 
CROMERR 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. 

2-1 
CROMERR 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. 

2-2 
CROMERR 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 of Title 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 of Title 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. 

3-1 
CROMERR 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 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 of the 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, of the governmental 

entity, or their designee. 

• System Descriptions-The System Description(s) section demonstrates that systems used to receive 

e-re ports 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) of this 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 of the 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, remember that Non-Part 3 Applications can generally address only one program. 

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

Lesson 3 

TYPICAL APPLICATION COMPONENTS 

Typical CROMERR applications include a minimum of three 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-re ports 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 of tools 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 of the electronic reports accepted by the system, a brief system overview, 

and a list of attachments included with the application. If the 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). 

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

Lesson 3 

Cover Sheet: Page 1 

CROWERR~clllon Covtr Shott 

~,.,.,., 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 of the 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 brief overview of the 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 of 40 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 of the 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 of the 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. 

3-6 
CROMERR 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 later than 

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. 

3-7 
CROMERR 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; 

If lncompletot 

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) 

If approved,. 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 of Air and Radiation {OAR); 

• Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response {OSWER); 

• Office of Water {OW); 

• Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention {OCSPP); 

• Office of the Inspector General {OIG); and 

• Each of the 10 EPA Regions. 

4-1 
CROMERR 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 letter to 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) 

4-2 
CROMERR 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 of the 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 of the program revisions or modifications in the 

consolidated application, and disapprove others, as provided under§ 3.1000(c)(2). 

The approval generally becomes effective as of the date that EPA publishes a notice of the approval in 

the Federal Register. 

4-3 
CROMERR 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 of the 

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. 

If the order is to approve the program revision or modification, EPA's approval is effective upon 

publication of the Final Notice. However, if no hearing is requested, EPA's preliminary determination will 

be effective 30 days after the first notice was published. 

RESOURCES: 

• CROMERR § 3.1000{f) {PDF) {43 pp, 520 K) 

4-4 
CROMERR 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). 

4-5 
CROMERR 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 of the 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 of the 

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 if the 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 of this 

lesson, provides the requirements for document receiving systems themselves. Again, it is important 

to remember that the purpose of the individual provisions of this 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. 

5-1 
CROMERR 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 of this lesson will explain concepts while the remainder of the 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 if Title 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. 

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

Lesson 5 

• Submitters and signatories can review the COR of thee-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 a true and correct copy of an 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 of the 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 of the document or the 

circumstances of its receipt. 

For example, if the 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" 

5-3 
CROMERR 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 of the 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 if the 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. 

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

Lesson 5 

Note: This requirement must be 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 must be 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 of the 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 of the 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-S 
CROMERR 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 must be met at 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 import ant to provide not only for the provability of signature device 

ownership in principle, but for the practical need to make this proof with the resources typically 

available to enforcement staff and within the constraints of the judicial process in criminal and civil 

proceedings. A list of these 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 of the 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. 

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

Lesson 5 

Note: Disinterested party refers to an individual who is not connected with the person in whose name the 

electronic signature device is issued. A disinterested individual is not any of the following: 

• The person's employer or employer's corporate parent, subsidiary, or affiliate; 

• The person's contracting agent; 

• A member of the 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 of the 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 . 

• 

5-7 
CROMERR 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 required part 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 of the registration process. 

6-1 
CROMERR 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 their electronic 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 of which is government-issued. The other way is to include the 

registrant's handwritten signature as part of the 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 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: 

(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) 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. 

6-2 
CROMERR 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 of the 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 

of the 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 of the specified regulated entities. 

This determination is usually based on some combination of the program's existing knowledge of 

the regulated entities, information submitted by the users or officials of the 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: 

6-3 
CROMERR 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 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) 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) 

of this 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. 

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 

6-4 
CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments 

Lesson 6 

must be uniquely ... entitled to use it. The device is compromised if the 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 of the 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) 

of this 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) of this 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 of the 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) of this section, that... 

(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." 

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) of this section, that... 

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

Lesson 6 

(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." 

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 of the 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) of the 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 

6-7 
CROMERR 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 a version of the 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 opportunity to 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 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 of the 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, if they 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." 

6-8 
CROMERR 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 of the 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 of this 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 whether the 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) of this section, that... 

(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." 

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 of ensuring 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 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 

6-10 
CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments 

Lesson 6 

must be uniquely ... entitled to use it. The device is compromised if the code or mechanism is 

available for use by any other person. 

14. Signatory Authorization-Under the 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) of this 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. 

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. 

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 a timely 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) of this 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. 

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. 

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) of this 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. 

6-12 
CROMERR 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" of the 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 of the information. A copy of record includes: 1) All electronic signatures 

6-14 
CROMERR 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 of the 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 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 oft he 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 

6-15 
CROMERR 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 of the 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 of the 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. 

6-17 
CROMERR 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. 

7-1 
CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments 

Lesson 7 

• Solution could involve: 

Printing to paper or disks; 

Client-server transactions, 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 of strength 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 particular solutions to meet the general performance goals, two decisions are especially 

important because of their 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. 

7-2 
CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments 

Lesson 7 

KEY DECISION 1: TYPE OF CREDENTIAL USED 

Type of credential 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 a fixed-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 

7-3 
CROMERR 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. 

7-4 
CROMERR 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 of the 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 11true 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 of submission, 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 of submission. 

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 of the 

integrity of the 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-the type 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, of the 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. 

7-7 
CROM 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 of these 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-if the 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)? 

If there 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 of security is provided for the transaction (e.g., is SSL or TLS 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 of security is there, and does it include some kind of encryption of the 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. 

8-2 
CROMERR 101: Fundamentals for States, Tribes, and Local Governments 

Lesson 8 

Recall that Decision 1-type of credential-affects signature binding in terms of the 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 of the 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 a Submit button. 

WHAT CONSTITUTES THE ACTUAL SIGNATURE? 

Fo.r example, is it the PIN and answer to 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 of the digital signature could lock the document. It would be created by 

calculating the hash value of the 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, if the 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 of the 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 of the 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 of the original, including the one in the signer's or submitter's 

custody. 

ITEM #13: CREDENTIAL VALIDATION 

Decision 1-the type of credential used-affects what is required to validate it. Item 13 is critical to 

proving the authenticity of the signatures it is used to create. If the 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. 

8-4 
CROMERR 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 hashed version of a password entered with the hashed version of the 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 of a second-factor {known as second-factor 

authentication), whi!=h is some item uniquely within the control of the 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 credential8-5 
CROMERR 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 of type 

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? 

If you 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 of the 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. 

8-6 
CROMERR 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? 

If the 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 of the related effort. 

Another resource provided by EPA to help applicants is the CROMERR Application Challenges and 

Solutions document {first introduced in Lesson 3 of this 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 of the 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 establishing the 

framework by which it will accept 

electronic reports from regulated 

entities in satisfaction of certain 

document submission requirements in 

EPA's regulations. EPA will provide 

public notice when the Agency is ready 

to receive direct submissions of certain 

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 of paper-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 Center Public 

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 

of this 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 of Environmental 

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. Affected Entities 

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 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR). For purposes ofthis 

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. 

The rule will also potentially affect 

private parties subject to any 

requirements in Title 40 of the 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 of entities that EPA is now 

aware can potentially be affected by this 

action. Other types of entities not listed 

in the table can also be affected. 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. 

B. How Can I Get Copies of This 

Document and Other Related 

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 of the 

documents specifically referenced in 

this action, any public comments 

received, and other information related 

to this action. Although a part of the 

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 of materials 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 of Environmental 

Information Docket is (202) 566-1752. 

You may have to pay a reasonable fee 

for copying. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through EPA's 

NMED EXHIBIT 13 
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 59849 

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 I Wednesday, 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) If the General Counsel determines 

that a Governor is engaged in activity 

which involves a violation of federal 

statute or regulation, including the 

ethical conduct regulations contained in 

5 CFR parts 2635 and 7001, or conduct 

which creates the appearance of such a 

violation, he or she shall bring this to 

the attention of the Governor or shall 

notify the Chairman of the 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 of special Government 

employees imposed by 18 U.S.C. 207. 

Guidance concerning post-employment 

restrictions applicable to Governors may 

be obtained in 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 of the Senate Governmental 

Affairs Committee, is kept confidential. 

Because the Director of the Office of 

Government Ethics has ruled that 

Governors who do not perform the 

duties of their 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 of his 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 

be filed and time for filing. (1) A 

Governor shall file a financial disclosure 

report with the General Counsel on or 

before May 15 of each year when the 

Governor has been 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 of up to 45 days. An 

additional extension of up to 45 days 

may be granted by the Director of the 

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 by the 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) Reviewing reports. (1) Financial 

disclosure reports filed in accordance 

with the provisions of this section shall, 

within 60 days after the date of filing, 

be reviewed by the General Counsel 

who shall either approve the report, or 

make an initial determination that a 

conflict or appearance thereof exists. If 

the General Counsel determines initially 

that a conflict or the appearance of a 

conflict exists, he or she shall inform 

the Governor of his determination. 

(2) If the 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 of the 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 and public 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 six years. 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, 

Chief Counsel, 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. EP A-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 of Environmental 

Information (2823T), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; 

(202) 566-1697; huffer.evi@epa.gov, or 

David Schwarz, Office of Environmental 

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 relief to 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) a 

small 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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 78993 

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). 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
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 of Title 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 11973 d902c6b87fb 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 of the 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 of their 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 under an EPA-authorized state, tribe, or local program. ( 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 of the 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 11973d902c6b87fb 150d12d8fdb4&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. 

Authorized program 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. 

Chief Information Officer means the EPA official assigned the functions described in section 5125 

of the Clinger Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-1 06). 

Copy of record 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 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 of the document or the circumstances of its 

receipt. 

Disinterested individual 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 of the 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 of which consists of 

a content or value together with an understanding of what the content or value means; where the 

electronic document includes data, this understanding of what 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 if the 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. 

Federal program means any program administered by EPA under any other provision of Title 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 of words 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 of independent 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. 

Subscriber agreement 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 11973d902c6b87fb 150d 12d8fdb4&node=p... 12/3/2014 
rugc .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 if the 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 11973d902c6b87fb 15 Od12d8fdb4&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) Other changes to CDX EPA will provide notice of other changes to Central Data Exchange 

users at least sixty (60) days in advance of implementation. 

(3) De minimis or transparent 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 of the 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) General procedures for program modification or revision: 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) of this 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 under an authorized program: 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 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. 

(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... 12/3/2014 
u --------- .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) of this 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 of the 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 

of the governmental entity, or his or her designee; 

(ii) A listing of all 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, 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; 

(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) of this 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 of time, 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 11973d902c6b87fb 150d12d8fdb4&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 of the application. 

(4) Except as provided under paragraph (c)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section, if the Administrator does 

not take any action under paragraph (c)(1) of this section on a specific request for revision or 

modification of a specific authorized program addressed by an application submitted under paragraph 

(b) of this 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) of this 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) of this 

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) of this section or after an EPA approval occurs automatically under paragraph 

(c)(4) of this 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 of the Administrator's preliminary determination under 

paragraph (c)(1) of this 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 11973d902c6b87fb 150dl2d8fdb4&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. If the 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 of that 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 Applications 1 

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 11973d902c6b87fb 150d12d8fdb4&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- General Provisions 

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 Quality Regulations, in order to authorize and 

require the electronic submittal of data, reports and permit applications in lieu of paper 

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 of paper submittals, to comply 

with the federal Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule ("CROMERR"). 40 C.P.R. Part 

3. 

2. The Air Quality Bureau ("AQB") of the 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 must be 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 of CROMERR, 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 of the AQB or the 

regulated entity. 

9. Additionally, the Department proposed amendments at 20.2.1.1 08 NMAC, to correct a 

grammatical error; at 20.2.1.111 NMAC, to remove outdated and inaccurate information 

BIB No. 14-05(R) Statement of Reasons and Order 

Page 2 of5 
regarding physical addresses from the rule language; and at 20.2.1.116 NMAC, to 

reformat the Section's hierarchy in 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 the jurisdiction of the 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 of the 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 of the 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 of the 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 of Reasons 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 of injury to 

or interference with health, welfare, visibility and property; (2) the public interest, 

including the social and economic value of the sources and subjects of air contaminants; 

and (3) technical practicability and economic reasonableness of reducing 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 of reducing 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 of the proposed amendments. 

Specifically, implementation of the 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 of printing and mailing, foster more rapid and 

accurate environmental reporting and posting of compliance 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 by NMSA 1978, Section 74-2-5.E all 

weigh in favor of adopting 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 of the reasons stated above. 

II. ORDER 

By majority vote of a quorum of the 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 of paper submittals, as contained in NMED's 

September 16, 2014 petition and request for hearing, were approved by the Board on January 23, 

2015. 

On Behalf of the 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 Electro me 

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 N MAC, 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 of Hazardous 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 - General Provisions 

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 of which is attached hereto, as required by NMSA 1978, Section 14-4A-4 of 

the Small Business Regulatory Relief Act. 

Respectfully submitted, 

I 

John B. Verheul 

Assistant General Counsel 

1190 St. Francis Drive 

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 

(505) 827-0528 

John. V erheul@state.nrn. us 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Compliance was sent to the following via 

electronic mail on the 22nd day of January, 2015: 

Joseph Dworak, Board Counsel 

Office of the Attorney General 

P.O. Drawer 1508 

Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508 

jdworak@nmag.gov 
SUSANA 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 - General Provisions 

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 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 of Federal 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), of Title 20, Environmental Protection, of the New Mexico 

Administrative Code, for which the department 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 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 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 of the Act, the Department does not anticipate that the proposed 

regulatory amendments will have any adverse effect on small businesses. If you 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 for January 23, 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

10th [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

12th [1] - 19:12

13 [2] - 3:16, 12:7

13th [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

16th [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

23rd [1] - 1:16

248 [1] - 3:18

24th [1] - 12:7

2nd [1] - 19:4

3

3 [3] - 3:5, 3:19, 23:5

3.2000 [1] - 15:12

30th [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

Additional [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

Administrative [4] -

6:17, 10:24, 20:7,

20:9

administrative [1] -

18:21

Administrator [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

Agency [1] - 11:10

Agenda [1] - 4:1

Agreement [2] -

17:18, 17:22

ahead [1] - 20:19

Air [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

Albuquerque [1] -

19:4

Albuquerque's [1] -

8:22

Albuquerque/

Bernalillo [1] - 9:4

allow [5] - 6:20,

23:20, 27:8, 28:18,

29:9

Allowed [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

AMENDMENTS [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

Apodaca [1] - 1:20

appearance [1] -

5:19

Applicability [1] -

15:9

application [8] -

12:15, 13:2, 13:7,

17:19, 24:13, 24:21,

26:5, 29:24

Application [1] -

17:17

Applications [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

Applied [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

AQB [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

August [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

aware [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

basis [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

COUNSEL [1] - 2:7

Counsel [1] - 26:21

counsel [1] - 6:14

counterparts [1] -

13:17

COUNTY [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

documentreceiving [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

KOPAN [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-substantive [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

swear [1] - 6:11

sworn [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

TIM [1] - 2:4

Title [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

Two [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

via [3] - 17:12, 17:13,

18:5

viewable [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

volunteers [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