SUSANA MARTINEZ 

Governor 

JOHN A SANCHEZ 

Lieutenant Governor 

June 11, 2015 

Mr. Ron Curry 

Regional Administrator 

. ,-- ,,-;· C\; -- \0('\)l 

NEW MR®l~Q~,·:;,\ ·~'SEC. 

ENVIRONMENT\Jj-)d~A_'j_~'t"M~NT 

15 J\JN 25 P\"\ f>: \

4 

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 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 

1445 Ross Ave, Suite 1200 

Dallas, TX 75202-2733 

RYAN FLYNN 

Cabinet Secretary 

BUTCH TONGATE 

Deputy Secretary 

Subject: Proposed revision to the New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Air 

Quality to address infrastructure requirements of Section 11 0( a)(2)(A)-(M) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) to implement the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (S02) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

Dear Mr. Curry: 

I am writing on behalf of Governor Susana Martinez to request approval of the attached 

documentation which is proposed to serve as the basis for a revision to the New Mexico SIP. 

Specifically, I am submitting documentation for the recently adopted S02 Infrastructure SIP, 

adopted pursuant to Title I ofthe CAA Amendments of 1990. The S02 i-SIP applies exclusively 

to Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, New Mexico. 

The Albuquerque - Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board (Air Board) adopted the S02 

infrastructure SIP at its regular monthly meeting on April 30, 2015, following a public hearing 

held the same evening. The public hearing was held in accordance with state law and the public 

hearing requirements of 40 CFR 51.102. 

To facilitate your review, one hard copy of this SIP submittal and one exact duplicate in 

electronic form are enclosed. I believe that the submitted materials provide adequate 

documentation to support the requested SIP revision. 

To facilitate your review and processing, the following materials arc enclosed: 

1) SIP Completeness Checklist pursuant to 40 CFR 51, Appendix V; 

2) hearing record; 

3) comments and responses; 
4) the S02 infrastructure SIP adopted by the Air Board; and 

5) other supporting documentation. 

Your favorable consideration of this request is appreciated. If you have any questions, please 

contact Mary Lou Leonard, Director of the Albuquerque Environmental Health Department 

(EHD), at (505) 768-2631. 

etary 

New Mexico Environment Department 

cc: Honorable Susana Martinez, Governor, State of New Mexico 

Jeffrey Kendall, General Counsel, NMED 

Michael Vonderheide, Director, Environmental Protection Division, NMED 

Richard Goodyear, Chief, Air Quality Bureau, NMED 

Kelsey Curran, Chair, Albuquerque - Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board 

Danny Nevarez, Deputy Director, Albuquerque EHD 

Margaret Nieto, Control Strategies Manager, Air Quality Program, EHD 
Attachment B 

Attachment B contains copies of the following: 

Notice of Intent to Present Technical Testimony, with 

supporting exhibits, filed April 14, 2015, regarding Air Board 

hearing on proposed SO2 Infrastructure SIP. 
BEFORE THE ALBUQUERQUE-BERNALILLO COUNTY 

AIR QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO ADOPT A STATE IMPLEMENTATION 

PLAN (SIP) FOR SULFUR DIOXIDE (SOz) TO ADDRESS SECTIONS 110(a)(1) AND (2) 

OF THE FEDERAL CLEAN AIR ACT (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) AND (2) 

HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE "SOz INFRASTRUCTURE SIP" 

Air Quality Program, 

Environmental Health Department, 

City of Albuquerque, Petitioner 

AQCB Petition No. 2015-1 

CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE'S NOTICE OF INTENT 

TO PRESENT TECHNICAL TESTIMONY 

en 

:r:-

-o 

:::0 

... 

-o 

:X 

iS? 

... 

\D 

Pursuant to 20.11.82 NMAC, Rulemaking Procedures -Air Quality Control Board, the 

City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Department, Air Quality Program (EHD) hereby 

submits its Notice of Intent (NO I) to present technical testimony in this proceeding. 

1. The person for whom the witness will testify. 

Air Quality Program, Environmental Health Department, City of Albuquerque, New 

Mexico. 

2. The name and qualifications of each technical witness. 

Ed Merta. Air Quality Regulation Development Coordinator, Control Strategies 

Division, Air Quality Program, Environmental Health Department, City of Albuquerque, New 

Mexico. J.D. (Natural Resources Certificate), University ofNew Mexico; M.A. (and "ABD") 

History, Harvard University; M.A. History, Ohio University; B.A. International Studies, Ohio 

Notice of Intent Page 1 of 1 0 

., 

% 

-.j: 

::;6 

0 

%:;o 

:C. IT! 

ITIC"') 

::c:ro 

);!< 

r-fTI 

'if:it:!J 

> 

r:;c 

:z:: 
State University. Employed by the City of Albuquerque's Environmental Health Department 

since October 2014. Previously employed by the following organizations: New Mexico 

Renewable Energy Industries Association (law clerk school, temporary, 2014); WildEarth 

Guardians (intern, 2014); Western Resource Advocates (intern, 2013); Department ofFamily 

and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine (2007 to 2011 ); 

Health Sciences Library and Informatics Center, University ofNew Mexico (1998 to 2007). 

Chief responsibility is to facilitate promulgation of air quality regulation through the 

Albuquerque - Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board for implementation within the City 

of Albuquerque and the County of Bernalillo, including research, drafting and editing of 

technical and legal documents, hearing preparation, testifying, and submittal, through the New 

Mexico Records Center and Archives and the New Mexico Environment Department, to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. 

Isreal Tavarez, P.E. Environmental Health Manager, Permitting Division, Air Quality 

Program, Environmental Health Department, City of Albuquerque, New Mexico. M.S. Chemical 

Engineering, New Mexico State University; B.S. Chemical Engineering, NMSU. Registered 

Professional Engineer (New Mexico). Employed by the City of Albuquerque's Environmental 

Health Department, Air Quality Program for 18 years. Previously employed by the State ofNew 

Mexico, Air Quality Bureau (1994-1996). 

Mr. Tavarez's primary responsibility is to manage the air quality stationary source 

permitting program which includes reviewing and approving all air quality stationary source 

permits to ensure the permits are issued in accordance with local, state and federal regulations. 

Notice of Intent Page 2 of 10 
Damon Reyes. Environmental Health Manager, Enforcement and Compliance Division, 

Air Quality Program, Environmental Health Department, City of Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

B.S. in Environmental Science, College of Santa Fe, May 2001. Trained in extensive array of 

manufacturing and industrial technologies, related air pollution control approaches. Employed by 

City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Department, Air Quality Program, for ten years. 

Previously employed by Air Quality Bureau, New Mexico Environment Department (2002 to 

2005), Pueblo Office of Environmental Protection, All Indian Pueblo Council (2000 to 2002), 

Philips Semiconductor (1998 to 2000). 

Main responsibilities include: overseeing enforcement and compliance actions and 

bringing them to resolution; reviewing inspection reports that have designated a source as out of 

compliance, to determine if an enforcement action can be pursued; drafting penalty calculations 

and notices of violation. 

Dan Gates. Quality Assumnce Section Supervisor, Air Quality Progmm, Environmental 

Health Department, City of Albuquerque, New Mexico. B.A. Architecture, University ofNew 

Mexico. Employed by the City of Albuquerque for 20 years. Four years with the Wastewater 

Utility Division and 16 years with the Environmental Health Department's Air Quality Program. 

Mr. Gates oversees the Progmm's quality assurance activities including data quality 

management, data validation, and the monitoring equipment auditing program. Mr. Gates also 

evaluates all the air monitoring data prior to submission to the EPA and works closely with EPA 

Regional staff to ensure that the Air Quality Program's Air Monitoring data meets all applicable 

federal requirements. 

Notice of Intent Page 3 of 10 
3. Summary and Estimated Duration of Testimony 

Mr. Merta's written testimony is attached as AQP Exhibit 8. Presentation of that 

testimony is expected to take approximately ten minutes or less. Mr. Merta will testify that the 

proposed sulfur dioxide (S02) NAAQS Infrastructure State Implementation Plan ("Infrastructure 

SIP") should be adopted and approved for submittal to EPA as a proposed revision to the New 

Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP). It is estimated that the hearing will take one hour or 

less. This petition to the Albuquerque - Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board is 

supported by EHD for the following reasons. 

A. Section llO(a)(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each state, within 

three years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, to submit an Infrastructure SIP 

to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new or revised 

standard. This Infrastructure SIP is a compilation of elements that demonstrates how a 

state, or a local air authority within a state, will implement, maintain and enforce the 

revised NAAQS. Section 11 O(a)(2) of the CAA lists the required elements that comprise 

the Infrastructure SIP. These include: enforceable emission limitations and control 

measures, air quality monitoring and modeling, a permitting program, adequate funding 

and personnel, authority under state law to carry out the plan, emissions reporting, 

emergency powers, public participation, and fee collection. 

B. The New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (Air Act), NMSA 1978, 

Sections 74-2-4 and 74-2-5.B(l) [1967 as amended through 2007] authorizes and requires 

the Air Board to adopt, promulgate, publish, amend, and repeal air quality regulations. 

The Air Act, NMSA 1978, Section 74-2-5.B(2), also authorizes and requires the Board to 

adopt air quality plans (SIPs). Similarly, the Board is authorized and required to adopt, 

promulgate, publish, amend, and repeal air quality regulations and adopt plans under: 

Notice of Intent Page 4 of 10 
City of Albuquerque Ordinances, Section 9-5-1-4(B); Bernalillo County Ordinances, 

Section 30-33(b). Local ordinances also require regulations and plans to be adopted only 

after a hearing of the Board, per: City of Albuquerque Ordinances, Section 9-5-1-6; 

Bernalillo County Ordinances, Section 30-35. 

C. On June 22,2010, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson promulgated a revised 

NAAQS for S02, effective August 23, 2010 [75 Fed. Reg. 35,520 (June 22, 201 0)]. 

Based on its review of the air quality criteria for oxides of sulfur and the previous 

primary NAAQS for oxides of sulfur as measured by S02, EPA made revisions to the 

primary S02 NAAQS in order to provide requisite protection of public health. 

Specifically, EPA has established a new 1-hour standard at a level of75 parts per billion 

(ppb), based on the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-

hour daily maximum concentrations, to replace the previous 24 hour and annual primary 

S02 standards. EPA also established S02 ambient air monitoring and reporting 

requirements to support implementation of and compliance with the new NAAQS. 

D. Under the CAA, an Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 S02 NAAQS was 

required to be submitted to EPA by June 23, 2013. The delay in submitting it resulted 

from personnel turnover in the Air Quality Program of the Environmental Health 

Department, City of Albuquerque, New Mexico. Because of this delay, EPA has asked 

that it be finalized and submitted as soon as possible be made a priority. 

E. EHD circulated a Stakeholder/EPA Review Draft of the proposed 

Infrastructure SIP from December 24, 2014 to January 30, 2015. Notice of the circulation 

of this draft is attached as AQP Exhibit 2. Comments on this draft were received from the 

Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority (ABCWUA), shown as AQP 

Exhibit 3a. EHD's response to these comments is shown as AQP Exhibit 3b. Comments 

Notice of Intent Page 5 of 10 
were also received from EPA, shown as AQP Exhibit 4a. EHD's response to these 

comments is shown as Exhibit 4b. Following circulation of the Stakeholder/EPA Review 

Draft, EHD formulated the Public Review Draft, Exhibit 1. This draft displays changes 

made from the Stakeholder/EPA review draft in the form of strikethroughs for deleted 

text and underlines for addition of text. 

F. The rulemaking for adoption of the proposed Infrastructure SIP and 

approval of its submittal to EPA is being carried out in accordance with federal and state 

procedural requirements and with 20.11.82 NMAC, Rulemaking Procedures --Air 

Quality Control Board. Consistent with the provisions of these legal authorities, EHD 

circulated the Public Review Draft, AQP Exhibit 1, with EHD's petition for rulemaking 

to the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board (Air Board), which is 

shown as AQP Exhibit 1 a. Notice of the petition is attached as AQP Exhibit 1 b. Draft 

minutes of the Air Board meeting at which the Air Board approved EHD's request for a 

hearing on the proposed Infrastructure SIP is shown as AQP Exhibit 6. Notices of the 

hearing, scheduled for April30, 2015, are shown as AQP Exhibits 6a, 6b, and 6c. The 

draft agenda for the April30 Air Board meeting and hearing is shown as AQP Exhibit 7. 

G. Adoption of the Public Review Draft, as amended by staff proposed floor 

amendments, AQP Exhibit 9, will fulfill all local obligations under federal law and allow 

submission of the Infrastructure SIP to EPA. Further background on the origins, 

formulation, and contents of the proposed Infrastructure SIP is available in AQP Exhibits 

lOa to IOd. 

Notice of Intent Page 6 of 10 
4. Text of Recommended Revisions to the New Mexico State Implementation Plan 

The Division recommends adoption of the proposed S02 NAAQS Infrastructure SIP; as 

shown in the Public Review Draft, AQP Exhibit 1; as amended by Staff Proposed Floor 

Amendments, AQP Exhibit 9. 

5. List and Description of Exhibits 

The Division has attached the following exhibits to this Notice of Intent: 

Exhibit Number Title of Exhibit 

AQP Exhibit 1/la/1b 

AQP Exhibit 2 

{ 1} Public Review Draft showing proposed "S02 Infrastructure 

SIP" (changes from Stakeholder & EPA Review Draft are indicated as 

strikethroughs and use of red font) 

{ 1 a} Petition to adopt a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for S02 to 

address Sections 11 O(a)(1) and (2) of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 

U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) and (2) hereafter referred to as the "S02 Infrastructure 

SIP," as filed February 20, 2015 

{ 1 b} text of email notice of petition to "Air Quality Control Board 

Announce" List Serve, February 20,2015 

Notice of Stakeholder and EPA review: text of email sent December 24, 

2014 to the "Air Quality Control Board Announce" List Serve, informing 

recipients that Stakeholder Review Draft is available for comment 

(revisions to contents of Stakeholder Review Draft are indicated in Public 

Review Draft- see AQP Exhibit 3b, below) 

Notice of Intent Page 7 of 1 0 
AQP Exhibit 3a 

AQP Exhibit 3b 

AQP Exhibit 4a 

AQP Exhibit 4b 

AQP Exhibit 5 

Comments on Stakeholder Review Draft from Albuquerque Bernalillo 

County Water Utility Authority (ABCWUA), January 26,2015 

EHD response to ABCWUA comments 

Comments on Stakeholder Review Draft from EPA, received as letter via 

U.S. mail, January 30,2015 

EHD response to EPA comments 

Draft minutes of Air Quality Control Board Meeting, March 11, 2015 

(during which petition for rulemaking was presented). 

AQP Exhibits 6 albic Notices of rulemaking hearing, including: 

AQP Exhibit 7 

{6a} legal advertisement of hearing in Albuquerque Journal, 

3/15/2015; 

{6b} legal advertisement of hearing in New Mexico Register, 

3/16/2015; 

{ 6c} text of email notice to "Air Quality Control Board 

Announce" List Serve 

Draft agenda of Air Quality Control Board meeting and hearings, 

scheduled to be held April30, 2015 

Notice of Intent Page 8 of 10 
AQP Exhibit 8 

AQP Exhibit 9 

AQP Exhibit 1 Oa 

AQP Exhibit 1 Ob 

AQP Exhibit 1 Oc 

AQP Exhibit lOd 

Direct Testimony by Ed Merta, Air Quality Program, in support of 

adoption ofS02 Infrastructure SIP, to be presented at hearing on AQCB 

Petition No. 2015-1 

Staff proposed floor amendments to Public Review Draft (amended text is 

indicated by strikethroughs and use of red font) 

Final EPA rule setting new S02 NAAQS, Federal Register, June 22,2010 

S02 attainment designation letter from Ron Curry, Region 6 

Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to New Mexico 

Governor Susana Martinez, February 7, 2013 

EPA Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a){2), 

September 2013 

City of Albuquerque, Environmental Health Department, 2014 Annual 

Network Review for Ambient Air Monitoring 

6. Reservation of Rights 

This Notice of Intent to Present Technical Testimony is based on EHD's Petition for 

Regulatory Change of February 20,2015. EHD reserves the right to call any person to testify and 

Notice of Intent Page 9 of 10 
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. EHD also reserves the right to 

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

Respectfully submitted, 

Ed Merta 

Air Quality Regulation Development Coordinator 

Air Quality Program 

Environmental Health Department 

One Civic Plaza, NW, Suite 3023 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 

(505) 768-2660 

CERTIFICATION 

I hereby certify that on Apri114, 2015, an original and 15 copies ofthis Notice oflntent to 

present technical testimony (NOI), with attached exhibits, were delivered to the following person 

for filing. 

Andrew Daffern 

Air Quality Control Board Liaison 

Air Quality Division 

Environmental Health Department 

One Civic Plaza, NW, Room 3023 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 

And that on April14, 2015 a copy of this NOI, with attached exhibits, was sent by email to the 

Attorney for the Board, Felicia Orth. 

~) fi1Jd Ed Merta 

Air Quality Regulation Development Coordinator 

Air Quality Program 

Environmental Health Department 

Notice of Intent Page 10 of 10 
0 

(; 

Ex. #1. Public Review Draft - S02 Infrastructure SIP; [1 a.] 

Petition to Adopt S02 Infrastructure SIP; [1 b.] Email 

notice sent to "AQCB Announce" list serve, 2-20-2015 

Ex. #2. Notice of Stakeholder and EPA review, sent to j "AQCB Announce" list serve, 12-24-2014 

Ex. #3a. Comments on EPA/Stakeholder Review Draft 

from ABCWUA, 1-26-2015; [3b.] AQP response to 

ABCWUA comments 

Ex. #4a. Comments on EPA/Stakeholder Review Draft 

from EPA, 1-30-2015; [4b] AQP response to EPA 

comments 

Ex. #5. Draft minutes of Air Quality Control Board 

Meeting, 3-11-2015 

Ex. #6a/b/c. Notices of Proposed Rulemaking: [Sa.) Abq 

Journal, 3-15-2015; [6b.] NM Register, 3-16-2015; [6c.] Email 

notice sent to "AQCB Announce" list serve, 3-16-2015 

Ex. #7. Draft agenda of Air Quality Control Board meeting 

and hearings, scheduled to be held on 4-30-2015 

Ex. #8. Direct Testimony by Ed Merta, AQP, in support of 

adoption of S02 infrastructure SIP, to be presented at 

hearing on AQCB Petition No. 2015-1 

Ex. #9. Staff proposed floor amendments to Public 

Review Draft (amended text is indicated by 

strikethroughs and use of red font) 

Ex. #1 Oa. Final EPA rule, S02 NAAQS 201 0; [1 Ob.] S02 

attainment designation from EPA, 2-7-2013; [10c.] EPA 

iSIP guidance; [10d.] COA 2014 Annual Network Review 
8TAK£HOLDER PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as of 12tQ4/2Ql4212012015 

ALBUQUERQUE-BERNALILLO COUNTY 

2 AIR QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 

3 

4 

5 State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Air Quality 

6 

7 

8 To Address Infrastructure Requirements of 

9 Section 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) of the Clean Air Act 

Io (CAA) to Implement the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide 

II (S02) National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

I2 (NAAQS) 

I3 

I4 

I5 

'I6 

I7 

I8 

I9 

20 

2I 

22 

Adopted 

[MONTH & DATE, 2015] 

23 Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, Chair 

24 Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 1 ofll 

-

c.n 

-rt 

M 

CD 

N 

C> 

-u 

3:: 

~ 

w 

~ 

.... 

-

I 

-

i- ' -~ 

j I "):> 

r 
2 

3 

STAKliHObDBR PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as of 12A24A29142/2012015 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS DOCUMENT 

4 Ed Merta, Air Quality Regulation Development Coordinator 

5 Control Strategies Section, Air Quality Program (AQP) 

6 Principal Author, Editor, SIP Submittal 

7 

8 Margaret Nieto, Control Strategies Manager, AQP 

9 Project Oversight 

10 

11 Air Quality Monitoring and Assurance Section, AQP 

12 Air Monitoring and Data Program Information 

13 

14 Regulatory Development Committee, AQP 

15 Peer Review 

16 

17 

18 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 2 ofll 
2 

3 AAMNP 

4 AQCA 

5 AQCB 

6 AQP 

7 AQS 

8 CAA 

9 CFR 

10 EPA 

11 Fed. Reg. 

12 GHG 

13 iSIP 

14 NAAQS 

15 NEI 

16 NM 

17 NMAC 

18 NMSA 

19 PM2.S 

20 PSD 

21 ROA 

22 SIP 

23 SLEIS 

24 so2 

25 

26 

STl'.Kli:HOLDI!R PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as ofl212412914212012015 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan 

New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (also referred to as "Air Act") 

Air Quality Control Board (also referred to as "Air Board") 

Air Quality Program 

Air Quality System 

Clean Air Act 

Code of Federal Regulations 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Federal Register 

Greenhouse gasses 

Infrastructure State Implementation Plan 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

National Emissions Inventory 

New Mexico 

New Mexico Administrative Code 

New Mexico Statutes Annotated 

Particulate Matter 2.5 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Revised Ordinances of the City of Albuquerque 

State Implementation Plan 

State and Local Emissions Inventory System 

Sulfur Dioxide 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 3 ofll 
STAKiil-IObDSR: PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as of ll/24f:lQl42/20/2015 

2 Introduction 

3 

4 A State Implementation Plan (SIP) identifies how the state will attain and maintain the primary and 

5 secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The SIP 

6 contains statutes, regulations, source~specific requirements, non-regulatory items such as plans and 

7 inventories, and in some cases additional requirements promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

8 Agency (EPA). The initial SIPs for states were approved by EPA in 1972. 3 7 Fed. Reg. 10,842-10,906 

9 (May 31, 1972). A state may revise its SIP with EPA approval as necessary. The federally enforceable 

10 SIP for New Mexico (including Bernalillo County) is compiled in 40 C.P.R. Part 52, Subpart GG, 

II subsections 1620-1640. 

12 

13 Sections 110(a)(l) and 110(a)(2) of the CAA require that, within three years of EPA promulgation of a 

14 new or revised NAAQS, each State must submit a plan known as an "infrastructure SIP, (iSIP). 

15 "Infrastructure," in this context, means the programs, policies, activities, resources and authority by which 

16 the state wilt attain, maintain, and enforce the new NAAQS. The iSIP describes these elements in detail. 1 

17 Section 11 O(a)(l) of the CAA addresses the timing requirement for the submissions of any iSIP revisions, 

18 while Section 110(a)(2) lists the required elements that comprise the iSIP. 

19 

20 On June 2~ 2010, the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, 

21 promulgated a new NAAQS for sulfur dioxide ("S02") [referred to below as the "20 10 S02 NAAQS"], 

22 effective August 23,2010. 75 Fed. Reg. 35,520-35,603 (June 22, 2010). Based on its review of the air 

23 quality criteria for oxides of sulfur and the primary NAAQS for oxides of sulfur as measured by S02, 

24 EPA made revisions to the primary S02 NAAQS in order to provide the requisite protection of public 

25 health. Id. Specifically, EPA replaced the former 24-hour and annual standards with a new short-term 

26 standard based on the 3-year average ofthe 99th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily 

27 maximum S02 concentrations. ld EPA set the level of this new standard at 75 ppb. ld 

28 

29 The City of Albuquerque's Environmental Health Department, Air Quality Program (AQP)2

, has 

30 recommended that Bernalillo County be designated with an attainment status of "unclassifiable" in regard 

31 to the revised S02 NAAQS, pending the availability of air quality monitoring data necessary for an "in 

32 attainment" designation? See CAA Section 1 07( d). On July 25, 2013, EPA designated certain areas of the 

33 United States as nonattainment for the new 1-hour S02 NAAQS. 78 Fed. Reg. 47,191-47,205 (SPA-Aug. 

34 5, 2013). Albuquerque-Bernalillo County was not designated as one of these nonattainment areas. Id. 

35 EPA has stated that it will address designations for all other areas in future actions. Id. 

36 

3 7 Albuquerque-Bernalillo County has not yet incorporated the 20 I 0 S02 NAAQS into the regulations 

38 implementing the CAA. 20.11.8 NMAC, Ambient Air Quality Standards. It plans to do so in a future rule39 making. 

40 

1 More infonnation on the SIP process is available at http:l/epa.gov/airgualit,y/urbanair/siP§tatusl. 

2 "Air Quality Program" is now the correct tenn referring to the air pollution control agency for 

Albuquerque and Bernalillo County. This tenn replaces the tenn "Air Quality Division," which was used in 

documents previously submitted to EPA. 

3 Letter from AI Annendariz, EPA Region 6 Administrator, to Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico 

(June 2, 2011). Letters cited in this iSIP submission are available upon request from the City of Albuquerque, 

Environmental Health Department, Air Quality Program. 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page4 ofll 
STAK:&:HObDJiR PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as of 12J24.QQ142f20f2015 

1 The matrix in the main body ofthis document, below, outlines the requirements of Sections 110(a)(2)(A) 

2 through (M) ofthe CAA [codified at U.S.C. 42 § 7410, State Implementation Plans For National Primary 

3 And Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards] and addresses how Albuquerque·Bernalillo County, New 

4 Mexico will implement, maintain and enforce the 2010 802 NAAQS. 

5 

6 Legislative authority for Albuquerque-Bernalillo County's air quality program is codified in the New 

7 Mexico Air Quality Control Act (Air Act), Chapter 74, Environmental Improvement, Article 2, Air 

8 Pollution, of the New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978 (NMSA 1978). Section 4 of this statute authorizes 

9 the creation of a "local authority" by a New Mexico county or municipality meeting certain criteria if the 

10 county or municipality adopts an ordinance providing for the local administration and enforcement of the 

11 Air Act. Albuquerque and Bernalillo County meet these statutory criteria in the Air Act. The City of 

12 Albuquerque and Bernalillo County each adopted parallel ordinances by which they accepted the 

13 authority delegated by the Air Act, established the Joint Air Quality Control Board (Air Board), and 

14 specified that the Air Board shall adopt regulations consistent with the Air Act and shall adopt a plan for 

15 the regulation, control, prevention or abatement of air pollution throughout Bernalillo County. These 

16 parallel ordinances provide that the Albuquerque Environmental Health Department is the administrative 

17 agency of the Air Board. The AQP is part ofthe Environmental Health Department. The Albuquerque and 

18 Bernalillo County ordinances are codified at Revised Ordinances of the City of Albuquerque (ROA) §§ 9-

19 5-1 to -99 and Bernalillo County Ordinance 94-5 §§ 1 to -20 [codified at Art. II, Ch. 30, §§ 30-31 to 47. 

20 

21 With eertain e:Keeplioas, dise~:~ssed below, the Slate stannes, regt~lations, pE)Iieies end programs eited in 

22 this iSIP submission are part oftke approved Albuquerque Bernalillo Got:1nty elemeats oHhe Ne¥~' 

23 MeKieo SIP and thus EU'e elted in 40 CPR Part 52; St~bpart 00, Sl:fbseetioAs i2.1fi20 to lfi20. 

24 

25 The fello·Ning legel BtltkOFities do Rot e1:1rrently appear ia the CFR eodifieatioa of the SIP. Tln1s, 

26 Aleuqt:~erque Bernalillo CottRty is fequestiag; as part of this iSIP suemissiea, that ePA approtte them iAle 

27 the CFR. The full ieKt of these legal attthorities is atteeheEI as BA eMhieit to this iSIP suemissioa. 

28 

29 • Certaia pFOvisions of the state Air Aet relates to eeat:rol of SO,. are aot eiteEI iA the CFR 

30 eedifieation efthe New Mettieo SIP. AlbuqueFE}tle Bemalilla CouA'f is iaelt~ding these 'NMSA 

31 previsioas with this iSIP Sl:femissiea. The)' ftf'e: NMSA 1978 §§ 74 l S:t MEI74 2 12.1. 

32 

33 • The regulations te iFRplemeat CAA pFOgmms in Bernalillo CotHK;y are eadifieEI in the New 

34 Mexieo AEimiaistr&ti¥e Code (WM:P.C), speeifieally Title 29, ~melfisl Pt'61eefk:m, Chapter 

35 I I. ARINIJW"fl:le Belwfllille CeWity Ail" Qlmlily CenlF81 BfNwJ. Certaia 'NMAG pro¥isiORS ~elated 

36 le eORkel of SO;~ ftf'e Rot eurreati)' eiteEI in the GFR eodifieatioa oftke New MeKieo SIP. 

37 AlhttEJtierqt~e Bernalillo GoaRly is inel1:1diag the Rill teKt of these NM,"'£ pFO";isioas with this 

38 iSIP Sl:femissioa. They are: 29.11.47 NMl\G1 EmiS6ienslR¥eltlef'Y' R:efr~il'emems; 29.11.62 

39 NMAC, Aeid R-em; 20.11.(;9 NMAC; l2£Nhelegietiil fflesle Desll'liCIINs; 20. I 1.71 NMAG, 

40 Allm#eipel &lkl JfiMie l:.endjiU!i; 20.11.89 NMAC, AEijwJie6191'jl :.fll'9eedUI"es Admillislflalivoe 

41 E~ Hetill'ings by the Direelar'; 29.11.81 NMAC, AdjwlieelfN'Y ~ Air Qutllily 

42 CfHflf'al B~ 11Rd 20.11.82 NMAC, BuleNking Jl:lteeed~ A;,. QNBUty C9ll1FBI /Jetwtl.. 

43 

44 Albuquerque-Bernalillo County has already submitted the following legal authorities with earlier SIP 

45 submissions now awaiting EPA approval. The full text of these authorities is not included in this iSIP 

46 submission but they are described in the main body of this document, addressing the required elements of 

47 CAA § 110(a)(2). 

48 

49 • The GFR eodifieatian efthe New Mettiea SIP eites to a~:~tdatea nRioRS eftertain Albuquerque 

50 and Bernalillo County ordinances have been amended and re-codified since g[jgjnal EPA 

51 a1mroval as part of the New Mexico SIP. To account for these changes in these ordinances since 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page Sofll 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ST,6.KiiWOLDBR PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as of l2f24J2Ql42/20/2015 

the most recent EPA approval ohke State BoEI:Fds SIP, 64 Fed. Reg. 29,235-29,240 (June I, 

1999), and demonstrate that local law conforms to federal standards, the Air Board has approved 

a proposed revision to the State Boards SIP element that would incorporate into the ~SIP all 

currently effective applicable ordinances, policies, and programs.4 This SO.z iSIP document will 

refer throughout to the existing, most current local ordinances. 

7 • The Air Board has approved proposed revisions to the following regulations in response to EPA 

8 rulemaking related to PM2.5: 20.11.41 NMAC. Construction Permits; 20.11.42 NMAC, 

9 Operating Permits; 20.11.60 NMAC, Permitting in Nonattainment Areas; 20.11.61 NMAC, 

10 Prevention of Significant Deterioration.5 

II 

12 

13 

4 Letter from Ryan Flynn, New Mexico Environment Secretary, to Ron Curry, EPA Region 6 

Administrator (July 26, 20 13). 

5 !d. 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 6 ofll 
2 

3 

~'-R-PUBL!C REVIEW DRAFT as ofl2124120142t20i20l5 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County 

110(a)(2) Required SIP Elements for Sulfur Dioxide 

~ .. n£:0,~C,~ole eri)i~sJonLlifiijbitiolls '8l14~lltlier control.ti1eas~s,. tri,efiiiSi'or· 

· .ffi ·' ' ~4t8!ec9npmi~,ili~ll)iyesi~'!cl];~}f~~r~~K~al)leiwftiti~,;~4~· 

sj~J)~I(fgq~)g{~i:weJI~~;.~H~u~~~rru,p~tirit(t#l)le.s:for:cgJ:ripliW:lge;••as 

· '<orJapp:r:opr.i'ate;to,~eet the\apj:Hicabte.re,quifemerits·bftnis. ·· · · 

Control measures generally. Albuquerque-Bernalillo County's enforceable emission limitations and other 

control measures are authorized by the Air Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 74-2-1 to -17, together with the 

Albuquerque Joint Air Quality Control Board Ordinance, ROA §§ 9-5-l-1 to -99 and the parallel 

Bernalillo County Joint Air Quality Control Board Ordinance, 94-5 §§ 1 to -20 [collectively referred to as 

the "Air Act and Ordinances"]. The Air Act and Ordinances authorized creation of the AlbuquerqueBernalillo County Joint Air Quality Control Board and the Air Quality Program of the City of 

Albuquerque Environmental Health Department. NMSA 1978 § 74-2-4; ROA §§ 9-5-1-3 to -4; Bernalillo 

County Ord. 94-5 §§ 3 and 4. The Air Act and Ordinances empower the Air Board to adopt, promulgate, 

pubJish, amend and repeal regulations consistent with the Air Act to attain and maintain NAAQS and 

prevent or abate air pollution. NMSA 1978 § 74-2-5; ROA § 9-5-1-4; Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 § 4. 

The Air Act and Ordinances also designate the City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Department as 

the air pollution control agency for Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, with authority to enforce the air 

quality regulations of the Board. NMSA 1978, § 74-2-b.l; ROA § 9-5-l-5; Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 § 

54. 

The City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County adopted parallel ordinances by which they accepted the 

authority delegated by the Air Act, established the Air Board, and specified that the board shall adopt 

regulations consistent with the Air Act and adopt a plan for the regulation, control, prevention or 

abatement of air pollution. ROA §§ 9-5-1-1 to -99 and Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 § 4.For additional 

discussion of these ordinances and their role in satisfying EPA requirements for the New Mexico SIP, see 

Element E(ii) of this iSIP. 

The regulations authorized by the Air Act and Ordinances and duly adopted by the Air Board are codified 

at 20.11 NMAC. The Air Board has promulgated rules that control emissions of sulfur dioxide and other 

criteria pollutants, including rules providing for emission limits, control measures, permits, fees, marketbased control techniques, and compliance schedules. 20.11 NMAC, partsl to 2, 5 to 8, 40, 41, 43, 46, 47, 

49, 60 to 61, Ql.to 68, 71, 80 to 82, and 90. 

~pt as indicated in the lntroduction-ef.#t.P.:rOOe-ureettt,the-aeoYe parugmphs describing emission-liffi.it5 

and oontrol pro'>·isions as they relate to CA/\ Section II 0 requirements have been submitted to and 

appro¥ed by EPA into the New Mexico SIP, codified-The record of EPA's approval of specific New 

Mexico statutes·, local ordinances, local regulations. and other enforceable documents into the New 

Mexico SIP is available at 40 CFR Part 52 Sub art GG, Sections 1620-1640. + 

6 This iSIP report is divided into "elements,'' each addressing requirements under a specific provision of the 

CAA. This element addresses the requirements of CAA § II O(a)(2)(A), and thus may be referred to as "Element A" 

of the iSIP. Other portions of this iSIP use the same naming convention for individual iSIP elements. 

-Albuq~:~:e«jue Bernalillo Col:laty has submitted SIP re•lisions appl;·ing to the following reg~:~lations afl6-is 

awaiting EPA appro•,•al: 2Q.ll NMAC, Pans I, 41, 47, 6Q, and{; I. EPA reeently, by direct final rule, approved SIP 

re'<'isions a@eti'flg2Q.II.l and 2Q.t 1.47l>JM~ed. R&g. 5471 5475 (Feb. 2, 2Ql5). 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 7 of21 
~.PUBLLC;_REVIEW DRAFT ~s of 12J24.Q014£;y_Q12Ql~ 

Alb!tquermte-Bernalillo Countv has submitted certain proposed revisions to its permitting regulations to 

EPA and is awaiting EPA approval of these revisions. 8 If such approval should be granted. the 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County portion of the New Mexico SIP would be updated accordingly. Aside 

from these proposed revisionsAccordingly, AQP has an EPA-approved air pennitting program with 

related control strategies for both major and minor sources, thus ensuring that all applicable requirements 

are included in the source's pennit. 40 CFR Part 52, Subpart GG, Section 1620(c). 

Startup. shutdown and malfunction; director's discretion. Albuffi!ergue-Bernalillo County's regulation on 

this subject is 20.11.49 NMAC, Excess Emissions. which EPA approved in 20 I 0. 75 Fed. Reg. 5698-5701 

(Feb. 4, 2010). Under this regulation, AQP does not exempt from enforcement excess emissions that 

occur during start-up, shutdown, maintenance, or malfunction. Emissions in excess of pennit or 

regulatory limits are presumptive violations, subject to affinnative defenses with the burden of proof on 

the respondent. 20.11.49 NMAC, Excess Emitm-ifms. The statutes, ordinances, and regulations governing 

AQP's enforcement and maintenance of the NAAQS do not contain "director's discretion" provisions that 

purport to pennit revisions to SIP approved emissions limits with limited public process or without 

requiring further approval by EPA. 20.11.49 NMAC. while previously approved by EPA as meeting CAA 

requirements, is now subject to a new proposed EPA rllle that. when finalized, may require revision ofthe 

regulation. 79 Fed. Reg. 55,920-55.956 (Sept 17. 2014). AQP will work withj::PA in this regulatory 

process to take whatever action may be reQ!!ired to comply with federal law. 

AQP is authorized to conduct monitoring of ambient air quality: "[T]he local agency ... shall develop 

facts and make investigations consistent with the [state] Air Quality Control Act." NMSA 1978, 74-2-

5.l(B); ROA § 9-5-1-5(8) (similar); Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 § 5(B). Monitoring develops facts and 

investigates Bernalillo County air quality. Thus, the Air Act and Ordinances authorize AQP to conduct 

its monitoring program. 

Monitoring is also mandated by EPA regulations. Therefore, under both state statute and federal 

regulations, AQP has the obligation and authority to monitor air quality for S02 at appropriate locations 

in accordance with EPA's ambient air quality monitoring network requirements, 40 CFR parts 53 

("Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods") and 58 ("Ambient Air Quality 

Surveillance"). AQP's monitoring program implements the following specific federal regulatory 

requirements: 

• providing for submission of data to EPA's Air Quality System in a timely manner, 40 CFR part 58; 

• providing EPA with annual monitoring network plans, 40 CFR part 58.10 ("Annual monitoring network 

plan and periodic network assessment"); 

• obtaining EPA's approval of any planned changes to monitoring sites or to the network plan, 40 CFR 

5 8.14 ("System Modification"). 

8 Albuguergue-Bemalillo Count\ has submitted SIP revisions applying to the following regulations and is 

awaiting EPA approval: 20.11 NMAC, Parts, 41. 60, and 6l.ln addition. EPA recently. by direct final rule, approved 

SIP revisions affecting 20.11.1 and 20.11.47 NMAC. 80 Fed. Reg. 5471-5475 (Feb. 2, 20ill 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 8 ofll 
STAK~HObG-ER-PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as of 12'24QQH2120i2015 

Pursuant to the above authority, AQP maintains a monitoring network throughout Bernalillo County to 

assess ambient concentrations for all of the NAAQS, including S02• All monitors are subjected to the 

. quality assurance requirements of 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A. Monitors are located at sites that have 

I 

I 

met the minimum siting requirements of Part 58, Appendix E. All data is submitted to EPA's Air Quality 

System (AQS) in accordance with the schedule prescribed by 40 CFR Part 58. 

As part of its responsibility for maintaining the monitoring network, AQP submits for EPA review an 

Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan (AAMNP). 40 CFR § 58.1 0. This document describes how AQP 

has complied with monitoring requirements and explains any proposed changes. AQP submitted its 2014 

AAMNP on July 10.2014 and received notification of EPA approval on February 3, 2015. is awaiting 

ePl\ approval ofthe-p.J.art;9 While EPA has not made an official designation for BernaJillo County of 

attainment or nonattainment, ambient air guality data reQorted in the 2014 11-AMl'lP sho~y_esLS.Q;J~yel?. 

less than LQty~Qf.lh~_~QlQ~OJ_~A~S_, 

EPA's most recent approYal ofAQP's Al\MNP was in 2013.'{)-Th~ffi EPA-approved 20HJ AAMNP 

described ongoing activities for monitoring S02: the 20 !4 AA~~tes.-Pff-{fie 

AAMNPs, tihese activities comply with EPA requirements for the State and Local Air Monitoring 

Stations (SLAMS) network and the National Core Multi-Pollutant Monitoring Stations (NCore) network. 

AQP determined in 2011 that it was not required to install new monitors under the revised 1-hour 2010 

S02 NAAQS. 11 However, in an effort unrelated to the revised S02 NAAQS, AQP began S02 monitoring 

under the NCore program in 2010. Because this monitoring had only recently begun at the time EPA 

finalized the 2010 S02 NAAQS, AQP recommended in 2011 that Albuquerque-Bernalillo County receive 

an attainment/nonattainment designation of"unclassifiable." Once AQP's monitoring has gathered 

sufficient data, AQP will be able to make a new designation recommendation to EPA regarding 

reclassification of-Albuquerque Bernalillo Count)''"-.,Jo "attainment." 

EPA has stated that it will defer action on Albuquerque-:Bemalillo County's 20Jj_designation 

recommendation until a future dateY 

Air dispersion modeling performed in combination with the above described monitoring of ambient air 

pollutant concentrations is discussed later in this iSIP submission, in the section addressing requirements 

ofCAA § ll0(a)(2)(K). 

:t,-~;l9~~)~)!(ij: . Jt~~!'J9~j~:P~W~,r.~9~~Ytge f~,t·;e~o.r,cem~t·9~the;IIleas~s .in § llO(a)(2)(~),. I· .:~ -: X> • ..:(. · · .;_; :: , ,.and:r.iguianoncof1:the.modtfication and construction of any~ stationary so.urce within 

9 better from-fl.anny-Nevarei':;-f)eputy-9i-FeaGF,AlbuquerttHe En'lironmental Health ~~-ttl Mafk 

Hansen. Associated Director for Air Programs, Acting, EPl•, Region 6 (July 1~41Letter from Mark Hansen. 

Associate Director for Air Programs. Acting, EPA Region 6, tq__DanllYN~.Y£lJ~b. D~putv Director, Albuquerque 

t:.uviron!IIenmLH~Jth Department (Februarv 3, 20Ul 

H ~as-l~!>sociate Direetor for Air, EPA RegioR 6, to Danny t'Je't•arel!, Def)uty 

Directer, AllnlquerE}ue Hrwironmental Health Department (March-l-2.-W+:l+. · 

11 Letter from Susana Martinez, Governor ofNew Mexico, to AI Armendariz, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 6 (May 24, 2011). All of the information in this paragraph is based on this letter. ' 

12 Letter from Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6, to Susana Martinez, Governor ofNew 

Mexico (Feb. 7, 2013). 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 9 ofll 
s:f-.A.K..[~R-PUI3LIC REVIEW DRAFT as of !2124l20142i20'2015 

Enforcement: The Air Act and Ordinances authorize AQP to enforce emission limits and control 

measures satisfying Element A of this infrastructure SIP, above. The statutes, regulations, and ordinances 

establishing the emissions limits and control measures described in Element A, coupled with air quality 

permits issued by AQP, set forth the boundaries beyond which regulated entities in AlbuquerqueBernalillo County can expect enforcement action. The Air Act and Ordinances authorize AQP to pursue 

enforcement through administrative compliance orders or commencement of civil actions. NMSA 1978, § 

74-2-12 and 12.1; ROA § 9-5-1-99 and Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 §§ 13 and 14. AQP carries out such 

enforcement as the local air pollution control agency established for Albuquerque and Bernalillo County. 

ROA § 9-5-1-5; Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 § 5. These ordinances were authorized under the Air Quality 

Control Act, NMSA 1978, § 74-2-4. 

As discussed in the Introduction to this document, some of the above cited legal authorities are missing 

.ft:e.mthe Code of Federal Regulations Of have been revised since they 'Nere originally approved~~ 

Ne•..,· Mexico SIP at 40 CF'R Part 52, Subpart GG, subsections 52.1620 to 1620. This iSIP submission, 

along with earlier sub~ll incorporate revised or missing legal authorities into t~R:, 

thus helping to-e.fat#y-ettfeR."'erneffiauthority fur-4e NAAQS.-¥lease-ref-eF--te~ Introduction fef 

additional details. 

Preconstruction PSD Permitting of Major Sources: Under the general statutory authority discussed in 

Element A of this iSIP, above, the Air Board and AQP have the authority to implement a comprehensive 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program not only for S02 but for all regulated New 

Source Review (NSR) pollutants. This authority is implemented in regulations codified at 20.11.61 

NMAC, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, setting forth PSD requirements for all sources in areas 

designated in attainment or unclassifiable for a NAAQS. 13 . 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County's comprehensive PSD program for all NSR pollutants has been 

previously approved into the New Mexico SIP by EPA. 58 Fed. Reg. 67,330 (Dec. 21, 1993) (initial 

approval); 72 Fed. Reg. 20,728 (Apr. 26, 2007) (approving SIP revisions for EPA's 2002 reforms to the 

NSR rules); 77 Fed. Reg. 58,032(Sept. 19, 2012) (concerning the 1997 and 2008 Ozone and the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.s NAAQS). 

Albuquerque Bernalillo County has the authority to issue permits under its PSD program to sources of 

Greenhouse Gasses (GHGs). 20.11.61.7(CCC) NMAC. Pursuant to EPA's Greenhouse Gas Tailoring 

Rule, EPA has approved Albuquerque Bernalillo County's PSD provisions for greenhouse gasses into the 

New Mexico SIP. 76 Fed. Reg. 81,836 (Dec. 29, 2011). 

In addition to the above PSD approvals, EPA requires that an iSIP submission address whether an air 

agency has submitted any PSD program revisions, regarding any NSR pollutant, for which the submission 

deadline has passed as of the date for EPA's proposed approval of an iSIP submission. This iSIP 

addresses the foregoing requirement as follows. 

13 For other regulations governing issuance of permits that may apply to a facility subject to PSD 

requirements, see 20.11.41 NMAC, Construction Permits; 20.11.42 NMAC, Operating Permits. For the 

regulation governing pennitting for sources located in nonattainment areas, see 20.1 I .60, Permitting in 

Nonattainment Areas. 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 10 ofll 
Albuquerque Bernalillo County has submitted PSD-related regulatory revisions to EPA in response to 

EPA's rulemaking amending the PSD requirements for particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.s) found at 75 Fed. 

Reg. 64,863 (Oct. 20, 2010). Albuquerque-Bernalillo County's PSD revisions were transmitted to EPA 

via a letter from New Mexico Environment Secretary Ryan Flynn to EPA Region 6 Administrator Ron 

Curry on July 26, 2013. These revisions amended 20.11.42 NMAC, Operating Permits; 20.11.60 NMAC, 

Permitting in Non-Attainment Areas; and 20.11.61 NMAC, Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration. The 

revisions addressed specific requirements of 40 CFR §§ 51.165, 51.166, and 52.21. 

Note that certain of the above New Mexico regulatory revisions relating to EPA's PM2.5 rulemaking were 

vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on January 22,2013. Sierra Club v. EPA, 105 

F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 20 13}. This court decision applies to two regulatory provisions that Albuquerque:. 

Bernalillo County would otherwise have adopted. One such provision, not yet part of the NMAC, would 

have been inserted by amendment at 20.11.61.15(B)(2) NMAC (regarding Significant Impact Levels). 

Another vacated provision has been submitted by the Air Board to EPA and appears at 20.11.61.28 

NMAC (regarding Significant Monitoring Concentration). AQP will respond promptly to any future EPA 

initiatives regarding these vacated provisions. 

Regulation of minor sources and minor modifications: Per 40 CFR sections 51.160 through 51.164, the 

Air Board has approved preconstruction regulations applicable to modification and construction of 

stationary minor sources emitting ~NAAQS pollutants. 20.11.41]i:\1A(, Construction Permits. Thi§es-e 

preconstruction regulations also appl@ to minor modification of major sources emitting ~NAAQS 

pollutants.ld. EPA has previously approved these provisions into the New Mexico SIP,~ 69 Fed. Reg. 

78,312-78Jj~J (Dec. 30, 2004).,-;- and is currently reviewinll~r:tainJ~~yjsions that Albuquerqueliern?lillo Countv has ado11ted to 20.11.41 NMAC. 

Contributions to nonattainment; interference with maintenance, per§ 11 O(a)(2)(0)(i)(l): AlbuquerqueBernalillo County has sufficient control measures in place to ensure that sources emitting sulfur dioxide 

do not interfere with another state's maintenance of the 2010 S02 NAAQS or contribute to a state's 

nonattainment of that NAAQS. See the other portions of this iSIP for descriptions of AlbuquerqueBernalillo's control measures along with related legal authority and programs. AQP has determined that 

this infrastructure will be sufficient to avoid negatively impacting NAAQS attainment and maintenance in 

other states in view of the following factors. 

1) The relative scarcity of major SO] sources in Albuquerque-Bernalillo County. AlbuquerqueBernalillo County has only two major S02 sources. One is the Albuquerque Southside Water 

Reclamation Plant Reclamation the Bernalillo Water 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 11 ofll 
Utility Authority. The other is the Tijeras Plant, a cement production facility operated by the GCC 

Rio Grande Portland Cement Corp, Inc. (Tijeras Plant). 

2) The minimal amount of emissions from those sources. The Tijeras Plant is permitted to emit 

MlZ .8 tons per year of oxides of sulfur. According to data available to AQP. this facility's reported 

actual emissions averaged only 20.66 tons of S02 per vear from 20 II to 2QJJ._,_ Reported emissions 

were approximately 16.52 tons per ~yj in 20 11_,20.84 tpy for 2012. and 24.63 tpy for 2013. 14 

The Water Reclamation Plant is permitted to emit ill~:! I, I 03.4 I tons per year of S02• According to 

data available to~ from the State and Local Emissions Inventory (SLEIS) system, this facility's 

reported actual emissions averaged only 58.6684.34297S tons ofS02 per year from 20112 to 2013. 

Reported emissions were approximately 7.3 tpv in 2011, 75.23 tpv in 20!2,_and 93.46 tpy in 2013. 15 

The Tijeras Plant is permitted to emit 123 tons per year of oxides of sulfur. /\ceording to data from 

the SLEIS system, this faeilit)·'s reported actual emissions averaged on!)· 22.739425 tons of SOJ-~ 

year from 20 1120 12 to 20 13. In Bernalillo County as a whole, monitoring of ambient air quality 

indicates that the design value for S02 in parts per billion was 4.6 parts per billion (ppb) for the period 

2011 to 2013 --i.e. less than 10% of the I~_p_pQ_2010 S02 NAAQS. Albuquerque Environmental 

Health Department, Air Quality Program, Ambient Air Monitoring Section, 2014 Annual Network 

Review for Ambient Air Monitoring (submitted to EPA July 10, 2014; EP~nroval received 

February 3. 2015). --··-·-- ---

3) The relatively large geographic distance between those sources and other states. Given the small 

overall level of S02 emissions from Bernalillo County, AQP has determined that these emissions will 

be widely dispersed over the large geographic distance between their sources and the borders of 

neighboring states:The approximate distance from Bernalillo County's border to the border of 

neighboring states, in a straight line, is as follows: 125 miles to Arizona; 120 miles to Colorado; 190 

miles to Texas; 

Interference with prevention of significant deterioration: As noted above in Element C of this iSIP, 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County has a comprehensive EPA-approved PSD program and has submitted 

necessary proposed revisions to EPA. Thus, the PSD program includes measures to prevent interference 

with PSD measures in other states. 

Interference with protection of visibility: With respect to the visibility element of§ 110 {a)(2)(D)(i)(Il), 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County has a regional haze program in place that fully meets the requirements of 

40 CFR § 51.309 and has been approved by EPA into the New Mexico SIP. 77 Fed. Reg. 71,119 (Nov. 

29, 2012). In its approval action, EPA found that the regional haze SIP element and its associated rules 

"meet the requirements ofthe [CAA] and comply with the provisions of 40 CFR § 51.309, thereby 

meeting requirements for reasonable progress for the 16 Class I areas covered by the Grand Canyon 

Visibility Transport Commission Report for approval ofthe plan through 2018." /d. EPA's approval of 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County's regional haze SIP element {as well as regional haze SIP provisions for 

the states of New Mexico, W omin and Utah , was recent} u held b the Tenth Circuit:., Wild Earth 

~ 2012 and 2013 emissions data for the Tijeras Plant are from the State and Local Emissions Inventory 

System {SLEIS). 20 II emissions data from this source is preliminary. The 2011 emissions amount, 16.52 tpv, is a 

preliminarv calculation that has been reported by the source but not yet entered into SLEIS. This situation arose 

because the source originally over-reported its 20 II e1nissigns. AQP has been working with the source to com ct the 

error_m1d_~nter._'!..final, verified amount for actual enli.ssionsjQto SLEIS. 

15 Emissions data are fiom SLEIS. 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 12 ofll 
Guardians v. EPA, 770 FJd 919 (lOth Cir. 2014). By having this EPA-approved regional haze SIP 

element in place, Albuquerque-Bernalillo County meets the requirements of§ 110 (a)(2)(D)(i)(ll), 

prohibiting interference with protection of visibility in other states. Albuquerque Bernalillo County 

regulations implementing the Regional Haze SIP are codified at 20.11.5 NMAC, Visible Air 

Contaminants; 20.11.20 NMAC, Fugitive Dust Control; 20.11.21 NMAC, Open Burning; 20.11.22 

NMAC, Wood Burning; 20.11.46 NMAC, Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Inventory Requirements: Western 

Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program; 20.11.65 NMAC, Volatile Organic Compounds; 20.11.66 

NMAC, Process Equipment; 20.11.67 NMAC, Equipment, Emissions, Limitations; 20.11.71 NMAC, 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills; 20.11.100 NMAC, Motor Vehicle Inspection- Decentralized; 20.11.102 

NMAC, Oxygenated Fuels; 20.11.103 NMAC, Motor Vehicle Visible Emissions; and 20.11.104 NMAC, 

Emission Standards for New Motor Vehicles. EPA approval ofthe Regional Haze SIP followed previous 

regional haze SIP submissions by Albuquerque-Bernalillo County on December 26, 2003 and September 

10, 2008. See 77 Fed. Reg. 24,768 (Apr. 25, 2012) (proposing approval of Albuquerque Bernalillo 

County regional haze SIP and describing history of regional haze rule and related earlier SIP submissions 

by Albuquerque-Bernalillo County). 

Compliance regarding interstate pollution abatement: As described above in this Element of the iSIP and 

in Element C, Albuquerque Bernalillo County has submitted proposed PSD revisions for EPA review. If 

EPA should approve these revisions. the result would bh when combined with earlier:. EP ~J!Jmrov~J§_ of 

PSD provisions. a fully_iipA approved PSD permitting program.that 'Nil!, along with earlier EPA 

approvals of the PSD program, satisfy EPA requirements for PSD pennitting. Thus, the PSD program 

will-would include provisions that satisfy the interstate pollution abatements of the CAA, § 126(a), and 

are consistent with 40 CFR § 51.166(q)(2)(iv), requiring notification of other air agencies whose 

jurisdictions may be affected by emissions from an outside source. The regulation requiring such notice is 

codified at 21.11.61.2l(C)(4) NMAC. 

Regarding CAA, § 126(b) and (c), no sources within Albuquerque-Bernalillo County are subject to an 

active finding under these provisions with respect to S02• If such findings should occur in the future, 

AQP will consult with EPA Region VI. 

Compliance regarding international air pollution: Regarding CAA, § 115, no sources within 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County are subject to an active finding under Section 115 with respect to S02. 

Organization responsible for the SIP: The Air Act and Ordinances designate the Air Board and the 

Environmental Health Department as the responsible authorities for implementing federal air quality 

standards in Albuquerque Bernalillo County. NMSA 1978 § 74-2-5 and 5.1; ROA §§ 9-5-1-4 and -5; 

Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 §§ 4 and 5. The Air Act and Ordinances designate AQP as the air pollution 

control agency for Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, for this purpose empowering AQP to carry out a 

variety of functions including monitoring, compliance, enforcement, and developing and presenting 

proposed plans and rules to the Air Board for adoption and promulgation. NMSA 1978 § 74-2-5.1; ROA 

§ 9-5-1-5; Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 § 5. For purposes of these provisions, the Air Board and AQP are 

the sole that and enforci the EP SIP 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 13 ofll 
provisions related to the 2010 S02 NAAQS. 

Resources (i.e. personnel & funding) available to carry out the SIP: As of the date of this iSIP submission, 

the Air Board and AQP have adequate funding and personnel to carry out the functions described in this 

document addressing the 2010 S02 NAAQS. Funding and personnel for activities related to the 2010 S02 

NAAQS will be provided through pennit fees, general funds from the City of Albuquerque, and funds 

provided under the CAA, §§ 103 and 105 grant process. AQP expects these sources to provide adequate I funding for the five years following this iSIP provisionsubmission. AQP does not anticipate the need for 

additional resources to implement the plan for the 2010 S02 NAAQS, beyond those which have been 

utilized for the preparation of the plan, for SIP revisions submitted to EPA, and for other current 

programmatic demands. Should EPA determine that AQP lacks adequate personnel to carry out the SIP, 

EPA may issue a finding with respect to that deficiency, which AQP would have a legal obligation to 

correct. 

Authority to carry out the SIP: The Air Board and AQP have adequate authority under statutes, rules, and 

regulations to carry out SIP obligations with respect to the 2010 S02 NAAQS. The Air Act and 

Ordinances authorize the Air Board to adopt plans, emission standards and rules and to modify, reverse or 

sustain pennits issued by AQP. NMSA § 74-2-5 and -7. In addition, the AQP has authority under the Air 

Act and Ordinances to issue permits under the Air Board's regulations and to enforce applicable laws, 

regulations, standards, and compliance schedules, and seek injunctive relief. NMSA 1978 § § 7 4-2-5.1 -7, 

-12, -12.1; ROA §§ 9-5-1-5,-7, and 98 and 99; Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 §§ 5, 7 and 13 and 14. This 

legal framework empowers AQP to carry out administrative assessments, inspections, issuance of 

penalties for permit violations, and appropriate litigation. !d. To act under the foregoing legal provisions, 

AQP has full authority under state law, and city and county ordinances to carry out all SIP obligations 

relating to the 2010 S02• NAAQS. ROA §§ 9-5-1-1 to -99; and Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 §§ 1 to -20. 

To comply with the provisions ofCAA Section 128 regarding state and local board composition and 

conflicts of interests, the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County have implemented a number of 

ordinances and policies. EPA has previously approved these measures into the New Mexico SIP. 64 Fed. 

Reg. 29,235 (July 1, 1999). In the years following EPA's approval, the ordinances and policies have been 

revised. Accordingly, Albuquerque-Bernalillo County has submitted to EPA proposed revisions to the 

New Mexico SIP to account for changes in the local ordinances and policies. These proposed SIP 

revisions are intended to comply with the state and local board requirements of CAA Section 128.16 

These proposed SIP revisions will incorporate the following ordinances, other laws, and policies into the 

New Mexico SIP: 

• ROA §§ 2-6-1-1 to 2-6-1-5 ("Public Boards, Commissions, and Committees"); 3-3-1 to 3-3-13 

("Conflict of Interest"); 9-5-1-1 to 9-5-1-99 ("Joint Air Quality Control Board Ordinance'') 9-5-6-

1 to 9-5-6-3 ("Metropolitan Environmental Health Advisory Board"); 

• City of Albuquerque, NM, Charter, Article XII, Section 4 ("Conflict of Interest"); 

16 Letter from Ryan Flynn, New Mexico Environment Secretary, to Ron Curry, EPA Region 6 

Administrator (July 26, 2013). 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 14 of21 
&+AK·bHGb9eR-PUBLI<;;_REVIEW DRAFT as of 1;?;124.'201 '12·20!2015 

• City of Albuquerque, City Code of Conduct, 300 ("Conditions of Employment"); 301 ("Code of 

Conduct") (from City of Albuquerque Personnel Rules and Policies); 

• Bernalillo County, NM Ordinances§§ 2-126 to 2-136 ("Code of Conduct"); 30-31 to 30-47 

("Joint Air Quality Control Board"); 42-36 to 42-39 ("Metropolitan Environmental Health 

Advisory Board") 

NMSA 1978 § 74-2-4 provides that the Air Board be comprised of at least a majority of members who 

represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject 

to or who appear before the Board on issues related to the CAA or Air Act. 

Additionally, Air Board members are required to recuse themselves from rulemakings where their 

impartiality may reasonably be questioned or ifthe Air Board member: (1) has a personal bias or 

prejudice concerning a party; (2) is related to a party within a third degree of relationship, (3) is an 

officer, director or trustee of a party or interested participant in the proceeding; or (4) has a financial 

interest in the proceeding or has any other conflict. 20.11.82.14 NMAC. 

Air Board members are also required to recuse themselves from adjudicatory proceedings, such as permit 

reviews where the Air Board member: ( 1) has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or the 

outcome of the proceeding; (2) has personal knowledge of disputed facts concerning the proceeding; (3) 

is related to a party within the third degree of relationship; ( 4) is an officer, director or trustee of a party or 

interested participant in the proceeding; (5) has a financial interest in the proceeding or facility that is the 

subject of the proceeding or has any other conflict of interest; ( 6) or has performed prosecutorial or 

investigatory functions in connection with a permitting action at issue in the proceeding. 

20.11.81.12(BX3)(a). 

Pursuant to NMSA 1978, § 74-2-4, local authority to implement the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act 

has been established for Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, through the adoption of these jurisdictions' 

respective Joint Air Quality Control Board Ordinances which created the Air Board and authorize local 

administration by the City of Albuquerque Department of Environmental Health. ROA §§ 9-5-1-l to -99; 

and Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5, §§ 1 to -20. The New Mexico Environment Department and the state 

Environmental Improvement Board retain jurisdiction and control for administration of the Air Quality 

Control Act with respect to any failure to act by a local authority. NMSA 1978 § 74-2-4(D). 

·aD ·. enlissioll'liffiitanori.s ~!!Lp~rJ·,··. wljic~~Pbfis~siii1i~ · : ' · 

the Air Board 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 15 ofll 
I 

HAKEHOLDC'-R-PUBLI<;;~REVIEW DRAFT as of 12i24 2(H-4~i2Qi20 15 

any person emitting any air contaminant" to conduct monitoring of such emissions, install equipment 

appropriate for such monitoring, use monitoring methods prescribed by the Air Board, maintain related 

records, and submit reports regarding the emissions. NMSA § 74-2-5(C)(6). Consistent with 40 CFR § 

51.212, Albuquerque-Bernalillo County regulations provide that stationary sources may be subject to 

periodic inspection and emissions testing. 20.11.41.22 NMAC (inspection and testing related to 

construction permits); 20.11.42.12 NMAC (inspection and testing related to operating permits); 

20.11.49.15 NMAC (inspection and testing related to excess emissions); 20.11.60.27 NMAC (testing and 

inspection related to pennitting in nonattainment areas); 20.11.61.12 to 20.11.61.20 NMAC (testing and 

prevention Jelated to pennitting for prevention of significant deterioration); and 20.11.90 NMAC, Source 

Surveillance: Administration and Enforcement. These source monitoring requirements authorize AQP to 

identify allowable test methods which a source must use. The requirements do not contain any provision 

that would prevent the use of any credible evidence. 

Source reporting: Consistent with 40 CFR §§ 51.211, 51.321 to 51.323, and 40 CFR part 51, subpart A, 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County provides that stationary sources may be required to periodically report 

emissions and emissions-related data. These provisions are contained in the NMAC regulations cited in 

the .paragraph above. In addition, stationary sources may be required to maintain and report emissions 

inventories according to a prescribed schedule, in a format established by AQP. 20.11.4 7 NMAC, 

Emission Inventory Requirements. To facilitate gathering and reporting of emissions data by sources, 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County establishes specific requirements for maintaining records and reporting 

emissions, including provisions relating to content of records and AQP inspections. 20.11.90 NMAC, 

Source Surveillance: Administration and Enforcement. AQP is current with its submittals to the National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI) database; the 20 u;; data for larger sources was submitted to EPA on 

December 309, 2011J-. 

Correlation of source reports with emissions limitations and standards: Pursuant to the NMAC provisions 

cited above and consistent with 40 CFR § 51.116, AQP is able to use emissions data gathered and 

reported by sources to analyze "the relationship between measured or estimated amounts of emissions and 

the amounts of such emissions allowable under the applicable emission limitations or sources." 40 CFR § 

51.116(c). See also 20.11.90.13(C) NMAC ("Emission data obtained by the director shall be correlated 

with applicable emission limitations and other control measures ... ").By means of such correlation,AQP 

is able to track progress toward maintaining the NAAQS, develop control and maintenance strategies, 

identify sources and general emission levels, and determine compliance with state and EPA requirements. 

Availability of emission reports by sources: Emission data obtained under the above-cited provisions are 

made available to the public during normal business hours. 20.11.90.13(C) NMAC. 

:iJ·~:f4tl~H~>.'<~!,~;D:_:,t~vi~~·;fQr ,!\lm~9~-~oJ!lRitfj11>I~,~oAhat in .. RM$ection 303•[~tion. ~6Q3 >of this. :,;f:~,.:.: ·. ~::,.: . : .. ~[!it1eLancJla4~~t~;~p.tj,fi~.¢f:Pl.@S,t9··4nPl~~tmt such.authoritY. . · 

Authority to respond to emergency episode: The Air Act and Ordinances provide AQP with authority to 

address air quality emergencies. Upon a finding that any owner/operator of a source or combination of air 

emission sources presents an imminent and substantial endangennent to the public health or welfare or 

the environment, the Director of the Environmental Health Department may bring a civil suit seeking to 

restrain the source ofthe air contaminants. NMSA 1978 § 74-2-lO(A); ROA § 9-5-1-lO(A); Bernalillo 

County Ord. 94-5 § 1 O(A). If such a civil suit is not a practicable means of promptly protecting public 

health or welfare or the environment, the Director may issue orders necessary for such protection on a 

temporary basis, pending litigation and court-ordered action. NMSA 1978 § 74-2-1 O(B); ROA § 9-5-1-

lO(B); Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 § lO(B). 

Contimzencv olan to irnolement emeraencv eoisode authoritv: The Director of the Environmental Health 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 16 of21 
s:f-AK~HGL~ER f:l1J2LIS::_REVIEW DRAFT as of 12.'2~i20l42f20i201~ 

Department formulates and administers an emergency action plan approved by the Air Board to address 

source emissions that cause pollutant concentrations to reach levels constituting an imminent and 

substantial endangerment to the health of persons. 20.11.6 NMAC, Emergency Action Plan. Consistent 

with 40 CFR § 51, Subpart H, Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes, the Air Board has 

adopted the Air Pollution Episode Contingency Plan for Bernalillo County that covers air pollution 

episodes and the occurrence of an emergency due to the effects of the pollutants on the health of persons. 

56 Fed. Reg. 38,074 (Aug. 21, 1991); 40 CFR § 52.1639. 

SIP revision to account for NAAQS revisions: the Air Board has the authority to adopt new regulations 

and to amend or repeal regulations in order to attain and maintain the NAAQS and prevent or abate air 

pollution throughout Bernalillo County. NMSA 1978 § 74-2-5; ROA § 9-5-1-4; Bernalillo County Ord. 

94-5 § 4. To assist the Board with all NAAQS revisions, AQP has authority to develop and present to the 

Board a plan for the regulation, control, prevention or abatement of air pollution. NMSA 1978 § 74-2-

S.l(H); ROA § 9-5-1-5(1); Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 § 5(1). Because these provisions allow for 

changes as necessary to the 81P local air quality regulations and programs, they provide the legal basis for 

the Air Board and AQP to revise the submit proposed SIP revisions for EPA review in order to 

accommodate EPA revisions of a NAAQS. Nothing in New Mexico's statutory or regulatory authority 

prohibits Albuquerque-Bernalillo County from revising regulations an_Q_prograrns for su..PJ:n~sion as 

proposed the-SIP revisions in the event of a revision to the NAAQS. 

SIP revision to account for EPA finding of inadeguacy: the above cited provisions also provide the legal 

basis for the Air Board and AQP to submit proposed revisions ofe the SIP for EPA reviewjn the event the 

EPA Administrator finds the SIP to be substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS or otherwise meet 

all applicable CAA requirements. 

CAA § 110 (a)(2)(1) is not being addressed in this infrastructure SIP submittal. According to EPA's 

interpretation of the CAA, this element does not need to be addressed in the context of an infrastructure 

SIP submission. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan Elements under Clean Air Act Sections llO(a)(l) and llO(aX2)," September 2013, 

p.Sl, available at http://www .epa.gov/air/urbanair/sipstatus/infrastructure.html. 

Consultation with identified officials on certain actions: Section 121 of the CAA requires a SIP to provide 

for consultation with local subdivisions and with federal land of 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 17 of21 
£TAKEHOLD{:~R PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as of ~2.t20]Ql~ 

certain SIP elements affecting those entities. Albuquerque-Bernalillo County meets this requirement 

because all SIP revisions undergo public notice and hearing, which provides for comment by the 

interested members of the public, including local political subdivisions and federal land managers 

affected by a SIP revision. In particular, the Air Act provides that, "no regulations or emission control 

requirement shall be adopted until after a public hearing by ... the local board" and that, "at the hearing . 

. . the local board shall allow all interested persons reasonable opportunity to submit data, views, or 

arguments orally or in writing and to examine witnesses testifying at the hearing." NMSA 1978, § 74-2-

6(B) and (D); see also ROA § 9-5-1-6(B) and (D); Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 § 6(B) and (D). 

To implement these consultation requirements, the Air Board has adopted several regulations establishing 

a process for consultation with local political subdivisions and federal land managers. One such 

regulation, governing the rule making process, provides notice of SIP revisions to affected persons and 

organizations and affords them an opportunity to participate in the revision process. 20.11.82 NMAC, 

Rulemaking Procedures --Air Quality Control Board. Other such regulations are those programs 

implementing permitting in nonattainment areas and for Prevention of Significant Deterioration, which 

provide for public participation and notification of affected persons. 20.11.60.23 NMAC, (requiring 

consultation with federal land manager on major source permits in nonattainment areas that affect 

visibility in federal Class I areas); 20.11.60.26 NMAC (providing for public participation and notification 

on major source permits in nonattainment areas, including consultation with federal land managers); 

20.11.61.21 and 20.11.61.24 NMAC (providing for public participation and notification on major source 

permits subject to prevention of significant deterioration requirements, including federal land managers). 

Additionally, public participation and notification provisions are incorporated in regulations governing 

adjudicatory decisions by the Air Board: 20.11.81.14(0) and 20.ll.81.14(I) NMAC (providing specific 

procedural requirements for public notification and hearing). Further public participation and notification 

provisions apply regarding issuance of construction permits, 20.11.41.14, 20.11.41.15, and 20.11.41.16 

NMAC (providing for public participation and notification at various stages of the construction permitting 

process). Collectively, the foregoing provisions ensure that there will be an established process for 

consultation with local political subdivisions and federal land managers, as well as persons affected by 

the actions specified in CAA § 121. 

In addition to the above consultation requirements, Albuquerque Bernalillo County's SIP-approved 

Transportation Conformity and General Conformity rules require that interagency consultation and 

opportunity for public involvement be provided before making transportation conformity determinations 

and before adopting proposing for EPA review applicable SIP revisions on transportation related SIP 

elements. 20.11.3.1 05, 20.11.3.112, and 20.11.4 NMAC. 

Consistent with 40 CFR § 51, subpart M, the Air Act, Ordinances and regulations identify the Air Board 

and AQP as the organizations responsible for developing, implementing, and enforcing the SIP. NMSA 

§§ 74-2-5 to 74-2-14; ROA §§ 9-5-1-4 and -5; Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 §§ 4 and 5; 20.11.1 through 

20.11.104 NMAC. These legal authorities also describe particular responsibilities of the Air Board and 

AQP in carrying out these functions, including enacting regulations, issuing and modifying permits, 

modeling air dispersion patterns, monitoring ambient air quality, conducting inspections and compliance 

testing, undertaking enforcement actions, and providing for participation in the regulatory process. In 

addition, regulations identify local and federal government entities that are consulted in SIP revisions 

related to transportation conformity and general conformity determinations in federally mandated 

transportation planning. 20.11.3 and 20.11.4 NMAC. 

Public notification: Consistent with CAA, Section 127, and 40 CFR § 51.285, AQP makes available to 

the public information on instances or areas in which the measured value of regulated pollutants exceeds 

the values set forth in the NAAQS. AQP makes air quality data from Albuquerque-Bernalillo County's 

monitorin network available via EPA's Air Quali S stem Data Mart website at 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 18 ofll 
STAKI:::IiOLD~R PUBUC~REVIEW DRAFT as of l~-i.Mi20-l-42!20i2QJ2 

http://www.epa.goy/airdata. Additionally, as required by grants under CAA Section lOS, AlbuquerqueBernalillo County must submit monitoring data to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) within 90 days after 

the end of a quarter. AQP's website provides information to the public on current air quality conditions in 

AQP's jurisdiction, using the EPA's color-coded Air Quality Index (AQI) to show current concentrations 

of criteria pollutants. This AQI information appears at http://www.cabq.gov/airguality/todays-status/air- , 

quality-index. The AQI information covers health effects potentially associated with varying levels of 

specific pollutants. By this means, AQP advises the public of potential health hazards associated with 

measured values for sulfur dioxide and other NAAQS pollutants that may at times exceed the 

concentrations specified in the NAAQS. 

AQP's website also provides links to additional EPA web-based information tools on criteria pollutant 

emission sources, past air quality data trends, and forecasts of future air quality conditions. These EPA 

resources, including, for example, AIRNow, AirData, and AirCompare, are linked at 

http:/1\V\-\w.cabq.gov/airquality/download-air-data. By linking to these EPA resources, AQP further 

advises the public about criteria pollutants, local air quality conditions and the potential health hazards 

that may arise from such conditions. 

In addition to the above measures, AQP and the Air Board promote public awareness of measures that can 

prevent instances in which measured values of criteria pollutants exceed values specified in the NAAQS. 

Promotion of such awareness occurs by offering specific information on how the public can participate in 

regulatory and other efforts to improve air quality. In particular, AQP and the Air Board follow specific 

procedures, mandated by regulations, to inform the public of: ( 1) procedures for members of the public to 

petition the Air Board for a rulemaking proceeding, 20.11.82.18 NMAC, Rule making Procedures --Air 

Quality Control Board (providing that "any person" may petition the Air Board for rulemaking); (2) time 

and place of upcoming rulemaking proceedings, 20.11.82.19 NMAC; (3) procedures for members of the 

public to participate in rulemakings, 20.11.82.19 NMAC; ( 4) procedures for members of the public to 

participate in the permitting process, 20.11.41.14 to 20.11.41.16 NMAC (public participation in 

construction permits); 20.11.42.13 NMAC (public participation in operating permits); 20.11.60.26 

NMAC (public participation in permitting in nonattainment areas); 20.11.61.21 NMAC (public 

participation in permitting for prevention of significant deterioration); and 20.11.81 NMAC, Adjudicatory 

Procedures-- Air Quality Control Board. The foregoing regulations require that notices of proceedings 

be published by particular methods (e.g. in a newspaper of general circulation), thus providing interested 

members of the public an opportunity to be heard during rulemaking and permitting. 

AQP and the Air Board further promote the above forms of pub lie participation by providing links on the 

AQP website to important information about such participation. This web-based information includes: the 

content of relevant regulations; notices of proceedings; Air Board and AQP contact information; 

description of the process for filing air quality complaints; descriptions of permitting and compliance 

programs; information on environmental justice issues; and access to full text documents on completed, 

ongoing or upcoming regulatory proceedings, such as petitions, notices of intent, public comments, and 

public review drafts of proposed regulations. The foregoing information is available through the AQP 

website at http://www.cabg.gov/airguality (see especially http://www.cabq.gov/airquality/publicinvolvement-in-environmental-programs and http://v.ww.cabq.gov/airguality/air-quality-control-board). 

Prevention of significant deterioration: EPA has stated that the requirements for this sub-element of an 

iSIP are the same as the requirements to satisfy Element C of an iSIP, which must comply with CAA 

§ 110(a)(2XC). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(aX2) (Sept. 2013), 

available at http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/sipstatus/infrastructure.html. Accordingly, please refer to the 

discussion of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County's PSD program in Elements Cofthis iSIP for a description 

of how the Albuquerque Bernalillo County PSDprogram satisfies iSIP requirements. Additional 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 19 ofll 
bTAKbHOLD6~PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as of 42124i20 14~i2Q!1_QJj_ 

discussion of PSD programs appears in Element D. 

Visibility protection: EPA has stated that state and local air agencies do not need to address this subelement in an iSIP submittal, because a NAAQS revision does not change visibility requirements or 

impose new visibility protection requirements. Therefore, this iSIP submittal does not address the 

visibility sub-element. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan Elements under Clean Air Act Sections llO(aXl) and 110(aX2)," (Sept. 2013), 

available at http://wwv.·.epa.gov/airlurbanair/sipstatus/infrastructure.html. 

Authority to conduct air quality modeling: The Air Act and Ordinances authorize AQP to "develop facts 

and make investigations and studies" consistent with the Act. NMSA 1978, § 74-2-5.1 (A); ROA § 9-5-

1-5(B); and Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 § 5(B). These legal provisions provide AQP with necessary 

authority to develop air quality assessments and conduct modeling to predict the effect on ambient air 

quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which a NAAQS has been promulgated. AQP follows 

EPA guidelines for air dispersion modeling. 40 CFR, Part 51, Appendix W. AQP utilizes air quality 

modeling or requires sources to conduct such modeling under the following regulations: 20.11.3.1 05 

NMAC (for consultation in the local transportation conformity process); 20.11.4.159 NMAC (for 

consultation in determining transportation conformity of federal actions); 20.11.41.13 NMAC (for 

inclusion in construction permit applications); 20.11.42.12 NMAC (for inclusion in operating permit 

applications); 20.11.60.25 NMAC (for permitting in nonattainment areas); 20.11.61.17 NMAC (to 

prevent significant deterioration of air quality in attainment areas). 

' 

Authority to provide modeling data to EPA: AQP has authority to provide modeling data to EPA upon 

request and will do so when AQP receives such a request. This authority derives from provisions in the 

Air Act and Ordinattces that require AQP to present .. a plan for the regulation, control, prevention or 

abatement of air pollution" to the Air Board. NMSA 1978 § 74-2-S.l(H); ROA § 9-5-1-5(1); Bernalillo 

County Ord. 94-5 § 5(1). The Air Board, in tum, approves regulations implementing the air pollution 

control plan, consistent with standards in the CAA and the New Mexico Air Act. NMSA § 74-2-5; ROA 

§ 9-5-1-4; Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 § 4. These legal provisions require and authorize development and 

adoption of plans to attain and maintain the NAAQS -- including generation of modeling data to be 

ru:..ovided to EPA. AQP agrees to share~ modeling data upon request with EPA to assure that Albuquerque 

Bernalillo County's EPA-approved portion of the New Mexico SIP functions as the above referencedse 

laws intend. 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 20 ofll 
'" i' • .I Cliapter.]; 

The Air Board has approved regulations providing for fees to cover reasonable costs of reviewing and 

acting upon permit applications, as well as implementing the terms and conditions of a permit under the 

CAA and the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act. See 20.11.2 NMAC (on air quality related fees in 

general); 20.11. 7.12 NMAC (fees for petitions for variances); collectively 20.11.13 NMAC; 20.11.14 

NMAC; 20.11.17 NMAC and 20.11.22 NMAC (fees related to fugitive dust control); 20.11.40.13 NMAC 

and 20.11.40.14 NMAC (fees for source registrations); 20.11.41.12 NMAC; 20.11.4l.l3 NMAC; 

20.11.41.16 NMAC; 20.11.41.23 NMAC; 20.11.41.32 NMAC (construction permit fees); 20.11.42.12 

NMAC and 20.11.42.13 NMAC (operating permit fees); 20.11.81.8 NMAC and 20.11.81.14 NMAC (fees 

for adjudicatory proceedings); 20.11.100.20 NMAC; 20.11.100.23 NMAC; 20.11.100.24 NMAC; 

20.11.100.29 NMAC; 20.11.100.33 NMAC; 20.11.100.35 NMAC; 20.11.100.35 NMAC; 20.11.101.18 

NMAC; 20.11.101.28 NMAC; 20.11.104.111 NMAC (fees for motor vehicle standards and inspections). 

i~1~1.9(a.}<2)Jl\fl . ,, -,;-,, 

:1 rro,yide'.fpr consulpiti9n and .parttQipation by local political subdivisions affected by ·. llicFplan. · · 

The Air Quality Control Act and implementing regulations provide for consultation with local political 

subdivisions affected by the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County elements of the New Mexico SIP. For a 

detailed description of these provisions, please see the information in element J, above, of this iSIP. 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 21 of2l 
ALBUQUERQUE-BERNALILLO COUN'ItY:~ .. , .. 1 ~._I; T:\LJI:EA:..~ . AIR QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 

15 FEB 20 PH 2: 3i 

' 

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO ADOPT A STATE 

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) FOR SULFUR DIOXIDE (SOl) TO ADDRESS 

SECTIONS 110(a)(1) AND (2) OF THE FEDERAL CLEAN AIR ACT (CAA), 42 

U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) AND (2) HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE "S01 

INFRASTRUCTURE SIP" 

Air Quality Program, 

Environmental Health Department, 

City of Albuquerque, Petitioner 

AQCB Petition No. 2015-1 

Petition to adopt a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for SOl to address Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) and (2) 

hereafter referred to as the "SOl Infrastructure SIP". 

1. The City of Albuquerque, by and through the Air Quality Program (AQP) 

of the Environmental Health Department, asks the Albuquerque- Bernalillo County Air 

Quality Control Board (Air Board) to adopt a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to address 

Sections llO(a)(l) and (2) of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(l) 

and (2) hereafter referred to as the "S02 Infrastructure SIP". If adopted, this new SIP will 

be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a proposed revision 

to the current SIP. This Petition includes a request for a hearing on these matters and 

permission to provide a court reporter and hearing officer for the hearing. As grounds, 

Petitioner states the following: 

2. The New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (Air Act), NMSA 1978, 

Sections 74-2-4 and 74-2-S.B(l) [1967 as amended through 2007] authorizes and requires 

the Air Board to adopt, amend, or replace air quality regulations and to adopt air quality 

plans (SIPs) under NMSA 1978, Section 74-2-5.B(2). 

1 
ALBUQUERQUE-BERNALILLO COUN'ItY~ .. ' II h .. li Tt\LJI:EA:.. •. 

AIR QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 

15 FEB 20 PH 2: 3i 

' 

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO ADOPT A STATE 

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) FOR SULFUR DIOXIDE (SOl) TO ADDRESS 

SECTIONS 110(a)(1) AND (2) OF THE FEDERAL CLEAN AIR ACT (CAA), 42 

U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) AND (2) HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE "S01 

INFRASTRUCTURE SIP" 

Air Quality Program, 

Environmental Health Department, 

City of Albuquerque, Petitioner 

AQCB Petition No. 2015-1 

Petition to adopt a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for S01 to address Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the Federal Clean Air Ad (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) and (2) 

hereafter referred to as the "SOl Infrastructure SIP". 

1. The City of Albuquerque, by and through the Air Quality Program (AQP) 

of the Environmental Health Department, asks the Albuquerque- Bernalillo County Air 

Quality Control Board (Air Board) to adopt a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to address 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(l) 

and (2) hereafter referred to as the "S02 Infrastructure SIP". If adopted, this new SIP will 

be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a proposed revision 

to the current SIP. This Petition includes a request for a hearing on these matters and 

permission to provide a court reporter and hearing officer for the hearing. As grounds, 

Petitioner states the following: 

2. The New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (Air Act), NMSA 1978, 

Sections 74-2-4 and 74-2-5.B(1) [1967 as amended through 2007] authorizes and requires 

the Air Board to adopt, amend, or replace air quality regulations and to adopt air quality 

plans (SIPs) under NMSA 1978, Section 74-2-5.B(2). 

1 
3. On June 22,2010, EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, promulgated a new 

national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for S02, effective August 23, 2010 [75 

Fed. Reg. 35,520 (June 22, 2010)]. Based on its review of the air quality criteria for 

oxides of sulfur and the primary NAAQS for oxides of sulfur as measured by sulfur 

dioxide (S02), EPA made revisions to the primary S02 NAAQS in order to provide 

requisite protection of public health. Specifically, EPA has established a new 1-hour 

standard at a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on the 3-year average of the 99th 

percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, to replace 

the existing 24 hour and annual primary S02 standards. EPA also established S02 

ambient air monitoring and reporting requirements to support implementation of and 

compliance with the new NAAQS. 

4. Pursuant to Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) of the CAA, each State is 

required to submit a plan, known as an "infrastructure SIP," to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a newly promulgated or revised 

NAAQS within 3 years of promulgation of a new or revised standard. Section 110(a)(l) 

of the CAA addresses the timing requirement for the submissions of any "Infrastructure 

SIP" revisions, while Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA lists the required elements that 

comprise the "Infrastructure SIP". Therefore, this plan or "Infrastructure SIP" addressing 

the requirements of Sections 110(a)(2)(A)--(M) of the CAA was due June 3, 2013. This 

"Infrastructure SIP" is a compilation of elements that demonstrates how AlbuquerqueBernalillo County will implement, maintain and enforce the revised S02 NAAQS, 

including: enforceable emission limitations and control measures, air quality monitoring and 

modeling, a pennitting program, adequate funding and personnel, authority under state law to 

2 
carry out the plan, emissions reporting, emergency powers, public participation, and fee 

collection. 

5. It is anticipated that the hearing will take approximately 1 hour or less. 

6. The Public Review Draft for the proposed "S02 Infrastructure SIP" is 

attached as AQP Exhibit #1. 

Respectfully submitted, 

DannyN ez 

Deputy Director 

Environmental Health Department 

City of Albuquerque 

One Civic Plaza, NW, Suite 3023 

Albuquerque NM, 871 03 

(505) 768-2706 

CERTIFICATION 

I hereby certify that a copy of this Petition to adopt a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

to address Sections llO(a)(l) and (2) of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7410(a)(l) and (2) hereafter referred to as the "S02 Infrastructure SIP" was 

delivered to the following person on February 20, 2015. 

Andrew Daffern 

Air Quality Control Board Liaison 

Environmental Health Department 

One Civic Plaza, NW, Room 3023 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 

and that a copy was provided by email to: 

Felicia Orth, Attorney to the Air Quality Control Board. 

Danny Nevarez 

Deputy Director 

Environmental Health Department 

City of Albuquerque 

3 
From: Cjty of Albygyeraye-Ajr Oyality prooram 

To: Daffern Andrew 

Subject: Public Review Draft, 502 Infrastructure SIP 

Date: Friday, February 20, 2015 4:48:17 PM 

[] 

Petition to adopt a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for 

Sulfur Dioxide (S02) 

to address sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the Federal Clean Air Act 

(CAA), 42 U.S.C. * 7410(a)(1) and 

( 2) hereafter referred to as the 

"S02 Infrastructure SIP" 

Click here to view a copy of this petition. 

Click here to view a copy of the Public Review 

UJ:a.ft. 

This petition was filed on February 20, 2015 and 

the request for a hearing will be an item on the 

Air Quality Control Board Draft Agenda for the 

meeting scheduled for Wednesday, March 11, 

2015, at 5:30p.m., in the Vincent E. Griego 

Chambers, Basement Level, City Hall. 

Please send comments on the Public Review Draft 

by April 1, 2015 to: 

Ed Merta 

Air Quality Regulation Development Coordinator 

1 Civic Plaza NW 

Room 3023, 3rd floor 

Albuquerque NM 8702 

(505) 768-2660 

emerta@cabq.gov 
Forward email 

• 

This email was sent to adaffern@cabq.gov by emerta@cabg.goy : 

Update profjle/Emajl Address • Rapid removal with SafeUnsubscrjbeTM ! prjyacy poljcy. 

City of Albuquerque i One Civic Plaza NW : Albuquerque ' NM : 87102 
From: City of Albuqyeraue-Ajr Oyality program 

To: Daffern. Andrew 

Subject: EPA - Stakeholder Review Draft, S02 Infrastructure SIP 

Date: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 12:04:32 PM 

Dear community stakeholders: 

I am the Air Quality Regulation Development 

Coordinator for the City of Albuquerque, 

Environmental Health Department, Air Quality 

Program. I administer the process of writing new 

air quality regulations affecting air pollutant 

sources throughout Bernalillo County, under 

authority delegated pursuant to the federal Clean 

Air Act and the New Mexico Air Quality Control 

Act. 

I'm writing to you today to request your input on 

a new draft regulatory document, the proposed 

Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (iSIP) 

for the 2010 sulfur dioxide (S02) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The draft 

S02 iSIP is available for viewing at this link. 

The Air Quality Program is required to submit this 

iSIP to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), in response to EPA rulemaking. In 2010, 

EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for sulfur dioxide. 

Within three years of such promulgation, state 

and local air quality control agencies must submit 

an iSIP to EPA, describing the programs and legal 

authorities that the agency has in place to meet 
and maintain the new NAAQS. This iSIP does not 

create any new regulations or any new legal 

authority. Rather, it describes the regulatory 

framework as it currently exists, in order to 

certify to EPA that Bernalillo County is capable of 

meeting the NAAQS and thus complying with its 

legal obligations under the Clean Air Act and the 

New Mexico Air Quality Control Act. 

The Air Quality Program is circulating this draft 

for feedback from interested stakeholders as part 

of the regulatory process. We would appreciate 

receiving in writing any comments you may have 

on the above-linked draft. Comments must be 

submitted by no later than January 30, 2015. We 

regard such written feedback as essential to the 

regulatory process and to promoting the public 

interest. 

Review comments can be submitted to me at my 

City of Albuquerque email address, 

emerta@cabq.gov. 

This email was sent to adaffern@cabq.gov by emerta@cabg.gov 1 

Update Profile/Email Address ' Rapid removal with SafeUnsubscriberM i Privacy Policy. 

City of Albuquerque l One Civic Plaza NW i Albuquerque ' NM : 87102 
~ Albuquc'rque Bernalillo County 

~Water Utility Authority 

Chair 

Klarissa J. Pena 

City of Albuquerque 

Councilor. District 3 

Vice Chair 

Maggie Hart Stebbins 

County of Bernalillo 

Commissioner, District 3 

Richard J. Berry 

City of Albuquerque 

Mayor 

Art De La Cruz 

County of Bernalillo 

Commissioner, District 2 

Rey Garduno 

City of Albuquerque 

Councilor, District 6 

Trudy E. Jones 

City of Albuquerque 

Councilor, District 8 

Debbie O'Malley 

County of Bernalillo 

Commissioner, District 1 

Ex-Officio Member 

Pablo R. Rael 

Village of Los Ranchos 

Board Trustee 

Executive Director 

Mark S. Sanchez 

Website 

www.abcwua.org 

January 26, 2015 

Mr. Ed Merta 

Air Quality Regulation Development Coordinator 

City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Department, 

Air Quality Program (AQP) 

l Civic Plaza NW, Rm 3023, 3rd Floor 

Albuquerque, NM 871 02 

Re: Water Authority Comments on Proposed Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure 

State Implementation Program (SOz iSIP) 

Dear Mr. Merta: 

Thank you for providing the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority 

(Water Authority) with the AQP's proposed new draft Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure 

State Implementation Program (SOz iSIP) for our review and comment. We 

understand that the SOz iSIP is required to document local efforts to assure 

compliance with the EPA's 2010 S02 National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) in Bernalillo County. 

We appreciate the objective and generally business-friendly approach that the AQP 

has taken on this iSIP. The Water Authority appreciates the AQP's willingness to 

make confident statements in the iSIP that the Bernalillo County area will likely be 

deemed in compliance with the EPA's 2010 S02 NAAQS. The Water Authority will 

continue to do careful work in our operations to minimize S02 emissions from our 

operations. Our relatively minor SOz emissions from the biogenic fuels (digester gas) 

that we capture and use to offset consumption of fossil fuels in our Southside Water 

Reclamation Plant are a net benefit the community and the environment. Recovery 

and combustion of biogenic fuels at publically owned treatment works (POTWs) is 

now a common cost-saving and environmentally protective best practice in many 

communities in the U.S. 

As requested, we have reviewed AQP's proposed S02 iSIP and have the following 

comments that are outlined below following AQP' s iSIP section headings and order. 

INTRODUCTION 

Pg. 4 of 20, last sentence. 

Comment: Rather than just sometime in the "future", please consider adding 

something to the effect of mentioning the general time line precedents for 

incorporating the 2010 S02 NAAQS into the 20.11 NMAC and other regulations & 

statutes. 

PU Rnx ';(,t~ 

1\li)I!IJUI.~tquf.', NM H/10~ 

r)th ;gq won 

www.abcwua.org 
Mr. Ed Merta 

January 26, 2015 

Page 2 

§ 110(a)(2)(A) 

Edit recommendation: "It plans to do so in a future rule-making when Bernalillo 

County'sjinal S02 compliance status determination becomes clear from the EPA. 

Pg. 8 of 20, top paragraph regarding Startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM): 

director's discretion: 

Comment: We understand that Bernalillo County and New Mexico may potentially 

be facing a SSM SIP call from EPA. However, we encourage AQP not to 

prematurely voluntarily surrender local SSM authorities in this S02 iSIP before the 

final scope of the SIP call is better known. We don't want to give an impression that 

the AQP' s existing SSM requirements are too lenient. The NMED' s proposed S02 

iSIP has not mentioned SSM, so it is not clear why the AQP has proposed addressing 

SSM in the S02 iSIP. Therefore, please consider deleting this whole SSM section in 

order to continue to maintain AQP's local authority on affirmative defenses and other 

SSM issues as much as possible. 

Jf the AQP is unwilling to delete the whole SSM section, please consider the 

following edit to the last sentence in that paragraph. 

Edit recommendation: "The statutes, ordinances, and regulations governing AQP's enforcement and 

maintenance of the NAAQS clearly support NAAQS compliance. 

§ II O(a)(2)(B) 

Pg. 9 of 20, 2"d paragraph, last sentence: 

Comment: The Water Authority applauds the AQP's good work on monitoring and 

maintaining so2 attainment in the county that allows your confidence in being able to 

recommend reclassification as "attainment". 

§ IIO(a)(2)(C) 

Top of Pg. 11 of 20, first couple of sentences. 

Comment: " ... 20.11.41, Construction Permits. These preconstruction regulations also 

apply to minor modification of major sources emitting NAAQS pollutants. /d. EPA 

has approved these provisions into the New Mexico SIP." The EPA's approval of 

20.11 NMAC Part 41 in the NM SIP appears to conflict with AQP's statements made 

previously in footnote 7 on pg. 7 of 20 which states, '

0 Albuquerque-Bernalillo 

County has submitted SIP revisions applying to the following regulations and ~ 

awaiting EPA approval: 20.11 NMAC, Parts I, 41_, 47, 60, and 61." 

Please clarify those sections for consistency. 
Mr. Ed Merta 

January 26, 2015 

Page 3 

§ 110(a)(2)(D) 

Pg. I I of 20, 200 to la.'Ot paragraph. 

Comment: The emissions numbers in this paragraph contain at least a few errors that 

we can recognize. Please check all numbers. since GCC's seem too low. Since the 

GCC plant S02 permitted allowable emissions are an order of magnitude higher, 

please consider mentioning GCC before mentioning the Water Authority. We also 

recommend using the most recent numbers available to the AQP, e.g .• from CY 2013 

SLEIS. 

Edit recommendations: 

2) The minimal amount of emissions from those sources. The Tijeras Plant is 

permitted to emit m 1,41 7.fi tons per year of oxides of sulfur. According to data 

from the SLEIS system, this facility's reported actual emissions averaged only 

22.739425 (?, thi.\ SCC/J/.1 /ikl'l_y /00 fmr. [lfea.le c/icck) tOnS of S02 per year from 

20112012 to 2013. The Water Reclamation Plant is permitted to emit I ,103.41 123.4 

tons per year of S02. According to data from the State and Local Emissions Inventory 

(SLEIS) system, this facility's reported actual emissions averaged only 84.342975 

93.5 tons of so2 per year in 2013. 

In Bernalillo County as a whole, monitoring of ambient air quality indicates that the 

design value for so2 in parts per billion was 4.6 for the period 20 II to 2013 -- i.e. less 

than 10% of the 75 ppb 2010 S02 NAAQS. 

§ 110(a)(2)(F) 

Pg. 15 of 20, 2nd to last paragraph, last sentence 

Comment: Please consider mentioning the 20 13 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) 

information that may have been submitted to the EPA in December 2014. That 

would be more recent than the 2012 NEI info submitted in December 2013 when 

discussing AQP being current with NEI submittals. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to review and comment. Please let me know if 

you have related questions regarding our comments and suggestions for edits to 

AQP's proposed draft S02 iSIP. Please feel free to contact me or Charles S. Leder 

(331-6021) if you have related questions or suggestions. 

Charles S. Leder, P.E., ABCWUA 
CITY OF ALBUQVERQ!)E 

PO Box 1293 

Albuquerque 

New Mexico 87103 

www.cabq.gov 

February 20,2015 

Mr. John M. Stomp III, P.E. 

Chief Operating Officer 

Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority 

PO Box 568 

Albuquerque NM 87103 

Re: Response by Air Quality Program to ABCWUA Comments on Proposed S02 iSIP 

Dear Mr. Stomp: 

Thank you for your comments on our proposed S02 Infrastructure SIP. We value input 

from our stakeholders and appreciate the time taken to review the draft. Please find our 

responses below. 

ABCWUA COMMENT 1 

Introduction, Pg. 4 of 20, last sentence. 

Comment: Rather thanjust sometime in the "future", please consider adding something 

to the effect of mentioning the general time line precedents for incorporating the 2010 

S02 NAAQS into the 20.11 NMAC and other regulations & statutes. 

Edit recommendation: "It plans to do so in a future rule-making when Bernalillo 

County's final S02 compliance status determination becomes clear from the EPA. 

AQP RESPONSE 

The timing of a revision to 20.11 NMAC to incorporate the 2010 S02 NAAQS in local 

regulations is unrelated to a "compliance status determination" from EPA. The 20 I 0 S02 

NAAQS as enacted in the Code of Federal Regulations is already in effect at the federal 

level and Albuquerque-Bernalillo must demonstrate compliance. Inclusion or noninclusion of the NAAQS in the NMAC does not change the need to comply with federal 

law pending the NMAC revision. AQP intends to propose revision of 20.11.8 NMAC to 

incorporate federal air quality standards as early as possible in light of other necessary 

regulatory changes still pending. 

ABCWUA COMMENT 2 

§ 110(a)(2)(A) 

Pg. 8 of 20, top paragraph regarding Startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM): 

director's discretion: 
Comment: We understand that Bernalillo County and New Mexico may potentially be 

facing a SSM SIP call from EPA However, we encourage AQP not to prematurely 

voluntarily surrender local SSM authorities in this S02 iSIP before the 

2 

final scope of the SIP call is better known. We don't want to give an impression that the 

AQP' s existing SSM requirements are too lenient. The NMED' s proposed S02 iSIP has 

not mentioned SSM, so it is not clear why the AQP has proposed addressing SSM in the 

S02 iSIP. Therefore, please consider deleting this whole SSM section in order to 

continue to maintain AQP' s local authority on affirmative defenses and other SSM issues 

as much as possible. 

lfthe AQP is unwilling to delete the whole SSM section, please consider the following 

edit to the last sentence in that paragraph. 

Edit recommendation: "The statutes, ordinances, and regulations governing AQP's 

enforcement and maintenance of the NAAQS clearly support NAAQS compliance. 

AQP RESPONSE 

AQP believes that the S02 iSIP must expressly address SSM at least in some form, rather 

than omit any mention of SSM, because EPA's September 2013 Guidance treats SSM 

provisions as a SIP control measure that should be addressed under CAA § 110(a)(2)(A). 

See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan Elements under Clean Air Act Sections llO(a)(l) and 110(a)(2)," 

September 2013, pp. 19-21, available at 

http: I I \VWW. epa. go vI air /urha nair Is i psta 1us/i n frastruc lure. h tm l. 

The paragraph referred to in the comment describes Albuquerque-Bernalillo County's 

excess emissions regulation, 20.11.49 NMAC, in its current form. AQP does not intend a 

description of an existing regulation to equate in any way to surrender of local authority. 

Rather, AQP wishes the description to convey authority that already exists and that EPA 

has previously found legally adequate. See 75 Fed. Reg. 5698-5701 (February 4, 2010) 

(approving existing version of 20.11.49 NMAC). 

In AQP' s view, EPA's Guidance document on preparation of an iSIP submission does not 

indicate that a descriptive passage in an iSIP necessarily alters the content or meaning of a 

local regulation such as 20.11.49 NMAC. See EPA Guidance, pp. 19-21. Rather, the 

purpose of an iSIP submittal is generally to describe a state's (or in this case, local 

authority's) existing legal and programmatic framework for implementation of a revised 

NAAQS. A state may submit, or be required by EPA to submit, a proposed revision of a 

regulation as part of its iSIP submittal if doing so is necessary to implement the NAAQS. 

However, AQP is not proposing a revision of20.11.49 NMAC with this iSIP submission. 

AQP does not intend any language in its draft iSIP to indicate intent to carry out such a 

revision. Rather, AQP is only describing the regulation that currently exists, as previously 

approved by EPA. 

AQP agrees that, pending EPA finalization of a new proposed rule on SSM, the excess 

emissions regulation in its current form has not yet been found legally inadequate or 

otherwise lacking authority or validity. AQP has revised the language of the iSIP language 

to capture this situation more clearly. 
3 

At the same time, AQP notes that it is bound to comply with federal law on excess 

emissions. This law is being determined by yet-to-be-finalized EPA rulemaking. See 79 

Fed. Reg. 55,920 (September 17, 2014); 78 Fed. Reg. 12,460 (February 22, 2013). AQP 

will continue to work with EPA on this matter to comply with federal air quality law. 

ABCWUA COMMENT 3 

§ 11 O(a)(2)(B) 

Pg. 9 of 20, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: 

Comment: The Water Authority applauds the AQP's good work on monitoring and 

maintaining S02 attainment in the county that allows your confidence in being able to 

recommend reclassification as "attainment". 

AQP RESPONSE 

AQP did not intend to suggest in the iSIP draft that it was recommending to EPA an air 

quality designation for sulfur dioxide. Such recommendations for EPA designations (as 

attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable) take place outside of the iSIP submittal 

process. As the iSIP draft indicates, AQP has recommended to EPA that Bernalillo County 

be designated as "unclassifiable" under the 2010 NAAQS for sulfur dioxide. See Letter 

from Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico, to EPA Region 6 Administrator Alfredo 

Armendariz, May 24, 2011, available at 

http://w\\'w.epa.gov/so2designations/recletters/R6 NM Albuquerque req~df. 

At a future date, when appropriate monitoring data becomes available, AQP expects to 

make a new recommendation to EPA regarding the air quality designation for Bernalillo 

County concerning the 2010 S02 NAAQS. Only in such a future recommendation would 

AQP change its current recommendation of"unclassifiable." 

However, in hopes of avoiding potential confusion on this subject, AQP has revised the 

draft iSIP submittal to use different language regarding a future recommendation. 

ABCWUA COMMENT 4 

§ 110(a)(2)(C) 

Top of Pg. 11 of 20, first couple of sentences. 

Comment: " ... 20.11.41, Construction Permits. These preconstruction regulations also 

apply to minor modification of major sources emitting NAAQS pollutants. ld EPA 

has approved these provisions into the New Mexico SIP." The EPA's approval of 

20.11 NMAC Part 41 in the NM SIP appears to conflict with AQP' s statements made 

previously in footnote 7 on pg. 7 of 20 which states, "AI buquerque-Bemalillo County 

has submitted SIP revisions applying to the following regulations and [is] awaiting EPA 

f!Pproval: 20.11 NMAC, Parts \ 41, 47, 60, and 61." 

Please clarify those sections for consistency. 
4 

AQP RESPONSE 

AQP has amended the language referred to in the comment to indicate that AQP is still 

awaiting approval regarding revisions to 20.11.41 NMAC. This change will accomplish 

the clarification for consistency requested by the comment 

ABCWUA COMMENT 5 

§ 110(a)(2)(D) 

Pg. 11 of 20, 2nd to last paragraph. 

Comment: The emissions numbers in this paragraph contain at least a few errors that 

we can recognize. Please check all numbers, since GCC's seem too low. Since the 

GCC plant S02 permitted allowable emissions are an order of magnitude higher, please 

consider mentioning GCC before mentioning the Water Authority. We also 

recommend using the most recent numbers available to the AQP, e.g., from CY 2013 

SLEIS. 

Edit recommendations: 

2) The minimal amount of emissions from those sources. The Tijeras Plant is permitted 

to emit~ 1,417.8 tons per year of oxides of sulfur. According to data from the SLEIS 

system, this facility's reported actual emissions averaged only 22.739425 tons of S02 per 

year(?, this seems likely too low. please check) from 2011,2012 to 2013. The 

Water Reclamation Plant is permitted to emit l, l 0 3. 4 1123.4 tons per year of S02• 

According to data from the State and Local Emissions Inventory (SLEIS) system, this 

facility's reported actual emissions averaged only 84.34 2975 93.5 tons of S02 per year in 

2013. 

In Bernalillo County as a whole, monitoring of ambient air quality indicates that the 

design value for S02 in parts per billion was 4.6 for the period 2011 to 2013 --i.e. less 

than 1 0% of the 7 5 ppb 2010 S02 NAAQS. 

AQP RESPONSE 

The comment correctly points to errors in the iSIP draft. AQP regrets the errors and 

appreciates the comment. AQP has revised the draft to correct the errors accordingly. 

AQP's revised version uses emissions and ambient air monitoring data from 2011 to 2013 

in order to provide as complete a description as possible of the S02 profile of Bernalillo 

County. 

ABCWUA COMMENT 6 

§ 11 O(a)(2)(F) 

Pg. 15 of20, 2nd to last paragraph, last sentence 
Comment: Please consider mentioning the 2013 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) 

information that may have been submitted to the EPA in December 2014. That would 

be more recent than the 2012 NEI info submitted in December 2013 when discussing 

AQP being current with NEI submittals. 

AQP RESPONSE 

AQP has updated its iSIP draft to indicate submission of2013 NEI data to EPA. 

5 

Thank you again for your comments. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, 

please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

4f1Yu( ~ V'ft7f, 

Ed Merta 

Air Quality Regulation Development Coordinator 

Air Quality Program 

Environmental Health Department 

City of Albuquerque 

One Civic Plaza, NW, Suite 3023 

Albuquerque, NM 87103 

(505) 768-2660 

emcrta@.cabq.gov 

cc: John Walser, Air Planning Section, U.S. EPA, Region 6 

Margaret Nieto, Control Strategies Supervisor, AQP 

Danny Nevarez, Deputy Director, Environmental Health Department 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGIONS 

1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200 

DALLAS TX 75202·2733 

Ms. Margaret Nieto 

Control Strategies Supervisor 

Environmental Health Deparbnent 

City of Albuquerque 

P.O. Box 1293, One Civic Plaza NW 

3n1 Floor. Room 3023 

Albuquerque, NM 87103 

~JAN 3 0 2015 

RE: Proposed 2010 S02 Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Dear Ms. Nieto: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft 11 State Implementation. Plan (SIP) 

Infrastructure Checklist for the 2010 S02 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)." We 

appreciate the efforts of you and your staff to meet the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements of sections 

11 O(a)(1) and (2) as they pertain to the 2010 S02 s air quality standards. Our review is based upon our 

September 13,2013 "Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(l) and 110(a)(2)." This document can be obtained from the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency website htt,p://www .epa.gov/oaqpsOO 1/urbanair/sipstatus/infrastructure.html. 

Enclosed are general and specific comments on the draft checklist. We appreciate the work of you and 

your staff to protect air quality in Albuquerque-Bernalillo County and look forward to continuing our 

work with you. If you have any questions or need additional clarification, please contact me at 

(214) 665-7242 or Mr. John Walser of my staff at (214) 665-7128. 

Enclosure 

cc: EdMerta 

Environmental Health Department 

City of Albuquerque 

Sincerely yours, 

Guy R. Donaldson 

Chief 

Air Planning Section 

lntemetAddress{UAL) • http:/JwWw,epa.gov/reglone 

Reoyclld/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% PostcOII8UI'I'Ier, PI'OCess Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
2 

Enclosure 

EPA Comments on the draft Albuquerque "State Implementation Plan (SIP) Infrastructure Submission for 

the 2010 S02 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)" 

General Comment 1 

An approvable infrastructure SIP should demonstrate the State has the necessary authority to implement 

the subject Standard and in some instances those authorities should be part of the SIP. As appropriate, 

and discussed in the 2013 guidance, providing updated Albuquerque statutes and regulations for 

inclusion into the SIP to address implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards is required. However, the following regulations are not needed for this submission 

and should be removed/withdrawn from the submitta11

: 

• 20.11.47 NMAC, Emissions Inventory Requirements (revisions previously submitted to EPA on 

May 6, 2008, November 6, 2009 and October 18, 2002). EPA already has approved these rule 

revisions into the SI,P. 

• 20.11.62 NMAC Acid Rain (the Acid Rain program is part of the Title IV CAA requirements and 

should not be submitted for inclusion into the SIP). 

• 20.11.69 NMAC, Pathological Waste Destructors. These are not necessary for submission with 

the iSIP. 

• 20.11.71 NMAC, Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. These are not necessary for submission with 

the iSIP . 

• 

Additionally, it is not necessary to incorporate the following Air Quality Program internal "procedures" 

into the SIP and EPA prefers they not be submitted for inclusion in the SIP: 

• 20.11.80 NMAC, Adjudicatory Procedures -Administrative Enforcement Hearings by the 

Director. 

• 20.11.81 NMAC, Adjudicatory Procedures- Air Quality Control Board, and 

• 20.11.82 NMAC, Rulemaking Procedures- Air Quality Control Board. 

Additionally, we note that EPA approved Albuquerque regulations and statutes are found in 40 CFR 

52.1620 (c) and (e). 

General Comment 2 

Page 9 of the submittal states "This iSIP submission, along with earlier submissions to EPA, will 

incorporate revised or missing legal authorities into the CFR.', After receiving a SIP revision, EPA 

reviews and takes action on whether or not to approve, disapprove, conditionally approve or partially 

approve a revision into the SIP. It is not correct to defmitively say that EPA will incorporate authorities 

1 Please note that submitting only a copy of a· rule for inclusion into the SIP Is not sufficient. Each rule revision for Inclusion 

into the SIP must go through the proce~ of public noticing. and public hearing- similar to the ISIP submission. Therefore, 

even If the rules mentioned In General Comment 1 were to be included Into the SIP, they were not properly public noticed 

and discussed in the submission. 
3 

into the CFR. Please delete any reference or statement(s) in the submission that are phrased this way. 

General Comment 3 

EPA acknowledges that the tenn "Air Quality Program,., is now the correct term referring to the air 

pollution control agency for Albuquerque and Bernalillo County as stated in footnote 2 on Page 4 of the 

proposed submission. · 
CITY OF ALBUQ!)ERQ!)E 

PO Box 1293 

Albuquerque 

New Mexico 87103 

www.cabq.gov 

February 20, 2015 

Mr. Guy Donaldson 

Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 

1445 Ross Ave, Suite 1200 

Dallas, TX 75202-2733 

Re: Response by Air Quality Program to EPA Comments on Proposed S02 iSIP 

Dear Mr. Donaldson: 

Thank you for your comments on our proposed S02 Infrastructure SIP. Please find our 

responses below. 

EPA General Comment 1: 

An approvable infrastructure SIP should demonstrate the State has the necessary 

authority to implement the subject Standard and in some instances those authorities 

should be part ofthe SIP. As appropriate, and discussed in the 2013 guidance, 

providing updated Albuquerque statutes and regulations for inclusion into the SIP to 

address implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards is required. However, the following regulations are not needed for 

this submission and should be removed/withdrawn from the submittal 1

: 

- 20. 11.4 7 NMAC, Emissions Inventory Requirements (revisions previously 

submitted to EPA on May 6, 2008, November 6, 2009 and October 18,2002). 

EPA already has approved these rule revisions into the SIP. 

- 20.11.62 NMAC Acid Rain(theAcid Rain program is part ofthe Title IV CAA 

requirements and should not be submitted for inclusion into the SIP). 

- 20.11.69 NMAC, Pathological Waste Destructors. These are not necessary 

for submission with the iSIP. 

- 20.11.71 NMAC, Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. These are not necessary 

for submission with the iSIP. 
Additionally, it is not necessary to incorporate the following Air Quality Program 

internal ''procedures" into the SIP and EPA prefers they not be submitted for 

inclusion in the SIP: 

- 20.11.80 NMAC, Adjudicatory Procedures -Administrative Enforcement 

Hearings by the Director. 

- 20.11.81 NMAC, Adjudicatory Procedures -Air Quality Control Board, and 

- 20.11.82 NMAC, Rulemaking Procedures -Air Quality Control Board. 

Additionally, we note that EPA approved Albuquerque regulations and statutes are 

found in 40 CFR 52.1620 (c) and (e). 

2 

1

Please note that submitting only a copy of a rule for inclusion into the SIP is not sufficient. Each rule 

revision for inclusion into the SIP must go through the process of public noticing and public hearing --

similar to the iSIP submission. Therefore, even if the rules mentioned in General Comment I were to be 

included into the SIP, they were not properly publicly noticed and discussed in the submission. 

AQP Response to General Comment 1: 

AQP agrees with this comment. AQP will not include with its iSIP submittal any of the 

NMAC rules listed in the comment. AQP has revised the text of its iSIP draft to remove 

references to submitting those rules for EPA review and approval into the New Mexico 

SIP. Based on EPA's comment, AQP has also determined that submission for 

incorporation into the SIP of two New Mexico statutes, NMSA §§ 74-2-5.1 and 74-2-12.1, 

is not necessary. AQP is thus revising the iSIP draft to remove language referring to 

submission ofthose statutes. 

In reference to footnote I of EPA General Comment I, AQP notes that the footnote refers 

to a draft iSIP document that AQP submitted to EPA for review and comment prior to 

beginning the process of public notice and public hearing. AQP will follow all legal 

requirements for public notice and public hearing for this iSIP submittal once that process 

begins. 

EPA General Comment 2: 

Page 9 of the submittal states {'This iSIP submission, along with earlier submissions to EPA, 

will incorporate revisedormissinglegalauthorities into the CFR. "Afterreceivinga SIP 

revision, EPA reviews and takes action on whether or not to approve, disapprove, 

conditionally approve or partially approve a revision into the SIP. It is not correct to 

definitively say that EPA will incorporate authorities into the CFR. Please delete any 

reference or statement(s) in the submission that are phrased this way. 

AQP Response to General Comment 2: 

AQP agrees with this comment. AQP has revised the language of its iSIP draft in 

accordance with the comment. 

EPA General Comment 3: 
3 

EPA acknowledges that the term "Air Quality Program" is now the correct term referring to 

the air pollution control agency for Albuquerque and Bernalillo County as stated in 

footnote 2 on Page 4 of the proposed submission. 

AQP Response to General Comment 2: 

AQP thanks EPA for this comment. 

Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

Ed Merta 

Air Quality Regulation Development Coordinator 

Air Quality Program 

Environmental Health Department 

City of Albuquerque 

One Civic Plaza, NW, Suite 3023 

Albuquerque, NM 87103 

(505) 768-2660 

cmertar(vcabq. gov 

cc: John Walser, Air Planning Section, U.S. EPA, Region 6 

Margaret Nieto, Control Strategies Supervisor, AQP 

Danny Nevarez, Deputy Director, Environmental Health Department 
ALBUQUERQUE-BERNALILLO COUNTY 

AIR QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 

Vincent E. Griego Chambers 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Government Center 

One Civic Plaza NW, Albuquerque, NM 87102 

DRAFT MINUTES- March 11, 2015 

Regular Meeting 

AQCB MEMBERS PRESENT 

Kelsey Curran, CIH (CITY), Chair 

Jens Deichmann, Ph.D. (COUNTY) 

Robert Goldstein, M.D. (COUNTY) 

Augustine Grace III, P.E. (CITY) 

Ms. Deborah L. Stover (COUNTY) 

Lenton Malry, Ph.D. (BCPC LIAISON) 

Ms. Mary Lou Leonard, Director 

Mr. Danny Nevarez, Deputy Director, EHD 

Ms. Margaret Nieto, EH Manager and 

AQCB Secretary 

Ms. Felicia Orth, Air Board Attorney and 

Hearing Officer 

Ms. Carol Parker, Assistant City Attorney 

Mr. Damon Reyes, EH Manager 

AQCB MEMBERS ABSENT Mr. Cale Swanson, EH Supervisor 

Ms. Jane Cudney-Black (CITY), Vice Chair 

Dona Upson, M.D. (CITY) 

Mr. Isreal Tavarez, EH Manager 

VISITORS PRESENT 

EHD STAFF PRESENT Jim Peck, COA, Enviromnental Planning 

Mr. Andrew Daffern, AQCB Liaison Commission 

Mr. Fabian Macias, Air Quality Official 

Mr. Ed Merta, Air Quality Regulation 

Development Coordinator 

Mikaela Renz-Whitmore, COA, Planning 

Department 

DRAFT MEETING MINUTES 

CALL TO ORDER 

Item #1 

Item #2 

The meeting was called to order by Chair Kelsey Curran at 5:34p.m. on March 

11,2015 with five voting Board members present: Jens Deichmann, Augustine 

Grace, Kelsey Curran, Deborah Stover, and Robert Goldstein; and one non-voting 

member present: Lenton Malry. Not present were voting members Jane CudneyBlack and Dona Upson. 

Approval of Agenda (Chair) 

A motion to approve the agenda was made by Member Deichmann and seconded 

by Member Grace. The motion was approved unanimously by a vote of 5-0. 

Approval of February 11, 2015 Meeting Minutes (Chair) 

A motion to approve the February 11, 2015 meeting minutes was made by 

Member Deichmann and seconded by Member Stover. The motion was approved 

unanimously by a vote of 5-0. 

Page 1 
PUBLIC COMMENT 

There was no public comment. 

ACTION ITEMS 

Item #3 

Item #4 

Request for a Hearing in the Matter of the Petition to adopt a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for S02 to address Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of 

the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) and (2) hereafter 

referred to as the "S02 Infrastructure SIP" (AQCB Petition No. 2015-1) --

Ed Merta, M.A., J.D., Esq., Air Quality Regulation Development 

Coordinator 

The Request for a Hearing was presented by Ed Merta, AQ Regulation 

Development Coordinator. Member Deichmann moved to grant the hearing 

request. The motion was seconded by Member Stover and unanimously approved 

by vote of 5-0. 

Request for a Hearing in the Matter of the Petition to Amend 20.11.61 

NMAC, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, and Submit the Adopted 

20.11.61 NMAC to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for Proposed 

Incorporation into the New Mexico State Implementation Plan for Air 

Quality (SIP) (AQCB Petition No. 2015-2) --Ed Merta, M.A., J.D., Esq., Air 

Quality Regulation Development Coordinator 

The Request for a Hearing was presented by Ed Merta, AQ Regulation 

Development Coordinator. Member Grace moved to grant the hearing request. 

The motion was seconded by Member Deichmann and unanimously approved by 

vote of 5-0. 

REPORTS Air Program Report. Staff available for questions. 

OTHER BUSINESS 

Item #5 Presentation: ABC to Z (Comprehensive Plan I Unified Development 

Ordinance)-- Mikaela Renz-Whitmore, Planner, COA Planning Department 

and Russell Brito, Planning Manager, COA Planning Department 

ABC to Z (Comprehensive Plan I Unified Development Ordinance) was presented 

by Mikaela Renz-Whitmore, Planner, COA Planning Department. Ms. RenzWhitmore answered questions from the Board in a lively discussion about the 

process. Danny Nevarez added that the Air Quality Program is working with the 

Planning Department on outreach to the Air Quality stakeholder community. 

• Chair Curran brought to the Board's attention a planned bike-sharing program for 

downtown Albuquerque that is scheduled to start May 15, 2015, as reported in the 

Albuquerque Journal. After discussion, various Board members expressed an 

interest in learning more details about the new program and if appropriate, 

sending a letter of encouragement and support for the program. Chair Curran 

Page2 
suggested that the item be included on the next meeting agenda for a possible 

presentation as well as taking action on sending a letter of support if that is the 

Board's inclination. 

• Chair Curran noted that the date of the next Board meeting in April has been 

changed from April 8 to April 30 at 5:30. 

• Member Deichmann reminded the Board that Board elections will be held at the 

April Board meeting. 

ADJOURNMENT 

Chair Kelsey Curran adjourned the meeting at 6:58p.m. 

NEXT SCHEDULED BOARD MEETING AND HEARING: April 30, 2015 -moved from 

April 8, 2015. 

SUBMITTED: 

Ms. Margaret Nieto date 

Board Secretnry/Env. Health Manager, Control Strategies Section, 

Air Quality Program, Environmental Health Department. 

Page 3 

READ AND APPROVED: 

Kelsey Curran, CIH date 

Chair 

Albuquerque- Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board 
Albuquerque Joumal Legal Notices 

fou~NAl LEGALS Search legals ... 

HOME NEWS SPORTS BUSINESS VENUE OBITUARIES OPINION POLITICS LIVING CLASSIFIEDS JOBS AUTOS 

Walmart Logistics is Hiring Management Talent! 

Area Manager, Floor (Grocery) 

Los Lunas, NM 

Walmart Distribution Center #6084 

To apply or for more lnformalion about care 

opportunities with Walmart, please click he 

Walmart~'~ S•v'l' MOA~ty llv• f»Hf'l" j 

SEARCH RESULTS 

NOTICE OF HEARING AND DATE CHANGE FOR REGULAR MEETING ALBUQUERQUE-BERNALILLO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONTROL BOARD The 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board (Air Board) will hold a public hearing on April 30, 2015 at 5:30p.m. in the Vincent E. Griego Chambers 

located in the basement level of the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Government Center, One Civic Plaza NW, Albuquerque. NM. The purpose of the hearing is to 

consider the matter of AQCB Petition No. 2015-1, to adopt a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Sulfur Dioxide (S02) to address Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the 

Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. Sections 7410(a)(1) and (2) hereafter referred to as the "S02 Infrastructure SIP". The regularly scheduled meeting date on 

AprilS, 2015 has been changed to April30, 2015. The proponent of this regulatory action is the City of Albuquerque, Environmental Health Department, Air Quality 

Program. The hearing will consider whether to adopt the S02 Infrastructure SIP and submit it to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a proposed revision to 

the New Mexico State Implementation Plan. An Infrastructure SIP is required by the U.S. Environmental Protection agency to demonstrate compliance with a newly 

issued National Ambient Air Quality Standard. An information sheet with further details on the subject matter of the hearing is available at: : 

http:lfwww.cabq.gov/airquality/air-quality-control-board/documentsl. %20information%20Sheet%20-%20S02.pdf Following the hearing, the Air Board at its regular 

monthly meeting is expected to consider adopting the proposed Infrastructure SIP for S02. The Public Review Draft of the S02 Infrastructure SIP may be reviewed 

during regular business hours at the Environmental Health Department, One Civic Plaza. NW, Suite 3023, Albuquerque, NM 87102. Copies ofthe Public Review 

Draft may be obtained by contacting Andrew Daffern, Air Quality Control Board Liaison, at (505) 768-2601 or adaffern@cabq.gov. The Public Review Draft can also 

be found on the Air Quality Program web site at http:lfwww.cabq.gov/airqualitylair-quality-control-board/documents/ 

S02%20iSIP%20Public%20Review"/o20Draft.pdf. The hearing will be conducted in accordance with NMSA 74-2-6: Joint Air Quality Control Board Ordinance, 

Section 9-5-1-6, Adoption of Regulations, Notice and Hearing [ROA 1994]; Bernalillo County Ordinance, Section 30-35, Adoption of Regulations, Notice and 

Hearings [Ord. No. 94-5, Section 6, 2-2-94]; and 20.11.82 NMAC, Rulemaking Procedures-Air Quality Control Board: 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 Air Board a written notice of intent (NO I) to do so by 5:00p.m. on April14, 

2015. The NOI 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 and 

state the anticipated duration of the testimony of that witness: (4) include the text of any recommended modifications to the proposed regulatory change: (5) list and 

attach an original and 15 copies of all exhibits anticipated to be offered by that person at the hearing, including any proposed statement of reasons for adoption of 

rules; and (6) be served on the petitioner. if the document is an NOI filed by any person other than the petitioner. The NOI must be filed in hard copy form (original 

plus 15 copies of all documents) by 5:00p.m. on April14, 2015, with Andrew Daffern. Air Quality Control Board Liaison, Environmental Health Department, One 

Civic Plaza, NW. Suite 3023, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102. Any member of the general public may present non-technical testimony at the hearing. No prior 

notification is required to present non-technical testimony. Any member of the public may also offer exhibits in connection with non-technical testimony, as long as 

the exhibit is not unduly repetitious of the testimony. A member of the general public who wishes to submit a non-technical written statement for the record in lieu of 

oral testimony shall file the written statement prior to the hearing, or submit it at the hearing. Written statements submitted prior to the hearing may be directed to the 

httDI/Ie~als.aboioumal.com/le~als/show/341 065[ 418/2015 I :54· 59 PMI 

Daily Legal Notices: 

? F-<';~;VJ~~~ 

~~-~L~). .. Today J > _! » 

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sdt 

2 3 't 

6 7 8 9 10 l1 

12 13 14 15 16 17 lH 

1 q 20 21 22 23 24 .JL; 

JiJ 27 28 29 30 

Select date 

Latest News: 
Albuquerque Joumal Legal Notices 

Air Quality Control Board Liaison, Andrew Daffern, at the above contact information. NOTICE FOR PERSON WITH DISABILITIES OR SPECIAL NEEDS: If you have 

a disability or require special assistance to participate. including translation/inter-pretation service, or review of any agendas, minutes, or other public meeting 

documents, please contact Andrew Daffern, Air Quality Control Board liaison, by April 16, 2015, at (505) 768-2601, or adaffern@cabq.gov.TTY users requiring 

special assistance may call the New Mexico Relay at 1-800-659-8331. Journal: March 15, 2015 

[4. ~ • PUBUSHEp ON· SUN MARCH 15 2015 

Privacy Policy & Copyright© 1997- 2015 Albuquerque Journal: Albuquerque. New Mexicoo 

Contact Us 1 Call the Journal: 505-823-3800 1 About Us/Media Info 1 Place an ad: 505-823-44441 Weatherline: 505-821-1111 

Albuquerque Journal Subscriber Services 

Submit a news lip I Place a classified ad I Advertise in the Journal I Subscribe to newspaper 

httn)~"''als.abqionmHI com/le••"1'/'how/34106~14/R/20 15 1·~4 ~9 PM] 
New Mexico Register / Volume XXVI, Number 5 / March 16, 2015 191

Notices of Rulemaking and Proposed Rules

ALBUQUERQUE-BERNALILLO 

COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONTROL 

BOARD

NOTICE OF HEARING AND DATE 

CHANGE FOR REGULAR MEETING

The Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air 

Quality Control Board (Air Board) will 

hold a public hearing on April 30, 2015 

at 5:30 p.m. in the Vincent E. Griego 

Chambers located in the basement level 

of the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County 

Government Center, One Civic Plaza 

NW, Albuquerque, NM. The purpose of 

the hearing is to consider the matter of 

AQCB Petition No. 2015-2, to amend 

20.11.61 NMAC, Prevention of Signifi cant 

Deterioration, and submit the adopted 

20.11.61 NMAC to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency for proposed 

incorporation into the New Mexico State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The regularly 

scheduled meeting date on April 8, 2015 has 

been changed to April 30, 2015. 

The proponent of this regulatory action is 

the City of Albuquerque, Environmental 

Health Department, Air Quality Program. 

The hearing will consider whether to adopt 

the proposed amended version of 20.11.61 

NMAC, in order to bring the regulation into 

compliance with standards in the Code of 

Federal Regulations. An information sheet 

with further details on the subject matter of 

the hearing is available at http://www.cabq.

gov/airquality/air-quality-control-board/

documents/3.%20Information%20sheet%20

-%20Part%2061.pdf. 

Following the hearing, the Air Board at 

its regular monthly meeting is expected 

to consider adopting the proposed 

amendments to 20.11.61 NMAC. 

The Public Review Draft of the amended 

20.11.61 NMAC may be reviewed during 

regular business hours at the Environmental 

Health Department, One Civic Plaza, NW, 

Suite 3023, Albuquerque, NM 87102. 

Copies of the Public Review Draft may be 

obtained by contacting Andrew Daffern, 

Air Quality Control Board Liaison, at 

(505) 768-2601 or adaffern@cabq.gov. 

The Public Review Draft can also be found 

on the Air Quality Program web site at: 

http://www.cabq.gov/airquality/air-qualitycontrol-board/documents/Part%2061%20

Public%20Review%20Draft.pdf. 

The hearing will be conducted in 

accordance with NMSA § 74-2-6; Joint 

Air Quality Control Board Ordinance, 

Section 9-5-1-6, Adoption of Regulations, 

Notice and Hearing [ROA 1994]; Bernalillo 

County Ordinance, Section 30-35, Adoption 

of Regulations, Notice and Hearings [Ord. 

No. 94-5, Section 6, 2-2-94]; and 20.11.82 

NMAC, Rulemaking Procedures—Air 

Quality Control Board; 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 

fi le with the Air Board a written notice of 

intent (NOI) to do so by 5:00 p.m. on April 

14, 2015. The NOI 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 

qualifi cations of the witness, including a 

description of their education and work 

background;

(3) include a copy of the direct testimony 

of each technical witness and state the 

anticipated duration of the testimony of that 

witness; 

(4) include the text of any recommended 

modifi cations to the proposed regulatory 

change; 

(5) list and attach an original and 15 copies 

of all exhibits anticipated to be offered by 

that person at the hearing, including any 

proposed statement of reasons for adoption 

of rules; and

(6) be served on the petitioner, if the 

document is an NOI fi led by any person 

other than the petitioner. 

The NOI must be fi led in hard copy form 

(original plus 15 copies of all documents) 

by 5:00 p.m. on April 14, 2015, with 

Andrew Daffern, Air Quality Control Board 

Liaison, Environmental Health Department, 

One Civic Plaza, NW, Suite 3023, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102. 

Any member of the general public may 

present non-technical testimony at the 

hearing. No prior notifi cation is required 

to present non-technical testimony. Any 

member of the public may also offer 

exhibits in connection with non-technical 

testimony, as long as the exhibit is not 

unduly repetitious of the testimony. A 

member of the general public who wishes to 

submit a non-technical written statement for 

the record in lieu of oral testimony shall fi le 

the written statement prior to the hearing, or 

submit it at the hearing. Written statements 

submitted prior to the hearing may be 

directed to the Air Quality Control Board 

Liaison, Andrew Daffern, at the above 

contact information.

NOTICE FOR PERSON WITH 

DISABILITIES OR SPECIAL NEEDS: 

If you have a disability or require special 

assistance to participate, including 

translation/interpretation service, or review 

of any agendas, minutes, or other public 

meeting documents, please contact Andrew 

Daffern, Air Quality Control Board liaison, 

by April 16, 2015, at (505) 768-2601, or 

adaffern@cabq.gov.TTY users requiring 

special assistance may call the New Mexico 

Relay at 1-800-659-8331. 

ALBUQUERQUEBERNALILLO COUNTY 

AIR QUALITY CONTROL 

BOARD

ALBUQUERQUE-BERNALILLO 

COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONTROL 

BOARD

NOTICE OF HEARING AND D ATE 

CHANGE FOR REGULAR MEETING

The Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air 

Quality Control Board (Air Board) will 

hold a public hearing on April 30, 2015 

at 5:30 p.m. in the Vincent E. Griego 

Chambers located in the basement level 

of the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County 

Government Center, One Civic Plaza 

NW, Albuquerque, NM. The purpose of 

the hearing is to consider the matter of 

AQCB Petition No. 2015-1, to adopt a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Sulfur 

Dioxide (SO2) to address Sections 110(a)

(1) and (2) of the Federal Clean Air Act 

(CAA), 42 U.S.C. Sections 7410(a)(1) 

and (2) hereafter referred to as the “SO2 

Infrastructure SIP”. The regularly scheduled 

meeting date on April 8, 2015 has been 

changed to April 30, 2015. 

The proponent of this regulatory action is 

the City of Albuquerque, Environmental 

Health Department, Air Quality Program. 

The hearing will consider whether to adopt 

the SO2 Infrastructure SIP and submit 

it to the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency as a proposed revision to the 

New Mexico State Implementation Plan. 

An Infrastructure SIP is required by the 

U.S. Environmental Protection agency 

to demonstrate compliance with a newly 

issued National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard. An information sheet with 

ALBUQUERQUEBERNALILLO COUNTY 

AIR QUALITY CONTROL 

BOARD

AQP Exhibit 6b
192 New Mexico Register / Volume XXVI, Number 5 / March 16, 2015

further details on the subject matter of 

the hearing is available at: http://www.

cabq.gov/airquality/air-quality-controlboard/documents/3.%20Information%20

Sheet%20-%20SO2.pdf

Following the hearing, the Air Board at 

its regular monthly meeting is expected 

to consider adopting the proposed 

Infrastructure SIP for SO2.

The Public Review Draft of the SO2 

Infrastructure SIP may be reviewed during 

regular business hours at the Environmental 

Health Department, One Civic Plaza, NW, 

Suite 3023, Albuquerque, NM 87102. 

Copies of the Public Review Draft may be 

obtained by contacting Andrew Daffern, 

Air Quality Control Board Liaison, at 

(505) 768-2601 or adaffern@cabq.gov. 

The Public Review Draft can also be found 

on the Air Quality Program web site at 

http://www.cabq.gov/airquality/air-qualitycontrol-board/documents/SO2%20iSIP%20

Public%20Review%20Draft.pdf. 

The hearing will be conducted in 

accordance with NMSA § 74-2-6; Joint 

Air Quality Control Board Ordinance, 

Section 9-5-1-6, Adoption of Regulations, 

Notice and Hearing [ROA 1994]; Bernalillo 

County Ordinance, Section 30-35, Adoption 

of Regulations, Notice and Hearings [Ord. 

No. 94-5, Section 6, 2-2-94]; and 20.11.82 

NMAC, Rulemaking Procedures—Air 

Quality Control Board; 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 

fi le with the Air Board a written notice of 

intent (NOI) to do so by 5:00 p.m. on April 

14, 2015. The NOI 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 

qualifi cations of the witness, including a 

description of their education and work 

background;

(3) include a copy of the direct testimony 

of each technical witness and state the 

anticipated duration of the testimony of that 

witness; 

(4) include the text of any recommended 

modifi cations to the proposed regulatory 

change; 

(5) list and attach an original and 15 copies 

of all exhibits anticipated to be offered by 

that person at the hearing, including any 

proposed statement of reasons for adoption 

of rules; and

(6) be served on the petitioner, if the 

document is an NOI fi led by any person 

other than the petitioner. 

The NOI must be fi led in hard copy form 

(original plus 15 copies of all documents) 

by 5:00 p.m. on April 14, 2015, with 

Andrew Daffern, Air Quality Control Board 

Liaison, Environmental Health Department, 

One Civic Plaza, NW, Suite 3023, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102. 

Any member of the general public may 

present non-technical testimony at the 

hearing. No prior notifi cation is required 

to present non-technical testimony. Any 

member of the public may also offer 

exhibits in connection with non-technical 

testimony, as long as the exhibit is not 

unduly repetitious of the testimony. A 

member of the general public who wishes to 

submit a non-technical written statement for 

the record in lieu of oral testimony shall fi le 

the written statement prior to the hearing, or 

submit it at the hearing. Written statements 

submitted prior to the hearing may be 

directed to the Air Quality Control Board 

Liaison, Andrew Daferrn, at the above 

contact information.

NOTICE FOR PERSON WITH 

DISABILITIES OR SPECIAL NEEDS: 

If you have a disability or require special 

assistance to participate, including 

translation/interpretation service, or review 

of any agendas, minutes, or other public 

meeting documents, please contact Andrew 

Daffern, Air Quality Control Board liaison, 

by April 16, 2015, at (505) 768-2601, or 

adaffern@cabq.gov.TTY users requiring 

special assistance may call the New Mexico 

Relay at 1-800-659-8331.

Notice of rulemaking

The Human Services Department (the 

Department), Medical Assistance Division 

(MAD), recently promulgated proposed 

amendments to 8.321.2 Section 10 of 

the New Mexico Administrative Code 

(NMAC). To ensure that adequate time 

is available for the public to submit 

comments, the Department is repromulgating 8.321.2 Section 10 NMAC 

Behavioral Health Specialized Services

Section 10 Applied Behavior Analysis 

(ABA). The register and the proposed 

amendments will be available March 16, 

2015, on the HSD website:

http://www.hsd.state.nm.us/

LookingForInformation/registers.aspx or 

at:

http://www.hsd.state.nm.us/public-noticesproposed-rule-and-waiver-changes-andopportunities-to-comment.aspx. 

If you do not have Internet access, a copy 

of the proposed rule may be requested by 

contacting MAD at (505) 827-7743.

The Department fi nalized Section 10 of 

8.321.2 NMAC January 1, 2014, with the 

minimum of detail as it developed the 

service. The Department has completed 

a lengthy study and discussion of ABA 

services and is now promulgating 

amendments to this section of the rule. 

Throughout this section of the rule, 

the Department refers to ABA billing 

instructions. The Department is proposing 

to include more detailed information 

in the rule while continuing to have 

other information contained in the ABA 

Billing Instructions as appropriate. The 

Department has posted for public comment 

the proposed amendments and the ABA 

billing instructions. 

In addition, the Department is receiving 

comments on its proposed ABA fee 

schedule rates and State Plan Amendment 

15-001, Attachment 4-19-B. The increase 

in expenditures to the Medicaid Program, 

including managed care plans, is anticipated 

to be $1.5 million which can be viewed 

on the New Mexico Human Services 

Department website at: http://www.hsd.

state.nm.us/providers/fee-for-service.aspx. 

At the page, accept the terms and conditions 

of using the site, scroll down to Proposed 

Fee Schedules or Rates, then see the posting 

titled: Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) 

fee schedule rates 5.2015.

A public hearing to receive testimony on 

this proposed rule will be held in Hearing 

Room 1, Toney Anaya Building, 2550 

Cerrillos Road Santa Fe, NM on April 14, 

2015, 11 a.m. Mountain Daylight Time 

(MDT).

Interested parties may submit written 

comments directly to: Human Services 

Department, Offi ce of the Secretary, 

ATTN: Medical Assistance Division Public 

Comments, P.O. Box 2348, Santa Fe, New 

Mexico 87504-2348. Recorded comments 

may be left by calling (505) 827-1337. 

Electronic comments may be submitted to 

madrules@state.nm.us Written, electronic 

and recorded comments will be given the 

same consideration as oral testimony made 

at the public hearing. All comments must 

be received no later than April 14, 2015, 

5:00 p.m. MDT.

If you are a person with a disability and you 

require this information in an alternative 

NEW MEXICO HUMAN 

SERVICES DEPARTMENT

MEDICAL ASSISTANCE DIVISION
From: 

To: 

Subject: 

Date: 

Citv of Albuqyeraue-Ajr Oyality program 

Daffern. Andrew 

Notice of Hearing on 502 iSIP and Date Change for Regular Meeting, Albuquerque Bernalillo County Air Quality 

Control Board 

Monday, March 16, 2015 4:02:31 PM 

The Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board (Air 

Board) will hold a public hearing on April 30, 2015 at 5:30 p.m. in 

the Vincent E. Griego Chambers located in the basement level of 

the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Government Center, One Civic 

Plaza NW, Albuquerque, NM. The purpose of the hearing is to 

consider the matter of AQCB Petition No. 2015-1, to adopt a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for Sulfur Dioxide (S02) to address 

Sections 110(a)(l) and (2) of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 

U.S.C. Sections 7410(a)(1) and (2) hereafter referred to as the "S02 

Infrastructure SIP". The regularly scheduled meeting date on April 

8, 2015 has been changed to April30, 2015. 

The proponent of this regulatory action is the City of Albuquerque, 

Environmental Health Department, Air Quality Program. 

The hearing will consider whether to adopt the S02 Infrastructure 

SIP and submit it to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a 

proposed revision to the New Mexico State Implementation Plan. 

An Infrastructure SIP is required by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection agency to demonstrate compliance with a newly issued 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard. An information sheet with 

further details on the subject matter of the hearing is available at: 

http://www.cabq.~oy/ajrqualjty/air-quality -controlboard/documents/3.%20Information%20Sheet%20-%20S02.pdf 

Following the hearing, the Air Board at its regular monthly meeting 

is expected to consider adopting the proposed Infrastructure SIP for 

S02. 

The Public Review Draft of the S02 Infrastructure SIP may be 

reviewed during regular business hours at the Environmental Health 
Department, One Civic Plaza, NW, Suite 3023, Albuquerque, NM 

87102. Copies of the Public Review Draft may be obtained by 

contacting Andrew Daffern, Air Quality Control Board Liaison, at 

(505) 768-2601 or adaffern@cabq.gov. The Public Review Draft 

can also be found on the Air Quality Program web site at 

http:Uwww.cabq.goy/ajrqualjty/air-quality-controlboardldocuments/S02%20jSJP%20Publjc%20Reyjew%20Draft.pdf. 

The hearing will be conducted in accordance with NMSA § 74-2-6; 

Joint Air Quality Control Board Ordinance, Section 9-5-1-6, 

Adoption of Regulations, Notice and Hearing [ROA 1994]; 

Bernalillo County Ordinance, Section 30-35, Adoption of 

Regulations, Notice and Hearings [Ord. No. 94-5, Section 6, 2-2-

94]; and 20.11.82 NMAC, Rulemaking Procedures-Air Quality 

Control Board; 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 Air Board a written notice of intent (NOI) to do so by 5:00 

p.m. on April14, 2015. The NOI shall: 

(I) 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 

and state the anticipated duration of the testimony of that witness; 

(4) include the text of any recommended modifications to the 

proposed regulatory change; 

(5) list and attach an original and 15 copies of all exhibits 

anticipated to be offered by that person at the hearing, including 

any proposed statement of reasons for adoption of rules; and 

(6) be served on the petitioner, ifthe document is an NOI filed by 

any person other than the petitioner. 

The NOI must be filed in hard copy form (original plus 15 copies 

of all documents) by 5:00p.m. on April14, 2015, with Andrew 

Daffern, Air Quality Control Board Liaison, Environmental Health 

Department, One Civic Plaza, NW, Suite 3023, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico 87102. 

Any member of the general public may present non-technical 

testimony at the hearing. No prior notification is required to present 

non-technical testimony. Any member of the public may also offer 

exhibits in connection with non-technical testimony, as long as the 

exhibit is not unduly repetitious of the testimony. A member of the 

general public who wishes to submit a non-technical written 

statement for the record in lieu of oral testimony shall file the 

written statement prior to the hearing, or submit it at the hearing. 
Written statements submitted prior to the hearing may be directed 

to the Air Quality Control Board Liaison, Andrew Daffern, at the 

above contact information. 

NOTICE FOR PERSON WITH DISABILITIES OR SPECIAL 

NEEDS: If you have a disability or require special assistance to 

participate, including translation/interpretation service, or review of 

any agendas, minutes, or other public meeting documents, please 

contact Andrew Daffern, Air Quality Control Board liaison, by 

April 16, 2015, at (505) 768-2601, or adaffern@cabq.gov. TTY 

users requiring special assistance may call the New Mexico Relay 

at 1-800-659-8331. 

This email was sent to adaffern@cabq.gov by emerta@cabg.qoy ' 

Update profile/Email Address . Rapid removal with SafeUnsubscrjbeTM i Privacy policy. 

City of Albuquerque · One Civic Plaza NW Albuquerque : NM 87102 
ALBUQUERQUE-BERNALILLO COUNTY 

AIR QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 

Chair, Kelsey Curran, CIH, City 

Jens Deichmann, PhD, County 

Augustine Grace, PE, City 

Jllce Chair, Ms. Jane Cudney-Biack, City 

Robert Goldstein, MD, County 

Ms. Deborah L. Stover, County 

Dona Upson, MD, City Non-voting members: BCPC Liaison-Lentoa Malry, PhD; COA/EPC 

Liaison-James Peck. Margaret Nieto, Secretary to the Board 

' Date: April30, 2015 (Wednesday) Location: 

Time: 5:30p.m. Vincent E. Griego Chambers 

~-- ---- 1 Albuqueoque-Bemalillo County . General inquiries regarding this agenda may be directed to Andrew Dqffern (505) 768- Government Center 

i 2601 (adqffern@cabq.gov). One Civic Plaza NW 

I Fo·r·d· ocum··· e .. n. ts related. to eac. h agenda item, please .. g. o to h. ttp .. ://www .. ca. bg .. g.ovtairgualitv. /air- Albuquerqu_ e NM 87102 LJd.~ality~colltrol-board/eyentslapril-30-20 15-air.jjual~tl:·~ontJ:ol-boarcJ~meetillS __ _____ _ . _ _ _ ' ______ _ 

Regular Monthly Meeting Draft Agenda 

CALL TO ORDER 

Item #1 Approval of Agenda (Chair) 

Item#2 Approval of March 11, 2015 Meeting Minutes (Chair) 

PUBLIC COMMENT 

ACTION ITEMS 

Item #3 

Item #4 

Election of Chair and Vice Chair for 2015-2016 (Chair) 

Nominations are as follows: 

• Chair: Ms. Kelsey Curran, 

• Vice Chair: Ms. Jane Cudney-Black 

Selection of Board members to serve as non-voting Advisory Member and 

Alternate to Mid.:. Region Council of Governments (MRCOG) Transportation 

Program Task Group (TPTG) and Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) 

(Chair) 

• Advisory Member: 

• Alternate: 

OTHER BUSINESS 

Item#S BICI, Albuquerque's Downtown Pilot Bike Share presentation by 

Lola Bird, Executive Director, DowntownABQ MainStreet Initiative, and 

Valerie Hermanson, Transportation Planner, Mid-Region Council of 

Governments 
Item#6 Discussion on possible action to send a letter of support for the Bike Sharing 

Program to Mayor Berry and City Council, City of Albuquerque; Bernalillo 

County Commissioners, and Dewey Cave, Exec. Director of the MRCOG 

HEARINGS 

• In the Matter of the Petition to adopt a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for S02 to 

address Sections 110(a)(l) and (2) of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7410(a)(l) and (2) hereafter referred to as the "S02 Infrastructure SIP" (AQCB 

Petition No. 2015-1)- Ed Merta, Air Quality Regulation Development 

Coordinator, 

• In the Matter of the Petition to Amend 20.11.61 NMAC, Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration, and Submit the Adopted 20.1l .6[NMAC to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency for Proposed Incorporation into the New 

Mexico State Implementation PI for Air Quality (SIP) (AQCB Petition No. 

2015-2)- Ed Merta, Air Quality Regulation Development Coordinator, 

ACTION ITEMS (coot' d.) 

Item #7 Decision on the Matter of the Petition to adopt a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

for S02 to address Sections llO(a)(l) and (2) of the Federal Clean Air Act 

(CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a (1) and (2) hereafter referred to as the "S02 

Infrastructure SIP" (AQCB Petition No. 2015-1) ·2·~~{ 

Item #8 Decision on the Matter of the Petition to Amend 20.11.61 NMAC, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration, and Submit the Adopted 20.11.61 NMAC to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency for Proposed Incorporation into the New 

Mexico State Implementation Plan for Air Quality (SIP) (AQCB Petition No. 

2015-2) 

REPORt'S Air Program Report. Staff available for questions. 

ADJOURNMENT 

NEXT SCHEDULEDBOARDMEETING/HEARING: May 13-14,2015 

Members of the public who wish to address the Board, may do so by signing up with the Board Clerk and indicating 

either the agenda item they intend to address, or whether they wish to make a general public comment. Sign up 

must occur prior to the Board's consideration of each item. Each person will be given up to two minutes to speak. 

••Notice to persons with disabilities: If you have a disability and require special assistance to participate in this 

process, please call 311 (Voice) and special assistance will be made available to you to receive any public meeting 

documents, including agendas and minutes. 7TY users may request special assistance by calling /-800-659-

8331 .•• 
1

ALBUQUERQUE-BERNALILLO COUNTY 

AIR QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO ADOPT A STATE 

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) FOR SULFUR DIOXIDE (SO2) TO ADDRESS 

SECTIONS 110(a)(1) AND (2) OF THE FEDERAL CLEAN AIR ACT (CAA), 42 

U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) AND (2) HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE “SO2

INFRASTRUCTURE SIP” 

AQCB Petition No. 2015-1 

Air Quality Program, 

Environmental Health Department, 

City of Albuquerque, Petitioner 

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF ED MERTA 

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the Board. My name is Ed Merta. I am 

the Air Quality Regulation Development Coordinator with the Air Quality Program, 

Control Strategies Division, City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Department. I 

am here to testify in the matter of the Petition to Adopt a State Implementation Plan (or 

“SIP”) for Sulfur Dioxide (or “SO2”), Air Quality Control Board Petition No. 2015-1. In 

support of my testimony, I now move that the Notice of Intent and its Exhibits, which are 

listed as AQP Exhibits 1 through 10d and include my full written testimony, be adopted 

while under oath and admitted into the record. 

In this petition, the City of Albuquerque, by and through the Air Quality Program 

of the Environmental Health Department (EHD), asks the Albuquerque - Bernalillo 

County Air Quality Control Board (Board) to adopt a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to 

address Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 

7410(a)(1) and (2), hereafter referred to as the “SO2 Infrastructure SIP”. EHD also asks 

AQP Exhibit 8
2

the Board to approve submission of the SO2 Infrastructure SIP to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) as a proposed revision to the current, overall New Mexico State 

Implementation Plan for air quality. 

I am testifying in favor of this proposed rulemaking, for the following reasons. 

The CAA, Sections 108 and 109, requires the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or “NAAQS,” for sulfur dioxide 

and other specific pollutants, known as criteria pollutants. EPA must review the NAAQS 

for each of these pollutants every five years, in light of scientific data. Based on that data, 

EPA must decide whether and how to revise the NAAQS to protect public health or 

welfare. 

If EPA does revise a NAAQS, state and local air quality jurisdictions have certain 

resulting legal obligations under the CAA. In particular, sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) 

of the CAA require each state or local jurisdiction to submit a plan, known as an 

“Infrastructure SIP,” to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of 

a newly promulgated or revised NAAQS within three years of promulgation of a new or 

revised standard. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA establishes the three year deadline for 

submission of an Infrastructure SIP. 

In connection with that deadline, I must note that the proposed SO2 Infrastructure 

SIP was due in June of 2013. The delay in submitting it resulted from personnel turnover 

in the Air Quality Program of the Albuquerque Environmental Health Department. 

Because of this delay, EPA has asked that it be finalized and submitted as soon as 

possible. 
3

Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA lists the required elements that comprise an 

Infrastructure SIP. These elements demonstrate how a state or local air quality 

jurisdiction will implement, maintain and enforce the revised NAAQS. The elements 

include: enforceable emission limitations and control measures, air quality monitoring and 

modeling, a permitting program, adequate funding and personnel, authority under state law to 

carry out the plan, emissions reporting, emergency powers, public participation, and fee 

collection. 

I should note that the Clean Air Act and its federal implementing regulations also 

impose procedural requirements on the adoption of state and local revisions to an overall 

State Implementation Plan. Adoption of the SO2 Infrastructure SIP qualifies as such a 

revision. In particular, Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act require 

reasonable notice and public hearing in adoption of an Infrastructure SIP. Additional specific 

procedural requirements under these provisions are laid out in the Code of Federal 

Regulations, 40 CFR § 51.102 and 40 CFR, Part 51, Appendix V, paragraph 2.1(g). 

In addition to the above federal provisions, state and local law is also applicable 

to the proposed SO2 Infrastructure SIP. The New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (Air 

Act), NMSA 1978, Sections 74-2-4 and 74-2-5.B(1) [1967 as amended through 2007] 

authorizes and requires the Air Board to adopt, promulgate, publish, amend, and repeal 

air quality regulations. The Act, NMSA 1978, Section 74-2-5.B(2), also authorizes and 

requires the Air Board to adopt air quality plans, including Infrastructure SIPs. Under. 

NMSA 1978, Section 74-2-6(B), a public hearing of the Board must be held before any 

regulation or emission control requirement can be adopted. Similarly, the Board is 

authorized and required to adopt, promulgate, publish, amend, and repeal air quality 

regulations and adopt plans under: City of Albuquerque Ordinances, Section 9-5-1-4(B); 
4

Bernalillo County Ordinances, Section 30-33(b). Local ordinances also require 

regulations and plans to be adopted only after a hearing of the Board, per: City of 

Albuquerque Ordinances, Section 9-5-1-6; Bernalillo County Ordinances, Section 30-35. 

To demonstrate compliance with federal, state, and local procedural provisions, EHD 

is presenting the following: as AQP Exhibit 1, the Public Review Draft; as AQP Exhibit 1a, 

EHD’s petition for this rulemaking; as AQP Exhibit 1b, EHD’s email notice of the petition; 

as AQP Exhibit 2, EHD’s email notice of the opportunity to review and comment upon the 

EPA/Stakeholder Review Draft of the proposed Infrastructure SIP; as AQP Exhibit 5, draft 

minutes of the Board’s March 11, 2015 meeting, at which the Board approved EHD’s request 

for this hearing; as AQP Exhibits 6a, 6b, and 6c, legal notices for this hearing; as AQP 

Exhibit 7, the draft agenda for the Board meeting and hearings scheduled for April 30, 2015. 

The rulemaking for the proposed Infrastructure SIP has been undertaken in accordance 

with the local regulation governing rulemaking proceedings, 20.11.82 NMAC, 

Rulemaking Procedures -- Air Quality Control Board.

 The proposed sulfur dioxide Infrastructure SIP was made necessary when EPA 

issued a new federal standard for that pollutant. On June 22, 2010, EPA Administrator 

Lisa Jackson promulgated a new NAAQS for SO2, effective August 23, 2010 [75 Fed. 

Reg. 35,520 (June 22 , 2010)]. Based on its review of the air quality criteria for oxides of 

sulfur and the primary NAAQS for oxides of sulfur as measured by sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

EPA made revisions to the primary SO2 NAAQS in order to provide requisite protection 

of public health. Specifically, EPA has established a new one-hour standard at a level of 

75 parts per billion (ppb), based on the three-year average of the 99th percentile of the 

yearly distribution of one-hour daily maximum concentrations. This standard is more 

stringent than the old standard, which it entirely replaced. The old standard was measured 
5

in parts per million, rather than billion, and it specified 24 hour and annual SO2

concentrations, rather than one hour concentrations. In conjunction with the new 

standard, EPA also established SO2 ambient air monitoring and reporting requirements to 

support implementation of and compliance with the new NAAQS. Further details on 

EPA’s standard and its rationale are available in the text of EPA’s final rule, shown as 

AQP Exhibit 10a. 

 The proposed SO2 Infrastructure SIP addresses all the elements required under the 

Clean Air Act. The details of how the Infrastructure SIP does so are contained in the 

Public Review Draft, shown as AQP Exhibit 1. EHD began the process of formulating 

the Public Review Draft by first circulating a Stakeholder/EPA Review Draft of the 

proposed Infrastructure SIP -- an initial version of the document that was made available 

by electronic mail to both EPA and to stakeholders from December 24, 2014 to January 

30, 2015. Notice of the circulation of this draft is attached as AQP Exhibit 2. The Public 

Review Draft reflects comments received on the EPA/Stakeholder Review Draft from the 

Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority (ABCWUA). ABCWUA’s 

comments are shown as AQP Exhibit 3a, and EHD’s responses are shown as AQP 

Exhibit 3b. The Public Review Draft also reflects comments received from EPA on an 

earlier stakeholder review draft. EPA’s comments are shown as AQP Exhibit 4a, and 

EHD’s responses are shown as AQP Exhibit 4b. The Public Review Draft displays 

changes made from the Stakeholder/EPA review draft in the form of strikethroughs for 

deleted text and underlines for addition of text. Further background on the preparation of 

an Infrastructure SIP is available in EPA’s guidance document on that subject, shown as 

AQP Exhibit 10c. 
6

At this hearing, the Environmental Health Department is recommending some 

minor additional floor amendments to the Public Review Draft. Most of these 

amendments clarify certain language by referring more explicitly to the Environmental 

Health Department, rather than merely the Air Quality Program on its own, as the 

administrative agency for the Air Board, duly authorized by the precise language of the 

state Air Quality Control Act and local ordinances. These changes can be seen in AQP 

Exhibit 9, pages 4, 5, 7, and 13. There are two additional minor amendments on page 14 

of AQP Exhibit 9. The first makes a minor correction regarding the source of legal 

authority for the State Implementation Plan. The second responds to comments received 

from EPA on the earlier stakeholder review draft. Those comments asked that the draft 

make more clear EPA’s ultimate authority to approve or disapprove SIP submissions. 

Although the new federal SO2 standard is more stringent than the old, the Air 

Quality Program is well positioned to meet it. As shown in the Public Review Draft, AQP 

Exhibit 1, pages 11 and 12, only two major sources of sulfur dioxide emissions are 

present in our air quality jurisdiction. Ambient air quality in Bernalillo County, as 

monitored since 2010, shows SO2 levels that more than meet the new standard. The most 

recent available data, for 2013, shows that local SO2 levels were at less than 10% of the 

allowable level under the new standard. Further details on local SO2 air quality are 

available in the 2014 Annual Network Review for Ambient Air Monitoring, shown as 

AQP Exhibit 10d. 

In the future, EPA will formally designate Albuquerque and Bernalillo County as 

in or out of attainment for the new standard. This hasn’t happened yet because EHD’s Air 

Quality Program is still in the process of working with EPA to gather, verify, and submit 
7

all of the air monitoring data that EPA requires for such a designation. Once that formal 

process is complete, EPA will then review the data and issue an attainment/nonattainment 

designation. Current indications are that our local area will be in attainment. Having an 

EPA-approved Infrastructure SIP in place will demonstrate that the federally enforceable 

regulatory framework exists to maintain that status. Further information on EPA’s future 

plans for attainment/nonattainment designations under the SO2 standard are available in a 

2013 letter from the EPA Region 6 Administrator to the Governor of New Mexico, 

shown as AQP Exhibit 10b. 

Finally, EHD anticipates no adverse impact on the regulated community here in 

Albuquerque and Bernalillo County as a result of the Infrastructure SIP being adopted. 

The Infrastructure SIP does not create new local regulations. It merely demonstrates to 

EPA that necessary state and local legal authority, programs, and resources are in place to 

meet the new federal standard for SO2. 

 That concludes my testimony, and I stand with my colleagues from the EHD Air 

Quality Program for questions. 
STAKEHOLDER PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as of 12/24/20142/20/2015 

AQP Exhibit 9, Staff Proposed Floor Amendments (shown in red font) 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 1 of 21

1 ALBUQUERQUE-BERNALILLO COUNTY 

2 AIR QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 

3

4

5 State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Air Quality 

6

7

8 To Address Infrastructure Requirements of 

9 Section 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) of the Clean Air Act 

10 (CAA) to Implement the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide 

11 (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

12 (NAAQS) 

13

14

15

16

17

18 Adopted 

19 [MONTH & DATE, 2015]April 30, 2015

20

21

22 _________________________ 

23 Xxxxxxx XxxxxxxKelsey Curran, CIH, Chair 

24 Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board 

AQP Exhibit 9
STAKEHOLDER PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as of 12/24/20142/20/2015 

AQP Exhibit 9, Staff Proposed Floor Amendments (shown in red font) 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 2 of 21

1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS DOCUMENT 

2

3

4 Ed Merta, Air Quality Regulation Development Coordinator 

5 Control Strategies Section, Air Quality Program (AQP) 

6 Principal Author, Editor, SIP Submittal 

7

8 Margaret Nieto, Control Strategies Manager, AQP 

9 Project Oversight 

10

11 Air Quality Monitoring and Assurance Section, AQP 

12 Air Monitoring and Data Program Information 

13

14 Regulatory Development Committee, AQP 

15 Peer Review 

16

17

18
STAKEHOLDER PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as of 12/24/20142/20/2015 

AQP Exhibit 9, Staff Proposed Floor Amendments (shown in red font) 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 3 of 21

1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

2

3 AAMNP Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan 

4 AQCA New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (also referred to as ―Air Act‖)

5 AQCB Air Quality Control Board (also referred to as ―Air Board‖) 

6 AQP Air Quality Program 

7 AQS Air Quality System 

8 CAA Clean Air Act

9 CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

10 EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

11 Fed. Reg. Federal Register 

12 GHG Greenhouse gasses 

13 iSIP Infrastructure State Implementation Plan 

14 NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

15 NEI National Emissions Inventory 

16 NM New Mexico 

17 NMAC New Mexico Administrative Code 

18 NMSA New Mexico Statutes Annotated 

19 PM2.5 Particulate Matter 2.5 

20 PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

21 ROA Revised Ordinances of the City of Albuquerque 

22 SIP State Implementation Plan 

23 SLEIS State and Local Emissions Inventory System 

24 SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

25

26
STAKEHOLDER PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as of 12/24/20142/20/2015 

AQP Exhibit 9, Staff Proposed Floor Amendments (shown in red font) 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 4 of 21

1

2 Introduction 

3

4 A State Implementation Plan (SIP) identifies how the state will attain and maintain the primary and 

5 secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The SIP 

6 contains statutes, regulations, source-specific requirements, non-regulatory items such as plans and 

7 inventories, and in some cases additional requirements promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

8 Agency (EPA). The initial SIPs for states were approved by EPA in 1972. 37 Fed. Reg. 10,842-10,906 

9 (May 31, 1972). A state may revise its SIP with EPA approval as necessary. The federally enforceable 

10 SIP for New Mexico (including Bernalillo County) is compiled in 40 C.F.R. Part 52, Subpart GG, 

11 subsections 1620-1640.

12

13 Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) of the CAA require that, within three years of EPA promulgation of a 

14 new or revised NAAQS, each State must submit a plan known as an ―infrastructure SIP‖ (iSIP). 

15 ―Infrastructure,‖ in this context, means the programs, policies, activities, resources and authority by which 

the state will attain, maintain, and enforce the new NAAQS. The iSIP describes these elements in detail.116

17 Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA addresses the timing requirement for the submissions of any iSIP revisions, 

18 while Section 110(a)(2) lists the required elements that comprise the iSIP. 

19

20 On June 22, 2010, the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, 

21 promulgated a new NAAQS for sulfur dioxide (―SO2‖) [referred to below as the ―2010 SO2 NAAQS‖], 

22 effective August 23, 2010. 75 Fed. Reg. 35,520-35,603 (June 22, 2010). Based on its review of the air 

23 quality criteria for oxides of sulfur and the primary NAAQS for oxides of sulfur as measured by SO2, 

24 EPA made revisions to the primary SO2 NAAQS in order to provide the requisite protection of public 

25 health. Id. Specifically, EPA replaced the former 24-hour and annual standards with a new short-term 

standard based on the 3-year average of the 99th 26 percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily 

27 maximum SO2 concentrations. Id. EPA set the level of this new standard at 75 ppb. Id. 

28

The City of Albuquerque’s Environmental Health Department, Air Quality Program (AQP)229 , has 

30 recommended that Bernalillo County be designated with an attainment status of ―unclassifiable‖ in regard 

31 to the revised SO2 NAAQS, pending the availability of air quality monitoring data necessary for an ―in 

attainment‖ designation.332 See CAA Section 107(d). On July 25, 2013, EPA designated certain areas of the 

33 United States as nonattainment for the new 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 78 Fed. Reg. 47,191-47,205 (EPA Aug. 

34 5, 2013). Albuquerque-Bernalillo County was not designated as one of these nonattainment areas. Id. 

35 EPA has stated that it will address designations for all other areas in future actions. Id.

36

37 Albuquerque-Bernalillo County has not yet incorporated the 2010 SO2 NAAQS into the regulations 

38 implementing the CAA. 20.11.8 NMAC, Ambient Air Quality Standards. It plans to do so in a future rule39 making. 

 

1

 More information on the SIP process is available at http://epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/. 

2

 ―Air Quality Program‖ is now the correct term referring to the local air pollution control agency for 

Albuquerque and Bernalillo County (within the City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Department), 

established under NMSA 1978 § 74-2-4. This term replaces the term ―Air Quality Division,‖ which was used in 

documents previously submitted to EPA. 

3

 Letter from Al Armendariz, EPA Region 6 Administrator, to Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico 

(June 2, 2011). Letters cited in this iSIP submission are available upon request from the City of Albuquerque, 

Environmental Health Department, Air Quality Program. 
STAKEHOLDER PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as of 12/24/20142/20/2015 

AQP Exhibit 9, Staff Proposed Floor Amendments (shown in red font) 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 5 of 21

1

2 The matrix in the main body of this document, below, outlines the requirements of Sections 110(a)(2)(A) 

3 through (M) of the CAA [codified at U.S.C. 42 § 7410, State Implementation Plans For National Primary 

4 And Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards] and addresses how Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New 

5 Mexico will implement, maintain and enforce the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

6

7 Legislative authority for Albuquerque-Bernalillo County’s air quality program is codified in the New 

8 Mexico Air Quality Control Act (Air Act), Chapter 74, Environmental Improvement, Article 2, Air 

9 Pollution, of the New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978 (NMSA 1978). Section 4 of this statute authorizes 

10 the creation of a ―local authority‖ by a New Mexico county or municipality meeting certain criteria if the 

11 county or municipality adopts an ordinance providing for the local administration and enforcement of the 

12 Air Act. Albuquerque and Bernalillo County meet these statutory criteria in the Air Act. The City of 

13 Albuquerque and Bernalillo County each adopted parallel ordinances by which they accepted the 

14 authority delegated by the Air Act, established the Joint Air Quality Control Board (Air Board), and 

15 specified that the Air Board shall adopt regulations consistent with the Air Act and shall adopt a plan for 

16 the regulation, control, prevention or abatement of air pollution throughout Bernalillo County. These 

17 parallel ordinances provide that the Albuquerque Environmental Health Department is the administrative 

18 agency of the Air Board. The AQP is part of the Environmental Health Department. The Albuquerque and 

19 Bernalillo County ordinances are codified at Revised Ordinances of the City of Albuquerque (ROA) §§ 9-

20 5-1 to -99 and Bernalillo County Ordinance 94-5 §§ 1 to -20 [codified at Art. II, Ch. 30, §§ 30-31 to 47. 

21

22 For the sake of simplicity, this document will use the terms ―Air Quality Program‖ or ―AQP‖ throughout 

23 this document as a shorthand reference for the longer term ―City of Albuquerque, Environmental Health 

24 Department, Air Quality Program.‖ In all instances of such usage, the terms ―Air Quality Program‖ and 

25 ―AQP‖ refer to the organizational unit within the Environmental Health Department (i.e. the ―air agency,‖ 

26 ―Department,‖ or ―EHD‖, 20.11.1.7 NMAC, General Provisions; or the ―local agency‖, NMSA 1978 § 

27 74-2-5.1) that carries out air quality regulation duties and powers of the Department under the legal 

28 authorities discussed in the above paragraph. 

29

30 With certain exceptions, discussed below, the state statutes, regulations, policies and programs cited in 

31 this iSIP submission are part of the approved Albuquerque-Bernalillo County elements of the New 

32 Mexico SIP and thus are cited in 40 CFR Part 52, Subpart GG, subsections 52.1620 to 1620. 

33

34 The following legal authorities do not currently appear in the CFR codification of the SIP. Thus, 

35 Albuquerque-Bernalillo County is requesting, as part of this iSIP submission, that EPA approve them into 

36 the CFR. The full text of these legal authorities is attached as an exhibit to this iSIP submission. 

37

38  Certain provisions of the state Air Act related to control of SO2 are not cited in the CFR 

39 codification of the New Mexico SIP. Albuquerque-Bernalillo County is including these NMSA 

40 provisions with this iSIP submission. They are: NMSA 1978 §§ 74-2-5.1 and 74-2-12.1. 

41

42  The regulations to implement CAA programs in Bernalillo County are codified in the New 

43 Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC), specifically Title 20, Environmental Protection, Chapter 

44 11, Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board. Certain NMAC provisions related 

45 to control of SO2 are not currently cited in the CFR codification of the New Mexico SIP. 

46 Albuquerque-Bernalillo County is including the full text of these NMAC provisions with this 

47 iSIP submission. They are: 20.11.47 NMAC, Emissions Inventory Requirements; 20.11.62 

48 NMAC, Acid Rain; 20.11.69 NMAC, Pathological Waste Destructors; 20.11.71 NMAC, 

49 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills; 20.11.80 NMAC, Adjudicatory Procedures -- Administrative 

50 Enforcement Hearings by the Director; 20.11.81 NMAC, Adjudicatory Procedures -- Air Quality 

51 Control Board; and 20.11.82 NMAC, Rulemaking Procedures -- Air Quality Control Board. 
STAKEHOLDER PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as of 12/24/20142/20/2015 

AQP Exhibit 9, Staff Proposed Floor Amendments (shown in red font) 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 6 of 21

1

2 Albuquerque-Bernalillo County has already submitted the following legal authorities with earlier SIP 

3 submissions now awaiting EPA approval. The full text of these authorities is not included in this iSIP 

4 submission but they are described in the main body of this document, addressing the required elements of 

5 CAA § 110(a)(2). 

6

7  The CFR codification of the New Mexico SIP cites to outdated versions ofCertain Albuquerque 

8 and Bernalillo County ordinances have been amended and re-codified since original EPA 

9 approval as part of the New Mexico SIP. To account for these changes in these ordinances since 

10 the most recent EPA approval of the State Boards SIP, 64 Fed. Reg. 29,235-29,240 (June 1, 

11 1999), and demonstrate that local law conforms to federal standards, the Air Board has approved 

12 a proposed revision to the State Boards SIP element that would incorporate into the CFR SIP all 

currently effective applicable ordinances, policies, and programs.413 This SO2 iSIP document will 

14 refer throughout to the existing, most current local ordinances. 

15

16  The Air Board has approved proposed revisions to the following regulations in response to EPA 

17 rulemaking related to PM2.5: 20.11.41 NMAC, Construction Permits; 20.11.42 NMAC, 

18 Operating Permits; 20.11.60 NMAC, Permitting in Nonattainment Areas; 20.11.61 NMAC, 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration.

5

19

20

21

22 

 

4

 Letter from Ryan Flynn, New Mexico Environment Secretary, to Ron Curry, EPA Region 6 

Administrator (July 26, 2013). 

5

Id. 
STAKEHOLDER PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as of 12/24/20142/20/2015 

AQP Exhibit 9, Staff Proposed Floor Amendments (shown in red font) 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 7 of 21

1 Albuquerque-Bernalillo County 

2 110(a)(2) Required SIP Elements for Sulfur Dioxide 

3

§ 110(a)(2)(A)6

Include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or 

techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and 

auctions or emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as 

may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this 

Chapter.

Control measures generally. Albuquerque-Bernalillo County’s enforceable emission limitations and other 

control measures are authorized by the Air Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 74-2-1 to -17, together with the 

Albuquerque Joint Air Quality Control Board Ordinance, ROA §§ 9-5-1-1 to -99 and the parallel 

Bernalillo County Joint Air Quality Control Board Ordinance, 94-5 §§ 1 to -20 [collectively referred to as 

the ―Air Act and Ordinances‖]. The Air Act and Ordinances authorized creation of the AlbuquerqueBernalillo County Joint Air Quality Control Board and the Air Quality Program of the City of 

Albuquerque Environmental Health Department. NMSA 1978 § 74-2-4; ROA §§ 9-5-1-3 to -4; Bernalillo 

County Ord. 94-5 §§ 3 and 4. The Air Act and Ordinances empower the Air Board to adopt, promulgate, 

publish, amend and repeal regulations consistent with the Air Act to attain and maintain NAAQS and 

prevent or abate air pollution. NMSA 1978 § 74-2-5; ROA § 9-5-1-4; Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 § 4. 

The Air Act and Ordinances also designate serve as the legal basis for establishment of the City of 

Albuquerque Environmental Health Department as the air pollution control agency for AlbuquerqueBernalillo County and administrative agency of the Air Board, with authority to enforce the air quality 

regulations of the Board. NMSA 1978, § 74-2-5.1; ROA § 9-5-1-5; Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 § 54.

The City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County adopted parallel ordinances by which they accepted the 

authority delegated by the Air Act, established the Air Board, and specified that the board shall adopt 

regulations consistent with the Air Act and adopt a plan for the regulation, control, prevention or 

abatement of air pollution. ROA §§ 9-5-1-1 to -99 and Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 § 4.For additional 

discussion of these ordinances and their role in satisfying EPA requirements for the New Mexico SIP, see 

Element E(ii) of this iSIP. 

The regulations authorized by the Air Act and Ordinances and duly adopted by the Air Board are codified 

at 20.11 NMAC. The Air Board has promulgated rules that control emissions of sulfur dioxide and other 

criteria pollutants, including rules providing for emission limits, control measures, permits, fees, marketbased control techniques, and compliance schedules. 20.11 NMAC, parts1 to 2, 5 to 8, 40, 41, 43, 46, 47, 

49, 60 to 61, 63 to 68, 71, 80 to 82, and 90. 

Except as indicated in the Introduction of this document, the above paragraphs describing emission limits

and control provisions as they relate to CAA Section 110 requirements have been submitted to and 

approved by EPA into the New Mexico SIP, codified The record of EPA’s approval of specific New 

Mexico statutes, local ordinances, local regulations, and other enforceable documents into the New 

Mexico SIP is available at 40 CFR Part 52, Subpart GG, Sections 1620-1640. 7

 

6

 This iSIP report is divided into ―elements,‖ each addressing requirements under a specific provision of the 

CAA. This element addresses the requirements of CAA § 110(a)(2)(A), and thus may be referred to as ―Element A‖ 

of the iSIP. Other portions of this iSIP use the same naming convention for individual iSIP elements. 

7

 Albuquerque-Bernalillo County has submitted SIP revisions applying to the following regulations and is 

awaiting EPA approval: 20.11 NMAC, Parts 1, 41, 47, 60, and 61. EPA recently, by direct final rule, approved SIP 

revisions affecting 20.11.1 and 20.11.47 NMAC. 80 Fed. Reg. 5471-5475 (Feb. 2, 2015). 
STAKEHOLDER PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as of 12/24/20142/20/2015 

AQP Exhibit 9, Staff Proposed Floor Amendments (shown in red font) 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 8 of 21

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County has submitted certain proposed revisions to its permitting regulations to 

EPA and is awaiting EPA approval of these revisions.

8

If such approval should be granted, the 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County portion of the New Mexico SIP would be updated accordingly. Aside 

from these proposed revisionsAccordingly, AQP has an EPA-approved air permitting program with 

related control strategies for both major and minor sources, thus ensuring that all applicable requirements 

are included in the source's permit. 40 CFR Part 52, Subpart GG, Section 1620(c).

Startup, shutdown and malfunction; director’s discretion. Albuquerque-Bernalillo County’s regulation on 

this subject is 20.11.49 NMAC, Excess Emissions, which EPA approved in 2010. 75 Fed. Reg. 5698-5701 

(Feb. 4, 2010). Under this regulation, AQP does not exempt from enforcement excess emissions that 

occur during start-up, shutdown, maintenance, or malfunction. Emissions in excess of permit or 

regulatory limits are presumptive violations, subject to affirmative defenses with the burden of proof on 

the respondent. 20.11.49 NMAC, Excess Emissions. The statutes, ordinances, and regulations governing 

AQP’s enforcement and maintenance of the NAAQS do not contain ―director’s discretion‖ provisions that 

purport to permit revisions to SIP approved emissions limits with limited public process or without 

requiring further approval by EPA. 20.11.49 NMAC, while previously approved by EPA as meeting CAA 

requirements, is now subject to a new proposed EPA rule that, when finalized, may require revision of the 

regulation. 79 Fed. Reg. 55,920-55,956 (Sept. 17, 2014). AQP will work with EPA in this regulatory 

process to take whatever action may be required to comply with federal law.

§ 110(a)(2)(B) Provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, 

and procedures necessary to monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air 

quality; and upon request, make such data available to the Administrator.

AQP is authorized to conduct monitoring of ambient air quality: ―[T]he local agency . . . shall develop 

facts and make investigations consistent with the [state] Air Quality Control Act.‖ NMSA 1978, 74-2-

5.1(B); ROA § 9-5-1-5(B) (similar); Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 § 5(B). Monitoring develops facts and 

investigates Bernalillo County air quality. Thus, the Air Act and Ordinances authorize AQP to conduct 

its monitoring program. 

Monitoring is also mandated by EPA regulations. Therefore, under both state statute and federal 

regulations, AQP has the obligation and authority to monitor air quality for SO2 at appropriate locations 

in accordance with EPA’s ambient air quality monitoring network requirements, 40 CFR parts 53 

(―Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods‖) and 58 (―Ambient Air Quality 

Surveillance‖). AQP’s monitoring program implements the following specific federal regulatory 

requirements: 

• providing for submission of data to EPA’s Air Quality System in a timely manner, 40 CFR part 58; 

• providing EPA with annual monitoring network plans, 40 CFR part 58.10 (―Annual monitoring network 

plan and periodic network assessment‖); 

• obtaining EPA’s approval of any planned changes to monitoring sites or to the network plan, 40 CFR 

58.14 (―System Modification‖). 

 

8

 Albuquerque-Bernalillo County has submitted SIP revisions applying to the following regulations and is 

awaiting EPA approval: 20.11 NMAC, Parts, 41, 60, and 61.In addition, EPA recently, by direct final rule, approved 

SIP revisions affecting 20.11.1 and 20.11.47 NMAC. 80 Fed. Reg. 5471-5475 (Feb. 2, 2015). 
STAKEHOLDER PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as of 12/24/20142/20/2015 

AQP Exhibit 9, Staff Proposed Floor Amendments (shown in red font) 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 9 of 21

Pursuant to the above authority, AQP maintains a monitoring network throughout Bernalillo County to 

assess ambient concentrations for all of the NAAQS, including SO2. All monitors are subjected to the 

quality assurance requirements of 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A. Monitors are located at sites that have 

met the minimum siting requirements of Part 58, Appendix E. All data is submitted to EPA’s Air Quality 

System (AQS) in accordance with the schedule prescribed by 40 CFR Part 58. 

As part of its responsibility for maintaining the monitoring network, AQP submits for EPA review an 

Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan (AAMNP). 40 CFR § 58.10. This document describes how AQP

has complied with monitoring requirements and explains any proposed changes. AQP submitted its 2014 

AAMNP on July 10, 2014 and received notification of EPA approval on February 3, 2015. is awaiting 

EPA approval of the plan.

9 While EPA has not made an official designation for Bernalillo County of 

attainment or nonattainment, ambient air quality data reported in the 2014 AAMNP showed SO2 levels 

less than 10% of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

EPA’s most recent approval of AQP’s AAMNP was in 2013.10 Theis EPA-approved 20143 AAMNP 

described ongoing activities for monitoring SO2; the 2014 AAMNP also describes such activities. Per the 

AAMNPs, tThese activities comply with EPA requirements for the State and Local Air Monitoring 

Stations (SLAMS) network and the National Core Multi-Pollutant Monitoring Stations (NCore) network.

AQP determined in 2011 that it was not required to install new monitors under the revised 1-hour 2010 

SO2 NAAQS.11 However, in an effort unrelated to the revised SO2 NAAQS, AQP began SO2 monitoring 

under the NCore program in 2010. Because this monitoring had only recently begun at the time EPA 

finalized the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, AQP recommended in 2011 that Albuquerque-Bernalillo County receive 

an attainment/nonattainment designation of ―unclassifiable.‖ Once AQP’s monitoring has gathered

sufficient data, AQP will be able to make a new designation recommendation to EPA regarding 

reclassification of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County. . to ―attainment.‖

EPA has stated that it will defer action on Albuquerque-Bernalillo County’s 2011 designation

recommendation until a future date.

12

Air dispersion modeling performed in combination with the above described monitoring of ambient air 

pollutant concentrations is discussed later in this iSIP submission, in the section addressing requirements 

of CAA § 110(a)(2)(K).

§ 110(a)(2)(C) Include a program to provide for enforcement of the measures in § 110(a)(2)(A), 

and regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within 

 

9

 Letter from Danny Nevarez, Deputy Director, Albuquerque Environmental Health Department, to Mark 

Hansen, Associated Director for Air Programs, Acting, EPA Region 6 (July 10, 2014)Letter from Mark Hansen, 

Associate Director for Air Programs, Acting, EPA Region 6, to Danny Nevarez, Deputy Director, Albuquerque 

Environmental Health Department (February 3, 2015). 

10 Letter from Thomas Diggs, Associate Director for Air, EPA Region 6, to Danny Nevarez, Deputy 

Director, Albuquerque Environmental Health Department (March 12, 2014). 

11 Letter from Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico, to Al Armendariz, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 6 (May 24, 2011). All of the information in this paragraph is based on this letter. 

12 Letter from Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6, to Susana Martinez, Governor of New 

Mexico (Feb. 7, 2013). 

 
STAKEHOLDER PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as of 12/24/20142/20/2015 

AQP Exhibit 9, Staff Proposed Floor Amendments (shown in red font) 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 10 of 21

the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that NAAQS are achieved, 

including a permit program as required in Parts C and D of this Subchapter.

Enforcement: The Air Act and Ordinances authorize AQP to enforce emission limits and control 

measures satisfying Element A of this infrastructure SIP, above. The statutes, regulations, and ordinances 

establishing the emissions limits and control measures described in Element A, coupled with air quality 

permits issued by AQP, set forth the boundaries beyond which regulated entities in AlbuquerqueBernalillo County can expect enforcement action. The Air Act and Ordinances authorize AQP to pursue 

enforcement through administrative compliance orders or commencement of civil actions. NMSA 1978, § 

74-2-12 and 12.1; ROA § 9-5-1-99 and Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 §§ 13 and 14. AQP carries out such 

enforcement as the local air pollution control agency established for Albuquerque and Bernalillo County. 

ROA § 9-5-1-5; Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 § 5. These ordinances were authorized under the Air Quality 

Control Act, NMSA 1978, § 74-2-4.

As discussed in the Introduction to this document, some of the above cited legal authorities are missing 

from the Code of Federal Regulations or have been revised since they were originally approved into the 

New Mexico SIP at 40 CFR Part 52, Subpart GG, subsections 52.1620 to 1620. This iSIP submission, 

along with earlier submissions to EPA, will incorporate revised or missing legal authorities into the CFR, 

thus helping to clarify enforcement authority for the NAAQS. Please refer to the Introduction for 

additional details.

Preconstruction PSD Permitting of Major Sources: Under the general statutory authority discussed in 

Element A of this iSIP, above, the Air Board and AQP have the authority to implement a comprehensive 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program not only for SO2 but for all regulated New 

Source Review (NSR) pollutants. This authority is implemented in regulations codified at 20.11.61 

NMAC, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, setting forth PSD requirements for all sources in areas 

designated in attainment or unclassifiable for a NAAQS.

13

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County’s comprehensive PSD program for all NSR pollutants has been 

previously approved into the New Mexico SIP by EPA. 58 Fed. Reg. 67,330 (Dec. 21, 1993) (initial 

approval); 72 Fed. Reg. 20,728 (Apr. 26, 2007) (approving SIP revisions for EPA’s 2002 reforms to the 

NSR rules); 77 Fed. Reg. 58,032 (Sept. 19, 2012) (concerning the 1997 and 2008 Ozone and the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS).

Albuquerque Bernalillo County has the authority to issue permits under its PSD program to sources of 

Greenhouse Gasses (GHGs). 20.11.61.7(CCC) NMAC. Pursuant to EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Tailoring 

Rule, EPA has approved Albuquerque Bernalillo County’s PSD provisions for greenhouse gasses into the 

New Mexico SIP. 76 Fed. Reg. 81,836 (Dec. 29, 2011). 

In addition to the above PSD approvals, EPA requires that an iSIP submission address whether an air 

agency has submitted any PSD program revisions, regarding any NSR pollutant, for which the submission 

deadline has passed as of the date for EPA’s proposed approval of an iSIP submission. This iSIP 

addresses the foregoing requirement as follows. 

 

13 For other regulations governing issuance of permits that may apply to a facility subject to PSD 

requirements, see 20.11.41 NMAC, Construction Permits; 20.11.42 NMAC, Operating Permits. For the 

regulation governing permitting for sources located in nonattainment areas, see 20.11.60, Permitting in 

Nonattainment Areas. 
STAKEHOLDER PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as of 12/24/20142/20/2015 

AQP Exhibit 9, Staff Proposed Floor Amendments (shown in red font) 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 11 of 21

Albuquerque Bernalillo County has submitted PSD-related regulatory revisions to EPA in response to 

EPA’s rulemaking amending the PSD requirements for particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5) found at 75 Fed. 

Reg. 64,863 (Oct. 20, 2010). Albuquerque-Bernalillo County’s PSD revisions were transmitted to EPA 

via a letter from New Mexico Environment Secretary Ryan Flynn to EPA Region 6 Administrator Ron 

Curry on July 26, 2013. These revisions amended 20.11.42 NMAC, Operating Permits; 20.11.60 NMAC, 

Permitting in Non-Attainment Areas; and 20.11.61 NMAC, Prevention of Significant Deterioration. The 

revisions addressed specific requirements of 40 CFR §§ 51.165, 51.166, and 52.21. 

Note that certain of the above New Mexico regulatory revisions relating to EPA’s PM2.5 rulemaking were 

vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on January 22, 2013. Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 

F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013). This court decision applies to two regulatory provisions that AlbuquerqueBernalillo County would otherwise have adopted. One such provision, not yet part of the NMAC, would 

have been inserted by amendment at 20.11.61.15(B)(2) NMAC (regarding Significant Impact Levels). 

Another vacated provision has been submitted by the Air Board to EPA and appears at 20.11.61.28 

NMAC (regarding Significant Monitoring Concentration). AQP will respond promptly to any future EPA 

initiatives regarding these vacated provisions. 

Regulation of minor sources and minor modifications: Per 40 CFR sections 51.160 through 51.164, the 

Air Board has approved preconstruction regulations applicable to modification and construction of 

stationary minor sources emitting a NAAQS pollutants. 20.11.41 NMAC, Construction Permits. Thisese

preconstruction regulations also appliesy to minor modification of major sources emitting a NAAQS 

pollutants. Id. EPA has previously approved these provisions into the New Mexico SIP,. 69 Fed. Reg.

78,312-78,3153 (Dec. 30, 2004),. and is currently reviewing certain revisions that AlbuquerqueBernalillo County has adopted to 20.11.41 NMAC.

§ 110(a)(2)(D) Contain adequate provisions -

(i) prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity from emitting any air 

pollutant in amounts which will:

 (I) contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, 

any other State with respect to any such national primary or secondary ambient air 

quality standard, or

 (II) interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable 

implementation plan for any other State under Part C of this Subchapter to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility,

(ii) insuring compliance with the applicable requirements of CAA Sections § 126 

and 115 [Sections 7426 & 7415 of this Title] (relating to interstate and international 

pollution abatement).

Contributions to nonattainment; interference with maintenance, per § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I): AlbuquerqueBernalillo County has sufficient control measures in place to ensure that sources emitting sulfur dioxide 

do not interfere with another state’s maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS or contribute to a state’s 

nonattainment of that NAAQS. See the other portions of this iSIP for descriptions of AlbuquerqueBernalillo’s control measures along with related legal authority and programs. AQP has determined that 

this infrastructure will be sufficient to avoid negatively impacting NAAQS attainment and maintenance in 

other states in view of the following factors. 

1) The relative scarcity of major SO2 sources in Albuquerque-Bernalillo County. AlbuquerqueBernalillo County has only two major SO2 sources. One is the Albuquerque Southside Water 

Reclamation Plant (Water Reclamation Plant), operated by the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water 
STAKEHOLDER PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as of 12/24/20142/20/2015 

AQP Exhibit 9, Staff Proposed Floor Amendments (shown in red font) 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 12 of 21

Utility Authority. The other is the Tijeras Plant, a cement production facility operated by the GCC 

Rio Grande Portland Cement Corp, Inc. (Tijeras Plant). 

2) The minimal amount of emissions from those sources. The Tijeras Plant is permitted to emit 

1,417.8 tons per year of oxides of sulfur. According to data available to AQP, this facility’s reported 

actual emissions averaged only 20.66 tons of SO2 per year from 2011 to 2013. Reported emissions 

were approximately 16.52 tons per year (tpy) in 2011, 20.84 tpy for 2012, and 24.63 tpy for 2013.14

The Water Reclamation Plant is permitted to emit 123.41,103.41 tons per year of SO2. According to 

data available to AQP from the State and Local Emissions Inventory (SLEIS) system, this facility’s 

reported actual emissions averaged only 58.6684.342975 tons of SO2 per year from 20112 to 2013. 

Reported emissions were approximately 7.3 tpy in 2011, 75.23 tpy in 2012, and 93.46 tpy in 2013.15

The Tijeras Plant is permitted to emit 123 tons per year of oxides of sulfur. According to data from 

the SLEIS system, this facility’s reported actual emissions averaged only 22.739425 tons of SO2 per 

year from 20112012 to 2013. In Bernalillo County as a whole, monitoring of ambient air quality 

indicates that the design value for SO2 in parts per billion was 4.6 parts per billion (ppb) for the period 

2011 to 2013 -- i.e. less than 10% of the 75 ppb 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Albuquerque Environmental 

Health Department, Air Quality Program, Ambient Air Monitoring Section, 2014 Annual Network 

Review for Ambient Air Monitoring (submitted to EPA July 10, 2014; EPA approval received 

February 3, 2015). 

3) The relatively large geographic distance between those sources and other states. Given the small 

overall level of SO2 emissions from Bernalillo County, AQP has determined that these emissions will 

be widely dispersed over the large geographic distance between their sources and the borders of 

neighboring states. The approximate distance from Bernalillo County’s border to the border of 

neighboring states, in a straight line, is as follows: 125 miles to Arizona; 120 miles to Colorado; 190 

miles to Texas. 

Interference with prevention of significant deterioration: As noted above in Element C of this iSIP,

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County has a comprehensive EPA-approved PSD program and has submitted 

necessary proposed revisions to EPA. Thus, the PSD program includes measures to prevent interference 

with PSD measures in other states. 

Interference with protection of visibility: With respect to the visibility element of § 110 (a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County has a regional haze program in place that fully meets the requirements of 

40 CFR § 51.309 and has been approved by EPA into the New Mexico SIP. 77 Fed. Reg. 71,119 (Nov.

29, 2012). In its approval action, EPA found that the regional haze SIP element and its associated rules 

―meet the requirements of the [CAA] and comply with the provisions of 40 CFR § 51.309, thereby 

meeting requirements for reasonable progress for the 16 Class I areas covered by the Grand Canyon 

Visibility Transport Commission Report for approval of the plan through 2018.‖ Id. EPA’s approval of 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County’s regional haze SIP element (as well as regional haze SIP provisions for 

the states of New Mexico, Wyoming and Utah), was recently upheld by the Tenth Circuit., Wild Earth 

 

14 2012 and 2013 emissions data for the Tijeras Plant are from the State and Local Emissions Inventory 

System (SLEIS). 2011 emissions data from this source is preliminary. The 2011 emissions amount, 16.52 tpy, is a 

preliminary calculation that has been reported by the source but not yet entered into SLEIS. This situation arose 

because the source originally over-reported its 2011 emissions. AQP has been working with the source to correct the 

error and enter a final, verified amount for actual emissions into SLEIS. 

15 Emissions data are from SLEIS. 
STAKEHOLDER PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as of 12/24/20142/20/2015 

AQP Exhibit 9, Staff Proposed Floor Amendments (shown in red font) 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 13 of 21

Guardians v. EPA, 770 F.3d 919 (10th Cir. 2014). By having this EPA-approved regional haze SIP

element in place, Albuquerque-Bernalillo County meets the requirements of § 110 (a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 

prohibiting interference with protection of visibility in other states. Albuquerque Bernalillo County 

regulations implementing the Regional Haze SIP are codified at 20.11.5 NMAC, Visible Air 

Contaminants; 20.11.20 NMAC, Fugitive Dust Control; 20.11.21 NMAC, Open Burning; 20.11.22 

NMAC, Wood Burning; 20.11.46 NMAC, Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Inventory Requirements: Western 

Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program; 20.11.65 NMAC, Volatile Organic Compounds; 20.11.66 

NMAC, Process Equipment; 20.11.67 NMAC, Equipment, Emissions, Limitations; 20.11.71 NMAC, 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills; 20.11.100 NMAC, Motor Vehicle Inspection - Decentralized; 20.11.102

NMAC, Oxygenated Fuels; 20.11.103 NMAC, Motor Vehicle Visible Emissions; and 20.11.104 NMAC, 

Emission Standards for New Motor Vehicles. EPA approval of the Regional Haze SIP followed previous 

regional haze SIP submissions by Albuquerque-Bernalillo County on December 26, 2003 and September 

10, 2008. See 77 Fed. Reg. 24,768 (Apr. 25, 2012) (proposing approval of Albuquerque Bernalillo 

County regional haze SIP and describing history of regional haze rule and related earlier SIP submissions

by Albuquerque-Bernalillo County). 

Compliance regarding interstate pollution abatement: As described above in this Element of the iSIP and 

in Element C, Albuquerque Bernalillo County has submitted proposed PSD revisions for EPA review. If 

EPA should approve these revisions, the result would be, when combined with earlier EPA approvals of 

PSD provisions, a fully EPA approved PSD permitting program.that will, along with earlier EPA 

approvals of the PSD program, satisfy EPA requirements for PSD permitting. Thus, the PSD program

will would include provisions that satisfy the interstate pollution abatements of the CAA, § 126(a), and

are consistent with 40 CFR § 51.166(q)(2)(iv), requiring notification of other air agencies whose 

jurisdictions may be affected by emissions from an outside source. The regulation requiring such notice is 

codified at 21.11.61.21(C)(4) NMAC. 

Regarding CAA, § 126(b) and (c), no sources within Albuquerque-Bernalillo County are subject to an 

active finding under these provisions with respect to SO2. If such findings should occur in the future, 

AQP will consult with EPA Region VI. 

Compliance regarding international air pollution: Regarding CAA, § 115, no sources within 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County are subject to an active finding under Section 115 with respect to SO2.

§ 110(a)(2)(E)(i) Provide:

(i) necessary assurances that the State (or, except where the administrator deems 

inappropriate, the general purpose local government or governments, or a regional 

agency designated by the State or general purpose local governments for such 

purpose) will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under State (and, as 

appropriate, local) law to carry out such implementation plan (and is not prohibited 

by any provision of Federal or State law from carrying out such implementation 

plan or portion thereof).

Organization responsible for the SIP: The Air Act and Ordinances designateserve as the legal basis for 

establishing the Air Board and the Environmental Health Department as the responsible authorities for 

implementing federal air quality standards in Albuquerque Bernalillo County. NMSA 1978 § 74-2-5 and 

5.1; ROA §§ 9-5-1-4 and -5; Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 §§ 4 and 5. The Air Act and Ordinances

designatealso serve as the legal basis for establishing AQP as the air pollution control agency for 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, for this purpose empowering AQP to carry out a variety of functions 

including monitoring, compliance, enforcement, and developing and presenting proposed plans and rules 

to the Air Board for adoption and promulgation. NMSA 1978 § 74-2-5.1; ROA § 9-5-1-5; Bernalillo 

County Ord. 94-5 § 5. For purposes of these provisions, the Air Board and AQP are the sole organizations 
STAKEHOLDER PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as of 12/24/20142/20/2015 

AQP Exhibit 9, Staff Proposed Floor Amendments (shown in red font) 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 14 of 21

that participate in developing, implementing, and enforcing the EPA-approved SIP provisions related to

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

Resources (i.e. personnel & funding) available to carry out the SIP: As of the date of this iSIP submission, 

the Air Board and AQP have adequate funding and personnel to carry out the functions described in this 

document addressing the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Funding and personnel for activities related to the 2010 SO2

NAAQS will be provided through permit fees, general funds from the City of Albuquerque, and funds 

provided under the CAA, §§ 103 and 105 grant process. AQP expects these sources to provide adequate 

funding for the five years following this iSIP provisionsubmission. AQP does not anticipate the need for 

additional resources to implement the plan for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, beyond those which have been 

utilized for the preparation of the plan, for SIP revisions submitted to EPA, and for other current 

programmatic demands. Should EPA determine that AQP lacks adequate personnel to carry out the SIP, 

EPA may issue a finding with respect to that deficiency, which AQP would have a legal obligation to 

correct. 

Authority to carry out the SIP: The Air Board and AQP have adequate authority under statutes, rules, 

ordinances, and regulations to carry out SIP obligations with respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The Air 

Act and Ordinances authorize the Air Board to adopt plans, emission standards and rules and to modify, 

reverse or sustain permits issued by AQP. NMSA § 74-2-5 and -7. In addition, the AQP has authority 

under the Air Act and Ordinances to issue permits under the Air Board’s regulations and to enforce 

applicable laws, regulations, standards, and compliance schedules, and seek injunctive relief. NMSA 

1978 §§ 74-2-5.1 -7, -12, -12.1; ROA §§ 9-5-1-5, -7, and 98 and 99; Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 §§ 5, 7 

and 13 and 14. This legal framework empowers AQP to carry out administrative assessments, inspections, 

issuance of penalties for permit violations, and appropriate litigation. Id. To act under the foregoing legal 

provisions, AQP has full authority under state law, and city and county ordinances to carry out all SIP 

obligations relating to the 2010 SO2. NAAQS. ROA §§ 9-5-1-1 to -99; and Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 

§§ 1 to -20.

§ 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (ii) requirements that the State comply with the requirements respecting State 

boards under CAA Section 128 [Section 7428 of this Title], and

To comply with the provisions of CAA Section 128 regarding state and local board composition and 

conflicts of interests, the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County have implemented a number of 

ordinances and policies. EPA has previously approved these measures into the New Mexico SIP. 64 Fed. 

Reg. 29,235 (July 1, 1999). In the years following EPA’s approval, the ordinances and policies have been 

revised. Accordingly, Albuquerque-Bernalillo County has submitted to EPA proposed revisions to the 

New Mexico SIP to account for changes in the local ordinances and policies. These proposed SIP 

revisions are intended to comply with the state and local board requirements of CAA Section 128.16

These proposed SIP revisions will, if approved by EPA, incorporate the following ordinances, other laws,

and policies into the New Mexico SIP:

 ROA §§ 2-6-1-1 to 2-6-1-5 (―Public Boards, Commissions, and Committees‖); 3-3-1 to 3-3-13 

(―Conflict of Interest‖); 9-5-1-1 to 9-5-1-99 (―Joint Air Quality Control Board Ordinance‖) 9-5-6-

1 to 9-5-6-3 (―Metropolitan Environmental Health Advisory Board‖); 

 

16 Letter from Ryan Flynn, New Mexico Environment Secretary, to Ron Curry, EPA Region 6 

Administrator (July 26, 2013). 
STAKEHOLDER PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as of 12/24/20142/20/2015 

AQP Exhibit 9, Staff Proposed Floor Amendments (shown in red font) 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 15 of 21

 City of Albuquerque, NM, Charter, Article XII, Section 4 (―Conflict of Interest‖);

 City of Albuquerque, City Code of Conduct, 300 (―Conditions of Employment‖); 301 (―Code of 

Conduct‖) (from City of Albuquerque Personnel Rules and Policies);

 Bernalillo County, NM Ordinances §§ 2-126 to 2-136 (―Codeof Conduct‖); 30-31 to 30-47 

(―Joint Air Quality Control Board‖); 42-36 to 42-39 (―Metropolitan Environmental Health 

Advisory Board‖)

NMSA 1978 § 74-2-4 provides that the Air Board be comprised of at least a majority of members who 

represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject 

to or who appear before the Board on issues related to the CAA or Air Act.

Additionally, Air Board members are required to recuse themselves from rulemakings where their 

impartiality may reasonably be questioned or if the Air Board member: (1) has a personal bias or 

prejudice concerning a party; (2) is related to a party within a third degree of relationship, (3) is an 

officer, director or trustee of a party or interested participant in the proceeding; or (4) has a financial 

interest in the proceeding or has any other conflict. 20.11.82.14 NMAC.

Air Board members are also required to recuse themselves from adjudicatory proceedings, such as permit 

reviews where the Air Board member: (1) has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or the 

outcome of the proceeding; (2) has personal knowledge of disputed facts concerning the proceeding; (3) 

is related to a party within the third degree of relationship; (4) is an officer, director or trustee of a party or 

interested participant in the proceeding; (5) has a financial interest in the proceeding or facility that is the 

subject of the proceeding or has any other conflict of interest; (6) or has performed prosecutorial or 

investigatory functions in connection with a permitting action at issue in the proceeding. 

20.11.81.12(B)(3)(a).

§ 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) (iii) necessary assurances that, where the State has relied on a local or regional 

government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any plan 

provision, the State has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such 

plan provision.

Pursuant to NMSA 1978, § 74-2-4, local authority to implement the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act 

has been established for Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, through the adoption of these jurisdictions’ 

respective Joint Air Quality Control Board Ordinances which created the Air Board and authorize local 

administration by the City of Albuquerque Department of Environmental Health. ROA §§ 9-5-1-1 to -99;

and Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5, §§ 1 to -20. The New Mexico Environment Department and the state 

Environmental Improvement Board retain jurisdiction and control for administration of the Air Quality 

Control Act with respect to any failure to act by a local authority. NMSA 1978 § 74-2-4(D). 

§ 110(a)(2)(F) Require, as may be prescribed by the Administrator:

 (i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary steps by owners or operators of stationary 

sources to monitor emissions from such sources, 

 (ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related 

data from such sources, and

 (iii) correlation of such reports by the State agency with any emission limitations 

or standards established pursuant to this Act [Chapter], which reports shall be 

available at reasonable times for public inspection; 
STAKEHOLDER PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as of 12/24/20142/20/2015 

AQP Exhibit 9, Staff Proposed Floor Amendments (shown in red font) 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 16 of 21

Source monitoring: The state Air Act provides that regulations adopted by the Air Board may ―require 

any person emitting any air contaminant‖ to conduct monitoring of such emissions, install equipment 

appropriate for such monitoring, use monitoring methods prescribed by the Air Board, maintain related 

records, and submit reports regarding the emissions. NMSA § 74-2-5(C)(6). Consistent with 40 CFR §

51.212, Albuquerque-Bernalillo County regulations provide that stationary sources may be subject to 

periodic inspection and emissions testing. 20.11.41.22 NMAC (inspection and testing related to 

construction permits); 20.11.42.12 NMAC (inspection and testing related to operating permits);

20.11.49.15 NMAC (inspection and testing related to excess emissions); 20.11.60.27 NMAC (testing and 

inspection related to permitting in nonattainment areas); 20.11.61.12 to 20.11.61.20 NMAC (testing and 

prevention related to permitting for prevention of significant deterioration); and 20.11.90 NMAC, Source 

Surveillance: Administration and Enforcement. These source monitoring requirements authorize AQP to 

identify allowable test methods which a source must use. The requirements do not contain any provision 

that would prevent the use of any credible evidence. 

Source reporting: Consistent with 40 CFR §§ 51.211, 51.321 to 51.323, and 40 CFR part 51, subpart A, 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County provides that stationary sources may be required to periodically report

emissions and emissions-related data. These provisions are contained in the NMAC regulations cited in 

the paragraph above. In addition, stationary sources may be required to maintain and report emissions 

inventories according to a prescribed schedule, in a format established by AQP. 20.11.47 NMAC, 

Emission Inventory Requirements. To facilitate gathering and reporting of emissions data by sources, 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County establishes specific requirements for maintaining records and reporting 

emissions, including provisions relating to content of records and AQP inspections. 20.11.90 NMAC, 

Source Surveillance: Administration and Enforcement. AQP is current with its submittals to the National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI) database; the 20132 data for larger sources was submitted to EPA on 

December 309, 20143.

Correlation of source reports with emissions limitations and standards: Pursuant to the NMAC provisions 

cited above and consistent with 40 CFR § 51.116, AQP is able to use emissions data gathered and 

reported by sources to analyze ―the relationship between measured or estimated amounts of emissions and 

the amounts of such emissions allowable under the applicable emission limitations or sources.‖ 40 CFR §

51.116(c). See also 20.11.90.13(C) NMAC (―Emission data obtained by the director shall be correlated 

with applicable emission limitations and other control measures . . .‖). By means of such correlation, AQP 

is able to track progress toward maintaining the NAAQS, develop control and maintenance strategies, 

identify sources and general emission levels, and determine compliance with state and EPA requirements.

Availability of emission reports by sources: Emission data obtained under the above-cited provisions are 

made available to the public during normal business hours. 20.11.90.13(C) NMAC. 

§ 110(a)(2)(G) Provide for authority comparable to that in CAA Section 303 [Section 7603 of this 

Title] and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority.

Authority to respond to emergency episode: The Air Act and Ordinances provide AQP with authority to 

address air quality emergencies. Upon a finding that any owner/operator of a source or combination of air 

emission sources presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or 

the environment, the Director of the Environmental Health Department may bring a civil suit seeking to 

restrain the source of the air contaminants. NMSA 1978 § 74-2-10(A); ROA § 9-5-1-10(A); Bernalillo 

County Ord. 94-5 § 10(A). If such a civil suit is not a practicable means of promptly protecting public 

health or welfare or the environment, the Director may issue orders necessary for such protection on a 

temporary basis, pending litigation and court-ordered action. NMSA 1978 § 74-2-10(B); ROA § 9-5-1-

10(B); Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 § 10(B).
STAKEHOLDER PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as of 12/24/20142/20/2015 

AQP Exhibit 9, Staff Proposed Floor Amendments (shown in red font) 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 17 of 21

Contingency plan to implement emergency episode authority: The Director of the Environmental Health 

Department formulates and administers an emergency action plan approved by the Air Board to address 

source emissions that cause pollutant concentrations to reach levels constituting an imminent and 

substantial endangerment to the health of persons. 20.11.6 NMAC, Emergency Action Plan. Consistent 

with 40 CFR § 51, Subpart H, Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes, the Air Board has 

adopted the Air Pollution Episode Contingency Plan for Bernalillo County that covers air pollution 

episodes and the occurrence of an emergency due to the effects of the pollutants on the health of persons.

56 Fed. Reg. 38,074 (Aug. 21, 1991); 40 CFR § 52.1639. 

§ 110(a)(2)(H) Provide for revision of such plan:

(i) from time to time as may be necessary to take account of revisions of such 

national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of 

improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard, and

(ii) except as provided in Paragraph (3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds on the 

basis of information available to the Administrator that the plan is substantially 

inadequate to attain the NAAQS which it implements, or to otherwise comply with 

any additional requirements established under this Act.

SIP revision to account for NAAQS revisions: the Air Board has the authority to adopt new regulations 

and to amend or repeal regulations in order to attain and maintain the NAAQS and prevent or abate air 

pollution throughout Bernalillo County. NMSA 1978 § 74-2-5; ROA § 9-5-1-4; Bernalillo County Ord. 

94-5 § 4. To assist the Board with all NAAQS revisions, AQP has authority to develop and present to the 

Board a plan for the regulation, control, prevention or abatement of air pollution. NMSA 1978 § 74-2-

5.1(H); ROA § 9-5-1-5(I); Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 § 5(I). Because these provisions allow for 

changes as necessary to the SIP local air quality regulations and programs, they provide the legal basis for 

the Air Board and AQP to revise the submit proposed SIP revisions for EPA review in order to 

accommodate EPA revisions of a NAAQS. Nothing in New Mexico’s statutory or regulatory authority

prohibits Albuquerque-Bernalillo County from revising regulations and programs for submission as 

proposed the SIP revisions in the event of a revision to the NAAQS.

SIP revision to account for EPA finding of inadequacy: the above cited provisions also provide the legal 

basis for the Air Board and AQP to submit proposed revisions ofe the SIP for EPA review in the event the 

EPA Administrator finds the SIP to be substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS or otherwise meet 

all applicable CAA requirements. 

§ 110(a)(2)(I) In the case of a plan or plan revision for an area designated as a nonattainment area, 

meet the applicable requirements of part D (relating to nonattainment areas); 

CAA §110 (a)(2)(I) is not being addressed in this infrastructure SIP submittal. According to EPA’s

interpretation of the CAA, this element does not need to be addressed in the context of an infrastructure 

SIP submission. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ―Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),‖ September 2013,

p.51, available at http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/sipstatus/infrastructure.html.

§ 110(a)(2)(J) Meet the applicable requirements of CAA § 121 [Section 7421 of this Title] 

(relating to consultation), CAA Section 127 [Section 7427 of this Title] (relating to 

public notification), and Part C of this Subchapter (relating to prevention of 

significant deterioration of air quality and visibility protection);
STAKEHOLDER PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as of 12/24/20142/20/2015 

AQP Exhibit 9, Staff Proposed Floor Amendments (shown in red font) 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 18 of 21

Consultation with identified officials on certain actions: Section 121 of the CAA requires a SIP to provide 

for consultation with local political subdivisions and with federal land managers regarding adoption of 

certain SIP elements affecting those entities. Albuquerque-Bernalillo County meets this requirement 

because all SIP revisions undergo public notice and hearing, which provides for comment by the 

interested members of the public, including local political subdivisions and federal land managers 

affected by a SIP revision. In particular, the Air Act provides that, ―no regulations or emission control 

requirement shall be adopted until after a public hearing by . . . the local board‖ and that, ―at the hearing . 

. . the local board shall allow all interested persons reasonable opportunity to submit data, views, or 

arguments orally or in writing and to examine witnesses testifying at the hearing.‖ NMSA 1978, § 74–2–

6(B) and (D); see also ROA § 9-5-1-6(B) and (D); Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 § 6(B) and (D). 

To implement these consultation requirements, the Air Board has adopted several regulations establishing 

a process for consultation with local political subdivisions and federal land managers. One such 

regulation, governing the rule making process, provides notice of SIP revisions to affected persons and 

organizations and affords them an opportunity to participate in the revision process. 20.11.82 NMAC, 

Rulemaking Procedures -- Air Quality Control Board. Other such regulations are those programs 

implementing permitting in nonattainment areas and for Prevention of Significant Deterioration, which 

provide for public participation and notification of affected persons. 20.11.60.23 NMAC, (requiring 

consultation with federal land manager on major source permits in nonattainment areas that affect 

visibility in federal Class I areas); 20.11.60.26 NMAC (providing for public participation and notification 

on major source permits in nonattainment areas, including consultation with federal land managers); 

20.11.61.21 and 20.11.61.24 NMAC (providing for public participation and notification on major source 

permits subject to prevention of significant deterioration requirements, including federal land managers). 

Additionally, public participation and notification provisions are incorporated in regulations governing 

adjudicatory decisions by the Air Board: 20.11.81.14(G) and 20.11.81.14(I) NMAC (providing specific 

procedural requirements for public notification and hearing). Further public participation and notification 

provisions apply regarding issuance of construction permits, 20.11.41.14, 20.11.41.15, and 20.11.41.16 

NMAC (providing for public participation and notification at various stages of the construction permitting 

process). Collectively, the foregoing provisions ensure that there will be an established process for 

consultation with local political subdivisions and federal land managers, as well as persons affected by 

the actions specified in CAA § 121. 

In addition to the above consultation requirements, Albuquerque Bernalillo County’s SIP-approved 

Transportation Conformity and General Conformity rules require that interagency consultation and 

opportunity for public involvement be provided before making transportation conformity determinations 

and before adopting proposing for EPA review applicable SIP revisions on transportation related SIP

elements. 20.11.3.105, 20.11.3.112, and 20.11.4 NMAC.

Consistent with 40 CFR § 51, subpart M, the Air Act, Ordinances and regulations identify the Air Board 

and AQP as the organizations responsible for developing, implementing, and enforcing the SIP. NMSA 

§§ 74-2-5 to 74-2-14; ROA §§ 9-5-1-4 and -5; Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 §§ 4 and 5; 20.11.1 through 

20.11.104 NMAC. These legal authorities also describe particular responsibilities of the Air Board and 

AQP in carrying out these functions, including enacting regulations, issuing and modifying permits, 

modeling air dispersion patterns, monitoring ambient air quality, conducting inspections and compliance 

testing, undertaking enforcement actions, and providing for participation in the regulatory process. In 

addition, regulations identify local and federal government entities that are consulted in SIP revisions 

related to transportation conformity and general conformity determinations in federally mandated 

transportation planning. 20.11.3 and 20.11.4 NMAC. 

Public notification: Consistent with CAA, Section 127, and 40 CFR § 51.285, AQP makes available to 

the public information on instances or areas in which the measured value of regulated pollutants exceeds 
STAKEHOLDER PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as of 12/24/20142/20/2015 

AQP Exhibit 9, Staff Proposed Floor Amendments (shown in red font) 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 19 of 21

the values set forth in the NAAQS. AQP makes air quality data from Albuquerque-Bernalillo County’s 

monitoring network available via EPA’s Air Quality System Data Mart website at 

http://www.epa.gov/airdata. Additionally, as required by grants under CAA Section 105 , AlbuquerqueBernalillo County must submit monitoring data to EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) within 90 days after 

the end of a quarter. AQP’s website provides information to the public on current air quality conditions in 

AQP’s jurisdiction, using the EPA’s color-coded Air Quality Index (AQI) to show current concentrations 

of criteria pollutants. This AQI information appears at http://www.cabq.gov/airquality/todays-status/airquality-index. The AQI information covers health effects potentially associated with varying levels of 

specific pollutants. By this means, AQP advises the public of potential health hazards associated with 

measured values for sulfur dioxide and other NAAQS pollutants that may at times exceed the 

concentrations specified in the NAAQS.

AQP’s website also provides links to additional EPA web-based information tools on criteria pollutant 

emission sources, past air quality data trends, and forecasts of future air quality conditions. These EPA 

resources, including, for example, AIRNow, AirData, and AirCompare, are linked at 

http://www.cabq.gov/airquality/download-air-data. By linking to these EPA resources, AQP further 

advises the public about criteria pollutants, local air quality conditions and the potential health hazards 

that may arise from such conditions. 

In addition to the above measures, AQP and the Air Board promote public awareness of measures that can

prevent instances in which measured values of criteria pollutants exceed values specified in the NAAQS. 

Promotion of such awareness occurs by offering specific information on how the public can participate in 

regulatory and other efforts to improve air quality. In particular, AQP and the Air Board follow specific 

procedures, mandated by regulations, to inform the public of: (1) procedures for members of the public to 

petition the Air Board for a rulemaking proceeding, 20.11.82.18 NMAC, Rulemaking Procedures -- Air

Quality Control Board (providing that ―any person‖ may petition the Air Board for rulemaking); (2) time 

and place of upcoming rulemaking proceedings, 20.11.82.19 NMAC; (3) procedures for members of the 

public to participate in rulemakings, 20.11.82.19 NMAC; (4) procedures for members of the public to 

participate in the permitting process, 20.11.41.14 to 20.11.41.16 NMAC (public participation in 

construction permits); 20.11.42.13 NMAC (public participation in operating permits); 20.11.60.26

NMAC (public participation in permitting in nonattainment areas); 20.11.61.21 NMAC (public 

participation in permitting for prevention of significant deterioration); and 20.11.81 NMAC, Adjudicatory 

Procedures -- Air Quality Control Board. The foregoing regulations require that notices of proceedings 

be published by particular methods (e.g. in a newspaper of general circulation), thus providing interested 

members of the public an opportunity to be heard during rulemaking and permitting.

AQP and the Air Board further promote the above forms of public participation by providing links on the 

AQP website to important information about such participation. This web-based information includes: the 

content of relevant regulations; notices of proceedings; Air Board and AQP contact information;

description of the process for filing air quality complaints; descriptions of permitting and compliance 

programs; information on environmental justice issues; and access to full text documents on completed, 

ongoing or upcoming regulatory proceedings, such as petitions, notices of intent, public comments, and 

public review drafts of proposed regulations. The foregoing information is available through the AQP 

website at http://www.cabq.gov/airquality (see especially http://www.cabq.gov/airquality/publicinvolvement-in-environmental-programs and http://www.cabq.gov/airquality/air-quality-control-board). 

Prevention of significant deterioration: EPA has stated that the requirements for this sub-element of an 

iSIP are the same as the requirements to satisfy Element C of an iSIP, which must comply with CAA 

§ 110(a)(2)(C). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ―Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) (Sept. 2013), 

available at http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/sipstatus/infrastructure.html. Accordingly, please refer to the 
STAKEHOLDER PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as of 12/24/20142/20/2015 

AQP Exhibit 9, Staff Proposed Floor Amendments (shown in red font) 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 20 of 21

discussion of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County’s PSD program in Elements C of this iSIP for a description 

of how the Albuquerque Bernalillo County PSD program satisfies iSIP requirements. Additional 

discussion of PSD programs appears in Element D. 

Visibility protection: EPA has stated that state and local air agencies do not need to address this subelement in an iSIP submittal, because a NAAQS revision does not change visibility requirements or 

impose new visibility protection requirements. Therefore, this iSIP submittal does not address the 

visibility sub-element. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ―Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),‖ (Sept. 2013), 

available at http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/sipstatus/infrastructure.html.

§110(a)(2)(K) Provide for:

(i) the performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator may prescribe 

for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of 

any air pollutant for which the Administrator has established a NAAQS, and 

(ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality modeling to the 

Administrator;

Authority to conduct air quality modeling: The Air Act and Ordinances authorize AQP to ―develop facts 

and make investigations and studies‖ consistent with the Act. NMSA 1978, § 74– 2–5.1(A); ROA § 9-5-

1-5(B); and Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 § 5(B). These legal provisions provide AQP with necessary 

authority to develop air quality assessments and conduct modeling to predict the effect on ambient air 

quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which a NAAQS has been promulgated. AQP follows 

EPA guidelines for air dispersion modeling. 40 CFR, Part 51, Appendix W. AQP utilizes air quality 

modeling or requires sources to conduct such modeling under the following regulations: 20.11.3.105

NMAC (for consultation in the local transportation conformity process); 20.11.4.159 NMAC (for 

consultation in determining transportation conformity of federal actions); 20.11.41.13 NMAC (for 

inclusion in construction permit applications); 20.11.42.12 NMAC (for inclusion in operating permit 

applications); 20.11.60.25 NMAC (for permitting in nonattainment areas); 20.11.61.17 NMAC (to 

prevent significant deterioration of air quality in attainment areas). 

Authority to provide modeling data to EPA: AQP has authority to provide modeling data to EPA upon 

request and will do so when AQP receives such a request. This authority derives from provisions in the 

Air Act and Ordinances that require AQP to present ―a plan for the regulation, control, prevention or 

abatement of air pollution‖ to the Air Board. NMSA 1978 § 74-2-5.1(H); ROA § 9-5-1-5(I); Bernalillo 

County Ord. 94-5 § 5(I). The Air Board, in turn, approves regulations implementing the air pollution 

control plan, consistent with standards in the CAA and the New Mexico Air Act. NMSA § 74-2-5; ROA 

§ 9-5-1-4; Bernalillo County Ord. 94-5 § 4. These legal provisions require and authorize development and 

adoption of plans to attain and maintain the NAAQS -- including generation of modeling data to be 

provided to EPA. AQP agrees to shares modeling data upon request with EPA to assure that Albuquerque 

Bernalillo County’s EPA-approved portion of the New Mexico SIP functions as the above referencedse

laws intend. 

§ 110(a)(2)(L) Require the owner or operator of each major stationary source to pay to the 

permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under this Act [Chapter], 

a fee sufficient to cover—

(i) the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any application for such a 

permit, and 

(ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable costs 

of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any such permit (not 

including any court costs or other costs associated with any enforcement action),
STAKEHOLDER PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT as of 12/24/20142/20/2015 

AQP Exhibit 9, Staff Proposed Floor Amendments (shown in red font) 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Page 21 of 21

until such fee requirement is superseded with respect to such sources by the 

Administrator's approval of a fee program under Title V [Subchapter V of this 

Chapter];

The Air Board has approved regulations providing for fees to cover reasonable costs of reviewing and 

acting upon permit applications, as well as implementing the terms and conditions of a permit under the 

CAA and the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act. See 20.11.2 NMAC (on air quality related fees in 

general); 20.11.7.12 NMAC (fees for petitions for variances); collectively 20.11.13 NMAC; 20.11.14

NMAC; 20.11.17 NMAC and 20.11.22 NMAC (fees related to fugitive dust control); 20.11.40.13 NMAC 

and 20.11.40.14 NMAC (fees for source registrations); 20.11.41.12 NMAC; 20.11.41.13 NMAC; 

20.11.41.16 NMAC; 20.11.41.23 NMAC; 20.11.41.32 NMAC (construction permit fees); 20.11.42.12 

NMAC and 20.11.42.13 NMAC (operating permit fees); 20.11.81.8 NMAC and 20.11.81.14 NMAC (fees 

for adjudicatory proceedings); 20.11.100.20 NMAC; 20.11.100.23 NMAC; 20.11.100.24 NMAC;

20.11.100.29 NMAC; 20.11.100.33 NMAC; 20.11.100.35 NMAC; 20.11.100.35 NMAC; 20.11.101.18

NMAC; 20.11.101.28 NMAC; 20.11.104.111 NMAC (fees for motor vehicle standards and inspections).

§ 110(a)(2)(M) Provide for consultation and participation by local political subdivisions affected by 

the plan.

The Air Quality Control Act and implementing regulations provide for consultation with local political 

subdivisions affected by the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County elements of the New Mexico SIP. For a 

detailed description of these provisions, please see the information in element J, above, of this iSIP.

1
:=~ --GPO 

Tuesday, 

June 22, 2010 

Part II 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

40 CFR Parts 50, 53, and 58 

Primary National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard for Sulfur Dioxide; Final Rule 
35520 Federal Register/Val. 75, No. 119/Tuesday, June 22, 2010/Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 50, 53, and 58 

[EPA-HO-OAR-2007-0352; 9160-4] 

RIN 2060-A048 

Primary National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard for Sulfur Dioxide 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA}. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Based on its review of the air 

quality criteria for oxides of sulfur and 

the primary national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS) for oxides of sulfur 

as measured by sulfur dioxide (S02), 

EPA is revising the primary S02 

NAAQS to provide requisite protection 

of public health with an adequate 

margin of safety. Specifically, EPA is 

establishing a new 1-hour so2 standard 

at a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb}, 

based on the 3-year average of the 

annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations. The EPA is 

also revoking both the existing 24-hour 

and annual primary 802 standards. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

August 23, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0352. 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 

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 Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30a.m. to 

4:30p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566-17 44 and the telephone 

number for the Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center is (202) 

566-1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Michael J. Stewart, Health and 

Environmental Impacts Division, Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mail code C504-06, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711; telephone: 919-541-

7524; fax: 919-541-0237; e-mail: 

stewart.michael@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION; 

Table of Contents 

The following topics are discussed in 

this preamble: 

I. Background 

A. Summary of Revisions to the S02 

Primary NAAQS 

B. Statutory Requirements 

C. Related S02 Control Programs 

D. History of Reviews of the Primary 

NAAQS for Sulfur Oxides 

E. Summary of Proposed Revisions to the 

S02 Primary NAAQS 

F. Organization and Approach to Final S02 

Primary NAAQS Decisions 

II. Rationale for Decisions on the Primary 

Standards 

A. Characterization of S02 Air Quality 

1. Anthropogenic Sources and Current 

Patterns of SOz Air Quality 

2. S02 Monitoring 

B. Health Effects Information 

1. Short-Term (5-Minute to 24-Hour) S02 

Exposure and Respiratory Morbidity 

Effects 

a. Adversity of Short-Term Respiratory 

Morbidity Effects 

2. Health Effects and Long-Tenn Exposures 

to so2 

3. SOrRelated Impacts on Public Health 

C. Human Exposure and Health Risk 

Characterization 

D. Approach for Determining Whether To 

Retain or Revise the Current Standards 

E. Adequacy of the Current Standards 

1. Rationale for Proposed Decision 

2. Comments on the Adequacy of the 

Current Standards 

a. Comments on EPA's Interpretation of the 

Epidemiologic Evidence 

b. Comments on EPA's Interpretation of the 

Controlled Human Exposure Evidence 

c. Comments on EPA's Characterization of 

SOz-Associated Exposures and Health 

Risks 

3. Conclusions Regarding the Adequacy of 

the Current 24-Hour and Annual 

Standards 

F. Conclusions on the Elements of a New 

Short-Tenn Standard 

1. Indicator 

a. Rationale for Proposed Decision 

b. Comments on Indicator 

c. Conclusions on Indicator 

2. Averaging Time 

a. Rationale for Proposed Decision 

b. Comments on Averaging Time 

c. Conclusions on Averaging Time 

3. Fonn 

a. Rationale for Proposed Decision 

b. Comments on Form 

c. Conclusions on Form 

4. Level 

a. Rationale for Proposed Decision 

b. Comments on Level 

c. Conclusions on Level 

5. Retaining or Revoking the Current 24-

Hour and Annual Standards 

a. Rationale for Proposed Decision 

b. Comments on Retaining or Revoking the 

Current 24-Hour and Annual Standards 

c. Conclusions on Retaining or Revoking 

the Current 24-Hour and Annual 

Standards 

G. Summary of Decisions on Primary 

Standards 

Ill. Overview of the Approach for Monitoring 

and Implementation 

IV. Amendments to Ambient Monitoring and 

Reporting Requirements 

A. Monitoring Methods 

1. Requirements for S01 Federal Reference 

Method (FRM) 

a. Proposed Ultraviolet Fluorescence S02 

FRM and Implementation 

b. Public Comments 

c. Conclusions on Ultraviolet Fluorescence 

S02 FRM and Implementation 

2. Requirements for Automated S02 

Mlllhods 

a. Proposed Performance Specifications for 

Automated Methods 

b. Public Comments 

c. Conclusions for Performance 

Specifications for S02 Automated 

Methods 

B. Network Design 

1. Approach for Network Design 

a. Proposed Approach for Network Design 

b. Alternative Network Design 

c. Public Comments 

2. Modeling Ambient S02 Concentrations 

3. Monitoring Objectives 

a. Proposed Monitoring Objectives 

b. Public Comments 

c. Conclusions on Monitoring Objectives 

4. Final Monitoring Network Design 

5. Population Weighted Emissions Index 

a. Proposed Use of the Population 

Weighted Emissions Index 

b. Public Comments 

c. Conclusions on the Use of the 

Population Weighted Emissions Index 

6. Regional Administrator Authority 

a. Proposed Regional Administrator 

Authority 

b. Public Comments 

c. Conclusions on Regional Administrator 

Authority 

7. Monitoring Network Implementation 

a. Proposed Monitoring Network 

Implementation 

b. Public Comments 

c. Conclusions on Monitoring Network 

Imp Iemen tation 

C. Data Reporting 

1. Proposed Data Reporting 

2. Public Comments 

3. Conclusions on Data Reporting 

V. Initial Designation of Areas for the 1-Hour 

S02NAAQS 

A. Clean Air Act Requirements 

1. Approach Described in Proposal 

2. Public Comments 

B. Expected Designations Process 

VI. Clean Air Act Implementation 

Requirements 

A. How This Rule Applies to Tribes 

B. Nonattainment Area Attainment Dales 

1. Attaining the NAAQS 

2. Consequences of a Nonattainment Area 

Failing To Attain by the Statutory 

Attainment Date 

C. Section llO(a)(l) and (2) NAAQS 

Maintenance/Infrastructure 

Requirements 

1. Section 110(a)(1)-(2) Submission 
Federal Register/Val. 75, No. 119/Tuesday, June 22, 2010/Rules and Regulations 35521 

D. Attainment Planning Requirements 

1. SOz Nonattainment Area SIP 

Requirements 

2. New Source Review and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Requirements 

3. General Conformity 

E. Transition From the Existing S02 

NAAQS to a Revised S02 NAAQS 

VII. Appendix T-Interpretation ofthe 

Primary NAAQS for Oxides of Sulfur 

and Revisions to the Exceptional Events 

Rule 

A. Interpretation of the NAAQS for Oxides 

of Sulfur 

1. Proposed Interpretation of the Standard 

2. Comments on Interpretation of the 

Standard 

3. Conclusions on Interpretation of the 

Standard 

B. Exceptional Events Information 

Submission Schedule 

VIII. Communication of Public Health 

Information 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health & 

Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

]. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

References 

I. Background 

A. Summary of Revisions to the S02 

Primary NAAQS 

Based on its review of the air quality 

criteria for oxides of sulfur and the 

primary national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS) for oxides of sulfur 

as measured by sulfur dioxide (S02l. 

EPA is making revisions to the primary 

S02 NAAQS so the standards are 

requisite to protect public health with 

an adequate margin of safety, as 

appropriate under section 109 of the 

Clean Air Act (Act or CAA). 

Specifically, EPA is replacing the 

current 24-hour and annual standards 

with a new short-term standard based 

on the 3-year average of the 99th 

percentile of the yearly distribution of 

1-hour daily maximum so2 

concentrations. EPA is setting the level 

of this new standard at 75 ppb. EPA is 

adding data handling conventions for 

so2 by adding provisions for this new 

1-hour primary standard. EPA is also 

establishing requirements for an SOz 

monitoring network. These new 

provisions require monitors in areas 

where there is an increased coincidence 

of population and S02 emissions. EPA 

is also making conforming changes to 

the Air Quality Index (AQI). 

B. Statutory Requirements 

Two sections of the Clean Air Act 

(Act or CAA) govern the establishment 

and revision of National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards NAAQS. Section 108 

of the Act directs the Administrator to 

identify and list air pollutants that meet 

certain criteria, including that the air 

pollutant "in his judgment, cause[s) or 

contribute[s) to air pollution which may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health and welfare" and "the 

presence of which in the ambient air 

results from numerous or diverse mobile 

or stationary sources." CAA section 

108(a)(l)(A) and (B). For those air 

pollutants listed, section 108 requires 

the Administrator to issue air quality 

criteria that "accurately reflect the latest 

scientific knowledge useful in 

indicating the kind and extent of all 

identifiable effects on public health or 

welfare which may be expected from the 

presence of [a] pollutant in ambient air 

• " *" Section 108(a)(2). 

Section 109(a) of the Act directs the 

Administrator to promulgate "primary" 

and "secondary" NAAQS for pollutants 

for which air quality criteria have been 

issued. Section 109(b)(l) defines a 

primary standard as one "the attainment 

and maintenance of which in the 

judgment of the Administrator, based on 

[the air quality) criteria and allowing an 

adequate margin of safety, are requisite 

to protect the public health." 1 Section 

109(b)(l). A secondary standard, in turn, 

must "specify a level of air quality the 

attainment and maintenance of which, 

in the judgment of the Administrator, 

based on [the air quality) criteria, is 

requisite to protect the public welfare 

from any known or anticipated adverse 

effects associated with the presence of 

t The legislative history of section 109 indicates 

that a primary standard is to be set at "the 

maximum permissible ambient air level • • • 

which will protect the health of any (sensitive! 

group of the population," and that for this purpose 

"reference should be made to a representative 

sample of persons comprising tho sensitive group 

rather than to a single person in such a group." S. 

Rep. No. 91-1196, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 10 {1970). 

See also American Lung Ass'n v. EPA. 134 F. Jd 

366, 369 (DC Cir. 1998) ("NAAQS must protect not 

only average healthy individuals, but also 'sensitive 

citizens' -children, for example, or people with 

asthma, emphysema, or other conditions rendering 

them particularly vulnerable to air pollution. If a 

pollutant adversely affects the health of these 

sensitive individuals, EPA must strengthen the 

entire national standard."!; Coalition of Battery 

Recyclers Ass'n v. EPA, No. 09-1011 (DC Cir. May 

14, 2010) slip op. at 7 (same). 

such pollutant in the ambient air." z 

Section 109(b)(2) This rule concerns 

exclusively the primary NAAQS for 

oxides of sulfur. 

The requirement that primary 

standards include an adequate margin of 

safety is intended to address 

uncertainties associated with 

inconclusive scientific and technical 

information available at the time of 

standard setting. It is also intended to 

provide a reasonable degree of 

protection against hazards that research 

has not yet identified. Lead Industries 

Association v. EPA, 647 F.2d 1130, 1154 

(DC Cir 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 

1042 (1980); American Petroleum 

Institute v. Castle, 665 F.2d 1176, 1186 

(DC Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 

1034 (1982). Both kinds of uncertainties 

are components of the risk associated 

with pollution at levels below those at 

which human health effects can be said 

to occur with reasonable scientific 

certainty. Thus, in selecting primary 

standards that include an adequate 

margin of safety, the Administrator is 

seeking not only to prevent pollution 

levels that have been demonstrated to be 

harmful but also to prevent lower 

pollutant levels that may pose an 

unacceptable risk of harm, even if the 

risk is not precisely identified as to 

nature or degree. The CAA does not 

require the Administrator to establish a 

primary NAAQS at a zero-risk level or 

at background concentration levels, see 

Lead Industries Association v. EPA, 647 

F.2d at 1156 n. 51, but rather at a level 

that reduces risk sufficiently so as to 

protect public health with an adequate 

margin of safety. 

In addressing the requirement for a 

margin of safety, EPA considers such 

factors as the nature and severity of the 

health effects involved, the size of the 

at-risk population(s), and the kind and 

degree of the uncertainties that must be 

addressed. The selection of any 

particular approach to providing an 

adequate margin of safety is a policy 

choice left specifically to the 

Administrator's judgment. Lead 

Industries Association v. EPA, 647 F.2d 

at 1161-62. 

In setting standards that are 

"requisite" to protect public health and 

welfare, as provided in section 109(b), 

EPA's task is to establish standards that 

are neither more nor less stringent than 

necessary for these purposes. In so 

doing, EPA may not consider the costs 

of implementing the standards. 

Whitman v. American Trucking 

2 EPA is currently conducting a separale review 

of the secondary SO, NAAQS jointly with a review 

of the secondary NO, NAAQS (see http:// 

••~vw.epa.gov/ttn/naaqslstandardslno2sa2sec/ 

index.html for more information). 
This rest of this Federal Register is available at: 

Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide

Regulations.gov document EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0352-1453 

It may take a few minutes for the full screen below to appear. 

After the screen appears, click on pdf icon in the box at the right to see the published Federal Register. 

You can see the rest of the documents in the docket by clicking on “Open Docket Folder”. 
.. 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGIONS 

1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200 

DALLAS, TEXAS 75202 - 2733 

February 7, 2013 

Ofllce of the Regional Admi~JI~r 

The Honorable Susana Martinez 

Governor of New Mexico 

State Capitol, Room 400 

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 

w 

...,., 

,.., 

co 

N 

...... 

:;: .. 

. 

J 

_,-.j 

:J 

~-' ' .. ~ 

--i-; 

'to•-<._ ;-rt\ 

:._o 

rn 

Dear Governor Martinez: '{!:. 

--i 

:I: 

Thank you for your recommendations dated May 24, 2011, and June 6, 2011, on air quality designations 

for the state of New Mexico for the 2010 revision to the primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

for sulfur dioxide. Reducing levels of sulfur dioxide pollution is an important part of the U. S. 

Environmental Protection Agency's commitment to a clean, healthy environment. Exposure to S02 can 

cause a range of adverse health effects, including narrowfug of the airways which can cause difficulty 

breathing and increased asthma symptoms. This letter is to notify you of the EPA's preliminary 

intentions regarding your recommended designations. 

On June 3, 2010, the EPA strengthened the health-based or "primary" standard for S~ by establishing a 

standard for 1-hour average S02 concentrations at a level of 75 parts per billion. The Clean Air Act 

requires the EPA to complete the initial designations process within two years of promulgating a new or 

revised standard. If the Administrator has insufficient information to make these designations, the EPA 

has the authority to extend the designation process by up to one year. On July 27, 2012, the EPA 

announced that it had insufficient information to complete the designations for the 1-hour so2 standard 

within two years and extended the designations deadline to June 3, 2013 . 

At this time, the EPA is proceeding with designating as nonattainment most areas in locations where 

existing monitoring data from 2009-2011 indicate violations of the 1-hour S02 standard. The EPA 

intends to address the designations for all other areas in separate future actions. With input from a 

diverse group of stakeholders, the EPA has developed a comprehensive implementation strategy for 

these future actions that focuses resources on identifying and addressing unhealthy levels of S~. The 

strategy is available at: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/implement.html. The EPA will 

continue. to work closely with you and our other partners at the state, tribal and local levels to ensure 

health-protective, commonsense implementation of the 1-hour so2 standard. 

The EPA's review of the most recent monitored air quality data from 2009-2011 shows no violations of 

the 2010 S~ standard in any areas in New Mexico. Consequently, the EPA is not yet prepared to 

propose designat~on action in New Mexico and is therefore currently deferring action to designate areas 

in New Mexico. The EPA expects to be able to proceed with designation action in New Mexico once 

additional data are gathered pursuant to our comprehensive implementation strategy. In a separate future 

action or actions, the EPA will notify you of our intended designations for these areas, and seek public 

comment on these actions, no later than 120 days prior to promulgating any final designations. 

This paper Is printed with vegetable-oM-based Inks and Is 1 00-percent postc:onsumer recyded material, 

chlorine-free..proceased and recyclable. 
We look forward to a continued dialogue with you and your staff as we work together to implement the 

2010 primary S02 standard. For additional information regarding initial designations on the S02 

standard, please visit our website at www.epa.gov/so2designations. Should you have any questions, 

please do not hesitate to call me at (214) 665-2100, or have your staff contact Mr. Guy Donaldson of my 

staff at (214) 665-7242, or via email at donaldson.guy@epa.gov. 

cc: Mr. F. David Martin 

Secretary, New Mexico Environment Department 

Ms. Mary Rose 

Environmental Protection Division Director, New Mexico Environment Department 

~s. Mary Lou Leonard 

Director, City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Department 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711 

SEP'13 2013 

OFFICEOIF 

AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

AND STANDARDS 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: 

FROM: 

TO: 

Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP} Elements under Clean Air 

Act Sections llO(a}(l) and 110(a)~(2) l 

StephenD. Page, Director M\ (J..A tt.fr.-

Office of Air Quality Planning an Standards 

Regional Air Directors, Regions 1 - 10 

The purpose of this memorandum is to distribute non-binding guidance from the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency on the requirements of certain provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) titled, 

"Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 

110(a)(l) and 110(a)(2)." 

Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) of the CAA direct each state to develop and submit to the EPA a plan 

that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). 1 Moreover, section 110(a)(1) requires that each state make a new SIP submission 

within 3 years after promulgation of a new or revised primary or secondary NAAQS, for approval into 

the existing SIP to assure that the SIP meets the applicable requirements for such new or revised 

NAAQS. This type of SIP submission is commonly referred to as an "infrastructure SIP." 

The attached guidance, developed with the benefit of extensive written comments from state and local 

air agencies on a draft version, provides advice on the development of infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS, the 2010 nitrogen dioxide NAAQS, the 2010 sulfur dioxide NAAQS, and the 2012 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.s) NAAQS, as well as infrastructure SIPs for new or revised NAAQS 

promulgated in the future. This guidance does not address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which 

concerns interstate pollution transport affecting attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The EPA 

expects to issue guidance in the future with respect to section 11 0( a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

Section llO(a)(l) directs each state to make an infrastructure SIP submission to the EPA within 3 years 

of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, 2 after reasonable notice and public hearing. 3 Section 

1 These CAA sections and this guidance may also apply, as appropriate under the Tribal Authority Rule in 40 CFR Part 49, to 

an Indian tribe that receives a determination of eligibility for treatment as a state for purposes of administering a tribal air 

quality management program under section 11 O(a) of the CAA. This memorandum and the guidance uses the term "air 

agency" to refer to a state or tribe that develops and submits an infrastructure SIP, except when quoting or paraphrasing a 

CAA section or EPA regulation that uses the term "state." 

2 The Administrator may specify a shorter period. 

Internet Ack:lress (UAL) • http://www.epe..gov 

RecyclediRecyclebla • Printed wnh Vegetable 011 Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postoonsumer) 
11 O(a)(2) specifies the substantive elements that infrastructure SIP submissions need to address, as 

appropriate, for EPA approval. Many of the elements listed in section 11 0( a)(2) relate to the general 

information and authorities that constitute the basic structural requirements for a SIP needed for an air 

agency's overall air quality management program to be effective- elements that have been required to 

be in place since the initial SIPs were submitted in response to the CAA of 1970. Other elements listed 

in section 110(a)(2) relate to SIP requirements that have been added in successive amendments to the 

CAA since 1970. Although the 110(a)(2) requirements do not explicitly distinguish among the different 

criteria pollutants or different NAAQS, the structural SIP provisions needed to meet these requirements 

may depend on the particular new or revised NAAQS whose promulgation has triggered the requirement 

for a new infrastructure SIP submission. For example, a new or revised NAAQS may be accompanied 

by new ambient monitoring requirements tailored to that NAAQS or new prevention of significant 

deterioration program requirements. Overall, the requirement for a new infrastructure SIP submission 

provides an opportunity for the air agency, the public and the EPA to review the basics of the air quality 

management program in light of each new or revised NAAQS. 

We acknowledge that air agencies continue to express concerns about the EPA's issuance oftimely 

guidance to assist their efforts to implement a new or revised NAAQS. Our goal in providing the 

attached guidance document is to provide air agencies with recommendations in order to develop 

infrastructure SIPs that will meet the CAA requirements for recently promulgated NAAQS. The EPA 

will work to assist air agencies in the development and completion of these infrastructure SIPs so they 

may be submitted as soon as possible. 

The attached guidance is also intended to provide comprehensive recommendations for infrastructure 

SIPs for new or revised NAAQS promulgated in the future. Our expectation is that this guidance will 

help to address the timeliness concerns expressed by air agencies and serve as guidance to address 

infrastructure SIP requirements for future NAAQS. As a result, the EPA intends that air agencies may 

continue to rely on this guidance for preparing infrastructure SIP submissions necessary for future 

NAAQS revisions, until such time as this guidance is supplemented or replaced by future guidance. 

Moreover, as air agencies and the EPA develop and act upon infrastructure SIP submissions through 

notice-and-comment rulemaking, the EPA anticipates that additional clarity will be provided about the 

best means to meet the statutory requirements. 

Although this guidance provides recommendations for the development and review of infrastructure 

SIPs for multiple NAAQS, we are not recommending whether an air agency should or should not make 

a single infrastructure SIP submission to address requirements for more than one NAAQS 

simultaneously. Air agencies should consult with the appropriate EPA Regional Office for advice 

regarding combining infrastructure SIP submissions for multiple NAAQS. 

Please share this guidance with the air agencies in your Region. 

For Further Information 

If you have any questions concerning this guidance, please contact H. Lynn Dail, at (919) 541-2363, 

dail.lynn@epa.gov, or Lisa Sutton, at (919) 541-3450, sutton.lisa@epa.gov. 

Attachment 

3 The EPA's rules provide that a public hearing must be offered by the air agency, but is only required if a request is made. 
Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act 

Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) 

September 2013
i 

List of Selected Acronyms and Abbreviations

AERMOD American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model

AMTIC Ambient Monitoring Technology Information Center

AQI Air Quality Index

CAA Clean Air Act

CMAQ Community Multi-scale Air Quality [Model]

CAMx Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CSAPR Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EGU Electric generating unit

FIP Federal implementation plan

FR Federal Register

GHG Greenhouse gases

IBR Incorporation by reference

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NO2 Nitrogen dioxide

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPS National Park Service

NSR New Source Review

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Pb Lead

PM2.5 Fine particulate matter

ppm Parts per million

PSD Prevention of significant deterioration

RAVI Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment

SHL Significant harm level

SIP State implementation plan (also, if indicated by the context, a tribal 

implementation plan)

SO2 Sulfur dioxide

SSM Startup, shutdown, and malfunction

TAR Tribal Authority Rule

TIP Tribal Implementation Plan

UBR Unavoidable breakdown rule

μg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter
ii

Table of Contents

I. Introduction ...........................................................................................................................1

II. General Guidance on Infrastructure SIPs ..........................................................................4

Which elements of CAA 110(a)(2) affect infrastructure SIPs? .........................................4

Developing and Submitting an Infrastructure SIP Submission .........................................5

Certifications...................................................................................................................7

Determining Completeness of an Infrastructure SIP Submission.................................... 10

Effect of a Federal Implementation Plan on an Infrastructure SIP .................................. 12

III. Guidance on Individual Infrastructure SIP Elements .................................................... 18

Element A – Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures......... 18

Element B – Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System ........ 22

Element C – Section 110(a)(2)(C): Programs for Enforcement of Control 

Measures and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources................ 23

Elements D(i)(I) and (II) – Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate Pollution Transport......... 30

Element D(ii) – Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement and 

International Air Pollution.................................................................................. 35

Element E – Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict of 

Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies............... 39

Element F – Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting............ 45

Element G – Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Episodes............................................... 47

Element H – Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP Revisions ......................................................... 51

Element I – Section 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas.................... 52

Element J – Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public 

Notification, and PSD and Visibility Protection.................................................. 52

Element K – Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling and Submission of 

Modeling Data ................................................................................................... 55

Element L – Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting Fees........................................................ 56

Element M – Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and Participation by Affected 

Local Entities..................................................................................................... 56
1 

Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under 

Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) 

I. Introduction

Under Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), each state1 is required to 

submit a state implementation plan (SIP)

2 that provides for the implementation, maintenance, 

and enforcement of each primary or secondary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). 

Moreover, section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) require each state to make this new SIP 

submission within 3 years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.3 This type of SIP 

submission is commonly referred to as an “infrastructure SIP.”

Section 110(a)(1) generally directs each state to submit an infrastructure SIP to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency after reasonable notice and public hearing.4 Section 110(a)(2) 

specifies the substantive elements these submissions need to address, as applicable, for the 

EPA’s approval. The subsections of section 110(a)(2) list a variety of requirements, some of 

which address authority, some of which address substantive requirements, and some of which 

consist of a combination of authority and substantive requirements. The conceptual purpose of an 

 

1 These CAA sections and this guidance may also apply, as appropriate under the Tribal Authority Rule (TAR) in 40 

CFR part 49, to an Indian tribe that receives a determination of eligibility for treatment as a state for purposes of 

administering a tribal air quality management program under section 110(a) of the CAA. Tribes should look to the 

TAR and engage their respective EPA Regional Offices in discussing how this guidance may impact the 

development and approvability of their tribal implementation plans (TIPs). We encourage states to provide outreach 

and engage in discussions with tribes about their SIPs as they are being developed.

2 In the CAA and in this guidance, “plan,” “SIP,” and “TIP” may, depending on context, refer either to (i) all or part 

of the existing state (or tribal) implementation plan (i.e., the collection of all submissions previously approved by the 

EPA as meeting CAA requirements) or (ii) a submission that adds to or modifies the existing plan as directed by 

section 110(a)(l). 

3 The Administrator may specify a shorter period.

4 The EPA rules provide that a public hearing must be offered by the air agency but is only required if a request is 

made.
2 

infrastructure SIP submission is to assure that the air agency’s5 SIP contains the necessary 

structural requirements for the new or revised NAAQS, whether by establishing that the SIP 

already contains the necessary provisions, by making a substantive SIP revision to update the 

SIP, or both. Overall, the infrastructure SIP submission process provides an opportunity for the 

responsible air agency, the public, and the EPA to review the basic structural requirements of the 

air agency’s air quality management program in light of each new or revised NAAQS.

This non-binding guidance6 provides recommendations for air agencies’ development 

and the EPA's review of infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 ozone primary and secondary NAAQS,7

the 2010 primary nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS,8 the 2010 primary sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

NAAQS,9 and the 2012 primary fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS,

10 as well as 

 

5 This guidance uses the term “air agency” to generally refer to a state, territory, or tribe that develops and submits 

an infrastructure SIP or TIP, except when quoting or paraphrasing a CAA section or a EPA regulation that uses the 

term “state.” 

6 None of the recommendations contained in this guidance are binding or enforceable against any person, and no 

part of the guidance or the guidance as a whole constitutes final agency action that could injure any person or 

represent the consummation of agency decision making. Only final actions taken to approve or disapprove SIP 

submissions that implement any of the recommendations in this guidance would be final actions for purposes of 

CAA section 307(b). Therefore, this guidance is not judicially reviewable. This document is not a rule or regulation, 

and the guidance it contains may not apply to a particular situation based upon the individual facts and 

circumstances. This guidance does not change or substitute for any law, regulation, or other legally binding 

requirement and is not legally enforceable. The use of non-mandatory language such as “guidance,” “recommend,” 

“may,” “should,” and “can” is intended to describe the EPA’s policies and recommendations. Mandatory 

terminology such as “must” and “required” is intended to describe controlling legal requirements under the terms of 

the CAA and the EPA regulations. Neither such language nor anything else in this document is intended to or 

does establish legally binding requirements in and of itself.

7 The EPA revised the levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards to 0.075 parts per million (ppm). 

40 CFR 50.15. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). 

8 The EPA revised the primary NO2 standard by adding a 1-hour level of 100 parts per billion (ppb), while retaining 

the previous annual primary and secondary standards. 40 CFR 50.11(b) and (f). 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). The 

EPA has also recently reviewed the air quality criteria and the secondary NAAQS for nitrogen oxides and sulfur

oxides and retained the current NO2 and SO2 secondary standards, 77 FR 20218 (April 3, 2012). 

9 On June 2, 2010, the EPA established a new 1-hour SO2 standard at a level of 75 ppb. 40 CFR 50.17. This rule also 

provided for the automatic future revocation of the previous annual and 24-hour SO2 NAAQS for most areas 

following 1 year after designation under the new NAAQS. 40 CFR 50.4(e). The previous 3-hour secondary standard 

remains in place indefinitely. 40 CFR 50.5. 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). The EPA has also recently reviewed the 

air quality criteria and the secondary NAAQS for nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides and retained the current NO2 and 

SO2 secondary standards, 77 FR 20218 (April 3, 2012). 

10 The EPA revised the annual PM2.5 standard by lowering the level to 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3

). 78 

FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).
3 

infrastructure SIPs for new or revised NAAQS promulgated in the future. As a result, air 

agencies may continue to rely on this guidance for developing infrastructure SIPs for future new 

or revised NAAQS until this guidance is supplemented or replaced by future guidance. This 

guidance does not address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which concerns interstate pollution 

transport affecting attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The EPA expects to issue 

guidance in the future with respect to this section of the CAA. 

Section II of this document provides general guidance for the development of 

infrastructure SIPs, and section III presents guidance on the individual elements (and subelements) that constitute an infrastructure SIP. 
4 

II. General Guidance on Infrastructure SIPs

Which elements of CAA 110(a)(2) affect infrastructure SIPs? 

Infrastructure SIP elements are addressed in portions of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. 

Under this section, states are required to develop and maintain an air quality management 

program that meets various basic structural requirements, including, but not limited to: 

enforceable emission limitations; an ambient monitoring program; an enforcement program; air 

quality modeling capabilities; and adequate personnel, resources, and legal authority.

Although, as stated in section I of this document, infrastructure SIPs are required to be 

submitted within 3 years after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA interprets 

section 110(a)(2) to exclude two elements that could not be governed by the 3-year submission 

deadline of section 110(a)(1). Both these elements pertain to part D, in title I of the CAA, which 

addresses SIP requirements and submission deadlines for designated nonattainment areas for a 

NAAQS. Therefore, the following elements are considered by the EPA to be outside the scope of 

infrastructure SIP actions: (1) section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that it refers to permit programs 

(known as “nonattainment new source review”) under part D; and (2) section 110(a)(2)(I) in its 

entirety, which addresses SIP revisions for nonattainment areas. Both these elements pertain to 

SIP revisions that collectively are referred to as a nonattainment SIP or an attainment plan, which 

would be due by the dates statutorily prescribed under subparts 2 through 5 under part D, 

extending as far as 10 years following area designations for some elements. Because the CAA 

directs states to submit these plan elements on a separate schedule, the EPA does not believe it is 

necessary for states to include these elements in the infrastructure SIP submission due 3 years 

after adoption or revision of a NAAQS. While an infrastructure SIP submission is not expected 

to meet the requirements for a nonattainment SIP, the scope of an infrastructure SIP does not 

exclude geographical areas that have been designated nonattainment for the new or revised 

NAAQS or an earlier NAAQS for the same pollutant. Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) reflect 

the congressional intent that each air agency have an air quality program, covering all 
5 

geographical areas of the state, that includes the specified air agency authorities, requirements, 

and activities. 

The infrastructure SIP submission requirement does not move up the date for any

required submission of a part D plan for areas designated nonattainment for the new NAAQS. 

However, in order to cover all parts of the state or area of Indian country, an infrastructure SIP 

submission may reference pre-existing SIP emission limits or other rules contained in part D 

plans for the predecessor to the relevant new or revised NAAQS. It may also include recently 

adopted emission limits that are intended to be part of the not-yet-submitted part D plan for the 

new or revised NAAQS. To avoid confusion about the legal effect of the EPA’s action on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, we intend to make clear in each final action that EPA approval of

the infrastructure SIP submission is solely with regard to whether the submission meets 

particular infrastructure SIP required elements (as opposed to nonattainment SIP elements). This 

means that the EPA may approve a submission as meeting the air agency’s obligation under 

section 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) stemming from the particular new or revised NAAQS, without 

necessarily determining whether the submission meets the applicable requirements for 

nonattainment SIPs under part D of title I of the CAA for the same or any other NAAQS. An 

approval on this basis will make the referenced or newly submitted SIP emission limits or other 

rules federally enforceable, and will make clear that there has been no disapproval of an 

applicable required SIP submission and thus that there is no federal implementation plan (FIP) 

obligation stemming from CAA section 110(a)(1) or (2).11 

Developing and Submitting an Infrastructure SIP Submission

Upon the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the infrastructure SIP process 

should begin with the air agency’s review of the adequacy of its existing SIP provisions for 

 

11In general, a finding by the EPA that an air agency has failed to submit a complete SIP or an action by the EPA to 

disapprove a SIP or SIP element initiates a FIP obligation, if the submission is required by the CAA. Mandatory 

sanctions would not apply under CAA section 179 because the failure to submit a SIP is neither with respect to a 

submission that is required under CAA title I part D nor in response to a SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5). 

Some of the sections of this guidance document address FIP implications on individual elements more specifically.
6 

purpose of meeting the infrastructure SIP requirements for the new or revised NAAQS. In order 

to develop an infrastructure SIP submission, an air agency may cite existing EPA-approved 

provisions and/or adopt new or revised statutory authorities and regulations, as necessary, in 

order to address each element of the infrastructure SIP. Further, with respect to a given NAAQS, 

an air agency may elect to make multiple submissions; each addressing some but not all elements 

or sub-elements of section 110(a)(2) so long as those submissions meet all of the infrastructure 

requirements in the aggregate. An air agency may also elect to make one submission to address 

infrastructure SIP requirements for multiple NAAQS, if it represents the submission as such 

during its adoption process and in its transmittal to the EPA. Of course, such a submission to 

address multiple NAAQS should establish how the air agency believes that the SIP meets each of 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2), as applicable, for each of the relevant NAAQS.

It is important that the SIP submission demonstrate the authority of the responsible air 

agency (or agencies, if responsibility for implementation is shared, e.g., between state and local 

agencies) to implement the new or revised NAAQS that has triggered the need for the 

infrastructure SIP submission. This can be an issue for approval if an older underlying legal 

authority enumerates specific ambient standards by pollutant, indicator, averaging period, level, 

and/or date of promulgation but does not include the new or revised NAAQS in its list. Air 

agencies are encouraged to discuss any situations of this type with their respective EPA Regional 

Offices. 

We encourage each air agency to consult with the appropriate EPA Regional Office, to 

consider the completeness of the submission, and to consider how the submission satisfies the 

applicable EPA regulations governing approval of infrastructure SIP submissions in 40 CFR 

part 51 ("Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans"). The

regulations are referenced in this document, some with overlapping provisions across subparts, 

and include the following: 

• Subpart A – Air Emissions Reporting Requirements

• Subpart F – Procedural Requirements

• Subpart G – Control Strategy

• Subpart H – Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes
7 

• Subpart I – Review of New Sources and Modifications

• Subpart J – Ambient Air Quality Surveillance

• Subpart K – Source Surveillance

• Subpart L – Legal Authority

• Subpart M – Intergovernmental Consultation

• Subpart O – Miscellaneous Plan Content Requirements

• Subpart P – Protection of Visibility

• Subpart Q – Reports 

Once the air agency has made one or more infrastructure SIP submissions, the EPA will 

evaluate the submission(s) for completeness. The EPA's criteria for determining completeness of 

a SIP submission are codified at 40 CFR part 51 appendix V and are discussed in a later 

subsection of this guidance. An air agency’s familiarity with the EPA's regulatory completeness 

criteria will benefit the air agency during the process of developing an approvable submission.

The EPA’s review can be expedited if a SIP submission includes a detailed explanation 

of how the existing EPA-approved SIP in combination with any newly submitted provisions 

meets each of the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2). The EPA expects the 

submissions to include a description of the correlation between each infrastructure element and 

an equivalent set of statutory, regulatory, and/or non-regulatory provisions, as appropriate, that 

are part of or (for some elements) are referred to by the existing SIP or the new submission. 

(Refer to section III for more detail on submission requirements for each individual element.)

When an air agency’s infrastructure SIP submission more clearly identifies the CAA element(s) 

being met by the SIP and how they are met, the EPA can more easily determine whether the 

submission is complete and approvable with respect to that element.

Certifications

Where an air agency determines that the provisions in or referred to by its existing EPAapproved SIP are adequate with respect to a given infrastructure SIP element (or subelement) 

even in light of the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the air agency may make a SIP 

submission in the form of a certification. This type of infrastructure SIP submission may, e.g., 
8 

take the form of a letter to the EPA from the Governor or her/his designee containing a 

"certification" (or declaration) that the already-approved SIP contains or references provisions 

that satisfy all or some of the requirements of section 110(a)(2), as applicable, for purposes of 

implementing the new or revised NAAQS. In such a case, the submission would not need to 

include a paper copy of the relevant pre-existing provisions (e.g., rules or statutes).12 Rather, the 

certification submission should provide citations to the state, local, or tribal statutes, regulations, 

or non-regulatory measures, as appropriate, in or referenced by the already EPA-approved SIP 

that meet particular infrastructure SIP element requirements and should include an explanation as 

to how those existing provisions meet the relevant requirements. The air agency should consult 

with its EPA Regional Office on the wording of this type of infrastructure SIP submission prior 

to making its submission. As for any other SIP submission, an air agency (unless the EPA has 

approved a request for parallel processing) would need to provide reasonable notice and 

 

12 In contrast, where an air agency’s infrastructure SIP submission seeks the EPA’s approval of or references a new

provision (e.g., a rule or statute) that has not already been approved, or submitted for approval, into the SIP, a 

complete SIP submission should include at least one hard copy and an exact duplicate electronic version of the 

adopted provisions (unless otherwise agreed to by the air agency and the Regional Office). Memorandum dated 

April 6, 2011, from Janet McCabe, titled “Regional Consistency for the Administrative Requirements of State 

Implementation Plans and the Use of Letter Notices.” The EPA is investigating means to provide for states a method 

to transmit SIP submissions electronically with no requirement for paper copy submissions.
9 

opportunity for comment prior to submitting a certification SIP submission to the EPA.13 This 

"reasonable notice and public hearing" requirement for approvable infrastructure SIP 

submissions appears at sections 110(a)(1) and the introductory text of section 110(a)(2), and it 

has much the same wording as the more generally applicable procedural requirement at 

section 110(l) of the CAA ("Plan Revisions"). See CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l). 

Compliance with this procedural requirement is verified through an additional certification by 

the air agency that a public hearing (if one was requested) was held in accordance with the EPA's 

regulatory procedural requirements for public hearings.14 See 40 CFR 51.102 and 40 CFR 

part 51, appendix V, paragraph 2.1(g). 

 

13 The EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 51 appendix V provide that a public hearing must always be offered and that 

a hearing must be held if requested. The EPA has received comment that when all of the elements in an existing 

infrastructure SIP were previously subject to a public comment process, including the opportunity for public 

hearing(s), when they were first submitted for the EPA's approval and incorporation into the SIP, no public 

comment requirements should apply to a “certification” infrastructure submission. The EPA believes this suggested 

interpretation is inconsistent with the plain text of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. Section 110(a)(1) first provides that 

“[e]ach State shall, after reasonable notice and public hearings, adopt and submit to the Administrator, within 

3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a [primary NAAQS] 

(or any revision thereof) ... a plan [i.e., infrastructure SIP] which provides for implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of such primary standard.” The clause “after reasonable notice and public hearings” is most naturally 

read as imposing that procedure on the immediately following phrase, “adopt and submit,” the direct object of which 

is the infrastructure SIP itself. The suggested interpretation would instead apply the phrase “after reasonable notice 

and public hearings” to SIP revisions submitted before the promulgation of the new or revised primary NAAQS, 

despite the complete absence of a reference to those earlier SIP revisions in section 110(a)(1). Any possible residual 

ambiguity is removed by the last sentence of section 110(a)(1), which requires an infrastructure SIP for a secondary 

NAAQS to be considered (unless a separate public hearing is provided) “at the hearing required by the first sentence 

of this paragraph.” The only possible interpretation of this sentence is that there must be an opportunity for public 

hearing for the infrastructure SIPs for both the primary and secondary NAAQS. This is a reasonable interpretation 

because it informs the public that the SIP is being revised and allows for comment as to whether the air agency’s 

earlier approved regulations also satisfy the relevant obligation stemming from the promulgation of the new or 

revised NAAQS. Furthermore, the next footnote explains that the EPA has recently clarified procedures for 

providing notice and opportunity for comment that reduce the burden on air agencies while still assuring adequate 

notice to the public.

14 Additional guidance regarding how an air agency may submit a SIP or a SIP revision can be found in a 

memorandum dated April 6, 2011, from Janet McCabe, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and

Radiation, to Regional Administrators, titled "Regional Consistency for the Administrative Requirements of State 

Implementation Plans and the Use of 'Letter Notices'." Refer also to a memorandum dated Nov. 22, 2011, jointly 

from Janet McCabe, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, and Becky Weber, Director, Air 

and Waste Management Division, Region 7, to Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, titled "Guidelines for 

Preparing Letters Submitting State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to EPA and for Preparing Public Notices for SIPs." 

These guidance memos identify certain streamlining approaches that are available to an air agency, depending on the 

situation.
10 

As with any SIP submission, the EPA’s review can be expedited if a SIP certification 

submission includes a detailed explanation of how the existing SIP meets each of the applicable

requirements of section 110(a)(2). This should include a description of the correlation between 

each infrastructure element and an equivalent set of statutory, regulatory, and/or non-regulatory 

provisions, as appropriate, that are part of or are referenced by the existing SIP. When an air 

agency’s infrastructure certification submission more clearly identifies the CAA element(s) 

being met by the SIP and how they are met, the EPA can more easily determine whether the 

submission is complete and approvable with respect to that element.

Determining Completeness of an Infrastructure SIP Submission

Section 110(k)(2) directs the EPA to take final action on a SIP submission within 1 year

after the submission is determined to be complete under section 110(k)(l). If the EPA makes an 

affirmative finding that a SIP submission is complete, the date of the finding establishes the 

"completeness date" for the submission. If, however, the EPA makes no affirmative 

completeness finding, then the submission is deemed complete by operation of law on the date 

6 months after the submission date. A finding that an infrastructure SIP submission is complete

does not necessarily mean that the submission is approvable; the completeness review only 

addresses whether the air agency has provided information sufficient to commence formal EPA 

review for approvability. Refer to 40 CFR part 51 appendix V ("Criteria for Determining the 

Completeness of Plan Submissions").

Historically, when reviewing infrastructure SIP submissions, the EPA has operated on the 

basis that the elements and sub-elements of section 110(a)(2) for a given NAAQS are, for the 

most part, severable.15 The EPA may elect to make a finding of failure to submit in whole or in 

part, based upon whether a state has made a complete infrastructure SIP submission for the 

relevant elements of section 110(a)(2). For a state that has not made any infrastructure SIP 

 

15 See, e.g., 76 FR 81371 (December 28, 2011), “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;

Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for the 1997 Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

Final Rule,” where the EPA approved severable portions of infrastructure SIP revisions submitted by Texas.
11 

submission, the EPA generally will make a finding with respect to all of the relevant elements.16

For a state that has made a SIP submission but whose submission is incomplete for some of the 

relevant elements, the EPA generally will issue a finding of failure to submit only with respect to 

those elements. This separation makes clear what mandatory EPA duty subsequently exists with 

respect to each element or subelement. If the EPA has made separate findings as to the 

completeness of submissions for two or more elements (and sub-elements), the 12-month 

statutory deadline for EPA action to approve or disapprove the elements for which the air agency 

has made a complete submission and the 24-month statutory deadline for EPA action to 

promulgate FIPs for incomplete elements would apply separately. The EPA intends to continue 

its practice of acting on infrastructure SIP elements together or separately, as appropriate. 

Any SIP submission is deemed by operation of law to be complete six months after 

submission, unless the EPA has before that date made an affirmative finding that the submission 

is complete or incomplete. Any inconsistency between the scope of the submission as described 

in the pre-submission public notice of the SIP submission and the actual submission, or between 

the description of the scope of the submission in the transmittal letter to the EPA and the actual 

substantive coverage of the submission can create ambiguity as to which infrastructure SIP 

elements in fact have been submitted and thus are capable of becoming complete by operation of 

law (and triggering a deadline for the EPA’s action) and which have in fact not yet been 

submitted.17 To provide clarity for all parties, air agencies should be very clear and accurate in 

the wording of their public notices and transmittal letters. It is also advisable for the air agency to 

discuss this wording with its EPA Regional Office before submission. On its part, an EPA 

Regional Office, in receipt of a submission with any inconsistencies of the type described, should 

consider steps it can take or ask the air agency to take prior to the six-month point in order to 

avoid the creation of ambiguity or an incorrect result as to which SIP elements have actually 

 

16 Under the TAR, a tribe is not subject to deadlines for certain planning requirements (including submission of 

infrastructure SIPs). See 63 FR 7254 (Feb. 12, 1998) for more information.

17 The EPA’s experience is that the existence of a FIP for PSD or regional haze may increase the risk of such 

inconsistencies occurring inadvertently. FIP-related aspects are discussed in more detail in the next section of this 

guidance.
12 

been submitted and are complete and consequently subject to a statutory deadline for the EPA 

action.

Section 2.3 of 40 CFR part 51 appendix V waives certain completeness requirements if

the EPA has granted an air agency request for parallel processing of the submission. Under the 

parallel processing approach, the EPA proposes to approve a draft SIP submission so that final 

approval can be given more quickly after the final adoption of any new measures as state, local, 

or tribal law and conclusion of the public comment process normally required for any SIP 

submission. The EPA intends to grant requests for parallel processing of infrastructure SIP 

submissions if (1) the only missing elements of completeness are final state adoption of rules or 

other provisions and/or conclusion of the public comment process for the SIP submission, 

including evidence thereof as specified in section 2.3 of appendix V, and (2) the schedule 

provided by the air agency for the conclusion of the adoption process and/or the public comment 

process for the SIP submission is reasonably expeditious.

18 In such a case, the EPA generally 

would also either make a finding of completeness for the submission or allow it to become 

complete by operation of law. If both these conditions are not met, the EPA will not grant the 

parallel processing request. However, the EPA generally will not make a finding of failure to 

submit a complete SIP but may be required to do so if under a court order.

Effect of a Federal Implementation Plan on an Infrastructure SIP

The CAA directs states to submit SIPs to the EPA for approval. In some cases, and for 

various reasons, the EPA may have previously determined that an air agency had not satisfied a 

SIP requirement, and so accordingly promulgated a FIP to address the gap in the SIP. The 

infrastructure SIP process can be affected when an air agency is currently subject to a FIP that is 

related to an infrastructure SIP element. Therefore, this section describes the potential impact of 

pre-existing FIPs on the infrastructure SIP process. This explanation is relevant not only for air 

 

18 With regard to the 1992 EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni, Air Quality Management Division, OAQPS, to 

EPA Air Division Directors, Regions I through X, “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response 

to Clean Air Act (Act) Deadlines,” October 29, 1992, note that the EPA no longer considers the section titled 

“Requests for Parallel Process to Meet Act Deadlines” to be its guidance for infrastructure SIPs that are submitted 

with requests for parallel processing.
13 

agencies that currently have a FIP in effect but also for air agencies that may be subject to a FIP 

in the future. 

The EPA’s obligation to promulgate a FIP is set out in section 110(c) of the CAA. A FIP 

may be triggered if the EPA takes any of the following actions: (1) the EPA finds that a state has 

failed to make a required SIP submission; (2) the EPA finds that a required submission was 

incomplete; or (3) the EPA disapproves a required SIP submission in whole or in part. If the EPA

takes one of these actions, section 110(c) obligates the EPA to promulgate a FIP within 2 years

of the action, a deadline that is commonly referred to as a "FIP clock." In order to remove the 

EPA's FIP obligation, the state must make a SIP submission that meets the applicable CAA 

requirements and is approved by the EPA prior to the EPA’s promulgation of a FIP. Whenever 

the EPA promulgates a FIP for a state air agency, the FIP rulemaking will identify the specific 

CAA provisions that required the promulgation of the FIP, and the FIP will be codified in the 

appropriate section of 40 CFR part 52. 

Under the TAR, a tribe is not subject to deadlines for planning requirements (including 

submission of infrastructure SIPs).

19 In general, the concept of failure to submit a complete 

implementation plan does not apply in tribal situations, and there is no FIP clock started if a tribe 

has not submitted an infrastructure TIP. Under the TAR, in the absence of an approved tribal 

implementation plan the EPA will promulgate a FIP for one or more infrastructure SIP elements 

when and if it is necessary and appropriate to do so. For example, the EPA has promulgated new 

source review FIPs to govern permitting of sources in Indian country.

If the EPA has promulgated a FIP, then this means that the EPA has previously 

determined that the air agency’s SIP did not meet some CAA requirement as of the date of 

promulgation of that FIP. While the intent and effect of the FIP is to achieve the same air quality 

protection as the SIP should have achieved, it is the EPA’s interpretation of sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) that the EPA cannot give “credit” for the FIP when determining whether an air 

agency has met any later obligations under these sections.

 

19 See 63 FR 7254 (February 12, 1998) for more information on the TAR.
14 

As an example of a FIP that affects the infrastructure SIP submission process, we note 

that, for various reasons, several states do not have EPA-approved major source preconstruction 

permit programs in their SIPs for prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) as required by 

part C of title I of the CAA. The EPA has promulgated a set of PSD rules which establish 

authority for the EPA (or an air agency to which the EPA has delegated authority to administer 

the federal PSD program)20 to issue preconstruction permits to major stationary sources in any 

area not covered by a PSD program in a SIP.21 The EPA has also promulgated FIPs for each area 

without a SIP-approved PSD program, indicating that this set of federal PSD rules applies in that 

area.

22 Such a PSD FIP may be relevant to infrastructure Element C, Element J, Element D(i)(II), 

and the portion of Element D(ii) related to notification to other states. As another example, the 

EPA has promulgated full or partial FIPs to address reasonably attributable visibility impairment 

(RAVI) and regional haze for some air agencies.23 A RAVI FIP or a regional haze FIP may be 

relevant to Element D(i)(II). These linkages are further discussed in the section pertaining to 

each of these elements.

The infrastructure SIP process will vary to some extent depending on whether or not the 

air agency’s SIP submission purports to, and actually does, satisfy infrastructure SIP 

requirements that are currently being met by means of a FIP, as explained in the following 

paragraphs. 

Consider an air agency that is currently subject to a FIP that is relevant to certain 

infrastructure SIP elements makes a submission and states in a general way in the transmittal 

letter that the submission satisfies all elements of CAA section 110(a)(2), or if it specifically 

states that the submission satisfies the elements to which the FIP is relevant, the EPA would 

 

20 The EPA is planning on extending the opportunity for delegation of new source review permitting to qualified 

tribes.

21 See 40 CFR 52.21; Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality. 

22 See, e.g., 40 CFR 52.738 for the PSD program applicable to sources in Illinois.

23 Some of these regional haze FIPs relied on the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which was subsequently 

vacated by the U.S. Court Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. EME Homer City Generation, L.L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 

(D.C. Cir. 2012). The Supreme Court has accepted the EPA’s petition for it to review the D.C. Circuit’s decision. 

Air agencies should consult with their EPA Regional Offices regarding the current status of this litigation and the 

implications if any for infrastructure SIP submissions.
15 

evaluate whether the submission, in fact, contains existing or new substantive provisions to 

address the section 110(a)(2) requirement presently covered by the FIP. If the submission does 

not substantively address the elements or sub-elements presently covered by the FIP, then the 

EPA Regional Office should encourage the air agency to clarify its intentions as to which 

elements have been submitted. The air agency might then clarify that it has made no submission 

for certain elements, in which case the EPA would not make a finding of complete submission 

for those elements and those elements could not become complete by operation of law. (The 

EPA may make a finding of failure to submit for those elements.) In the absence of such a 

clarification, the EPA Regional Office should determine that the air agency has failed to make a 

complete submission for those elements. Such a finding generally would create an obligation for 

the EPA to adopt a FIP within 24 months. However, based on the PSD FIP example and to the 

extent that the SIP deficiency is addressed by continuing to implement the existing PSD FIP, the 

EPA would have no additional FIP obligation under section 110(c) and the air agency would not 

have to take any further action for the current FIP-based permitting process to continue 

operating. Mandatory sanctions would not apply under CAA section 179 because such a finding 

of failure to submit a complete SIP was made neither with respect to a submission that is 

required under CAA title I part D nor in response to a SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5). 

To provide further clarity, consider how the following three scenarios may prompt 

differing EPA actions. 

First scenario. Under this scenario, the transmittal letter for the infrastructure SIP 

submission makes clear that the submission is not intended to satisfy certain elements that can be

addressed by continuing to apply the FIP. In this situation, the EPA would make a completeness 

finding that extends only to the SIP elements actually submitted by the air agency, and a finding 

that other relevant applicable elements were not submitted.24 The EPA would be required to take 

action only on the elements that were submitted, within 12 months after those elements have 

been determined to be complete. The overall infrastructure SIP would not be approvable with 

 

24 If, instead, the submission that clearly addressed only some required elements has become complete at the 6-

month point by operation of law, the EPA would still consider the air agency to not have made a complete

submission for the missing elements.
16 

respect to the elements that were not submitted, and thus the EPA could only partially approve 

the overall infrastructure SIP.

25 

Second scenario. Under the second scenario, suppose the air agency makes a SIP 

submission that references the existence of a PSD FIP and asserts that the existence of the FIP is 

a sufficient basis for EPA approval of the submission with respect to these elements. The EPA 

would not consider the existence of the PSD FIP, even if referenced in the submission, as 

meeting completeness or approvability criteria for these elements. This is because a FIP is not a 

state plan and thus cannot serve to satisfy the state’s obligation to submit a SIP. The EPA’s 

action on the SIP submission would indicate that the air agency has not met the underlying 

statutory obligations in section 110(a)(2) with respect to Elements C and J. However, when the 

SIP deficiency is being addressed by the existing PSD FIP, the EPA would have no additional 

FIP obligation under section 110(c) and the state would not have to take any further action for

the current FIP-based permitting process to continue operating. In this example, the EPA may be 

able to approve a state-developed SIP later, if the air agency develops and submits a SIP meeting 

all statutory and regulatory requirements relevant to Elements C and J. 

Third scenario. Under this scenario, the transmittal letter for the infrastructure SIP 

submission explicitly or implicitly indicates that the submission is intended to satisfy all required 

elements (including the elements that may be addressed by continuing to apply the existing PSD 

FIP), and the 6-month point has passed without any clarification by the air agency or any finding 

by the EPA Regional Office regarding completeness. In this situation, the EPA will generally 

treat the submission as having been intended to address all the required elements and to be 

complete for all elements. The 12-month clock for EPA action on the submission would apply to 

all elements and the EPA would proceed to disapprove the submission for the same elements 

with respect to the subject NAAQS that were previously addressed in the context of earlier 

NAAQS by the FIP. However, similar to the first scenario in which the SIP deficiency has 

 

25 Note: Because an infrastructure SIP is not a required plan submission under part D of title I of the CAA, 

disapproval of (or a finding of failure to submit) an infrastructure SIP or element thereof does not trigger mandatory 

sanctions under CAA section 179, unless the submission was required in response to a SIP call under 

section 110(k)(5) of the CAA.
17 

already been addressed, to the extent that the existing FIP addresses the deficiency, the EPA 

would have no additional FIP obligation under section 110(c) and the state would not have to 

take any further action for the current FIP-based permitting process to continue operations. As in 

the first scenario, the EPA may be able to approve a state-developed SIP later, if the air agency 

develops and submits a SIP meeting all statutory and regulatory requirements relevant to 

Elements C and J. 

For some state air agencies and some sources in Indian country, there are RAVI or 

regional haze FIPs in place that may be relevant to the subelement of Element D(i)(II) related to 

interference with measures by another state to protect visibility. This subelement is sometimes 

referred to as the “visibility transport” prong or simply, as “prong 4.” While fully approved 

RAVI and regional haze SIPs can be relied upon in satisfying this subelement, as explained later 

in this document, it may be possible in some cases for the element to be satisfied even if there is 

a FIP in place. Air agencies in this situation should read the section on Element D(i)(II) and 

consult with their respective EPA Regional Offices on this aspect of their infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

If a new submission in fact does address the substance of the element or subelement 

covered by a FIP, the EPA would review the submission and may approve the infrastructure SIP. 

The EPA may also withdraw the FIP that had been addressing that element or subelement for 

previous NAAQS, if all relevant CAA requirements are met by the SIP.
18 

III. Guidance on Individual Infrastructure SIP Elements

The EPA interprets section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) to require infrastructure SIP 

submissions to meet the elements of section 110(a)(2), as applicable. As described in section II, 

the EPA interprets the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to a permitting program that 

applies to nonattainment NSR within nonattainment areas, and the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(I) that pertain to the specific requirements for attainment plans for designated 

nonattainment areas, to be outside the scope of the infrastructure SIP requirements because of the 

separate statutory schedules for area designations and submission of attainment plans provided 

elsewhere in the CAA. With respect to the remaining elements of section 110(a)(2), 

subsections (A) through (M), the CAA imposes an obligation on states to address those elements, 

as appropriate, within the 3-year infrastructure SIP submission deadline. This section provides 

recommendations to air agencies about how to make infrastructure SIP submissions to meet 

these remaining relevant elements, as applicable. 

Element A – Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures

Each such plan shall – 

(A) include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, 

or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, 

and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for 

compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable 

requirements of this Chapter. 

To satisfy Element A, an air agency’s submission should identify existing EPA-approved 

SIP provisions or new SIP provisions that the air agency has adopted and submitted for EPA 

approval that limit emissions of pollutants relevant to the subject NAAQS, including precursors 

of the relevant NAAQS pollutant where applicable. Emissions limitations and other control 

measures needed to attain the NAAQS in areas designated nonattainment for that NAAQS will 

be due on a different schedule from the section 110 infrastructure elements and will be reviewed 

and acted upon with regard to approvability for the specific purposes of such an attainment plan 

under CAA title I part D through a separate process at a later time. See “Which elements of CAA 
19 

110(a)(2) affect infrastructure SIPs?” in section II of this guidance for additional discussion of 

this distinction.

There are two issues that relate to Element A for which we are providing general 

guidance. These are whether air agencies would need to correct the following in order for the 

EPA to approve their infrastructure SIP submissions: (1) previously approved emissions 

limitations that may treat startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) events inconsistently with 

the CAA as interpreted by our longstanding guidance on excess emissions (the EPA’s SSM 

Policy) and more recently by multiple courts; and (2) previously approved SIP provisions for 

"director's variance" or "director's discretion" that purport to allow revisions to or exemptions 

from SIP emission limitations with limited public process or without requiring further approval 

by the EPA.26 The guidance provided here is consistent with the EPA interpretations articulated 

in provisions in several recent EPA final actions on SIPs.

27, 28 

In recent infrastructure SIP actions, the EPA has drawn an important distinction with 

respect to SSM issues and director’s discretion issues in this particular context. The EPA does 

not interpret section 110(a)(2) to require air agencies and the EPA to address potentially deficient 

 

26 For further description of EPA's SSM Policy, see, e.g., a memorandum dated September 20, 1999, titled, "State 

Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown," from 

Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. Also, the EPA issued a proposed action on February 12, 2013, titled 

“State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP 

Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction.” 

This rulemaking responds to a petition for rulemaking filed by the Sierra Club that concerns SSM provisions in 

39 states’ SIPs. It clarifies and restates the EPA’s SSM SIP policy.

27 See, e.g., a SIP call issued to Utah (72 FR 21639, Apr. 18, 2010) concerning treatment of malfunction events 

under Utah's "unavoidable breakdown rule" (UBR). The EPA determined that Utah’s SIP was substantially 

inadequate because its UBR allowed operators of CAA-regulated facilities to avoid enforcement actions when they 

suffer an unexpected and unavoidable equipment malfunction. In this SIP call, the EPA called on Utah to 

promulgate a new UBR that conforms to the EPA’s interpretation of the CAA. Litigants maintained that the SIP call 

was arbitrary and capricious and asked the Tenth Circuit Court to vacate it. The Court denied the petition for review 

of the Utah SIP call. U.S. Magnesium, LLC v. EPA, U.S. Court of Appeals, No. 09-1269, January 14, 2011. 

28 As another example that presents the EPA's position on infrastructure SIPs with respect to this issue, see the 

preamble language in the final rule published in the Federal Register on July 13, 2011 (76 FR 41075), "Approval 

and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; Indiana; Michigan; Minnesota; Ohio; Wisconsin; 

Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards." In 

section II of the preamble, the EPA described at length the position summarized in this guidance regarding existing 

provisions related to excess emissions during periods of SSM and existing provisions related to "director's variance" 

or "director's discretion." 
20 

pre-existing SIP provisions of these types in the context of acting on an infrastructure SIP 

submission. The EPA considers this a reasonable interpretation of the CAA in such a context. 

The EPA notes that it has alternative tools in the CAA to address existing SIP deficiencies of this 

type, in appropriate circumstances.

However, any “new” provisions in the infrastructure SIP submission that are relevant to 

SSM (e.g., any newly created enforcement discretion provisions, affirmative defense provisions, 

or special emissions limitations that apply during SSM periods but that have not already been 

approved by the EPA) should be consistent with the EPA’s policy on what types of SSM 

provisions are permissible in SIPs under the CAA. For instance, new provisions as part of an 

approvable SIP submission cannot allow an air director the discretion to determine whether an 

instance of excess emissions is a violation of an emission limitation, because such a 

determination could bar the EPA and citizens from enforcing applicable requirements. Similarly, 

new provisions in a SIP for the exercise of enforcement discretion with regard to SSM events 

may only apply to state or tribal government personnel so that they do not limit enforcement by 

the EPA or citizens. Excess emissions, including those occurring during SSM periods, might 

prevent attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and compliance with other applicable CAA 

requirements. The EPA views all periods of excess emissions as violations of the applicable 

emission limitation. Therefore, if an infrastructure SIP contains provisions that have not already 

been approved by the EPA, and that impermissibly exempt from enforcement excess emissions 

that may occur at a facility during SSM periods or that otherwise are inconsistent with the EPA’s 

interpretation of the CAA as outlined in its SSM Policy, the EPA will not propose to fully

approve the submission as meeting section 110(a)(1) and (2) requirements. 

With regard to “director’s discretion” to revise emission limits, any "new" provisions in 

the infrastructure SIP submission (i.e., provisions that have not already been approved by the 

EPA) should be consistent with the EPA's interpretation of the CAA as expressed in its policy 

regarding director's discretion.

29 

 

29 See 77 FR 34309 and 34311 (June 11, 2012). “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Tennessee;

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate National

Ambient Air Quality Standards, Proposed Rule.”
21 

The EPA will continue to consider for approval, as it has in recent final SIP actions,30

SIPs that provide for a limited affirmative defense to civil penalties for excess emissions 

occurring during properly demonstrated and documented malfunction periods.

In summary, the EPA in recent final actions on infrastructure SIP submissions has 

maintained that the CAA does not require that new infrastructure SIP submissions address 

existing potentially inadequate provisions concerning SSM or director's discretion in order to be 

approved as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) requirements triggered by the new or 

revised NAAQS. The EPA’s stated position has been that it can approve an infrastructure SIP 

submission, even if the infrastructure SIP may incorporate by reference previously approved SIP 

provisions that are or may not be consistent with the EPA’s SSM Policy and its policy on 

director’s discretion to revise emission limits. The EPA articulated this position in a number of 

infrastructure SIP actions taken in 2011, noting in the preambles for those actions that existing 

provisions for SSM and director's discretion may be dealt with separately, outside the context of 

acting on an air agency’s new infrastructure SIP submission.31 However, if an air agency submits 

an infrastructure SIP submission that would create a new SIP provision related to SSM that is 

inconsistent with the EPA’s interpretation of the requirements of the CAA, the EPA may 

disapprove it. We intend to continue this practice and affirm it as part of this guidance.

 

30 See 75 FR 68989 at 68992 (November 10, 2010), “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas: 

Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunction Activities.” In Luminant Generation 

Co. v. EPA, No. 10-60934, 2012 WL 4841615 (5th Cir. 2012), the Court upheld the EPA’s approval of an 

affirmative defense for malfunctions and disapproval of an affirmative defense provision in a SIP submission that 

pertained to “planned activities,” which included startup, shutdown, and maintenance. The EPA disapproved this 

provision, in part because it provided an affirmative defense for maintenance. The Court rejected challenges to the 

EPA’s disapproval of this provision, holding that under Chevron step 2, the EPA’s interpretation of the CAA was 

reasonable. See also the Federal Register notice signed on February 12, 2013, restating the EPA’s policy on 

affirmative defense provisions and proposing 36 SIP calls to correct affirmative defense and other SSM-related SIP 

provisions.

31 As one example of preamble language that presents the EPA's position on infrastructure SIPs with respect to this 

issue, see the final rule published in the Federal Register on July 13, 2011 (76 FR 41075), "Approval and 

Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; Indiana; Michigan; Minnesota; Ohio; Wisconsin; 

Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards." In 

section II of the preamble, the EPA described at length the position summarized here regarding existing provisions 

related to excess emissions during periods of SSM and existing provisions related to "director's variance" or 

"director's discretion." 
22 

Element B – Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System

Each such plan shall – 

(B) provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, 

systems, and procedures necessary to – 

 (i) monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and 

 (ii) upon request, make such data available to the Administrator. 

To meet Element B requirements, the best practice for an air agency submitting an

infrastructure SIP would be to submit, for inclusion into the SIP (if not already part of the SIP),

the statutory or regulatory provisions that provide the air agency or official with the authority 

and responsibility to perform the actions listed in the bullets below along with a narrative 

explanation of how the provisions meet the requirements of this element.32 

• Monitor air quality for the relevant NAAQS pollutant(s) at appropriate locations in 

accordance with the EPA's ambient air quality monitoring network requirements. See

the EPA's Ambient Monitoring Technology Information Center (AMTIC) website, 40 

CFR part 53 ("Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods"), and 40 

CFR part 58 ("Ambient Air Quality Surveillance"). See also 40 CFR 51.190 

(referencing 40 CFR part 58).33 

• Submit data to the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) in a timely manner in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58. Under 40 CFR part 58, subpart B ("Monitoring 

Network"), for example, see 40 CFR 58.16 ("Data submittal and archiving 

requirements").

• Provide to the EPA Regional Office information regarding air quality monitoring 

activities, including a description of how the air agency has complied with monitoring 

requirements, and an explanation of any proposed changes to the network. 

 

32 The EPA recognizes that some air agencies may have general authorizing provisions that do not specifically 

enumerate specific activities but do implicitly authorize the air agency to perform such activities, in which case 

inclusion of those provisions would meet the intent of this best practice.

33 Note that despite the recent reorganization of 40 CFR part 58 without a corresponding conforming update of the 

cross-reference to part 58 in 40 CFR 51.190, all requirements under part 58 must still be met.
23 

Submission of annual monitoring network plans consistent with the EPA's ambient air 

monitoring regulations is one way of providing this information. Under 40 CFR 

part 58, subpart B, see, e.g., 40 CFR 58.10 ("Annual monitoring network plan and 

periodic network assessment").

• Obtain the EPA’s approval of any planned changes to monitoring sites or to the 

network plan, consistent with applicable requirements in 40 CFR 58.14 (“System 

Modification”). 

If an air agency chooses not to include the relevant statute or regulation in its SIP, then 

the air agency should provide a reference or citation to the authority provisions along with a 

narrative explanation of how the provisions meet the requirements of this element, as well as a 

copy of the relevant authority to accompany the SIP as required by 40 CFR 51.231.

For any new or revised NAAQS, the infrastructure SIP submission should provide

assurance that the state will meet changes in monitoring requirements related to the new or 

revised NAAQS.

Element C – Section 110(a)(2)(C): Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures and for 

Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources.

Each such plan shall – 

(C) include a program to provide for the enforcement of the measures described 

in subparagraph (A), and regulation of the modification and construction of any 

stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that 

national ambient air quality standards are achieved, including a permit program 

as required in parts C and D of this Subchapter. 

This element consists of three sub-elements; enforcement, state-wide regulation of new 

and modified minor sources and minor modifications of major sources; and preconstruction 

permitting of major sources and major modifications in areas designated attainment or 

unclassifiable for the subject NAAQS as required by CAA title I part C (i.e., the major source 
24 

PSD program).34,35 While this section outlines the general requirements for approvability of an 

infrastructure SIP with respect to Element C, air agencies previously subject to FIPs with respect 

to this element for major source PSD in the context of earlier NAAQS have the option, as 

discussed in more detail below and in Section II: “Which elements of CAA 110(a)(2) affect 

infrastructure SIPs?”, to remain subject to those FIPs as the remedy for infrastructure SIP 

deficiencies for a new or revised NAAQS. 

Enforcement: To satisfy this subelement, an infrastructure SIP submission should identify 

the statutes, regulations, or other provisions in the existing SIP (or new provisions that are 

submitted as part of the infrastructure SIP to be incorporated into the SIP) that provide for 

enforcement of those emission limits and control measures that the air agency has identified in 

its submission for purposes of satisfying Element A (Emissions limits and other control 

measures). 

Regulation of minor sources and minor modifications: To satisfy the subelement for preconstruction regulation of the modification and construction of minor stationary sources and the 

minor modification of major stationary sources, an infrastructure SIP submission should identify

the existing EPA-approved SIP provisions and/or include new provisions that govern the minor 

source pre-construction program that regulates emissions of the relevant NAAQS pollutant(s).

The EPA rules addressing SIP requirements for pre-construction regulatory programs that apply 

to minor sources and minor modifications are at 40 CFR sections 51.160 through 51.164. 

 

34 The terms "major" and "minor" categorize a stationary source or a modification of a stationary source, for NSR 

applicability purposes, in terms of an annual emissions rate (tons per year) or change in annual emission rate for a 

pollutant. The pre-construction minor NSR program generally applies to minor stationary sources and minor 

modification projects at major stationary sources. A major “stationary source” is defined in the applicable PSD or 

nonattainment NSR regulations. Some air agencies exempt small minor sources and modifications from preconstruction regulatory requirements. 

35 As explained in section II of this document, the EPA considers evaluation of permit provisions that implement 

CAA title I part D (the major source nonattainment NSR program) to generally be outside the scope of infrastructure 

SIP actions. Hence, to address the sub-element regarding major source permitting, only the major source permitting 

program applicable in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable is an issue. In contrast, because part D does not 

impose any special requirements for permitting of minor sources in nonattainment areas, the infrastructure SIP due 

3 years after a new or revised NAAQS should address Element C with regard to minor sources in unclassifiable, 

attainment, and nonattainment areas, without regard to designation.
25 

Preconstruction PSD permitting of major sources:36 To satisfy the subelement regarding 

the PSD program required by CAA title I part C, an infrastructure SIP submission should 

demonstrate that one or more air agencies has the authority to implement a comprehensive PSD 

permit program under CAA title I part C, for all PSD-subject sources located in areas that are 

designated attainment or unclassifiable for one or more NAAQS. The infrastructure SIP

submission should also identify the existing SIP provisions that govern the major source PSD 

program. As explained in more detail below, to be approvable the infrastructure SIP submission 

should also address any new or revised PSD permitting program requirements for which the 

deadline for SIP submissions has passed as of the date of EPA’s proposed action on the 

infrastructure submission. 

The SIP permitting provisions that implement CAA title I part C (the PSD program) 

govern preconstruction review and permitting of any new or modified major stationary sources 

of air pollutants regulated under the CAA (as well as any precursors to the formation of those 

pollutants when identified for regulation by the Administrator) in areas designated as attainment 

or unclassifiable. The EPA rules providing the minimum requirements for approvable PSD 

programs can be found generally at 40 CFR 51.166 (general provisions for PSD programs 

approved in SIPs) and 40 CFR 51.307 (specific provisions pertaining to new source review for 

potential impacts on air quality related values in Class I areas).

The EPA interprets Element C to mean that each infrastructure SIP submission for a 

particular NAAQS would need to demonstrate that the air agency has a complete PSD permitting

program in place covering the requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants, including 

greenhouse gases (GHG), in order to demonstrate that the SIP meets Element C.37 

Element C requires that each infrastructure SIP contain a permitting program “as required 

by part C.” CAA title I part C is applicable to all pollutants subject to regulation under the CAA. 

See, e.g., CAA section 165(a)(4). There is no specific language in the last clause of Element C 

 

36 The discussion here of the PSD portion of Element C also applies in full to the PSD portion of Element J.

37 See, e.g., 77 FR 64737 (October 23, 2012), “Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State

Implementation Plans; Nevada; Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter.”
26 

that restricts its application to only those provisions of CAA title I part C that pertain to the 

particular new or revised NAAQS addressed by the particular infrastructure SIP action. Because 

the scope of CAA title I part C is comprehensive (covering all pollutants subject to regulation 

under the CAA, including GHG), the EPA likewise reads the unrestricted reference to CAA 

title I part C in Element C to mean that this provision has the same scope as CAA title I part C 

itself. Thus, an infrastructure SIP submission for any one of the recently revised NAAQS must 

be “comprehensive” in that it would need to meet all CAA title I part C requirements for other 

regulated NSR pollutants as well.

The broad scope of Element C with respect to major source PSD permitting raises the 

question of how the EPA will proceed when the timing of requirements for multiple, related SIP 

submissions (e.g., for mandatory PSD SIP revisions) impacts the ability of the air agency and the 

EPA to address certain substantive issues in the infrastructure SIP submission in a reasonable 

fashion. It is appropriate for the EPA to take into consideration the timing of related 

requirements for SIP submissions in determining what an air agency can reasonably be expected

to have addressed in an infrastructure SIP submission for a NAAQS at the time when the EPA 

acts on such submission. The EPA does not consider it reasonable to interpret Element C to

require the EPA to propose to disapprove an air agency’s infrastructure SIP submission because 

the air agency had not submitted a PSD permitting program revision that was not yet due as of 

the date of EPA’s proposed action. Because it would be unreasonable to propose such a 

disapproval, the EPA likewise does not consider it reasonable to take final disapproval action

under such circumstances. In other words, the EPA interprets these CAA sections to allow the 

EPA to approve an infrastructure SIP submission for the major source PSD permitting 

subelement of Element C (and Element J) provided that the EPA has already approved or is 

simultaneously approving the air agency’s SIP submission(s)38 with respect to all structural PSD

permitting program revision requirements that were due under the EPA regulations or the CAA 

on or before the date of the EPA’s proposed action on the infrastructure SIP submission. To 

adopt a different approach, by which the EPA could not act on an infrastructure SIP or at least 

 

38 These submissions may be submitted separately or together with the infrastructure SIP submission on which the 

EPA is proposing action.
27 

could not approve an infrastructure SIP whenever there was any impending revision to the PSD 

permitting program regulations required by another collateral rulemaking action, would result in

regulatory gridlock and make it impracticable or impossible for the EPA to act on infrastructure 

SIPs if the EPA had recently revised its PSD permitting regulations but the submission required 

by such revisions was not yet due. The EPA believes that such an outcome would be an 

unreasonable reading of the statutory process for the infrastructure SIPs contemplated in 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2).

Consequently, the EPA generally plans to proceed as follows. The EPA may propose to 

approve an infrastructure SIP submission with respect to the major source PSD permitting 

subelement of Element C if the air agency has submitted, in a timely manner, all structural PSD 

permitting program provisions for which the SIP submission deadline has passed as of the date 

of the proposed approval.39 Subject to consideration of public comments on the proposed action, 

the EPA believes it may proceed to fully approve an infrastructure submission with respect to 

Element C if all such structural PSD permitting program submissions have been or are being 

simultaneously fully approved into the SIP. The EPA does not intend to treat any structural PSD 

permitting program requirement for which the SIP submission deadline falls after the date of the 

EPA’s proposed action on the infrastructure SIP as a required criterion for approval of the 

infrastructure SIP. The PSD permitting program revisions treated in this manner may include not 

only those related to the new or revised NAAQS whose promulgation has triggered the need for 

a new infrastructure SIP submission but also those related to any other regulated NSR pollutants 

as required by CAA title I part C and 40 CFR part 51.166.40 

If an air agency lacks a PSD permitting program in its existing EPA-approved SIP 

addressing all regulated NSR pollutants, and it is already subject to a FIP, then major stationary 

 

39 Structural PSD program provisions include provisions necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated 

sources and NSR pollutants, including GHG. Structural PSD program provisions do not include provisions which 

under 40 CFR 51.166 are at the option of the air agency, such as the option for air agencies to provide 

grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

40 See, e.g., “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Mississippi: New Source Review – Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration; Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” 77 FR 59095 

(September 26, 2012), a recent infrastructure SIP approval action that addressed a state’s PSD SIP status with 

respect to the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule.
28 

sources within its jurisdiction are subject to the federal PSD permitting requirements in 40 

CFR 52.21. Some air agencies are subject to a FIP for PSD permitting of all regulated NSR 

pollutants, and fewer air agencies are subject to a FIP for PSD permitting that is limited to 

particular pollutants (such as GHG). For sources subject to a pre-existing FIP for PSD 

permitting, either the EPA Regional Office issues PSD permits or, in instances where federal 

authority is delegated by the EPA Regional Office to it, the state or local air agency issues the 

PSD permits under the FIP (and tribes might be delegated in the same manner in the future). The 

EPA recognizes that some states have indicated a preference to operate under an EPAadministered PSD permitting program. Many air agencies have for some time been delegated the 

authority to implement a PSD FIP program. Other states have implemented their SIP-approved 

PSD permitting program. When an area is already subject to a FIP for PSD permitting (whether 

or not a state, local, or tribal air agency has been delegated federal authority to implement the 

PSD FIP), the air agency may choose to continue to rely on the PSD FIP to have permits issued 

pursuant to the FIP. If so, the EPA could not fully approve the infrastructure SIP submission with 

respect to Element C; however, the EPA anticipates that there would be no adverse consequences 

to the air agency or to sources from this lack of full approval of the infrastructure SIP. 

Mandatory sanctions would not apply under CAA section 179 because the failure to submit a 

PSD SIP is neither with respect to a submission that is required under CAA title I part D, nor in 

response to a SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5). This relationship between a pre-existing FIP 

and the EPA’s action on an infrastructure SIP element is also explained in section II of this 

document. 

The EPA has maintained that the CAA allows the EPA to approve infrastructure SIP

submissions that do not implement the NSR Reform Rules promulgated mainly in 2002.

41 We 

articulated this position in a number of infrastructure SIP final actions taken in 2011, noting in 

the preambles for those actions that existing SIP provisions for PSD programs that have not 

 

41 The NSR rules have undergone a series of improvements over many years. Significant reforms were promulgated 

in a rulemaking commonly referred to as the "2002 NSR Reform Rules," which were published in the Federal 

Register at 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002).
29 

addressed the NSR Reform Rules may be dealt with separately, outside the context of acting on a 

state’s infrastructure SIP.42

Air agencies may wish to reduce the need to amend their major source PSD rules after 

each new or revised NAAQS by writing them so that their coverage of pollutants and NAAQS

automatically updates with the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, and/or so that the 

specific PSD program requirements automatically update to stay matched with the federal PSD 

program requirements in 40 CFR 52.21. Depending on state or tribal law provisions, it may be 

possible to do one or both of these through the use of “rolling” incorporation by reference (IBR). 

An advantage of the rolling IBR approach is that it enables air agencies to quickly implement 

requirements of the CAA that may be immediately applicable to regulated sources upon the 

effective date of the new or revised NAAQS and before the deadline for air agencies to make 

infrastructure SIP submissions to the EPA. For example, one of the PSD program requirements is 

the requirement under section 165(a)(3) of the CAA that a permit applicant show it will not 

cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS. This requirement generally43 applies to any 

NAAQS in effect on the date a PSD permit decision is issued and is not deferred until an 

infrastructure SIP submission is due. Where permissible under state or tribal law, a rolling IBR 

approach is advisable to enable air agencies to implement this type of CAA requirement 

immediately upon the effective date of a NAAQS, thus ensuring that there is a mechanism in 

place for regulated sources in the state or an area of Indian country to meet CAA requirements 

resulting from a new or revised NAAQS as soon as it becomes applicable. 

 

42 As one example of the preamble language that presents the EPA's position on infrastructure SIPs with respect to 

the issue of NSR Reform, see the final rule published in the Federal Register on July 13, 2011, "Approval and 

Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; Indiana; Michigan; Minnesota; Ohio; Wisconsin; 

Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards." 76 

FR 41075. In section II of the preamble, the EPA applied the described position to existing provisions for PSD 

programs in light of the "NSR Reform Rules" that we promulgated mainly in 2002; see 67 FR 80186 (Dec. 31, 

2002). 

43 In some circumstances, the EPA has authorized “grandfathering” of pending PSD permit applications. See 78 FR 

3086, January 15, 2012.
30 

Elements D(i)(I) and (II) – Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate Pollution Transport

Each such plan shall – 

(D) contain adequate provisions – 

 (i) prohibiting, consistent with the provisions of this subchapter, any source or 

other type of emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in 

amounts which will – 

 (I) contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, 

any other State with respect to any such national primary or secondary ambient 

air quality standard, or 

 (II) interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable 

implementation plan for any other State under part C of this subchapter to 

prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility. 

 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains two subsections: (D)(i)(I) and (D)(i)(II).

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) addresses any emissions activity in one state that contributes 

significantly to nonattainment, or interferes with maintenance, of the NAAQS in another 

state. The EPA sometimes refers to these requirements as prong 1 (significant 

contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance). Neither 

prong 1 nor prong 2 is addressed in this guidance. This guidance does not modify any 

prior statements by the EPA with respect to prongs 1 and 2 and does not address, discuss, 

or in any way alter any requirements set forth in either prong. 

Element D(i)(II) requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type 

of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required of any other state to 

prevent significant deterioration of air quality or from interfering with measures required of any 

other state to protect visibility (referring to visibility in Class I areas). The EPA sometimes refers 

to these requirements under subsection 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as prong 3 (interference with PSD) 

and prong 4 (interference with visibility protection). The EPA interprets section 110(a)(2) to 

require air agencies to address prong 3 and prong 4 as part of each infrastructure SIP submission.

Prong 3: Under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), SIPs would need to have provisions 

prohibiting emissions that would interfere with measures required to be in any other air agency’s 
31 

SIP under part C of the CAA to prevent significant deterioration of air quality. Because part C 

requires an air agency’s PSD permitting program to address all pollutants subject to regulation 

under the CAA, the EPA interprets prong 3 to mean that the infrastructure SIP submission should 

have provisions to prevent emissions of any regulated pollutant from interfering with any other 

air agency’s comprehensive PSD permitting program, in addition to the new or revised NAAQS 

that is the subject of the infrastructure submission. Moreover, the infrastructure SIP should

address the potential for such interference by sources throughout the jurisdiction of the air 

agency.

One way to meet prong 3 (”interference with PSD”), specifically with respect to those 

in-state sources and pollutants that are subject to PSD permitting, is through an air agency’s 

confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission that new major sources and major modifications 

are subject to a comprehensive EPA-approved PSD permitting program in the SIP that applies to 

all regulated NSR pollutants and that satisfies the requirements of the EPA’s PSD 

implementation rule(s), as discussed above for purposes of Element C. This is because in order 

to be approved by the EPA, a major source PSD permitting program would need to fully 

consider source impacts on air quality in other states.

In-state sources not subject to PSD for any one or more of the pollutants subject to 

regulation under the CAA because they are in a nonattainment area for a NAAQS related to 

those particular pollutants may also have the potential to interfere with PSD in an attainment or 

unclassifiable area of another state. The EPA cannot ignore this potential when reviewing an 

infrastructure SIP for this prong. The EPA will consider and may rely on an air agency’s EPAapproved nonattainment NSR provisions in determining whether a SIP satisfies prong 3 with 

respect to sources located in areas subject to nonattainment NSR for any one or more pollutants 
32 

and thus not subject to PSD permitting for those NAAQS pollutants. 44 SIP revisions to address 

nonattainment NSR requirements for any new or revised NAAQS are, however, due on a 

separate timeframe under section 172(b) of the CAA and are not subject to the timeframe for 

submission of infrastructure SIPs under section 110(a)(1). Therefore, a fully approved 

nonattainment NSR program with respect to any previous NAAQS may generally be considered 

by the EPA as adequate for purposes of meeting the requirement of prong 3 with respect to 

sources and pollutants subject to such program. Also, if an air agency makes a submission 

indicating that it issues permits pursuant to 40 CFR part 51 appendix S in a nonattainment area 

because a nonattainment NSR program for a particular NAAQS pollutant has not yet been 

approved by the EPA for that area, that permitting program may generally be considered by the 

EPA as adequate for purposes of meeting the requirements of prong 3 with respect to sources and 

pollutants subject to such program. Such reliance for infrastructure purposes would not constitute 

approval under CAA title I part D, and the EPA will explain this in the preambles to any

proposed or final actions that rely on this rationale to support the conclusion that prong 3 is 

satisfied. 

For an air agency without an EPA-approved major source PSD program and/or, where 

required, an EPA-approved nonattainment NSR program, it may still be possible for the EPA to 

also find, given the facts of the situation, that other SIP provisions and/or physical condition are

adequate to prohibit interference with other air agencies’ measures to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality.

Prong 4: Under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), an infrastructure SIP submission cannot be 

approved with respect to prong 4 (visibility transport) until the EPA has issued final approval of 

SIP provisions that the EPA has found to adequately address any contribution of that state's 

 

44 Refer, e.g., to a memorandum issued by William T. Harnett, Director, OAQPS/AQPD, "Guidance for State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for 

the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards," dated August 15, 2006. According to that 

2006 Harnett memo, in section 5, “[t]he implementation of a PSD and NNSR permitting program in each state 

serves to prevent significant deterioration in neighboring states and thus largely satisfies the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA.” Nevertheless, nonattainment-related provisions, although identified in 

section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, are considered by the EPA to be outside the scope of infrastructure SIP actions, as 

discussed in section II of this guidance.
33 

sources to impacts on visibility program requirements in other states. The EPA interprets this 

prong to be pollutant-specific, such that the infrastructure SIP submission need only address the 

potential for interference with protection of visibility caused by the pollutant (including 

precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies. Carbon monoxide does not affect 

visibility, so an infrastructure SIP for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide 

need only state this fact in order to meet prong 4. Significant impacts from lead (Pb) emissions 

from stationary sources are expected to be limited to short distances from the source and most, if 

not all, Pb stationary sources are located at distances from Class I areas such that visibility 

impacts would be negligible. Although Pb can be a component of coarse and fine particles, Pb 

generally comprises a small fraction of coarse and fine particles. Furthermore, when evaluating 

the extent to which Pb could impact visibility, Pb-related visibility impacts were found to be 

insignificant (e.g., less than 0.10 percent).45 Although we anticipate that Pb emissions will 

contribute only negligibly to visibility impairment in Class I areas, the air agency’s submission 

of an infrastructure SIP for a new or revised Pb NAAQS should include an explanation in 

support of the air agency’s conclusion (and, if appropriate, should include control measures in its 

submission to limit impacts in other states). 

One way in which prong 4 may be satisfied for any relevant NAAQS is through an air 

agency’s confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission that it has an approved regional haze 

SIP that fully meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 

specifically require that a state participating in a regional planning process include all measures 

needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that 

process. See, for example, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). A fully approved regional haze SIP will 

ensure that emissions from sources under an air agency’s jurisdiction are not interfering with 

measures required to be included in other air agencies’ plans to protect visibility. However, if the 

air agency has submitted a 5-year progress report SIP that indicates that the regional haze SIP is 

deficient with respect to ensuring reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions in a 

 

45 Memorandum from Mark Schmidt, OAQPS, “Ambient Pb’s Contribution to Class I Area Visibility Impairment,”

June 17, 2011.
34 

Class I area in another state, the infrastructure SIP submission would need to explain how 

nevertheless the overall SIP satisfies prong 4. 

After the next round of regional haze SIPs become due in 2018, the EPA may find it 

appropriate to supplement the guidance provided here regarding the relationship between 

regional haze SIPs and prong 4. 

A number of air agencies do not have fully approved regional haze SIPs in place and 

instead have FIPs in place, which cannot be relied upon to satisfy prong 4.46 The presence of a 

regional haze FIP does not necessarily require disapproval of the infrastructure SIP for prong 4. 

A state air agency may elect to satisfy prong 4 by providing, as an alternative to relying on its 

regional haze SIP alone, a demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission that emissions 

within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies’ plans to protect visibility. Such an 

infrastructure SIP submission would need to include measures to limit visibility-impairing 

pollutants and ensure that the reductions conform with any mutually agreed regional haze 

reasonable progress goals for mandatory Class I areas in other states.47

If the EPA determines the SIP to be incomplete or partially disapproves an infrastructure 

SIP submission for prong 4, a FIP obligation will be created. If a FIP or FIPs are already in effect 

that correct all regional haze SIP deficiencies, there will be no additional practical consequences 

from the partial disapproval for the affected air agency, the sources within its jurisdiction, or the 

 

46 Some approved regional haze SIPs have relied on the fact that electric generating units (EGUs) in the state must 

comply with a FIP previously promulgated by the EPA as part of the CSAPR to satisfy best achievable retrofit 

technology requirements for EGUs. In this limited way, if a regional haze SIP of this type has itself been approved 

by the EPA, it is possible for FIP provisions to be taken into account by the EPA in determining whether an 

infrastructure SIP may be approved for prong 4. 

47 As examples of the possibility that an infrastructure SIP submission can satisfy prong 4 even though the regional 

haze SIP has not been fully approved, see: (i) “Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of 

Colorado; Interstate Transport of Pollution Revisions for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: 

‘Interference With Visibility’ Requirement – Final Rule”, 76 FR 22036 (April 20, 2011); and (ii) “Approval and 

Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Kentucky; 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-

Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards – Final Rule,” 78 FR 14681 (March 7, 2013). In the first 

action, the EPA approved the infrastructure SIP submission with respect to prong 4 without having approved a 

regional haze SIP, based on the state’s demonstration that it does not interfere with other states’ measures to protect 

visibility through their regional haze SIPs. In the second proposed action, the EPA approved Kentucky’s submission 

with respect to prong 4 based on the partial approval of its regional haze SIP and its CSAPR SIP. 
35 

EPA. The EPA will not be required to take further action with respect to prong 4 because the FIP

already in place would satisfy the requirements with respect to prong 4. In addition, unless the 

infrastructure SIP submission is required in response to a SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5), 

mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179 would not apply because the deficiencies are not

with respect to a submission that is required under CAA title I part D. Nevertheless, the EPA 

continues to encourage all air agencies that may be subject to full or partial FIPs for regional 

haze requirements to consider adopting additional SIP provisions that would allow the EPA to 

fully approve the regional haze SIP and thus to withdraw the FIP and approve the infrastructure 

SIP with respect to prong 4. 

Element D(ii) – Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement and International 

Air Pollution

Each such plan shall – 

(D) contain adequate provisions – 

 (ii) insuring compliance with the applicable requirements of sections 126 and 

115 (relating to interstate and international pollution abatement). 

Element D(ii) is satisfied when an infrastructure SIP ensures compliance with the 

applicable requirements of CAA sections 126(a), 126(b) and (c), and 115. 

Interstate Pollution Abatement: 

 Sec. 126. (a) Each applicable implementation plan shall – 

 (1) require each major proposed new (or modified) source – 

 (A) subject to part C (relating to significant deterioration of air quality) or

 (B) which may significantly contribute to levels of air pollution in excess of the 

national ambient air quality standards in any air quality control region outside 

the State in which such source intends to locate (or make such modification), to 

provide written notice to all nearby States the air pollution levels of which may be 

affected by such source at least sixty days prior to the date on which 

commencement of construction is to be permitted by the State providing notice, 

and 

(2) identify all major existing stationary sources which may have the impact 

described in paragraph (1) with respect to new or modified sources and provide 

notice to all nearby States of the identity of such sources not later than 

three months after the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1977. 
36 

Under section 126(a)(1) of the CAA, each SIP would need to contain provisions requiring 

each new or modified major source required by CAA title I part C to be subject to PSD to notify 

neighboring air agencies of potential impacts from the source. Consistent with EPA’s 

interpretation of part C with respect to the requirements of Element C, the notification 

requirements apply to potential impacts from all PSD-regulated pollutants, not only the new or 

revised NAAQS for which the infrastructure SIP submission is being made. Section 126(a)(1) 

also requires that each SIP contain provisions requiring each new or modified major source to 

provide similar notification if it may significantly contribute to levels of pollution in excess of a 

NAAQS in any air quality control region outside of the state in which the source is located. 

Air agencies with PSD programs that have been approved into their SIPs should already 

have a regulatory provision in place, consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv), which requires the 

permitting authority to notify air agencies whose lands may be affected by emissions from that 

source. Inasmuch as the information that the permitting authority provides to other air agencies is 

submitted by the source to the permitting authority, the EPA considers the notification by the 

permitting authority to satisfy the requirement of CAA section 126(a)(1)(A) that a new or 

modified major source subject to part C notify neighboring air agencies of its potential 

downwind impact.

A state that is subject to a FIP for its PSD program may not have an infrastructure SIP 

that satisfies Element D(ii) with respect to section 126(a)(1) of the CAA, depending on the scope 

of the gap in the SIP that led to the PSD FIP. Where some or all pollutants in a state are subject 

to a PSD FIP, the EPA may find the infrastructure SIP submission to be incomplete with respect 

to Element D(ii) and could not fully approve the infrastructure SIP submission with respect to 

Element D(ii) if the approved SIP has no other provision meeting the notification requirements 

of section 126(a)(1). Nonetheless, as noted above, the EPA anticipates that there would be no 

adverse consequences to the air agency or to sources within its jurisdiction from this lack of full 

approval. The EPA would not likely be required to take further action with respect to notification 

under this element, because the federal PSD rules should fully address the notification issue

through the requirements of 40 CFR 52.21(q) and 40 CFR 124.10(c)(vii) and thus satisfy the FIP 
37 

requirement triggered by the disapproval of the infrastructure SIP.

48 In addition, unless the 

infrastructure SIP submission is required in response to a SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5), 

mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179 would not apply because the deficiencies are not

with respect to a submission that is required under CAA title I part D. 

The EPA notes that the requirement stated in CAA section 126(a)(2) was a one-time 

obligation on states that does not apply to the EPA’s review of infrastructure SIP submissions.

Interstate Pollution Abatement:

Section 126...

(b) Any State or political subdivision may petition the Administrator for a finding 

that any major source or group of stationary sources emits or would emit any air 

pollutant in violation of the prohibition of section 110(A)(2)(D)(ii) or this section. 

Within 60 days after receipt of any petition under this subsection and after public 

hearing, the Administrator shall make such a finding or deny the petition.

 (c) Notwithstanding any permit which may have been granted by the State in 

which the source is located (or intends to locate), it shall be a violation of [this 

section and] the applicable implementation plan in such State – 

 (1) for any major proposed new (or modified) source with respect to which a 

finding has been made under subsection (b) to be constructed or to operate in 

violation of [this section and] the prohibition of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) or this 

section, or 

 (2) for any major existing source to operate more than three months after such 

finding has been made with respect to it.

The Administrator may permit the continued operation of a source referred to in 

paragraph (2) beyond the expiration of such three-month period if such source 

complies with such emission limitations and compliance schedules (containing 

increments of progress) as may be provided by the Administrator to bring about 

compliance with the requirements contained in section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) as 

expeditiously as practicable, but in no case later than three years after the date of 

such finding. Nothing in the preceding sentence shall be construed to preclude 

any such source from being eligible for an enforcement order under 

section 113(d) after the expiration of such period during which the Administrator 

has permitted continuous operation.

 

48 40 CFR part 124, including 124.10(c)(vii), provides for EPA notification to states whose lands may be affected by 

emissions from the source and applies to all federal PSD permits issued in accordance with 40 CFR 52.21.
38 

Please note that the EPA has concluded that the cross-reference in CAA section 126(b) to 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) is a scrivener’s error and that Congress intended to refer to 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). See Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 249 F.3d -1032, 1040-44 (D.C. Cir. 

2001). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), in short, prohibits any source or emissions activity in a state from 

emitting any amount of air pollutant which will contribute significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state. (42 U.S.C. § 7410.)

The required content of an infrastructure SIP with respect to Element D(ii) is affected by

sections 126(b) and 126(c) of the CAA only if: (1) the Administrator has, in response to a 

petition, made a finding under section 126(b) of the CAA that emissions from a source or

sources within the air agency’s jurisdiction emit prohibited amounts of air pollution relevant to 

the new or revised NAAQS for which the infrastructure SIP submission is being made; and (2) 

under section 126(c) of the CAA, the Administrator has required the source or sources to cease 

construction, cease or reduce operations, or comply with emissions limitations and compliance 

schedule requirements for continued operation. Where appropriate, the EPA recommends that an 

infrastructure SIP submission concerning section 126(c) include a statement to the following 

effect: “No source or sources within the state [or tribal area] are the subject of an active finding 

under section 126 of the CAA with respect to the particular NAAQS at issue.” Otherwise, where 

a source or sources within the air agency’s jurisdiction are subject to such a finding and there are 

substantive SIP requirements imposed by the Administrator under section 126(c) of the CAA, 

then we encourage the air agency to consult with its EPA Regional Office. 

International Air Pollution:

 Sec. 115. (a) Whenever the Administrator, upon receipt of reports, surveys or 

studies from any duly constituted international agency has reason to believe that 

any air pollutant or pollutants emitted in the United States cause or contribute to 

air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or 

welfare in a foreign country or whenever the Secretary of State requests him to do 

so with respect to such pollution which the Secretary of State alleges is of such a 

nature, the Administrator shall give formal notification thereof to the Governor of 

the State in which such emissions originate. 

(b) The notice of the Administrator shall be deemed to be a finding under 

section 110(a)(2)(H)(ii) which requires a plan revision with respect to so much of 

the applicable implementation plan as is inadequate to prevent or eliminate the 

endangerment referred to in subsection (a). Any foreign country so affected by 
39 

such emission of pollutant or pollutants shall be invited to appear at any public 

hearing associated with any revision of the appropriate portion of the applicable 

implementation plan. 

Section 115 of the CAA authorizes the Administrator to require a state to revise 

its SIP under certain conditions to alleviate international transport into another country. 

Because of the appearance of the phrase “applicable requirements of section[]...115” in 

Element D(ii), the EPA interprets this requirement to be NAAQS-specific. That is, when

acting on an infrastructure SIP submission for a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA will 

look to whether the Administrator has made a finding with respect to emissions of the 

particular NAAQS pollutant and its precursors, if applicable. Where appropriate, the EPA 

recommends that infrastructure SIP submission requirements concerning section 115 

include a statement to the following effect: "There are no final findings under section 115 

of the CAA against this state [or tribal area] with respect to the particular NAAQS at 

issue." If there are one or more final findings under section 115 of the CAA, then we 

encourage the air agency to consult with its EPA Regional Office.

Element E – Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict of 

Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies

Each such plan shall – 

(E) provide (i) necessary assurances that the State (or, except where the 

Administrator deems inappropriate, the general purpose local government or 

governments, or a regional agency designated by the State or general purpose 

local governments for such purpose) will have adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority under State (and, as appropriate, local) law to carry out such 

implementation plan (and is not prohibited by any provision of Federal or State 

law from carrying out such implementation plan or portion thereof), 

(ii) requirements that the State comply with the requirements respecting State 

boards under section 128, and (iii) necessary assurances that, where the State has 

relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the 

implementation of any plan provision, the State has responsibility for ensuring 

adequate implementation of such plan provision. 
40 

Subelement (i): The SIP should provide necessary assurances49 that the air agency has

adequate personnel and funding to implement the relevant NAAQS. In accordance with the 

EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 51, subpart M (“Intergovernmental Consultation”), the 

infrastructure SIP submission should identify the organizations that will participate in 

developing, implementing, and enforcing the EPA-approved SIP provisions related to the new or 

revised NAAQS and thus require resources for doing so. The infrastructure SIP submission 

should identify the responsibilities of such organizations and include related agreements among 

the organizations. For compliance with section 110(a)(2)(E), see 40 CFR 51.240 ("General plan 

requirements"). Also, in accordance with the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 51, subpart O 

(“Miscellaneous Plan Content Requirements”), the infrastructure SIP submission should describe 

the resources that are available to these organizations for carrying out the SIP. Resources to be 

described should include: (1) those available to these organizations as of the date of 

infrastructure SIP submission; (2) those considered necessary during the 5 years following 

infrastructure SIP submission; and (3) projections regarding acquisition of the described 

resources. For compliance with section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to resources, see 40 CFR 

51.280 ("Resources"). 

Further, the infrastructure SIP submission should assure that the responsible state, local, 

and/or regional agencies, or a tribal authority, have adequate authority under statutes, rules, and 

regulations to carry out SIP obligations with respect to the relevant NAAQS. See the EPA's 

regulations at 40 CFR part 51, subpart L ("Legal Authority") and subpart O. In accordance with 

the EPA's regulations at subpart L, the infrastructure SIP submission should show that the 

responsible organizations have the legal authority to carry out the provisions identified in the SIP 

submission. 

 

49 As with any SIP submission, the EPA’s review can be expedited if a SIP submission for this element includes a 

detailed explanation of how the existing SIP (supplemented by any new provisions included in the submission) 

meets each of the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(i). This should include a description of the 

correlation between the requirements of this element and an equivalent set of statutory, regulatory, and/or nonregulatory provisions, as appropriate. When an air agency’s infrastructure submission more clearly identifies each

CAA element being met by the SIP submission and explains how it is met, the EPA can more easily determine 

whether the submission is complete and approvable with respect to that element.
41 

In accordance with 40 CFR 51.231, the infrastructure SIP submission should identify the 

provisions of law or regulations that the air agency determines provide the necessary authority, 

and the air agency should submit copies of those laws or regulations with the infrastructure SIP 

submission. If an official, legal copy of a particular law or regulation has already been provided 

to the EPA in an earlier SIP submission, that copy only needs to be referenced with sufficient 

specificity to avoid ambiguity, rather than a new copy submitted.50 For compliance with 

section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to legal authority, see 40 CFR 51.230 and 40 CFR 51.231. 

Having reviewed and approved air agency SIP submissions with respect with this 

element, the EPA expects that it would be unusual for air agencies to need to make SIP revisions 

regarding personnel, funding, or legal authority in order to satisfy this subelement. However, for 

any new or revised NAAQS, the air agency should explain in the infrastructure SIP submission 

how resources and personnel and legal authority are adequate and provide any additional 

assurances needed to meet changes in resource requirements by the new or revised NAAQS.

Subelement (ii): 

State Boards:

The infrastructure SIP submission (possibly in combination with earlier submissions 

already approved by the EPA) would need to include the statutory or regulatory provisions that 

impose the requirements mandated by CAA section 128 pertaining to certain boards, bodies, and 

personnel involved in approving permits or enforcement orders. Because CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(e)(ii) directs states to “provide requirements that the state comply with the 

 

50 Refer to a memorandum dated November 22, 2011, jointly from Janet McCabe, Deputy Assistant Administrator, 

Office of Air and Radiation, and Becky Weber, Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Region 7, to Air 

Division Directors, Regions 1-10, titled "Guidelines for Preparing Letters Submitting State Implementation Plans 

(SIPs) to EPA and for Preparing Public Notices for SIPs." 
42 

requirements respecting state boards under section 128,”51 the provisions that implement CAA 

section 128 would need to be contained within the SIP. That is, the EPA would not approve an 

infrastructure SIP submission that only provides a narrative description of existing air agency 

laws, rules, and regulations that are not approved into the SIP to address CAA section 128 

requirements. If an existing rule regarding conflict of interest and disclosure requirements has 

been adopted under the authority of a state or tribal law, the rule would need to be included in the 

SIP submission, but the authorizing law would not. If the state or tribal law is self-executing and 

there is no rule that could be included in the SIP, then the law would need to be incorporated into 

the SIP. Inclusion of an existing law in the SIP does not prevent the state legislature or tribal 

council from amending that law at a later date as a matter of state law, although eventually the 

EPA-approved SIP will need to be updated with any such amendment in order to revise the 

federally enforceable SIP. 

All air agencies are subject to the provisions of CAA section 128. However, if there is no

board or body authorized to approve permits or enforcement orders under the CAA, then a 

negative declaration to that effect may serve to satisfy the "board or body" requirements under 

paragraph (a)(1) of CAA section 128. It is the EPA’s stated interpretation that a multi-member 

board or body that has authority under state or tribal law to hear appeals of CAA permits or 

 

51 Sec. 128. (a) Not later than the date one year after the date of the enactment of 

this section, each applicable implementation plan shall contain requirements 

that – 

(1) any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under this 

Act shall have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest 

and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to 

permits or enforcement orders under this Act, and 

(2) any potential conflicts of interest by members of such board or body or the 

head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed.

A State may adopt any requirements respecting conflicts of interest for such 

boards or bodies or heads of executive agencies, or any other entities which are 

more stringent than the requirements of (paragraphs (1) and (2), and the 

Administrator shall approve any such more stringent requirements submitted as 

part of an implementation plan.
43 

enforcement orders is considered to have authority to “approve” those permits or enforcement 

orders. Accordingly, the requirements of section 128(a)(1) related to public interest and 

limitations on sources of income are applicable to such a board or body and would need to be 

met through provisions incorporated into the SIP.52,53

The provisions of section 128(a)(2), which concern disclosure of potential conflicts of 

interest, would need to be substantively met by provisions incorporated into the SIP, regardless 

of whether it is a board, some other body, or the head of an executive agency that has 

responsibility for approving permits or enforcement orders in that state or an area of Indian 

country. It is the EPA’s stated interpretation that a multi-member board or body that has 

authority under state or tribal law to hear appeals of CAA permits or enforcement orders is 

considered to have authority to “approve” those permits or enforcement orders. Accordingly, the 

requirement of section 128(a)(2) related to disclosure is applicable to such a board or body and 

would need to be met through provisions incorporated into the SIP.

In 1978, the EPA issued a guidance memorandum recommending ways air agencies 

could meet the requirements of section 128, including suggested interpretations of certain terms 

in section 128.54 EPA has not issued further guidance or regulations of general applicability on 

the subject since that time. However, as part of its actions on several infrastructure SIP 

submissions, the EPA has more recently proposed certain interpretations of section 128 as 

applied to these specific submissions, invited comment on these interpretations, and finalized its 

actions. Within those actions, EPA has thus provided additional interpretation of the terms of 

section 128 given specific facts and circumstances, consistent with the statutory requirements. 

 

52 The EPA expressed this interpretation in a proposed action on the infrastructure SIP for Arizona. June 27, 2012. 

“Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona: Infrastructure Requirement for 

Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter.” 77 FR 38239. This action was finalized on November 5, 2012, 77 FR 66398. 

53 “Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Hawaii Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 8-

Hour Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.” 77 FR 47530 

(August 9, 2012). The EPA’s action on the infrastructure SIP for Arizona referenced the proposal for this action on 

the infrastructure SIP for Hawaii.

54 See Memorandum from David O. Bickart to Regional Air Directors, "Guidance to States for Meeting Conflict of 

Interest Requirements of Section 128," Suggested Definitions, March 2, 1978.
44 

See, e.g., EPA's proposed (77 FR 44555, July 30, 2012) and final (77 FR 66398, November 5, 

2012) actions on an infrastructure SIP submission from Arizona. Unlike the recommendations of 

the 1978 guidance memorandum, in this action the EPA interpreted the term “state board” to 

exclude an individual official. As in the 1978 guidance memorandum, in this action the EPA 

interpreted the requirement regarding representation of the public interest and limitations on 

income to apply to a board that does not issue permits and compliance orders but does hear 

appeals of permits and compliance orders. The EPA notes that air agencies in different 

jurisdictions may have very different organizational structures and very different allocations of 

authorities and responsibilities with respect to permits and enforcement orders. Thus, the EPA 

recommends that air agencies consult with their respective EPA Regional Offices about the most 

appropriate method for assuring that the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128 

are met in that jurisdiction under the relevant facts and circumstances.

Subelement (iii): The infrastructure SIP submission should provide necessary 

assurances55 that the state retains responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of SIP 

obligations with respect to relevant NAAQS. A state may authorize a local or regional agency to 

carry out the SIP or a portion of the SIP within that agency's jurisdiction, if the SIP demonstrates 

that the local agency has the necessary legal authority. However, in these cases the infrastructure 

SIP submission needs to also provide assurances that the state air agency retains responsibility 

for ensuring adequate implementation of the SIP. Under subpart L, see 40 CFR 51.232 

("Assignment of legal authority to local agencies"). 

 

55 As with any SIP submission, the EPA’s review can be expedited if a SIP submission for this element includes a 

detailed explanation of how the existing SIP meets each of the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(i). 

This should include a description of the correlation between the requirements of this element and an equivalent set 

of statutory, regulatory, and/or non-regulatory provisions, as appropriate, that are part of the existing SIP. When an 

air agency’s infrastructure submission more clearly identifies each CAA element being met by the SIP submission 

and explains how the element is met, the EPA can more easily determine whether the submission is complete and 

approvable with respect to that element.
45 

Element F – Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting

Each such plan shall – 

(F) require, as may be prescribed by the Administrator – 

 (i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary 

sources to monitor emissions from such sources, 

 (ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissionsrelated data from such sources, and 

 (iii) correlation of such reports by the State agency with any emission limitations 

or standards established pursuant to this Chapter, which reports shall be 

available at reasonable times for public inspection. 

Subelement (i): The EPA’s rules regarding how SIPs would need to address requirements 

for source monitoring are contained in 40 CFR 51.212 (“Testing, inspection, enforcement, and 

compliance”). This EPA regulation requires SIPs to provide for a program of periodic testing and 

inspection of stationary sources, to provide for the identification of allowable test methods, and 

to exclude any provision that would prevent the use of any credible evidence of noncompliance. 

The infrastructure SIP submission should describe the air agency’s program for source testing, 

reference the statutory authority for the air agency’s program, and certify the absence of any 

provision preventing the use of any credible evidence. 

Subelement (ii): To address periodic reporting requirements, the infrastructure SIP 

submission should include air agency requirements providing for periodic reporting of emissions 

and emissions-related data by sources to the air agency, as required by the following emissions 

reporting requirements: 40 CFR 51.211 (“Emissions reports and recordkeeping”); 40 CFR 

sections 51.321 through 51.323 (“Source Emissions and State Action Reporting”); and the EPA’s 

Air Emissions Reporting Rule, 40 CFR part 51, subpart A (“Air Emissions Reporting 

Requirements”).56 We note that the section 51.321 requirement that emissions reports from states 

be made through the appropriate EPA Regional Office has been superseded in practice, as these 

data are now to be reported electronically through a centralized data portal pursuant to 40 CFR 

 

56 40 CFR sections 51.321 through 51.323 nominally address emission reporting but merely cross-reference to 

subpart A.
46 

51.45(b), which refers to the website http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief for the latest information on 

data reporting procedures. However, states should consult with the appropriate EPA Regional 

Office as they prepare and submit these data. All states have existing periodic source reporting of 

emissions and emission inventory reporting practices. Thus for any new or revised NAAQS, the 

infrastructure SIP may be able to certify existing authority and commitments and provide any 

additional assurance needed to meet changes in reporting and inventory requirements associated 

with the new or revised NAAQS.

Subelement (iii): The infrastructure SIP submission should reference and describe 

existing air agency requirements that have been approved into the SIP by the EPA, or include air 

agency requirements being newly submitted, that provide for the following: (1) correlation57 by 

the air agency of emissions reports by sources with applicable emission limitations or standards; 

and (2) the public availability of emission reports by sources. Under 40 CFR part 51 subpart G, 

40 CFR 51.116 ("Data availability"), contains the requirements for correlating data. Correlation 

with applicable emissions limitations or standards is relevant only for those reports of source 

emissions that reflect the test method(s) and averaging period(s) specified in applicable emission 

limitations or standards. Thus, source reports of annual, ozone season, or summer day emissions 

used by the air agency to create the annual and triennial emission inventory submission to the 

EPA under 40 CFR part 51 subpart A in general would not need to be correlated with specific 

emission limitations or standards, as many sources do not have applicable emission limitations 

defined for those averaging periods. However, if the sources have applicable emissions 

limitations that are defined for these averaging periods, then they would need to be correlated.

 

57 As defined in 40 CFR 51.116(c), the term "correlated" means "presented in such a manner as to show the 

relationship between measured or estimated amounts of emissions and the amounts of such emissions allowable 

under the applicable emission limitations or other measures."
47 

Element G – Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers

Each such plan shall – 

(G) provide for authority comparable to that in section 303 and adequate 

contingency plans to implement such authority. 

Section 303 of the CAA provides authority to the EPA Administrator to seek a court 

order to restrain any source from causing or contributing to emissions that present an "imminent 

and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment." The EPA has 

interpreted section 110(a)(2)(G) as imposing two basic requirements for purposes of an 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

To meet Element G requirements, the best practice for an air agency submitting an 

infrastructure SIP would be to submit, for inclusion into the SIP (if not already part of the SIP), 

the statutory or regulatory provisions that provide the air agency or official with authority 

comparable to that of the EPA Administrator under section 303 (see, e.g., 40 CFR 51.230(c)), 

along with a narrative explanation of how they meet the requirements of this element.

58 If an air 

agency chooses not to include the relevant statute or regulation in its SIP, then the air agency 

should provide a reference or citation to the authority provisions, along with a narrative 

explanation of how the provisions meet the requirements of this element, as well as a copy of the 

relevant authority to accompany the SIP as required by 40 CFR 51.231.

 The air agency is also required to submit, for approval into the SIP (if not already part of 

the SIP), an adequate contingency plan to implement the air agency’s emergency episode 

authority. This can be met by submitting a plan that meets the applicable requirements of 40 

CFR part 51, subpart H (40 CFR 51.150 through 51.153) (“Prevention of Air Pollution 

Emergency Episodes”) for the relevant NAAQS if the NAAQS is covered by those regulations. 

The EPA’s subpart H regulations provide specific ambient levels for contingency plan 

purposes for most NAAQS. In the case of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, for which the EPA has not 

 

58 The EPA recognizes that some air agencies may have general authorizing provisions that do not specifically 

enumerate specific activities but do implicitly authorize the air agency to perform such activities, in which case 

inclusion of those provisions would meet the intent of this best practice.
48 

yet promulgated regulations that provide the ambient levels to classify different priority levels, 

the EPA has recommended these levels through guidance.59

Subpart H includes criteria for classification of areas into priority regions, based on 

ambient air concentrations of the particular pollutant being addressed. The currently applicable 

priority classifications for regions for each state can be found in 40 CFR part 52 subparts B 

through DDD (see sections titled “Classification of Regions”). As noted above, the air agency’s 

infrastructure SIP submission would need to include the contingency plan, if one is required and 

has not yet been approved by the EPA. If an area is classified as a Priority I, IA, or II region for a 

specified pollutant, then the infrastructure SIP should contain an emergency contingency plan 

meeting the specific requirements of 40 CFR 51.151 and 51.152, as appropriate, with respect to 

that pollutant. For such areas, the infrastructure submission should demonstrate that the air 

agency’s existing EPA-approved SIP already contains an adequate contingency plan, if that is the 

case; otherwise, the submission should include the substantive SIP revisions necessary to meet 

the emergency contingency plan requirements with respect to that pollutant.

Specifically, if an area is classified as a Priority I region for a specified pollutant, the 

area’s contingency plan (with respect to that pollutant) would need to include provisions that 

trigger actions to prevent air quality concentrations from reaching a “significant harm level” 

(SHL), which represents an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health. See 40 CFR 

51.151 and the more detailed explanation below. Each implementation plan for a Priority I, IA,

or II region would need to include a contingency plan that provides for taking certain specified 

actions. Specifically, 40 CFR sections 51.152(b) and (c) state that: 

(b) Each contingency plan for a Priority I region must provide for the following: 

(1) Prompt acquisition of forecasts of atmospheric stagnation conditions and of 

updates of such forecasts as frequently as they are issued by the National Weather 

Service. 

(2) Inspection of sources to ascertain compliance with applicable emission

control action requirements. 

 

59 See a memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, OAQPS, to Regional Air 

Division Directors, Regions I through X, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for 

the 2006 Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).” (September 25, 2009).
49 

(3) Communications procedures for transmitting status reports and orders as to 

emission control actions to be taken during an episode stage, including 

procedures for contact with public officials, major emission sources, public 

health, safety, and emergency agencies and news media. 

(c) Each plan for a Priority IA and II region must include a contingency plan that 

meets, as a minimum, the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this 

section. Areas classified as Priority III do not need to develop episode plans.

To satisfy a Priority I, IA, or II region's contingency plan requirements under 40 CFR 

51.152(b)(1) regarding forecasts of atmospheric stagnation conditions, an infrastructure SIP 

submission may cite existing ambient monitoring and forecasting networks (such as AIRNow).60 

Areas that maintain air quality at ambient levels lower that the concentrations listed in 

sections 51.150(b), (c), and (d), with respect to the pollutants listed, are classified as Priority III 

regions. These areas are subject to the requirements of CAA Element G. However, according to 

40 CFR 51.152(c), areas classified as Priority III regions are not required to develop emergency 

episode plans, which the EPA has interpreted to mean the contingency plans otherwise required 

under Element G.

In a final rulemaking signed on December 14, 2012, to revise the PM2.5 NAAQS, the 

EPA retained the pre-existing level of 500 μg/m3

, 24-hour average, for the Air Quality Index 

(AQI) value of 500 and did not establish an SHL for PM2.5.

61 In addition, there is currently no 

established SHL for Pb. For those pollutants for which there is an SHL, the SHL is an important 

part of air pollution Emergency Episode Plans. Even in the absence of an SHL, the EPA believes 

that the central components of a contingency plan would be to reduce emissions from the 

source(s) at issue (if necessary by curtailing operations of Pb or PM2.5 sources) and public 

communication as needed. In addition, if an air agency believes, based on its inventory of Pb or 

 

60 The EPA, in partnership with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Park Service 

(NPS), and tribal, state, and local agencies, developed the AIRNow website (see http://www.airnow.gov) to provide 

easy public access to national air quality information. The website offers daily AQI forecasts as well as real-time 

AQI conditions for over 300 cities across the U.S. and provides links to more detailed state and local air quality 

websites. 

61 See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013), “National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter.” The 

published version is posted at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-15/pdf/2012-30946.pdf. 
50 

PM2.5 sources and historic ambient monitoring data, that it does not need a more specific 

contingency plan beyond having authority to restrain any source from causing or contributing to 

an imminent and substantial endangerment, then the air agency could provide such a detailed 

rationale as part of its SIP submission. Additionally, because smoke from fires has the potential 

to be the cause of extremely high levels of PM2.5, the EPA recommends that air quality-triggered 

responses incorporated into an Emergency Episode Plan for PM2.5 be developed through a 

collaborative process working with state and tribal air quality, forestry, and agricultural agencies, 

federal land management agencies, private land managers, and the public. 

An episode in which concentrations of NO2 or SO2 approach the SHL is likely to be due 

to a single facility's equipment malfunction. Accordingly, as part of a SIP to satisfy a Priority I 

region's contingency plan requirements, an infrastructure SIP submission for an NO2 NAAQS or 

an SO2 NAAQS may specify the facility-specific or equipment-specific measures to be taken in 

the event of an air pollution emergency. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 51.152(d)(1) and (2), the Administrator may either: (i)

exempt portions of a Priority I, IA, or II region that have been designated as attainment or 

unclassifiable under section 107 of the CAA from the requirements of 40 CFR 51.152 to develop 

an emergency episode contingency plans, or (ii) limit the requirements pertaining to emission 

control actions in Priority I regions to certain areas or to certain major sources. Air agencies 

interested in such an exemption or limitation in appropriate circumstances should contact their 

respective EPA Regional Offices. 

Appendix L to 40 CFR part 51 provides example regulations that air agencies could use 

to develop contingency plans and inform decisions concerning air pollution emergency episodes. 

The example regulations provided in appendix L reflect generally recognized ways of preventing 

air pollution from reaching levels that would cause imminent and substantial endangerment to 

the health of persons located within affected areas. States with Priority I, IA, or II areas are 

directed by subpart H to have emergency episode contingency plans that contain alert levels for 

SO2, PM10, carbon monoxide, NO2, and ozone, but air agencies are not required to adopt the 

appendix L example regulations. 
51 

Element H – Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP Revisions

Each such plan shall – 

(H) provide for revision of such plan – 

 (i) from time to time as may be necessary to take account of revisions of such 

national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of 

improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard, and 

 (ii) except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds on 

the basis of information available to the Administrator that the plan is 

substantially inadequate to attain the national ambient air quality standard which 

it implements or to otherwise comply with any additional requirements 

established under this chapter. 

To demonstrate that the requirements under Element H are met, the best practice for an air agency

submitting an infrastructure SIP would be to submit, for inclusion into the SIP (if not already part of the 

SIP), the statutory or regulatory provisions that provide the air agency or official with the 

authority to perform the following actions along with a narrative explanation of how they meet 

the requirements of this element: (1) revise its section 110 plan from time to time as may be 

necessary to take into account revisions of such primary or secondary NAAQS or the availability 

of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such standards; and (2) revise the plan in 

the event the Administrator finds the plan to be substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS or 

otherwise meet all applicable CAA requirements.62 

If an air agency chooses not to include the relevant statute or regulation in its SIP, then 

the air agency should provide a reference or citation to the authority provisions, along with a 

narrative explanation of how the provisions meet the requirements of this element, as well as a 

copy of the relevant authority to accompany the SIP as required by 40 CFR 51.231. More 

information may be found under 40 CFR part 51, subpart F ("Procedural Requirements"), 

specifically, 40 CFR 51.104 ("Revisions"). 

 

62 The EPA recognize that some air agencies may have general authorizing provisions that do not specifically 

enumerate specific activities but do implicitly authorize the air agency to perform such activities, in which case 

inclusion of those provisions would meet the intent of this best practice.
52 

Element I – Section 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas 

Each such plan shall – 

(I) in the case of a plan or plan revision for an area designated as a 

nonattainment area, meet the applicable requirements of part D of this 

subchapter (relating to nonattainment areas). 

As noted earlier in this document, the EPA does not expect infrastructure SIP 

submissions to address subsection 110(a)(2)(I). The specific SIP submissions for designated 

nonattainment areas, as required under CAA title I part D, are subject to a different submission 

schedule63 than those for section 110 infrastructure elements and will be reviewed and acted 

upon through a separate process. Air agencies do not need to address Element I in an 

infrastructure SIP submission. For clarity’s sake, to better inform the public comment process on 

the SIP submission, the air agency may wish to clearly state that Element I is not being addressed

and reiterate in the infrastructure SIP submission that, according to the EPA’s interpretation of 

the CAA this element does not need to be addressed in the context of an infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

Element J – Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public 

Notification, and PSD and Visibility Protection

Each such plan shall – 

(J) meet the applicable requirements of section 121 (relating to consultation), 

section 127 (relating to public notification), and part C (relating to prevention of 

significant deterioration of air quality and visibility protection)....

This element contains four separable sub-elements: consultation with identified officials 

on certain air agency actions; public notification; prevention of significant deterioration; and 

visibility protection.

Consultation with identified officials on certain actions:

 

63 These elements are typically referred to as nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements and are due by the dates 

prescribed under subparts 2 through 5 of part D, extending as far as 10 years following designation for some 

elements.
53 

 Sec. 121. In carrying out the requirements of this Act requiring applicable 

implementation plans to contain – 

(1) any transportation controls, air quality maintenance plan requirements or 

preconstruction review of direct sources of air pollution, or 

(2) any measure referred to – 

 (A) in part D (pertaining to nonattainment requirements), or

 (B) in part C (pertaining to prevention of significant deterioration), 

and in carrying out the requirements of section 113(d) (relating to certain 

enforcement orders), the State shall provide a satisfactory process of consultation 

with general purpose local governments, designated organizations of elected 

officials of local governments and any Federal land manager having authority 

over Federal land to which the State plan applies, effective with respect to any 

such requirement which is adopted more than one year after the date of 

enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 as part of such plan. Such 

process shall be in accordance with regulations promulgated by the 

Administrator to assure adequate consultation. The Administrator shall update as 

necessary the original regulations required and promulgated under this section 

(as in effect immediately before the date of the enactment of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990) to ensure adequate consultation. Only a general purpose 

unit of local government, regional agency, or council of governments adversely 

affected by action of the Administrator approving any portion of a plan referred 

to in this subsection may petition for judicial review of such action on the basis of 

a violation of the requirements of this section.

The infrastructure SIP submission would need to show that there is an established process 

for consultation with general-purpose local governments, designated organizations of elected 

officials of local governments, and any federal land manager having authority over federal land 

to which the plan applies, consistent with CAA section 121, which lists the specific types of 

actions for which such consultation is required. If the relevant statute is self-executing such that 

there is no associated regulation or other documents such as a memorandum of understanding, 

then the statute would need to be included in the SIP. If a regulation or other document meeting 

the CAA requirements exists, then the regulation or other document would need to be included in 

the SIP submission, and the authorizing statute should be referenced but the statute is not 

required to be part of the EPA-approved SIP. Under the requirements of 40 CFR 51.240, the SIP 

would need to identify organizations “that will participate in developing, implementing, and 

enforcing the plan and the responsibilities of such organizations.” The plan should also include 
54 

any related agreements or memoranda of understanding among the organizations. See subpart M 

("Intergovernmental Consultation"). 

Public Notification:

Section 127. (a) Each State plan shall contain measures which will be effective to 

notify the public during any calendar [year] on a regular basis of instances or 

areas in which any national primary ambient air quality standard is exceeded or 

was exceeded during any portion of the preceding calendar year to advise the 

public of the health hazards associated with such pollution, and to enhance public 

awareness of the measures which can be taken to prevent such standards from 

being exceeded and the ways in which the public can participate in regulatory 

and other efforts to improve air quality. Such measures may include the posting of 

warning signs on interstate highway access points to metropolitan areas or 

television, radio, or press notices or information.

(b) The Administrator is authorized to make grants to States to assist in carrying 

out the requirements of subsection (a).

The infrastructure SIP submission would need to show that the air agency does the 

following: regularly notifies the public of instances or areas in which the new or revised primary

NAAQS was exceeded; advises the public of the health hazards associated with such 

exceedances; and enhances public awareness of measures that can prevent such exceedances and 

of ways in which the public can participate in regulatory and other efforts to improve air quality.

40 CFR 51.285 ("Public notification"), repeats the language of CAA section 127. 

Prevention of significant deterioration: The approvability of an air agency’s PSD 

program is essential to the approvability of an infrastructure SIP submission with respect to CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(J). The requirements for Element J in relation to a comprehensive PSD 

permitting program are the same as described earlier in this document with respect to Element C. 

Generally, every PSD-related requirement of Element C applies, including the requirement that 

the PSD permitting program address all regulated pollutants. Please refer to that section. 

Visibility protection: Under 40 CFR part 51 subpart P, implementing the visibility 

requirements of CAA title I, part C, states are subject to requirements for RAVI, new source 

review for possible impacts on air quality related values in Class I areas, and regional haze 

planning. Specific requirements stemming from these CAA sections are codified at 40 CFR 
55 

part 51 subpart P. However, when the EPA establishes or revises a NAAQS, these requirements

under part C do not change. The EPA believes that there are no new visibility protection 

requirements under part C as a result of a revised NAAQS. Therefore, there are no newly 

applicable visibility protection obligations pursuant to Element J after the promulgation of a new 

or revised NAAQS. Air agencies do not need to address the visibility subelement of Element J in 

an infrastructure SIP submission. For clarity’s sake, to better inform the public comment process 

on the SIP submission, the air agency may wish to clearly state that the visibility subelement of 

Element J is not being addressed, and reiterate in the submission that according to EPA’s 

interpretation of the CAA this element does not need to be addressed.

Element K – Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling and Submission of Modeling Data

Each such plan shall – 

(K) provide for – 

 (i) the performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator may 

prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of any 

emissions of any air pollutant for which the Administrator has established a 

national ambient air quality standard, and 

 (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality modeling to 

the Administrator. 

To meet Element K, the best practice would be for an air agency to submit, for inclusion 

into the SIP (if not already part of the SIP), the statutory or regulatory provisions that provide the 

air agency or official with the authority to perform the following actions along with a narrative 

explanation of how the provisions meet the requirements of this element64: (1) conduct air 

quality modeling to predict the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant 

for which a NAAQS has been promulgated, and (2) provide such modeling data to the EPA 

Administrator upon request.

 

64 The EPA recognizes that some air agencies may have general authorizing provisions that do not specifically 

enumerate specific activities but do implicitly authorize the air agency to perform such activities, in which case 

inclusion of those provisions would meet the intent of this best practice.
56 

If an air agency chooses not to include the relevant statute or regulations in its SIP, then 

the air agency should provide a reference or citation to the authority provisions, along with a 

narrative explanation of how they meet the requirements of this element, as well as a copy of the 

relevant authority to accompany the SIP as required by 40 CFR 51.231. 

Element L – Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting Fees

Each such plan shall – 

(L) require the owner or operator of each major stationary source to pay to the 

permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under this chapter, a 

fee sufficient to cover – 

 (i) the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any application for such a 

permit, and 

 (ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable 

costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any such permit 

(not including any court costs or other costs associated with any enforcement 

action), 

until such fee requirement is superseded with respect to such sources by the 

Administrator's approval of a fee program under subchapter V of this chapter. 

Currently, every state has an EPA-approved fee program under CAA title V. However, 

this fee program is not required to be part of the EPA-approved SIP. The infrastructure SIP 

should provide citations to the regulations providing for collection of permitting fees under the 

state’s EPA-approved Title V permit program. These citations to the EPA-approved title V 

regulations will not cause the title V program to be treated as part of the EPA-approved SIP, and 

the EPA will not re-review the title V program itself in the context of reviewing infrastructure 

SIP submissions. See 40 CFR 70.9 ("Fee determination and certification") and 40 CFR part 70, 

appendix A ("Approval Status of State and Local Operating Permits Programs"). If the state 

title V program fees cover all CAA permitting, implementation, and enforcement for new and 

modified major sources as well as existing major sources, this reference to the title V program 

will satisfy this element. If a state’s approved title V permit program fees do not cover the 

reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon applications for PSD and NNSR permits for major 
57 

sources65 (along with the reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and 

conditions of PSD and NNSR permits), then the air agency should contact its Regional Office 

regarding what needs to be in the submission to fulfill this Element.

Element M – Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and Participation by Affected Local 

Entities

Each such plan shall – 

(M) provide for consultation and participation by local political subdivisions 

affected by the plan.

To satisfy Element M, the SIP should provide for consultation with affected local 

political subdivisions. As part of an infrastructure SIP submission, an air agency may simply 

identify its policies or procedures that allow and promote such consultation. For example, the 

infrastructure SIP submission may cite a policy wherein the air agency, before adopting or 

amending a plan, policy, or program, will consult with the regional planning coalition composed 

of local political subdivisions potentially affected by the action and explain how such 

information is used in the development of a SIP submission to the EPA for approval into the SIP. 

The normal public hearing process prior to adoption and submission of a SIP revision may also 

be cited as a component of the provisions for consultation, since leaders of political subdivisions 

have the opportunity to participate in that public process.

For Further Information

If you have any questions concerning this guidance, please contact Mr. H. Lynn Dail, by 

telephone at (919) 541-2363, or by email at dail.lynn@epa.gov, or Ms. Lisa Sutton, by telephone 

at (919) 541-3450 or by email at sutton.lisa@epa.gov. 

 

65 Substantive NNSR provisions will not be reviewed as part of the EPA’s action on the infrastructure SIP 

submission. See discussion in Section II, “Which elements of CAA 110(a)(2) affect infrastructure SIPs?”
1

Albuquerque Environmental Health Department (EHD) 

Air Quality Programs (AQP) 

Ambient Air Monitoring Section 

2014 Annual Network Review for Ambient Air Monitoring 

Under 40 CFR, Part 58, Subpart B, The City of Albuquerque Air Quality Programs 

(AQP) is required to submit an annual monitoring network review to the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) regional office in Dallas, Texas. Our objective, when preparing 

the report, is to optimally apply limited resources to best protect public health. 

The network plan describes the framework of the local air quality surveillance system, 

presents monitoring results over the past three years, provides comparisons to National 

standards, and discusses future plans. The annual monitoring network plan must be made 

available for public inspection for at least 30 days prior to formal submission to EPA. 

(Anticipated dates are May 30 – June 30, 2014.) 

This document shows the current network configuration and proposed changes for 2014. 

It represents the commitment of the AQP to effectively protect the health of the citizens 

of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County1

through ambient air monitoring, by using the best

affordable technology, and by communicating the data collected as quickly and 

accurately as possible. 

Two monitoring sites, 2ZH North Valley (AIRS 35-001-1013) and 2ZT Taylor Ranch 

(AIRS 35-001-0027) were shut down in 2013 with EPA Approval. Those sites housed 

four monitors (two Ozone, one PM10 and one PM2.5) but we continue to meet our 

minimum requirements for each criteria pollutant. 

Additional monitor and site cutbacks are proposed for the upcoming year, developed in 

consultation with EPA Region VI to better align the network with minimum network 

requirements. Changes will be discussed by pollutant in each section. 

Population Statistics 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, including Rio Rancho and Los Lunas is the State‟s 

largest Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The US Census Bureau estimates the 2013 

population of the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) which includes portions of the 

adjacent counties of Sandoval, Valencia, and Torrance as approximately 902,797 (43.3% 

of the State). http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html# As the regional center for 

employment, advanced education, retail commerce, and medical treatment, Albuquerque 

experiences non-local commuter traffic. The junction of major Interstate 25 (north/south) 

and Interstate 40 (east/west), adds significant heavy transport traffic between the port of 

Los Angeles and the East Coast, and between Denver, El Paso, and the US-Mexico 

Border. However, this traffic is less significant when compared major metropolitan areas. 

1

 Excluding Native American and Pueblo Lands within the County. 

AQP Exhibit 10d
2

The map in Figure 1 shows the physical location of all current monitoring sites currently 

operated by the Air Quality Programs. Three sites are within the city limits of 

Albuquerque. Three other sites (2ZV - South Valley, 2ZW Westside, and 2ZF - 

Foothills) are in Bernalillo County. 

Figure 1: Albuquerque Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network 

Table 1 shows the current network configuration and lists the monitoring equipment 

operated at each site. Column 1 is the “AQS Site ID#,” a unique identification number 

assigned to each monitoring site in the network. The AQS (Air Quality System) is a 

national air monitoring database maintained by the EPA. Data collected from monitoring 

sites are input into the AQS database within 90 days following the end of each calendar 

quarter. <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/aqsdatamart/access.htm> 

Column 2 gives the local site designation, name, location, and “affiliation.” Site 

longitude and latitude are in columns 3 and 4. Columns 5 through 9 list the monitors at

each site and their associated parameters. Site photographs accompany the hard-copy 

version of this report on CD. During the public review period monitoring site 

photographs can be downloaded from the City of Albuquerque – Air Quality Programs 

website http://www.cabq.gov/airquality/

Proposed changes to the network are discussed in the next section, by pollutant. 
3

Table 1 Albuquerque 2013 Ambient Air Monitoring Network 

AQS Site 

ID#

Address/ 

Location

Longitude Latitude Pollutants 

Measured

Monitor 

Type

Sampling 

M etho d Analysis Operating 

Schedule

Monitoring 

Objective

Spatial 

Scale

NAAQS 

Comparable MSA

O3 SLAMS 44201-1

087

UV photometric

continuous Highest 

Concentration

Neighborhood

Yes Abq.

PM2.5 SLAMS 88101

170

Beta 

Absorption

continuous General 

Background

Neighborhood

Yes Abq.

O3 SLAMS 44201-1

087

UV photometric

continuous General 

Background

Neighborhood

Yes Abq.

HS CO SLAMS 42101-1

593

Nondispersive 

IR

continuous General 

Background

Neighborhood

Yes Abq.

NO2 SLAMS 42602-1

600

Chemiluminescence

continuous General 

Background

Neighborhood

Yes Abq.

NOy SLAMS 42600

599

Chemiluminescence

continuous General 

Background

Neighborhood

NA Abq.

HS SO2 SLAMS 42406

600

UV Fluorescence

continuous

General 

Background

Neighborhood Yes Abq.

Lead SLAMS 14129

110

EQL-0710-

192

Daily 1/6 General 

Background

Neighborhood

Yes Abq.

^PM10 SLAMS 81102

122

Beta 

Absorption

continuous General 

Background

Neighborhood

Yes Abq.

^PM2.5 SLAMS 88101

170

Beta 

Absorption

continuous General 

Background

Neighborhood

Yes Abq.

PM2.5 

collocated

SLAMS 88101-2

118

Gravimetric Daily 1/3 General 

Background

Neighborhood

Yes Abq.

Speciation SLAMS 68103 Multiple Daily 1/3 General 

Background

Neighborhood

NA Abq.

Carbon 

Speciation

Special 

Purpose

88320, 

88321 Multiple Daily 1/3 General Background

Neighborhood NA Abq.

O3 SLAMS 44201-1

087

UV photometric

continuous General 

Background

Neighborhood

Yes Abq.

PM2.5 SLAMS 88101-1

170?

Beta 

Absorption

continuous General 

Background

Neighborhood

Yes Abq.

^The two BAMS produce PM10-2.5 using EQPM-0709-185. The BAMS are individually comparable to PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS but there is not a PM10-2.5 NAAQS.

35-001-

0024

2ZN SE 

Heights 

6000 

Anderson 

Avenue SE

-106.579 35.0631

35-001-

1012

2ZF 

Foothills 

8901 Low el 

NE

-106.508 35.1852

35-001-

0023 

Ncore

2ZM Del 

Norte 4700a 

San Mateo 

NE 

Affiliation: 

NCore

-106.586 35.13426
4

Table 1 - Continued 

AQS Site 

ID#

Address/ 

Location

Longitude Latitude Pollutants 

Measured

Monitor 

Type

Sampling 

M etho d Analysis Operating 

Schedule

Monitoring 

Objective

Spatial 

Scale

NAAQS 

Comparable MSA

PM10 SLAMS 81102-3

076

TEOM continuous Significant 

Source Middle Yes Abq.

PM10 SLAMS 81102-1

127

Gravimetric Daily 1/1 Significant 

Source Middle Yes Abq.

PM10 

collocated

SLAMS 81102-2

127

Gravimetric Daily 1/6 Significant 

Source Middle Yes Abq.

O3 SLAMS 44201-1

087

UV photometric

continuous General 

Background

Neighborhood

Yes Abq.

HS CO SLAMS 42101-1

593

Nondispersive 

IR

continuous 

seasonal

Highest 

Concentration 

Neighborhood

Yes Abq.

PM10 SLAMS 81102-3

122

Beta 

Absorption

continuous General 

Background

Neighborhood

Yes Abq.

PM2.5 SLAMS 88101

170

Beta 

Absorption

continuous General 

Background

Neighborhood

Yes Abq.

O3 SLAMS 44201-1

087

UV photometric

continuous Special Study NeighborhoodYes Abq.

PM10 *Special 

Purpose

81102-3

076

TEOM continuous Significant 

Source

Neighborhood

No Abq.

35-001-

0026

2ZS 

Jefferson 

3700 Singer 

NE

-106.605 35.1443

35-001-

0029

2ZV South 

Valley

201 

Prosperity 

SE

-106.657 35.01708

35-001-

0032

2ZW 

Westside 

11850 

Sunset 

Gardens 

SW

-106.761 35.0641

*Siting criteria are not good for PM SLAMS but the site is necessary for AQI. 
5

Summary of changes 

Changes proposed for the upcoming year were developed in consultation with EPA 

Region VI, to better align the network with minimum network requirements. 

Ground Level Ozone (O3) 

Based on population, Table D-2 of Appendix D to Part 58, 40 CFR specifies a minimum 

of two (2) SLAMS (State and Local Air Monitoring Stations) ozone monitors. 

Current – Currently the AQP exceeds the minimum requirements with five (5) ozone 

monitors, all categorized as SLAMS. 

The MSA experiences high levels of Ozone during the summer and non-attainment is a 

serious consideration. Our declaration in 2013 did not show an exceedence of the 

standard but the matter must be re-examined every year. There was great concern about 

2013 but we experienced very unusual weather patterns. Table 2 shows that for the first 

time in many years Ozone levels dropped instead of rising. 

Table 2: Ozone Design Value, ppm 

Year 4th highest 8-hr Avg

2011 0.076

2012 0.077

2013 0.065

Design Value 0.072

Future – Two Ozone monitors at 2ZN SE Heights (AIRS 35-001-0024) and at 2ZW 

Westside (AIRS 35-001-0032) are proposed to shut down in 2014. 

PM2.5

According to Table D-5 of Appendix D to Part 58, 40 CFR two SLAMS PM2.5 sites (3 

monitors) are required in Albuquerque. 

Current – AQP operates four PM2.5 monitoring sites in Albuquerque-Bernalillo County 

with five (5) total monitors, all of which are identified as SLAMS. 

The 2ZM site (35-001-0023) operates a Partisol 2025 sequential sampler with 2.5 micron 

inlet cutoff to record 24-hour averages PM2.5 on a 1/3 schedule. This sampler is a Federal 

Reference Method (FRM) and is comparable to the NAAQS. In the coming year this will 

be switched to a newer Partisol 2025i. 

Beginning January 2012 and continuing through the present, two BAM 1020 continuous 

monitors have been used at site (35-001-0023) to report PM10-2.5 on an hourly basis. The 

PM2.5 BAM is collocated with the previously mentioned Partisol 2025 FRM. 
6

Three additional sites monitor PM2.5 continuously. 2ZF and 2ZN, and 2ZV are SLAMS 

and are NAAQS comparable. The data from these monitors are used for the Air Quality 

Index (AQI) and report hourly averages that are sent to EPA‟s AIRNOW web page for 

real-time Air Quality particulate mapping. 

The 2013 98th percentile data in Table 3 show slight decrease over prior years. While it 

was an active Western fire season in general, we were fortunate in that there were fewer 

significant smoke intrusions into the Albuquerque airshed. However, it should be noted 

that the long range forecast for the 2014 fire season is very poor. 

Future –The 2ZN Southeast Heights (AIRS 35-001-0024) continuous PM2.5 monitor is 

proposed to shut down in 2014. In conjunction with the Ozone discontinuation above, 

the Southeast Heights monitoring site will be closed. 

Table 3: PM2.5 Design Value, ug/m3 

Site Name 

AQS #

2011 Daily 

98th %

2012 Daily 

98th %

2013 Daily 

98th %

Design 

Value (% 

Daily 

NAAQS)

2011 Arithmetic 

Mean

2012 Arithmetic 

Mean

2013 Arithmetic 

Mean

Design 

Value (% 

Annual 

NAAQS)

Collocated 

with 

continuous 

PM2.5

Del Norte 

0023 21.5 16.3 14.1 49.4% 6.4 7.4 5.8 54.4% Yes

SE Heights 

0024 17.3 20 14.5 49.3% 6.3 7.3 6.2 55.0% No

PM10

PM data is used by the AQI to accurately portray PM in neighborhoods, to enforce our 

local dust control regulation, and to issue high wind advisory and health alerts. High PM 

values are the most common cause of AQI warning days in Albuquerque. 

Because of terrain, extremely dry climate, and unusual weather patterns, Bernalillo Co 

frequently has very different conditions in various parts of the airshed. Prevailing 

westerly winds are the assumed weather pattern but that is only true during certain 

seasons of the year and varies widely from site to site. East canyon winds accelerate 

down-slope on the Sandia Mountain at speeds up to 65 miles per hour, blasting the NE 

quadrant of the city before slowing and dispersing. East winds can also affect South 

Valley (AQS 35-001-0029 SV) with silt particulates from the outflow of the dry Tijeras 

Canyon. The Rio Grande river valley experiences North-South flow with a diurnal 

pattern. The west side of the city has very fine soils and large tracts of native vegetation 

are being removed for development. The combination of these factors can produce high 

PM levels with any wind direction and the manifestation varies from area to area. 

Current – Over the past year the AQP monitored PM10 at four sites with a total of 6 

monitors. At this time, three of the sites and five monitors are NAAQS comparable. 

The NCore Site 2ZM (AQS 35-001-0023) operates a continuous FEM that produces data 

used for both PM10 and PM10-2.5. 
7

The AQP operates two PM10 FRMs (1/1 & 1/6) and a continuous monitor at 2ZS (35-

001-0029) all of which are NAAQS comparable. 

The North Valley site 2ZH (AQS 35-001-1013) was shut down at the end of March, 2013 

with EPA‟s concurrence. 

The status of the PM10 monitor at 2ZV (AQS 35-001-0029) was upgraded to SLAMS 

starting 1/1/2011 after site remediation and as of this year it has 3-years of valid data. 

The AQP operates a PM10 a continuous monitor at 2ZW (AQS 35-001-0032) however, 

the PM siting criteria for site 2ZW are not met, and PM10 data is not be compared to the 

NAAQS. The continuous monitor is denoted “Special Purpose” and is used for AQI and 

to issue Health Advisories. As a result, data from that site does not appear in Table 5. 

Data from the special purpose monitor is also being archived to characterize the PM 

background prior to anticipated development. 

Table 4 calculates the design values for each comparable PM10 site in the Albuquerque 

Network that has sufficient historical data. (Reference PM10 SIP Development 

Guideline, US EPA-450/2-86-001, June 1987). Using the highest single monitor design 

value, the Network Design value is 105.7 ug/m3 which is 70% of the NAAQS or in the 

low range. Based on population, 40CFR, Part 58, Table D-4 of Appendix D specifies 

two-to-four sites as the minimum requirement for low concentration MSAs. 

Table 4. PM10 Design Values, ug/m3 

2ZM Del Norte year Observations 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

35-001-0023 1 2011 340 132 129 128 124

35-001-0023 1 2012 258 141 95 88 70

35-001-0023 1 2013 356 104 89 88 85

Total 954 125.7 104.3 101.3 93.0

2ZS Singer year Observations 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

35-001-0026 1 2011 329 155 153 128 113

35-001-0026 1 2012 362 178 111 93 92

35-001-0026 1 2013 353 114 98 94 93

Total 1044 149.0 120.7 105.0 99.3

2ZV South Valley year Observations 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

35-001-0029 3 2011 365 419 91 85 77

35-001-0029 3 2012 316 145 120 115 107

35-001-0029 3 2013 335 142 120 117 110

Total 1016 235.3 110.3 105.7 98.0

Table 5 shows that concentrations are stable at two sites (2ZM and 2ZS) after a notably 

bad year in 2011. A change of ownership and source remediation near the 2ZS site also 

helped. At 2ZV, in addition to anthropogenic sources (unpaved streets and shoulders), 
8

some agriculture, and the outflow of a dry riverbed with light sandy soils, the area is 

vulnerable to high winds from almost any direction. Note that this is not a small localized 

affect. Depending upon direction and magnitude, a high wind event can impact the 

whole South Valley. 

Table 5: PM10 Data Trends 

PM10 Sites

Current 

Sampling 

Schedule

2011 

Design 

Value

2012 

Design 

Value

2013 

Design 

Value

3 year Avg.

2011-13 

Design 

Value 

%of 

NAAQS

aDel Norte 0023 Continuous 128 88 88 101.3 67.6%

bSinger - 0026 1/1 128 93 94 105.0 70.0%

aSouth Valley 

0029 Continuous 85 115 117 105.7 70.4%

a

Sites 35-001-0023 and 0029. The continuous monitors are BAM 1020s. 

b

Site 35-001-0026 is middle scale and Industry impacted. The monitor is a TEOM. 

Future

Our meteorologist notes that soil moisture is extraordinarily low this year. After a winter 

with almost no measurable precipitation Albuquerque has already experienced two major 

dust storms caused by Haboobs in other states, though in all fairness they will occur here 

as well if the weather patterns don‟t shift. 

In the coming year the continuous PM10 monitor at 2ZS Singer (35-001-0026) is 

proposed to replace one Filter-based monitor as the “collocate.” The 1/6 filter-based 

FRM will be discontinued. 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 

Current – The AQP did not monitor SO2 until late 2010. While there are large sources 

in the state, none are close to Albuquerque and emissions are reduced by dispersion over 

distance. Table 6 shows that thus far the SO2 monitor is measuring only trace levels, less 

than 10% of the NAAQS. 

Table 6: SO2 Design Value, ppb 

2ZM Del Norte year 99th percentile

35-001-0023 2011 4

35-001-0023 2012 6

35-001-0023 2013 4

Design Value 4.6

Future –No changes are planned for SO2 in the coming year. 
9

Oxides of Nitrogen

Current – The AQP monitors NO, NO2, NOx, and NOy2at 2ZM (AQS 35-001-0023), 

the NCore location. Suspected NOx sources include mobile (both on and off road), the 

Airport, and natural gas combustion for hot water and residential heating in winter 

months. However, Table 7 shows that NO2 levels are low. (Annual 98th percentile 1-hour 

values averaged over 3 years = 48 ppb compared to a standard of 100.) 

Table 7: NO2 Design Value, ppb 

98th Percentile 2011 2012 2013

3 year Design 

Value

1-Hr Concentration (PPB) 49.9 49 45.4 48.1

Associated with the new NO2 NAAQS is a requirement to monitor NO2 Roadway 

emissions. A new site will have to be located and built-up since none of the current sites 

are within 50-meters of the nearest traffic lane. The AQP identified several potential 

sites and participated in a national pilot program with passive sampling. The worst-case 

data from that study showed Albuquerque well within NAAQS annual limits and with a 

high statistically probability of staying below the 1-hour standard. As a result, 

Albuquerque is on the “build and hold” list with an anticipated start date of 1/1/2017. 

Future –No changes are planned for Oxides of Nitrogen in the coming year. 

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Current –Albuquerque/Bernalillo County remains in maintenance status for CO until 

2016. 

The AQP currently operates two (2) CO monitors. One for NCore and the other is for 

CO Maintenance. Both run year around. 

Table 8: CO Design Value, ppm 

2ZM Del Norte 35-001-0023 1 Hour 8 Hour

Year 1st Max 2nd Max Year 1st Max 2nd Max

2011 2 1.8 2011 1.3 1.3

2012 2.5 2.3 2012 2 1.6

2013 1.5 1.4 2013 0.9 0.9

2ZV South Valley 35-001-0029 1 Hour 8 Hour

Year 1st Max 2nd Max Year 1st Max 2nd Max

2011 2.3 2.3 2011 1.7 1.5

2012 2.7 2.3 2012 1.5 1.2

2013 2.7 2.4 2013 1.1 1.1

 

2

 NOy envelopes all Oxides of Nitrogen, and are the most likely to be involved in the formation and 

breakdown of Ozone. 
10

The hourly high value over the past 3 years is 2.7 ppm (2ZV, 2012 and 2013) which is 

8% of the hourly NAAQS (35 ppm). The 8-hour high average is 1.7 ppm (2ZV, 2011) 

which is 19% of the 8-hour NAAQS (9 ppm). Because of the low CO concentrations, 

both monitors are now „high sensitivity.‟ 

Future –No changes are planned for CO in the coming year. CO monitors will continue 

to operate year around at the CO Maintenance site (AQS 35-001-0029), and at the 

designated NCore site (AQS 35-001-0023). 

Lead (Pb) 

Current – A TSP (Total Suspended Particulate) monitor was installed and operational by 

December 18, 2011. Lead data is only available for 2 years at this point so a design value 

cannot be calculated; however the values for 2012 and 2013 are an average of 6.7% of 

the NAAQS and attainment issues are not anticipated. 

Table 9: Lead Design Values 

Year ug/m3

2011 NA

2012 0.01

2013 0.01

Future –No changes are planned for Lead in the coming year. 

PM2.5 Chemical Speciation 

Current – CFR Part 58 regulations require the operation of a speciation sampler at 

approved NCore sites. The Del Norte (AQS 35-001-0023) site in Albuquerque operates a 

MetOne Super Sass and a URG sampler for EC/OC (Elemental and Organic Carbon). 

Speciation filters are sent to RTI, the EPA national analysis contractor in North Carolina, 

and data is reported by the contractor to the AQS. The AQP also uses this data in local 

studies to correlate with data from other samplers. 

Both samplers now operate on the full 1/3 schedule. 

Visibility

Current – Albuquerque-Bernalillo County does not have any Class I areas3. It exhibits 

good visibility much of the year but does experience a brown cloud in winter months, 

particularly during temperature inversions. For that reason, the AQP currently operates a 

Nephalometer and an Aethelometer at one site, (AQS 35-001-0023). 

 

3

 AQCR 152 includes the Albuquerque MSA and has two Class 1 areas that may be impacted by the 

Albuquerque airshed, just as we were impacted by the fires in 2011 - 2013. 
11

Community Scale Monitoring (CSM) 

Current – The AQP has participated previously in CSM studies, but there were none in 

the past year. 

National Core Monitoring Network (NCore) 

The NCore site has been fully operational and compliant since the 2010 start-up date. 

Individual NCore instruments have been addressed in the appropriate sections above. The 

2ZM site also has NCore compliant meteorology. 
12

Albuquerque – Bernalillo County Network 

Table 10 shows the 2013 network before the changes proposed in this review. 

Table 10: Albuquerque-Bernalillo Co 2013 Air Monitoring Network 

Station Description TSP

Station Name

(Site Code), AIRs # Ozone CO HSNO2

HSNOyHSSO2 Lead Sequen

tial

ContinuousContinuous

FDMS Sequent

ial

Speciat

ion

NephalometerAethelometer

Foothills 

(2ZF), 35-001-1012

API 

400E

BAM 1020

Del Norte HS

(2ZM), 35-001-0023

API 

400E

API 

300 

E U

API 

200

U

API 

200 

E U

API 

100 

E U

TE-5170 BAM 

1020

BAM 

1020

Thermo 

2025 

Col 1/3

MetOne 

Super 

SASS & 

URG 

Carbon 

Optec 

NGN-2

McGee 

AE21

Jefferson

(2ZS), 35-001-0026

Thermo 

2025i 

1/1 

R & P 

1400

South Valley

(2ZV), 35-001-0029

API 

400E

API 

T300U

BAM 

1020

BAM 

1020

Westside

(2ZW), 35-001-0032

R & P 

1400

SLAMS/NCORE Special Purpose

Gases PM10 PM2.5 Other

SLAMS
13

Figure 2: Albuquerque Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network After Review