State Boards State Implementation Plan Revisions 

Technical Support Document 

Docket I.D. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0614 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, State of New Mexico 

2013 SIP Revisions 

City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County Ordinances for State Board 

Composition and Conflict of Interest Provisions 

September 30, 2015 

U.S. EPA Region 6, Air Planning Section
1

Table of Contents 

A. General Requirements 

B. Background 

C. EPA State Board Guidance 

D. Analysis of State’s Revisions 

E. Summary and Recommendations 

F. The AQCB Submittal (Exhibits) and EPA’s Evaluation 

1. Metropolitan Environmental Health Advisory Board, City of Albuquerque, Chapter 9, 

Article 5, Part 6 (Exhibit 2c)

1

2. Metropolitan Environmental Health Advisory Board, Bernalillo County Code of 

Ordinances, Chapter 42, Article II (Exhibit 3c) 

3. Metropolitan Environmental Health Advisory Board, Bernalillo County Code of 

Ordinances, Chapter 42, Article II, Sections 42-37 and 42-38 (Exhibit 4c) 

4. Joint Air Quality Control Board Ordinance, City of Albuquerque, Chapter 9, Article 5, 

Part 1: Air Quality Control Board (Exhibit 5c) 

5. Joint Air Quality Control Board Ordinance, Bernalillo County Code of Ordinances, 

Chapter 30, Article II (Exhibit 6c) 

6. Public Boards, City of Albuquerque Chapter 1, Article XII Sections 1-12-1 to 3 (Exhibit 

7c) 

7. Conflict of Interest, City of Albuquerque Chapter 2, Article III Sections 3-3-1 to 13 

(Exhibit 8c) 

8. Code of Ethics, City of Albuquerque Charter, Article XII, Section 4 – Conflict of Interest 

(Exhibit 9c) 

9. Code of Ethics, Bernalillo County Ordinance, Chapter 2, Article III, Division 4, Code of 

Conduct (Exhibit 10c) 

10. City Code of Conduct, City of Albuquerque, Personnel Rules & Regs (Exhibit 11c) 

                                                            

1 Exhibits 2c, 3c and 4c all deal with the Metropolitan Environmental Health Advisory Board; Exhibits 5c and 6c

address the Joint Air Quality Control Board Ordinance
2

Clean Air Act Approval of Revisions to New Mexico SIP 

 State Board Composition and 

Conflict of Interest Provisions applicable to Albuquerque/ Bernalillo County 

 (Docket EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0614) 

 

This Technical Support Document (TSD) provides a technical review of revisions to the 

New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of New Mexico 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County on July 26, 2013, to address revisions to the New Mexico SIP 

for Albuquerque/Bernalillo County to satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

the “Act”) Section 128(a) – State Boards and Conflict of Interest. 

 

A. General Requirements 

The Act, section 128(a) entitled State Boards, requires each SIP to contain provisions which 

ensure that: (1) any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under the 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 

the 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. The New Mexico Air 

Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4) authorizes Albuquerque/Bernalillo County to locally 

administer and enforce the State Air Quality Control Act by providing for a local air quality 

control program. 

For air quality regulation purposes, the state of New Mexico and Albuquerque Bernalillo 

County are treated as two separate jurisdictions. The Albuquerque - Bernalillo County Air 

Quality Control Board (Air Board) approves air quality plans and regulations for the city and 

county, with the City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Department (COA/EHD) acting as 

the implementing agency for the plans and regulations approved by the Board. For the rest of 

New Mexico, the Environmental Improvement Board approves air quality plans and regulations 

while the New Mexico Environment Department acts as the implementing agency. 

Thus, State law views Albuquerque/ Bernalillo County and the remainder of the State of New 

Mexico as distinct air quality control entities. Therefore, each entity is required to submit its own 

SIP revision in order to completely satisfy the requirements of section 128(a) of the Clean Air 

Act for the entire State of New Mexico. 
3

B. Background 

The prior SIP revisions to incorporate the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County 

Ordinances governing Air Board composition and conflict of interest were submitted in response 

to a July 19, 1989 "SIP call" letter from EPA to the Governor of New Mexico, "requiring a cure 

to identified SIP deficiencies concerning State Boards." The EPA had found that the SIP was 

"substantially inadequate to meet the requirements of Section 128 of the Clean Air Act 

mendments of 1977 (CAA), entitled 'State Boards."' EPA stated that: "neither the New Mexico 

Conflict of Interest Act nor the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Act appear to prohibit 

appointment of a majority of board members who already have a significant portion of income 

derived from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders prior to appointment (required in 

Paragraph (a)(l) of Section 128 of the CAA." Therefore, SIP revisions were submitted to 

demonstrate that appointment of members to the Air Board satisfied the requirements of Section 

7428(a)(2), U.S.C.A.333 

After a public hearing held on October 10, 1990, the Air Board adopted proposed 

revisions to its portion of the SIP regarding State Boards. The revisions were submitted 

by the Governor to EPA on April 20 and July 16, 1990, for the State portion, and on November 

16, 1990, for the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County portion. Supplemental information was 

submitted for Albuquerque-Bernalillo County on December 18, 1990, October 21, 1991, and 

November 22, 1991. These revisions corrected deficiencies for the New Mexico Environmental 

Improvement Board (NMEIB) and the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Air Quality Board in 

order to comply with Section 128 of the Act. The EPA approval of these New Mexico SIP 

revisions made the revisions federally enforceable. Subsequent correspondence in February and 

March 1993 addressed eligibility for 'public interest' Board member positions. 

The EPA approved these SIP revisions, including Board composition and conflict 

of interest disclosure requirements, on 6/1/1999, effective 8/2/1999 (FR 64 29235). Since that 

time the supporting ordinances and policies have been revised. Therefore the Air Quality 

Division is proposing to update the SIP to incorporate the latest City of Albuquerque and 

Bernalillo County Ordinances and policies regarding board composition and conflict of interest 

as it applies to the Air Board. A matrix is attached which outlines these SIP-approved ordinances 

and policies and their corresponding ordinances and policies. 

C. EPA State Board Guidance 

EPA’s September 13, 2013 Guidance document entitled “Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)” outlines 

the essential requirements from the CAA for each plan concerning state boards and conflict of 

interest requirements. The Guidance is available in the Docket for this rulemaking online at 

www.regulations.gov (Docket EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0614). The following excerpt (includes 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(E) text) from the September 13, 2013 Guidance (Pages 39 through 44) 

offers insight into what EPA can approve or not for these provisions: 
4

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. 

Subelement (i): The SIP should provide necessary assurances2 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").   

                                                            

2

 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. 

 
5

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.  

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.3 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  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

                                                            

3

 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." 
6

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. 

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.4,5  

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,

                                                            

4

 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. 

5

 “Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Hawaii Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 

8Hour 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. 
7

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 128.6

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.  

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 assurances7 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

                                                            

6 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. 

7

 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. 
8

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

D. Analysis of the State’s Revisions 

The revisions we are approving address City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, 

Code of Ordinances governing Air Quality Control Board (AQCB) composition and conflict of 

interest provisions required to meet the requirements of Section 128(a) of the CAA. As shown in 

Section F, these revisions are mostly administrative in nature and/or add clarifying language or 

additional stringency to the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County Ordinances already 

contained in the SIP. These ordinances and revisions do not apply to Indian lands over which the 

AQCB lacks jurisdiction. We have prepared this Technical Support Document (TSD) for this 

action which details our evaluation. This TSD may also be accessed on-line at 

http:www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0614. 

E. Summary and Recommendations 

The revisions submitted by New Mexico on behalf of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County are 

the most recent versions of the ordinances the City and County have in meeting the state board 

composition and conflict of interest provisions requirements of the Clean Air Act. They continue 

to remain consistent with federal requirements and are updated versions of the ordinances 

already SIP-approved by EPA. However, given that the Metropolitan Environmental Health 

Advisory Board (MEHAB), created prior to the 1967 enactment of the New Mexico Air Quality 

Control Act and the creation of the Joint Air Quality Control Board, has ceased to exist 

functionally, the ordinances related to the MEHAB (Exhibit 2c, 3c and 4c) are not being acted 

upon by the EPA. The MEHAB ordinances are not legally or practically necessary for the 

continued operation of the Air Quality Control Board or the City of Albuquerque Environmental 

Health Department. 

The updated versions of the remaining ordinances targeting the Air Quality Control 

Board, Public Boards, Commissions and Committees, conflict of interest, and code of ethics 

(Exhibits 5c through 10c) are the subject of this submittal. These revisions add stringency, as 

well as ministerial changes and renumbering to add clarity and specificity to the ordinances. 

Exhibits 7c, the Ordinance covering Public Boards, Commissions and Committees, and 11c, the 

Ordinance covering Personnel Rules and Regulations, is also not being acted upon by EPA since 

this ordinance is not germane to State Board Composition and Conflict of Interest, which is the 

subject of the submittal. 

Therefore, EPA recommends approving the revisions for Exhibits 5c (Section 9-5-1-3 

only), 6c (Section 30-32 only), 8c, 9c, and 10c as a Direct Final Notice. We are approving these 
9

revisions under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. Please see Section F of this TSD for additional 

details. 

 
10

Section F1: Part 6 – Metropolitan Environmental Health Advisory Board (Exhibit 2c) 

Section F1 Continued: 

 
11

EPA Analysis: Exhibits 2c, 3c and 4c are not applicable to the AQCB and are not considered as a 

basis for this action. Therefore, the next exhibit below in Section F2 is Exhibit 5c. 
12

Section F2: City of Albuquerque Chapter 9, Article 5, Part 1, Joint Air Quality Control 

Board, Section 9-5-1-3 (Exhibit 5c) 

See the actual ordinance language for Section 9-5-1-3 of Exhibit 5c below (next page), and EPA 

analysis on Page 15. Additionally, the entire language for the ordinance is available in the 

docket for this action, at http:www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0614. 
13
14
15

EPA Analysis: 

For Exhibit 5c, the ordinance that deals with the Joint Air Quality Control Board, the revisions in sections

9‐5‐1‐3 highlight the requirements for state boards and conflict of interest provisions consistent with

federal requirements found in CAA section 128(a)(1). Section 9‐5‐1‐3(B)(4)(a) of Exhibit 5c states that “at

least a majority of the membership of the Board shall be individuals who represent the public interest

and meet the requirements of the state and federal guidelines set forth in the New Mexico Air Quality

Control Act, as amended, and the federal CAA, 42 U.S.C.A. Section 7401, et seq., as amended.” Section

9‐5‐1‐3(E) states “any member of the Board who has a conflict of interest regarding a matter before the

Board shall disqualify himself or herself from the discussion and shall abstain from the vote on such

matter. A conflict of interest means any interest which may yield, directly or indirectly any monetary or

other material benefit to the Board member or the member’s spouse or minor child.” These sections are

wholly consistent with the requirements found in CAA section 128(a)(1) and (2) as outlined in Section

I(B) of this notice titled “State Boards” and are approvable.
16

E4: Article II – Air Pollution Section 30-32 – Joint Air Quality Control Board (Exhibit 6c)
17
18

EPA Analysis: 

The updated version of Section 30-32 – Joint Air Quality Control Board is wholly consistent 

with the version already SIP-approved by EPA in 1999. The key subsections (shown above) 

include 30-33(b) which outlines board membership and organization, and how board members 

are appointed. Subsection 30-33(b)(4)(a) states the requirement that at least a majority of the 

membership of the board shall be individuals who represent the public interest and meet the 

requirements of the state and federal guidelines set forth in the state and federal Clean Air Acts. 

Additionally, subsection 30-33(e) states that any member of the board who has a conflict of 

interest regarding a matter before the board shall disqualify himself from the discussion and shall 

abstain from the vote on such matter. These subsections address the requirements found in 

Section 128 of the CAA, are approvable by EPA, and are consistent with what is already 

contained in the New Mexico SIP for Albuquerque/Bernalillo County. 
19

Exhibit 7c – Article 6: Public Boards, Commissions and Committees 

see below 
20
21
22
23
24
25

EPA Analysis: as discussed in the notice, this Exhibit is not considered as a basis for this action 

concerning state board composition and conflict of interest. 

 
26

F5: City of Albuquerque, Chapter 2, Article 3 – Conflict of Interest, Section 3-3-1 to 3-3-13 

(Exhibit 8c) 

See below: 
27
28
29

EPA Analysis: 

The above Conflict of Interest Ordinance clearly outlines conflict of interest provisions for 

employees and former employees, and includes details on the prohibition on nepotism and 

restrictions on outside employment. The 1985 version of this ordinance is currently SIPapproved. Therefore, only the above redlines and strikeouts are submitted as revisions. As 

shown above, the revisions are ministerial in nature and mostly involve renumbering and 

additions/deletions that add clarity. EPA approves of the changes and has determined they are 

consistent with the requirements in Section 128 of the CAA. 

F6: City of Albuquerque Charter, Article XII: Code of Ethics, Section 4. Conflict of 

Interest (Exhibit 9c) 

See below... 
30
31

EPA Analysis: 

The above Conflict of Interest Ordinance clearly outlines conflict of interest provisions 

for officials, and includes details on the prohibition on gifts and private financial interest. The 

previous version of this ordinance (Article XII: Code of Ethics) is currently SIP-approved. 

Therefore, only the above redlines and strikeouts to Section 4 of that ordinance are submitted as 

revisions. The addition of Section 4(b) outlines the prohibition on a member of the City Council 

from participating in any debate or vote on any matter which will likely result in any benefit to 

the member which benefit is greater that the benefit to the public in general. The other key 

revision adds specific criteria for disqualifications as shown above in Section 4(c). The addition 

of Section 4(b) to the ordinance outlines the prohibition on a member of the City Council from 

participating in any debate or vote on any matter which will likely result in any benefit to the 

member which benefit is greater that the benefit to the public in general. The other key revision 

adds specific criteria for disqualifications as presented in Section 4(c). Both the addition of 

subsections 4(b) and 4(c) enhance the ordinance by adding further clarity and stringency to the 

conflict of interest requirements. Section 128 of the CAA states that a State may adopt any 

requirements respecting conflicts of interest for such boards or bodies or heads of executive 

agencies, which are more stringent, and the Administrator shall approve any such requirement as 

submitted. 

Other revisions to Exhibit 9c are ministerial in nature and mostly involve renumbering 

and additions/deletions that add clarity. 

EPA approves of the changes and has determined they are consistent with the 

requirements in Section 128 of the CAA. 
32

Section F10: New Mexico Code of Ordinances, Chapter 2 Administration, Article III 

Officers and Employees, Division 4 – Code of Conduct Revisions (Exhibit 10c) 

See below: 

 
33
34

 
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45

EPA Evaluation: 

Exhibit 10c, Code of Ethics, Bernalillo County Commission Ordinance (shown above), revises the

SIP‐approved version (previously Ordinance 85‐3) to further enhance the requirements pursuant to

Section 128.  This Code of Ethics Ordinance establishes a code of ethics for all elected officials and

employees and volunteers of county government, including members of boards, committees and

commissions.  For example, in Section 2‐130 – Standards of conduct, the ordinance clearly indicates that

the standards of conduct apply to elected officials, employees and volunteers at all times.  Section 128

of the CAA does not require volunteers to be subject to the conflict of interest provisions, and adding

them makes the ordinance more stringent.  Additionally, the ordinance requires such candidates,

elected officials, employees, and volunteers to disclose personal interests, financial or otherwise, in

matters of the county. Other revisions include establishing a declaration of policy section, (Section 2‐

127), standards of conduct including conflict of interest (Section 2‐130), disclosure of certain financial

interests (Section 2‐131), reporting violations of code of ethics (Section 2‐132), and Ethics Board

requirements. These revisions enhance the current SIP‐approved version, which focused on elected

officials and employees and did not specifically identify volunteers as well.  EPA considers these

revisions more stringent than the requirements pursuant to Section 128 of the CAA, and are approvable.  

Therefore, EPA approves of the changes and has determined they are consistent with the

requirements in Section 128(a) of the CAA.  

 
46

Section F10: City Code of Conduct, City of Albuquerque, Personnel Rules & Regulations 

(Exhibit 11c) 

EPA Analysis: This Exhibit is not part of this submittal, as it does not concern state board 

composition and conflict of interest, as discussed in the notice. The actual exhibit can be found in 

the submittal documents in Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0614.