AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The City of Albuquerque’s Environmental Health Department petitioned the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board to adopt a new regulation, Part 39, and amend Part 41. These changes aimed to simplify the permitting process for gas stations and emergency generators by introducing an "Air Quality Notification" (AQN) system, purportedly maintaining air quality protections while allowing the Department to allocate resources more efficiently. Georgianna E. Peña-Kues, as an interested party, opposed these changes, arguing they were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (City of Albuquerque, Environmental Health Department): Argued that the proposed changes to Part 39 and Part 41 would streamline the permitting process for gas stations and emergency generators, making it more efficient while maintaining air quality protections (paras 2-3).
• Interested Party-Appellant (Georgianna E. Peña-Kues): Contended that the Board's decision to adopt the changes was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law. Raised concerns about the sufficiency of evidence regarding the burdensomeness of existing oversight requirements and the adequacy of data on the health effects of benzene exposure from gas stations (paras 5, 7, 11).
• Intervenor-Appellee (Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Board's decision to adopt Part 39 and amend Part 41 was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion.
• Whether the Board's decision was contrary to law.

Disposition

• The Board's decision to adopt Part 39 and amend Part 41 was affirmed, finding no error in the Board's actions (para 1).

Reasons

• Per VARGAS, J. (BOGARDUS and HENDERSON, JJ., concurring):
  The Court found that the Board's decision was not arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. It was based on substantial evidence showing that the changes would allow the Department to allocate resources more efficiently without compromising air quality protections. Testimony from the Department's permitting division manager and an environmental toxicologist supported the conclusion that the new and amended regulations were in the public interest and would not pose a threat to public health (paras 6-13).
  The Court also determined that the Board's decision was not contrary to law. It rejected the appellant's arguments that Air Quality Notifications (AQNs) were effectively permits subject to the same requirements, that the Board failed to consider environmental justice principles, and that the Board abandoned its legislative mandate to reduce or abate air pollution. The Court found no legal basis for these claims, noting that the appellant failed to preserve some arguments for review and did not provide sufficient legal authority to support her positions (paras 14-19).