Januazy 28,2015 

CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Ron Cm:ry:r Regional Administrator (6RA) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -Region VI 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 

Dallas, TX 75202-2733 

PlJl 

l G SEC. 

15 FEB ll PM 6: l ~ 

Subject: Certification of SIP Elements for the 2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS under Clean 

Air Act Sections II O(aXl )-(2) 

Dear Administrator Curry: 

In a letter dated September 24, 2013 Governor Mary Fallin appointed me as her designee for the purpose 

of submitting documents to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval and 

incorporation into the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State of Oklahoma. The Oklahoma 

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) ·is given the primary responsibility and authority to prepare 

and implement the state's air quality management plan under Oklahoma Statutes. 

Sections llO(aXl) and (2) of the Clean Air Act require that each state review and revise as necessary its 

SIP following promulgation of a revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) [See U.S.C. § 

7410(aXl) and (2}]. On March 12,2008, the EPA administtator signed the Primary National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for Ozone (73 Fed. Reg. 16436, March 27, 2008). EPA subsequently issued the 110uidance on Infrastructure State hnplementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 

llO(a)(l) and 110(a)(2)" in September 2013. Under this guidance, states may certify that their existing 

SIPs meet the "in:fi:astructure11 elements of§ 11 O(a)(2), rather than submitting a revised SIP for the revised 

NAAQS such as the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. Oklahoma's SIP is codified in 40 CPR Part 52, Subpart LL. 

On behalf of the State of Oklahoma, 1 hereby certifY that, as indicated in the enclosed table titled 

"Oklahoma's State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittal 'Infrastructure' Checklist," Oklahoma's SIP 

meets the infrastructure obligations for the 2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS. To date, the 

only SIP change required to meet the revised 2008 Ozone NAAQS is a revision to Appendix E of OAC 

252:100, to update the 8-hourOzonestandard [CAA § 1 IO(a)(2)(H)]. 

State public l*licipation procedures for such SIP submittals were submitted to EPA for review under 40 

CFR § 51.102. In a letter dated August 23, 2012, EPA concurred that Oklahoma's procedures are 

consistent with the requirements of 40 CPR § 51.102 and associated guidance. Public notice for this 

submittal was posted on DEQ's web site beginning on March 28, 2014, to allow the opportunity to provide 

comments and to request a public hearing preliminarily scheduled for April30, 2014 at DEQ's offices. 

No hearing requests were received during the minimum 30-day comment period (3128/14- 4128/14). 

Therefore, a notice of hearing cancellation was posted on April 29, 2014. Attached is documentation of 

tbis public notice and submittal process. Also attached are copies of comments received during the 

comment period and a Response to Comments document It is our understanding that the final results of 

EPA's review of this submittal will be d~;termined through rulemaking and will be published in 1he 

Federal Register. 

Note that this letter and its supporting docunientation do not address § 11 O{a)(2)(1), which pertains to the 
nonattainment planning requirements ofTitle ~ Part D of the Clean Air Act. These requirements are not 

governed by the three-year SIP submission deadline under§ 11 O(a)(I). In addition, Oklahoma currently 

has no Ozone nonattainment areas and no nonattainment plans are due. Note also that this submittal is 

not intended to assert that Oklahoma meets all requirements of§ 1 IO(a)(2)(D)(i)(l), which relate to 

interstate pollutant transport affecting attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. It is our 

understanding that EPA expects to address § 110(a){2)(D){i){l) separately through issuance of further 

guidance. However, the checklist does describe certain related aspects ofDEQ's infrastructure. 

If you have questions, please contact Mr. Eddie Terrill, Director, Air Quality Division, Department of 

Environmental Quality at (405) 702-4100. · 

Michael Teague 

Secretary of Energy and Environment 

Enclosures 

cc: Scott Thompson, Executive Director, Department ofEnvironmental Quality 

Eddie Terrill, Director, DEQ Air Quality Division 

Guy Donaldson, Section Chief, Air Planning Section, EPA Region VI (6PD-L) 

Carrie Paige, Air Planning Section, EPA Region VI (6PD-L) 

Terry Johnson, Air Planning Section, EPA Region VI (6PD-L) 
12/30/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 1

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Oklahoma’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 

CAA § 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements in the Current SIP or Pending SIP Revisions 

Updated for the 2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

On March 12, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to 0.075 parts per million (ppm). [40 CFR § 50.15, 73 Fed. Reg.16436, Mar. 27, 2008] Section 110(a)(1) 

of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each state to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to provide for the implementation, maintenance, 

and enforcement of each newly promulgated or revised NAAQS. The SIP contains state regulations, source-specific requirements, and nonregulatory items such as plans and inventories. The initial SIPs for states were approved by the EPA on May 31, 1972 (46 Fed. Reg. 40005). The 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is given the primary responsibility and authority to prepare and implement Oklahoma’s air 

quality management plan under the Oklahoma Environmental Quality Act and the Oklahoma Clean Air Act (see generally Title 27A Oklahoma 

Statutes (O.S.) §§ 2-1-101 et seq.). The federally enforceable SIP for Oklahoma is compiled in 40 CFR Part 52, Subpart LL. Approval of additional 

SIP submittals is pending. 

SIPs are reviewed and revised by the state as necessary to accommodate changes in State and Federal statutes, rules, policies, and program 

requirements. In addition to SIP revisions to address specific program requirements (e.g., PSD/NSR Program), including those changes that directly 

result from a new or revised NAAQS, EPA has interpreted § 110(a)(1) of the federal CAA to require the state to demonstrate that the SIP meets the 

“infrastructure” requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) each time a NAAQS is issued or revised.1

 The resulting submittal is commonly 

referred to as an “infrastructure SIP” or “I-SIP.” Under its September 2013 Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements 

under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)2 (“2013 I-SIP Guidance”), EPA allows for certification 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.” The following table summarizes how and where the applicable infrastructure requirements are addressed in Oklahoma’s 

current SIP or pending SIP revisions. In addition to a summary of infrastructure elements as they relate to the various existing NAAQS, the table 

lists any changes or pertinent information specific to the subject NAAQS change. 

This Submittal: 2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS 

In this I-SIP submittal, Oklahoma is demonstrating that it has adequate resources and authority to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2008 Primary 

and Secondary Ozone NAAQS. This submittal was prepared under EPA’s 2013 I-SIP Guidance and 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V – Criteria for 

Determining the Completeness of Plan Submissions. 

 

1

 For Example, EPA approved Oklahoma’s Infrastructure SIP (or “I-SIP”) for the 1997 Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on January 26, 2012 (77 Fed. Reg. 3933). 

2

 Distributed under September 13, 2013 memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to EPA’s Regional Air Directors, Regions 1-

10.
12/30/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 2

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(A) –

Emission Limits 

and Other Control 

Measures

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 Act.

Oklahoma Environmental Quality Act (27A O.S. §§ 1-1-101 thru 1-4-107), 

Oklahoma Environmental Quality Code (27A O.S. §§ 2-1-101 thru 2-16-107) 

including the Oklahoma Clean Air Act (27A O.S. §§ 2-5-101 thru 2-5-117), 

and other relevant portions, Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) 252:4, 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, and OAC 252:100, Oklahoma Air Pollution 

Control Rules.

Oklahoma has an EPA-approved air permitting program for both major 

sources (OAC 252:100-8) and minor facilities (OAC 252:100-7).

Several SIP revisions are pending. These include portions of the February 

14, 2002 SIP submittal (“Big SIP”); portions of the June 24, 2010 SIP 

submittal (SC-8 revision); the July 16, 2010 SIP submittal (excess 

emissions); portions of the July 23, 2010 SIP submittal (“Big SIP2”); the July 

23, 2010 SIP submittal (NSR Reform); and the March 26, 2012 SIP 

submittal (GHG and PM2.5); as well as the annual SIP revisions for 2010 

(December 28, 2010), 2011 (February 6, 2012), and 2012 (February 4, 

2013). 

In a letter dated March 14, 2014 and at EPA’s request, DEQ withdrew its 

July 16, 2010 SIP submittal (excess emissions) due to the specific legal 

circumstances and uncertainty regarding EPA’s final Start-up, Shut-down, 

and Malfunction policy.

Oklahoma has no maintenance areas.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1960 (c)(48)

This NAAQS Revision:

No additional specific enforceable emission limitations or other control 

measures, means, or techniques have been identified as necessary to 

attain or maintain the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (“revised Ozone NAAQS”). OAC 

252:100 includes Subchapter 33, Control of Emission of Nitrogen Oxides 

(252:100-33), Subchapter 37, Control of Emission of Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOCs) (252:100-37), and subchapter 39, Emission of Volatile 

Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Nonattainment Areas and Former 

Nonattainment Areas (252:100-39). The July 23, 2010 SIP submittal (“Big 

SIP2”) included changes to Subchapters 33 and 37. At this time, it is not 

anticipated that OAC 252:100-33 or 100-37 will need to be revised as a 

result of the new NAAQS. Any particular issues or changes related to 

implementation of the 2008 Ozone NAAQS through Oklahoma’s permitting 

program would be addressed through a separate SIP submission.
12/30/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 3

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(B) –

Ambient Air Quality 

Monitoring/Data 

System

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; 

The Oklahoma Clean Air Act (27A O.S. §§ 2-5-101 thru 2-5-117) provides 

the authority to establish and operate ambient air quality monitors. OAC 

252:100-3, in conjunction with Appendices E and F, enumerates the 

NAAQS and PSD increments.

Oklahoma operates an air quality monitoring network consistent with EPA 

regulations (40 CFR Part 58), and regularly reports results to EPA under 

previously-approved SIP provisions. Each fiscal year, DEQ posts an 

Annual Network Review (ANR) on its web site for public review. Following 

the 30-day public review period, DEQ evaluates and responds to any 

comments, and submits the review to EPA Region 6 monitoring staff for 

their review. The FY14 ANR was posted for public review from August 5, 

2013 to September 9, 2013. No public comments were received, and the 

final FY14 ANR was submitted to EPA. Monitoring results may also be 

accessed through DEQ’s web site at:

http://www.deq.state.ok.us/aqdnew/monitoring/index.htm

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1960(c)(22)

This NAAQS Revision:

Oklahoma’s program has monitored ozone from the 1970’s to present.

Oklahoma’s ambient air monitoring network is consistent with the ozonerelated monitoring requirements of 40 CFR Part 58. No changes to the 

ozone monitoring network were required by the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. 
12/30/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 4

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(C) –

Program for 

Enforcement of 

Control Measures

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;

Oklahoma’s EPA-approved air permitting program includes appropriate 

enforcement authority and permitting for modification and construction of 

stationary sources. DEQ’s powers and duties to implement air quality 

programs (including implementing Oklahoma’s SIP) are described in 27A 

O.S. § 2-5-105, and include authority to “... [e]nforce rules of the Board and 

orders of the Department and the Council.” 27A O.S. § 2-5-105(4). More 

specific enforcement authorities are described throughout the Oklahoma 

Clean Air Act, 27A O.S. §§ 2-5-101 et seq., and in OAC 252:4-9, 

Administrative Proceedings. 

Oklahoma’s requirements for construction and operating permits for minor 

facilities and (minor) modifications to minor facilities are in OAC 252:100-7, 

Permits for Minor Facilities. The construction permit requirements for PSD 

and other major sources, and requirements for both major and minor 

modifications to PSD and other major sources, as well as requirements for 

the Part 70 (Title V) operating permit program, are in OAC 252:100-8, 

Permits for Part 70 Sources and Major New Source Review. OAC 252:4-7, 

Environmental Permit Process, contains additional permit requirements.

Although Oklahoma does not currently have any designated nonattainment 

areas or maintenance areas, Oklahoma's SIP contains the provisions for the 

NSR nonattainment area permitting program in OAC 252:100-8, Part 9

Major Sources Affecting Nonattainment Areas. The EPA interprets the 

portion of § 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to a permitting program that applies to 

nonattainment NSR within nonattainment areas (CAA Title I part D) to be 

outside the scope of the infrastructure SIP requirements3and does not 

otherwise address it in the 2013 I-SIP Guidance. 

Changes to the permitting program are included in pending SIP revisions 

submitted on February 14, 2002 (minor facility permitting), June 24, 2010 

SIP submittal (SC-8 revision), July 23, 2010 (NSR Reform), December 28, 

2010 (PSD Increment and NAAQS for Pb), February 6, 2012 (GHG 

Tailoring and PM2.5 Implementation), and the February 4, 2013 SIP 

submittal (2012 annual update). Note that Oklahoma’s PSD and Title V/Part 

70 permitting program applies to sources that emit greenhouse gases 

(GHGs) in accordance with EPA’s tailoring rule, and subsequent narrowing 

of EPA’s approval of Oklahoma’s PSD program.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1929

 

3

 Page 4, Section II. General Guidance on Infrastructure SIPs, 2013 I-SIP Guidance
12/30/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 5

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

This NAAQS Revision:

No additional specific enforceable emission limitations or other control 

measures, means, or techniques have been identified as necessary to 

attain or maintain the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. Any particular issues or 

changes related to implementation of the 2008 Ozone NAAQS through 

Oklahoma’s permitting, compliance, and enforcement programs (e.g., PSD) 

would be addressed through a separate SIP submission.
12/30/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 6

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(D)(i) –

Interstate 

Transport 

Provisions

contain adequate provisions—

(i) prohibiting, consistent with the provisions 

of this title, 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

The 2013 I-SIP guidance states that EPA expects to issue guidance with 

respect to this Sub-element,4but does not otherwise address interstate 

transport provisions which prohibit significant contribution to nonattainment 

in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to the 

NAAQS. If necessary, the requirements in § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) will be 

handled in a separate Transport SIP.5

However, Oklahoma's air quality control rule at OAC 252:100-8-35 requires 

major stationary sources to demonstrate that the source’s emissions would 

not cause or contribute to any increase in ambient concentrations that 

would exceed any NAAQS in any air quality control region. The State’s 

PSD program meets the basic requirements for implementing all NAAQS.

SIP revisions submitted on July 23, 2010 and February 6, 2012, which are 

still pending, contain modifications to OAC 252:100-8-35.

EPA concluded that emissions from Oklahoma significantly contribute to 

interference with maintenance of the 8-hour 1997 Ozone NAAQS in another 

state and issued a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in a supplemental 

rule (76 Fed. Reg. 80760, Dec. 27, 2011) to the Transport Rule (aka Cross 

State Air Pollution Rule (76 Fed. Reg. 48208, Aug. 8, 2011)) requiring

Oklahoma to participate in the NOX Ozone Season trading program. 

However, a December 30, 2011 order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit stayed the Transport Rule. On August 21, 2012, 

that Court vacated the Transport Rule and the Transport Rule FIPs and 

remanded them to EPA. The Court allowed CAIR to remain in effect until 

the promulgation of a valid replacement. Oklahoma is not covered under 

CAIR. On June 24, 2013 the Supreme Court granted EPA's request to 

review the lower court ruling that overturned the Transport Rule.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1930

 

4

 Page 3, Section I. Introduction, 2013 I-SIP Guidance

5

 Oklahoma submitted its Interstate Transport SIP for an Assessment of Oklahoma’s Impact on Downwind Nonattainment for the National Ambient 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 Air 

Quality Standards (“Transport SIP”) to EPA in May 2007, with supplemental information submitted in November 2007. EPA approved portions of the Transport SIP relating to § 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (76 Fed. Reg. 81838, Dec. 29, 2011). In the same action, EPA approved the portions of the 

Transport SIP relating to the prohibition against significant contribution to nonattainment of the 8-hour 1997 Ozone NAAQS in any other state. EPA’s analyses performed in 

conjunction with issuance of the Transport Rule (aka Cross State Air Pollution Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 48208, Aug. 8, 2011) concluded that emissions from Oklahoma significantly 

contribute to interference with maintenance of the 8-hour 1997 Ozone NAAQS in another state and issued a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in a supplemental rule (76 Fed. 

Reg. 80760, Dec. 27, 2011) requiring Oklahoma to participate in the NOX Ozone Season trading program. A subsequent ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and 

remanded to EPA the Transport Rule and the Transport Rule FIPs. The Court allowed CAIR to remain in effect until the promulgation of a valid replacement. (Oklahoma is not 

covered under CAIR.) As of April 30, 2014, an appeal of the D.C. Circuit Court’s ruling was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. 
12/30/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 7

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

This NAAQS Revision:

As stated, EPA’s 2013 I-SIP guidance does not address the requirements of 

this Sub-element.but Therefore, this evaluation is not intended to assert that 

Oklahoma meets all requirements of the interstate transport provisions of § 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(l). Oklahoma expects to accommodate any future related 

guidance and implement any finally adjudicated program changes. EPA is 

currently in the process of developing an ozone modeling platform and a 

system to assess each state’s impact on nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance of the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS in another state for the 

eastern half of the contiguous United States.
12/30/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 8

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(D)(i) –

Interstate 

Transport 

Provisions

contain adequate provisions—

(i) prohibiting, consistent with the provisions 

of this title, any source or other type of 

emissions activity within the state from emitting 

any air pollutant in amounts which will--

(II) interfere with measures required to be 

included in the applicable implementation plan 

for any other State under part C to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality or to 

protect visibility, 

New major stationary sources and modifications are subject to a 

comprehensive PSD permitting program. Under OAC 252:100-8, Part 7, 

Oklahoma’s EPA-approved air permitting program includes pre-construction 

review of PSD sources, including review for impacts of emissions of all 

“regulated NSR pollutants,” and requires demonstration that any increase in 

emissions would not cause or contribute to any increase in ambient 

concentrations that would exceed any NAAQS in any air quality control 

region. EPA approved the portion of Oklahoma’s Transport SIP relating to §

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (PSD) for the 1997 Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS on 

November 26, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 72695). 

Oklahoma’s Regional Haze Implementation Plan Revision, (“RH SIP”), 

submitted in February 2010, describes Oklahoma’s measures to protect 

visibility and assure that emissions do not interfere with any other state’s 

measures to protect visibility. These measures include provisions in OAC 

252:100-8, Part 11. EPA partially approved and partially disapproved 

Oklahoma’s Regional Haze SIP on December 28, 2011 (76 Fed. Reg. 

81728) [See discussion under element § 110(a)(2)(J) – PSD and Visibility 

Protection (Part C)]. EPA stated that the RH SIP did not incorporate some 

emission reductions that were relied on to demonstrate non-interference 

with other states’ visibility protections. In the same Federal Register notice, 

EPA also partially approved and partially disapproved portions of the 

Interstate Transport SIP for an Assessment of Oklahoma’s Impact on 

Downwind Nonattainment for the National Ambient 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5

Air Quality Standards (“Transport SIP”), submitted May 10, 2007 and 

supplemented December 10, 2007, that address § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with 

respect to protection of visibility. EPA issued a FIP requiring reduction of 

SO2 emissions for six units, and found that “the controls under this FIP, in 

combination with the controls required by the portion of the Oklahoma RH 

submittal that we are approving, will serve to prevent sources in Oklahoma 

from emitting pollutants in amounts that will interfere with efforts to protect 

visibility in other states.” Oklahoma submitted a revision to its RH SIP and 

Transport SIP on June 14, 2013 to replace the FIP as it relates to two of the 

six units concerned. EPA approved this revision effective April 7, 2014. (79 

Fed. Reg. 12944 & 12954, March 7, 2014). 

40 CFR § 52.1920(c) and 

(e)

40 CFR §§ 52.1920(d) 

and (e), 52.1923, and 

52.1928
12/30/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 9

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

This NAAQS Revision:

Any specific ozone-related issues in Oklahoma’s permitting program (e.g., 

increments or significant impact levels) would be addressed through a 

separate submission.

Ozone from ozone precursor emissions is not believed to contribute 

significantly to visibility impairment. Oklahoma’s Regional Haze 

Implementation Plan Revision, submitted in February 2010, demonstrates 

that Oklahoma’s PM2.5 emissions do not interfere with any other state’s 

measures to protect visibility. This portion was approved by EPA on 

December 29, 2011 (76 Fed. Reg. 81838).

40 CFR § 52.1920(e)
12/30/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 10

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) –

Interstate and 

International 

Transport 

Provisions

contain adequate provisions—

(ii) insuring compliance with the applicable 

requirements of sections 126 and 115 (relating 

to interstate and international pollution 

abatement);

Oklahoma’s EPA-approved Title V Operating (and PSD) Program includes 

requirements for providing a notice of draft permit to affected states under 

OAC 252:100-8-8 (SIP revision approved November 26, 2010 at 75

Fed.Reg. 72695). This notice meets the requirements of § 126 of the CAA. 

Evaluation requirements under the PSD Program are adequate to assure 

compliance with international pollution abatement requirements. There are 

no final findings under § 115 of the CAA against this State with respect to 

any existing NAAQS.

40 CFR § 52.1920(c)

This NAAQS Revision:

No source or sources within Oklahoma are the subject of an active finding 

under § 126 of the CAA with respect to the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. 

There are no final findings under § 115 of the CAA against this State with 

respect to this NAAQS.

Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required to 

implement the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.

§ 110(a)(2)(E)(i) –

Adequate 

Resources

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);

Oklahoma has previously demonstrated that it currently has and will 

continue to have adequate personnel and other resources to carry out its air 

quality programs. The powers and duties of the DEQ to implement air 

quality programs (including implementing Oklahoma’s SIP) are described in 

27A O.S. § 2-5-105, and include authority to accept and expend funds 

necessary to carry them out. DEQ receives air quality program funds 

through state appropriations, permit application fees, annual operating fees, 

and federal grants under CAA §§ 103 & 105, among others. 

40 CFR §§ 52.1920(e) 

and 52.1960(c)(45)(i)

This NAAQS Revision:

Oklahoma will continue to provide the resources needed to carry out its air 

quality responsibilities. No significant additional personnel or other 

resources have been identified as required to implement the 2008 Ozone

NAAQS, except as otherwise noted.
12/30/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 11

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) –

Adequate 

Resources (State 

Boards)

provide 

(ii) requirements that the state comply with 

the requirements respecting state boards under 

section 128, and

The Oklahoma Environmental Quality Code lays out the composition and 

powers & duties of the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) (27A O.S. § 2-2-

101) and the Air Quality Advisory Council (27A O.S. §§ 2-2-201(H) and 2-5-

107). These powers & duties include their roles in promulgating DEQ rules, 

but do not include approving permits or enforcement orders under the CAA. 

The powers & duties and conflict of interest provisions for DEQ staff and 

Executive Director are described in 27A O.S. § 2-3-101 and 27A O.S. § 2-3-

201, respectively.

40 CFR § 52.1920(e) and 

40 CFR § 52.1960(c)(17) 

and (45)(i)

This NAAQS Revision:

Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required as 

a result of a change in a particular NAAQS, including the 2008 Ozone

NAAQS.

§ 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) –

Adequate 

Resources (Local 

or Regional 

Implementation)

provide 

(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;

Not Applicable.

§ 110(a)(2)(F) –

Stationary Source 

Monitoring System 

and Reporting

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, 

which reports shall be available at reasonable 

times for public inspection; 

Source emissions monitoring requirements are addressed in OAC 252:100-

43, Testing, Monitoring and Recordkeeping.

Source emissions inventory requirements are addressed in OAC 252:100-5, 

Registration of Air Contaminant Sources.

Area, mobile, and non-road data are reported to EPA on a 3-year cycle.

OAC 252:100, Air Pollution Control; OAC 252:4-1-5, Availability of a 

Record; 51 O.S. §§ 24A.1 ., Oklahoma Open Records Act.

40 CFR § 52.1960(c) (48)

40 CFR § 52.1920(c)

40 CFR § 52.1920(c)

This NAAQS Revision:

Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required as 

a result of a change in a particular NAAQS, including the 2008 Ozone

NAAQS.
12/30/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 12

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(G) –

Emergency 

Episodes

provide for authority comparable to that in 

section 303 and adequate contingency plans to 

implement such authority;

Chapter 6 of Oklahoma’s SIP, as submitted in 1972 and revised in 1988, 

sets forth the state’s Emergency Episode Plan (EEP), as required under §

110(a)(2)(G) and 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart H – Prevention of Air Pollution 

Emergency Episodes and, along with provisions included in the February 

2002 SIP update, describes and implements State authority comparable to 

that in § 303. (For the purpose of EEPs, 40 CFR § 51.150 classifies regions 

separately with respect to the following pollutants: sulfur oxides, particulate 

matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone.) 

As indicated in 40 CFR §§ 52.1934 and 52.1960(c)(38), EPA approved the 

plan as submitted in 1972 and revised in 1988 (56 Fed. Reg. 5656, Feb. 12, 

1991). The Executive Director of the DEQ is empowered by the Oklahoma 

Environmental Quality Code to respond to air pollution episodes and other 

air quality emergencies, (36) and the DEQ has contingency plans to 

implement emergency episode provisions in the SIP. Oklahoma's 

Emergency Episode Plan was approved into the SIP by EPA on February 

12, 1991 (56 FR 05653). Oklahoma's Emergency Episode Plan includes 

alert, warning, and emergency levels for emergency episodes involving PM 

10 and ozone concentrations. The episode criteria and contingency 

measures are found in the Emergency Episode Plan. The criteria for ozone 

are based on a 1-hour average ozone level. These episode criteria and 

contingency measures are adequate to address ozone emergency episodes 

and are in the federally approved SIP. We propose that the Oklahoma 

Emergency Episode Plan provides for the pollutants specified under 40 

CFR 51.150 and is consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 51.151 and 

152, and Appendix L to Part 51.

40 CFR §§ 52.1934 and 

52.1960(c)(38)

This NAAQS Revision:

The measures in place in Oklahoma’s approved EEP are adequate to 

address an emergency episode and do not need to be updated due to the 

2008 Ozone NAAQS.
12/30/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 13

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(H) –

Future SIP 

Revisions

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 

Act; 

Under authority of OAC 252:100-3-2 and 252:100-3-3, Appendices E and F 

of OAC 252:100 enumerate the primary and secondary air quality standards 

(NAAQS), respectively. 

DEQ’s powers and duties to implement air quality programs (including 

implementing Oklahoma’s SIP) are described in 27A O.S. § 2-5-105, and 

include authority to:

“3. Prepare and develop a general plan for proper air quality 

management in the state in accordance with the Oklahoma Clean Air 

Act;” 

and 

“20. Carry out all other duties, requirements and responsibilities 

necessary and proper for the implementation of the Oklahoma Clean Air 

Act and fulfilling the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act.” 

[27A O.S. § 2-5-105(3) and (20)] 

Any substantive changes to Oklahoma’s SIP, such as NAAQS updates and 

resulting program modifications, are initiated through the rulemaking 

process, which includes agency, public, gubernatorial, and legislative review 

processes. Public notice is provided (published/posted) for all steps in the 

rulemaking process, in accordance with the state Administrative Procedures 

Act (75 O.S. §§ 250.1 through 323), Open Records Act (51 O.S. §§ 24A.1 

through 24A.29), and Open Meetings Act (25 O.S. §§ 301 through 314), 

along with corresponding DEQ and state procedural rules. The notices 

include the opportunity to provide comments prior to and at the public 

hearing before the Air Quality Advisory Council and at the public hearing 

before the Environmental Quality Board. 

Documentation of these changes, along with documentation of any 

implementation or infrastructure changes, is then submitted by the Governor 

(or the Oklahoma Secretary of Energy and Environment, acting as the 

Governor’s designee) to EPA as a SIP revision. This process is followed 

regardless of whether it results from a NAAQS update or a finding by the 

Administrator. State public participation procedures for SIP submittals that 

do not include rulemaking were submitted to EPA on August 17, 2012 for 

review. In a letter dated August 23, 2012, EPA concurred that the

procedures are consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR § 51.102 and 

associated guidance.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1960
12/30/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 14

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

This NAAQS Revision:

Appendix E of OAC 252:100 was updated to incorporate the 2008 Ozone

NAAQS effective July 1, 2009. The updated Appendix E was submitted to 

EPA as a SIP revision in December 2010.

This SIP submittal fulfills the stated requirement.

§ 110(a)(2)(I) –

Nonattainment 

Area Plan 

Requirements

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);

Not applicable. EPA’s 2013 I-SIP Guidance interprets the requirements of §

110(a)(2)(I), which pertain to specific requirements for attainment plans for 

designated nonattainment areas, to be outside the scope of the I-SIP 

requirements.6

§ 110(a)(2)(J) –

Consultation with 

Government 

Officials (§ 121)

meet the applicable requirements of section 

121 ... (relating to consultation), ...

Oklahoma’s approved SIP includes established consultation with various

entities. Section 2-5-105 of the Oklahoma Clean Air Act specifically gives 

the DEQ the authority to advise, consult, and cooperate with other agencies 

of the State, towns, cities and counties, industries, other states and the 

federal government, and with affected groups in the prevention and control 

of new and existing air contamination sources within the State. Oklahoma 

does not anticipate that significant changes would be required as a result of 

a change in a particular NAAQS.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1960

§ 110(a)(2)(J) –

Public Notification 

(§ 127)

meet the applicable requirements of ... section 

127 ... 

Public notification procedures to meet the requirements of § 127 of the CAA 

are established in Oklahoma’s SIP. DEQ provides notification of ambient air 

concentration levels for all NAAQS through its annual Air Data Reports, 

forecasting reports, and health advisories.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1960

This NAAQS Revision:

The 2008 Ozone NAAQS is included in Oklahoma’s SIP public notification 

requirements. DEQ provides notification of ozone concentration levels 

through its annual Air Data Reports, near real-time health advisories, and 

Ozone Watch days. Oklahoma does not anticipate that any significant public 

notification changes would be required to implement this NAAQS.

 

6

 Page 52, Section III. Guidance on Individual Infrastructure SIP Elements, Element I – Section 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas, 2013 I-SIP Guidance
12/30/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 15

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(J) –

PSD and Visibility 

Protection (Part C)

meet the applicable requirements of ... part C 

... (relating to prevention of significant 

deterioration of air quality and visibility 

protection);

Oklahoma’s EPA-approved PSD permitting program, which addresses all 

regulated NSR air pollutants, operates under OAC 252:100-8, Part 7 –

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Requirements for Attainment 

Areas; the existing PSD delegation agreement; and approved and pending 

portions of the SIP. 

Oklahoma’s Regional Haze Implementation Plan Revision (“RH SIP”), 

submitted in February 2010 and amended in a revision submitted June 14, 

2013, describes Oklahoma’s measures to protect visibility, including 

provisions in OAC 252:100-8, Part 11. [See discussion under element §

110(a)(2)(D)(i) – Interstate Transport Provisions, Subelement (II)]. 

In the 2013 I-SIP Guidance, EPA stated the belief that there are no new 

visibility protection requirements under Part C of the CAA that would result 

from a revised NAAQS. Therefore, the visibility sub-element of Element J 

need not be addressed in an infrastructure SIP submission7.

40 CFR § 52.1920(c)

40 CFR §§ 52.1920(c), (d)

& (e), 52.1923, and 

52.1928

This NAAQS Revision:

Specific issues or changes related to implementation of the 2008 Ozone

NAAQS through Oklahoma’s PSD permitting program would be addressed 

through a separate SIP submission.

As noted, no visibility protection obligations under § 110(a)(2)(J) are 

anticipated as a result of this NAAQS.

§ 110(a)(2)(K) –

Air Quality 

Modeling/Data

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;

Oklahoma conducts air quality modeling to support its demonstrations of 

attainment, and reports results to EPA. Oklahoma will continue to update 

modeling protocols as appropriate to accommodate evolving program 

requirements and standards. 

Oklahoma currently has no designated nonattainment areas. Source 

modeling requirements are also included in the PSD permitting program in 

OAC 252:100-8-35.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1960

This NAAQS Revision:

Oklahoma is designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and has 

not had an ozone nonattainment area since 1990. No ozone SIP modeling 

has been required. 

 

7

 page 55, Section III. Guidance on Individual Infrastructure SIP Elements, Element J – Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public Notification, and 

PSD and Visibility Protection, 2013 I-SIP Guidance
12/30/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 16

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(L) –

Permitting Fees

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, 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 title V; 

27A O.S. § 2-5-106 authorizes the DEQ through the EQB to promulgate 

rules regarding permit fees and 27A O.S. § 2-5-113 establishes that the 

owner or operator of any source required to have a permit must pay a 

permit fee to cover the cost of implementing and enforcing Oklahoma’s Air 

Quality permit program. Oklahoma’s EPA-approved Title V Operating 

Program includes permit application fees and annual operating fees under 

OAC 252:100-8-1.7 and 252:100-5-2.2, respectively (formerly Regulation 

1.4.1(d) Permit fees).

40 CFR §§ 52.1920(c)

and 52.1960(c)(48)(ii)(A)

This NAAQS Revision:

Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required to 

implement the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.
12/30/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 17

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(M) –

Consultation/ 

Participation by 

Affected Local 

Entities

provide for consultation and participation by 

local political subdivisions affected by the plan.

Oklahoma’s approved SIP includes established opportunities for 

consultation and participation by local political subdivisions affected by 

Oklahoma’s SIP. 

DEQ’s powers and duties to implement air quality programs (including 

implementing Oklahoma’s SIP) described in 27A O.S. § 2-5-105 authorizes 

the DEQ to advise, consult and cooperate with other agencies of the State, 

towns, cities and counties, industries, other states and the federal 

government, and with affected groups in the prevention and control of new 

and existing air contamination sources within the State. The powers and 

duties of the Air Quality Advisory Council, as listed in 27A O.S. § 2-5-107, 

include the “authority and discretion to provide a public forum for the 

discussion of issues it considers relevant to the air quality of the state, and 

to ... hold public hearings to receive public comment in fulfillment of federal 

requirements regarding the [SIP] and make recommendations to the [DEQ]

concerning the [SIP].”

Any substantive changes to Oklahoma’s SIP, such as NAAQS updates and 

resulting program modifications, are initiated through the rulemaking 

process, which includes public notice and hearing procedures. (See the 

Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act [75 O.S. §§ 250 – 323], DEQ 

procedural rules in OAC 252:4, and procedures approved under 40 CFR §

51.102(g).) Documentation of these changes, along with documentation of 

any implementation or infrastructure changes, is then submitted to EPA as a 

SIP revision. 

Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required as 

a result of a change in a particular NAAQS.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1960
SCOTI A. THOMPSON 

Executive Director 

January 12, 2015 

OKLAHOMA 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAl QUAliTY 

OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Ron Curry, Regional Administrator (6RA) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Region VI 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 

Dallas, TX 75202-2733 

MARY FALUN 

Governor 

RE: Documentation of Procedures for Submittal of Certification of SIP Elements for the 2008 

Ozone NAAQS under Clean Air Act Sections llO(a)(l) and (2) 

Dear Administrator Curry: 

This letter is to certify that the procedures for preparation and submittal of Oklahoma's 

Certification of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements for the 2008 Primary and Secondary 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under Clean Air Act Sections 

llO(a)(l) and (2) were in compliance with the requirements of the Oklahoma Administrative 

Procedures Act, 75 O.S. §§ 250.1 through 323, and 40 CFR § 51.102 and 40 CFR Part 51, 

Appendix V, 2.1(g). State public participation procedures for such SIP submittals were 

submitted to EPA for review under 40 CFR § 51.102. In a letter dated August 23, 2012, EPA 

concurred that the procedures are consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR § 51.102 and 

associated guidance. 

The Notice of Opportunity for Public Hearing and Comment on the proposed certification that 

Oklahoma has adequate resources and authority to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2008 

Primary and Secondary Ozone. NAAQS was posted on the Oklahoma Department of 

Environmental Quality's (DEQ) web site on Friday, March 28, 2014. The notice set a tentative 

public hearing for Wednesday, April 30, 2014, and included information on how the public could 

request a public hearing and submit written or oral comments on the proposed submittal. The 

notice provided that if no request for a public hearing was received by 10:00 a.m., Monday, 

April28, 2014 (the close ofthe minimum 30-day notice period), the hearing would be cancelled, 

and a notice announcing the cancellation would be posted on the DEQ web site at least 24 hours 

prior to the scheduled time for the hearing. A contact phone number for information on the 

public hearing was also included in the notice. No hearing requests were received during the 

comment period (3/28/2014- 4/28/2014). Therefore, a notice of hearing cancellation was posted 

on the DEQ web site before 10:00 a.m. on April 29, 2014. In addition to posting the two notices 

on DEQ's web site, an electronic notification (email) was sent to those on AQD's standing email 

mailing list. Because the submittal involves no rules or program changes, nor matter of 

significant public interest, newspaper and direct mail notifications were not prepared. 

707 NORTH ROBINSON, P.O. BOX 1677, ctLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73101-1677 

printed on recycled paper with soy ink 

n r...• 
January 12,2015 

Ron Curry 

EPA Regional Administrator 

2010 N02 NAAQS I-SIP Certification Documentation 

One set of comments was received during the comment period; therefore, a Response to 

Comments document was prepared. Enclosed with this letter are copies of the Notice of 

Opportunity for Public Hearing and Comment and the Notice of Hearing Cancellation, along 

with copies of comments received during the comment period and a Response to Comments 

document, and screen shots of relevant DEQ web pages. Note that exhibits and modeling files 

submitted in support of the comments have been included with the full I-SIP submission on 

electronic media. 

If you have questions or require additional information, please contact Ms. Cheryl Bradley, 

Environmental Programs Manager, at ( 405) 702-4218. 

Eddie Terrill, Director 

Air Quality Division 

ET:CB:gg 

Enclosures: 

Notice of Opportunity for Public Hearing and Comment 

Notice ofHearing Cancellation 

Screen Shots of Relevant DEQ Web Pages 

Full I-SIP Submission on Electronic Media 

2 
 Public Notice 

2008 Ozone NAAQS I-SIP Certification 1 Posted 3/28/2014 

OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Notice of Opportunity for Public Hearing and Comment 

Oklahoma’s Section 110 Infrastructure SIP Certification 

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS 

The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) hereby announces an opportunity to 

comment on and request a public hearing on the proposed certification that Oklahoma has adequate 

resources and authority to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The hearing, if one is requested, will be held on 

Wednesday, April 30, 2014 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon in the 1st Floor Multipurpose Room of the 

DEQ, 707 North Robinson Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK 73102. NOTE: If no request for a public 

hearing is received by 10:00 a.m., Monday, April 28, 2014 (the close of the minimum 30-day notice 

period), the hearing will be cancelled, and a notice announcing that the hearing has been cancelled will 

be posted on the DEQ web site (http://www.deq.state.ok.us/aqdnew/RulesAndPlanning/index.htm) at 

least 24 hours prior to the scheduled time for the hearing. You may call (405) 702-4100 to find out if 

the hearing has been cancelled. 

Under the Oklahoma Clean Air Act (27A O.S. §§ 2-5-101 thru -117), DEQ is given the primary 

responsibility and authority to prepare and implement Oklahoma’s air quality management plan, 

compiled in 40 CFR Part 52, Subpart LL. The DEQ prepared the proposed certification to comply with 

the requirements contained in Section 110 of the federal Clean Air Act and 40 CFR Part 51, 

Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans. This certification was 

prepared for submittal to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under EPA’s Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2), issued Sept. 13, 2013. 

All persons interested in these matters are invited to submit written comments prior to the scheduled 

close of the public hearing (i.e., 12:00 noon on Wednesday, April 30, 2014) and/or provide oral 

comments at the public hearing (if a hearing is requested and held). Persons planning to comment at the 

hearing may submit a written statement and/or additional information relevant to this matter for 

inclusion in the record of proceedings of the public hearing. The hearing officer may limit the length of 

oral presentations to allow all those who wish to provide oral comments an opportunity to do so. 

The proposed certification is available on the DEQ web site at 

http://www.deq.state.ok.us/aqdnew/RulesAndPlanning/index.htm. Copies may also be obtained from 

the Department by contacting Cheryl E. Bradley, Environmental Programs Manager, at (405) 702-4100 

or Cheryl.Bradley@deq.ok.gov.

Written comments and/or a public hearing request regarding the proposed 2008 Primary and Secondary 

Ozone NAAQS § 110 Infrastructure SIP Certification should be emailed to Ms. Bradley at 

Cheryl.Bradley@deq.ok.gov or mailed to: 

Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division 

P.O. Box 1677 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101-1677 

ATTN: Cheryl E. Bradley 

Comments may be submitted by fax to the Air Quality Division, ATTN: Cheryl E. Bradley, at (405) 

702-4101. 

Should you desire to attend the public hearing but have a disability and need an accommodation, please 

notify the Air Quality Division three (3) days in advance at (405) 702-4172. For the hearing impaired, 

the TDD relay number is 1-800-522-8506 or 1-800-722-0353, for TDD machine use only. 
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Notice of Cancellation of Public Hearing 

Oklahoma’s Section 110 Infrastructure SIP Certification 

2008 Ozone NAAQS 

The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) hereby announces that no request for 

a public hearing was received by the close of the 30-day notice period (3/28/2014 – 4/28/2014) on 

the proposed certification that Oklahoma has adequate resources and authority to implement, 

maintain, and enforce the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

Therefore, the hearing scheduled for Wednesday, April 30, 2014 has been cancelled, as provided 

for in the notice announcing the opportunity to request a public hearing and comment on the 

proposal. This announcement is in accordance with the public notice requirements of 40 CFR § 

51.102. 

Written comments on the proposal will be accepted through noon on Wednesday, April 30, 2014. 

The public notice and proposed certification are available on the DEQ website at 

http://www.deq.state.ok.us/aqdnew/RulesAndPlanning/index.htm. Copies may also be obtained 

from the Department by contacting Cheryl E. Bradley, Environmental Programs Manager, at (405) 

702-4100 or Cheryl.Bradley@deq.ok.gov.
Screenshot of Notice Postings 

AQD Main Page 

f.: Wekome to the A1r Qual1ty Orv1s10n WmOows Internet lxplor r prov1ded by Oklahoma OfQ 

•li!u ntt l'/~ .do.,.state.ok.us'oaa..w/"<i".ntm• 

Flo Edt View Favootes Tools Hoi> 

Favorites I - g Alta\lstaMar1 Page )!j Comedok<lld.W>ma Wob.. clroct,.arch ·Web s .. ·rn .. @J Dogpilo~arch itlFmHotm.oi •'t ~ @.] GPO>IJti.Qataba,. Search OO:saus ·SeardwlQ fur Soenco 

W-totl-<;o-Qual ... X (., •!li'l • Page • S.fetyo Tools• fi• » 

L:; 

Oklahoma Department of Envl1onmenlal Quality 

Qnn 

Dresei{Fundrng 

AOD Site Index 

Will 

E

~ 

missions 

E

~ 

nvironmental 

r---

Welcome to the 

Air Quality Division 

mm:cr!:l I EPA BURNWJSll lo TUTORIALS I IMu~n"EolAI IASTHKA • AJRI 

Open for Comments: 1 IO(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Stale Implementation Plan 

1()()8 Primary & Secondary Ozone 

National ,\mille/It Air Qualill' Sranda1ds 

We are taking comments until noon 4/30/14 and hearing requests untillO a.m. 

Monday 4/28/14 on our infrastructure review for implementinQ the 2008 chanQes 

to the Primary and Se<:ondary Ozone NAAQS. 

Get More In forma bon On The Rules & Planning Page 

What is a ir qua lity? 

The amount o= pollution in the air from all sources 4 natural and human - defines 

the quality of :he air we breathe. Air pollution isn't liml:ed to our dties; it can 

blow into any part of Oklahoma from neighboring states. 

Why is it important? 

Bad air quality can affect everybody's health. It can have direct effects on the 

lungs, and it can worsen an existing condition, such as asthma. Some people 

are more sensitive to air pollution than others. These include younQ children 

who are growinQ rapidly and older adults who have reduced immune systems. 

Poor public health also incurs economic costs for society, e.g., increased 

health<:are costs and loss of workino davs. And a dean environment makes 

[r•startl ~ wotcomo to tho Air Q- H:'/<LlES\SIP MASTB!V .. 1 

Sk10 to Ma1n Content 

~ 

l 

Air Oua·-lltv Index 

No Ozooe or PM 

Wotcb In [!feet 

AIR QUALITY HOME 

Mon1torjng A1r Oyalitv & 

Alerttna the PubiK 

Air Oualrtv Resources for the PYbhc 

Reay!atory programs 

I'll~ II [e Intomot I l'roto<tod Modo: off 

0 

~J \tl0 ;f, 

~ fb \il flJJ lOJPM P!J• 
What’s New? and AQ Rules & Planning pages

- fJ X 

II!J htll>'/1 d<.,.s .. t<.ok."' ""'*"' . ...,,.. /n<b .h"" p . 

Fie Edit View Favontes Tools ~ 

,_ ... 1 () @J AltaVIsta MM't Page Coortectok ~ Web . . . ltJ ci-td seard'l ·Web Sear ct. .. '-1_ OoiPe ~arct. @.! Free Hotl'rlai ••t Google GPO f'OkAti.QatabMe Search S] Sdrus • Se.wdwlg for Soenct tJ sellfdvt.ldenc:e 

WhafsN<w·Air~ty X !,~ • fiil ' ... • p .... Sar.ty • Tools• · 

l:!tln 

D•e sgllfyndJOQ 

AOD S1te Index 

r--

What's 

New in Air 

Qua ty? 

Special Announcements 

New! Open for Comments: Proposed 2008 Ozone NAAQS I -SI P 

AQO is taking comments and hearing requests on the proposed certification that 

Oklahoma has adequate resources and authority to implement, matntatn, and enforce the 2008 Ozone (03) National Ambient Air Quality standards (NAAQS). The 

comment period runs through noon on Wednesday, April 30th. A hearing (if one is 

requested by 10:00 a.m. Monday, 4/28/2014) would be held on Wednesday, April 

30, 2014 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noor in CEQ's 1st Floor Multipurpose Room. See 

the linked ~ and proposed infrastructure rev1ew" table & Wfl: certification letter for more speofics. Yol. may check this web site or call (405) 702· 

4100, 24 hours prior to the scheduled ti'Tle for the hearing, to find out if it has been 

cancelled. Posted ~n:h 28. 2014 

2014 Emissions Inventory Workshop presentations Now Avpihtble! 

The presentatiOns from our 2014 Emtssi::ms Inventory Workshop are now posted. 

General 1ssues and new reporting ouidance were presented along with training 

developed for those reporting inventories for the first time. Posted Jan.-ylt, 2014 

Emission I nventory Requirements for PBR Facilities 

Emergency revis•ons to OAC 252: 100-5 were signed into effect on 9/ 10/2013 by 

Governor Fallin. New facilities obta•ning a Permt by Rule (PBR) in 2013 will not be ro:>no 1iro:>rt .. , c" ohmit- "'"' o:>micocoinn ;,..,., ...... ,.,., , fnr ,.~,,;n, ;,.., 'J01'1 l=:"'icocoin,.., in,e>n .. nrie>c fnr 

t •surtl le What'sNcwinAh'Qua-

@•ffi§jQfflfif!Mji@#'J@@ijffi§Mti!JU!UW•!:.! I •t•rt·'!diffliM.Ut @J http:fft. state ok us AQDnewj'R~{nd hiJ!l 

fie Edit View Fo5VOI'ites 

FavoritM I""' [J 

l:!tln esellfund~ng 

AOp Site Index 

r--

Air Quality 

Rules & 

Planning 

AQO is takin!J comments and hearin!J requests on the proposed certification 

that Oklahoma has adeQuate resources and authonty to Implement, ma1nta1n, 

and enforce the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The 

comment period runs through noon on Wednesday, April 30th. A hearing (if one is 

requested by 10:00 a.m. Monday, 4/28/2014) would be held on Wednesday, April 30, 2014 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon in DEQ's 1st Floor Multipurpose Room. 

See the ed ~ and prooosed .. infrastnJcture revtew~ table & .d!.5lft Q~rtifiCatlon letter for more speofiCs. You may check thts web site or call (405) 702 

·4100, 24 hours prior to the scheduled time for the hearing, to find out if it has been cancelled. Posted HMch 28. 2014 

What is. a State Implementation Plan? 

latnh & ~cal services 

The fed•e.ral Clean Air Act became law in 197 1 and was amended in 1990. It provides the 

national framework for efforts to protect air quality. The US EPA has delegated most of t11e 

available programs for implementing and enforcing the act to the Air Quality Division of DEQ. 

Regula6on at the state level means that local needs and conditions are better understolJd, 

responded to, and managed. 

An EPA-approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) lays out the goals and procedures for the 

daily operations of AQD. It includes t he Oklahoma Atr Oyality Rules and other strat egies 

developed at the state level for implementing the various federal air quality programs. The 

SIP is regularty reviewed and amended as necessary. 

How iJre Oklahoma's Air Quality Rules Made? 

The AQD Rules and Planning Section proposes rule updates to t he A1r Oyality Couool, whidl 

consists of nine members appointed by the Governor to represent various Oklahoma 

stakeholders, After proposed rule changes have been open for public review and comment, 

public hearinQs are held. If a rule change is approved by the Council, it is recommended to 

the Q!ili1homa Environmental Quality Soard. Once adopted by the Board, the new rules 

proceed to the State legislature and the Governor for final approval. 

Upcoming Air Quality Council meeting dates, proposed rules and agendas can be found h~. 

CIK:k M(g: for a Quick Reference Guide to PubiK: PartK:1pat:10n in the Air Quality Rulemalcing 

Process ! 

Upcomi ng Public Meetings 

start ll Rules&. PlanniRg Hom.- H:\Rl.l.ES\SIP MASTER\! .. I r- liJ [il Doa.mentl · Microsoft .. I .§I Irbo)( Leon.Ashforded .. j J!1 Saeenshots of Notice Po .. I 

rr 

Sktp to Matn Content 

No Ozooe or PM 

Watch [a [ (feet 

A1r Oualitv Home 

WHAT'S NEW 

IN AIR QUAUTY? 

.:J In~t Pro~Modt::Off 

_j 0 

• • .,., 00% • ..d 

~ P> li!!J (fl) ' ' '""' I!! 

- .. ~ 

lr::.!l"""' =---------- p . 

Sk1p to Ma1n Cont ent 

~ 

l 

Atr Oya·-lity Index 

No Ozone or PM 

Watcb In [ ((ect 

Air Quality Home 

RULES & PLANNING 

Air ~ Duality Rules 

Oklahoma Air Quality Counpt 

Reotonaj Haze 

.e!..i.o.n!n.a 

~ 

~r 9 1nt<mct IP,otectedMode,off 

Ej_l ll 

l'a • +, 100%---:--:a: 

~ fl:> lliJ ()>J 3'36PM 1!1 
u.c:~ 

t.mlSll>a1 

JfC'~ 

:~~.; l 

Open for Cornmcnts: 

!illlli•l(Jl llllnmrurture 

811111 lmtllt•Jut·utRiimt l'lsm 

;.'t,KNJ l'nnwcv & Scc.;ondaiJ Ozone 

r\'aticm.tl ltuhJt'llt \ir· Qu.tlit) St.oJtJ,mJ:._ 

we ..,e t.)k•no COtMI('I'I\t>l.-.cil noon 4/30/ 14 ~n(l ht_.,nno ep,~~~ until 10 .).m. MMd<~v 4/24/1• on our 'll astruetu ~ re'nll!w lor IITII)tem~ lht 2008 ehanou to t:he Prim.'ltY .:.nd $~ry O~o f: NAAQS. Nol'G~Ml'$r ftJr•publk ~ w.n ~by tM dPU of thtt 3041y r)O(b (Mnl)d. JbM!(or.,_ tbue ,.. bit ~ iWrll'lrQ.. 

HOwo ro Mlol'e Q)Mtnfltlt• 

Wbot b oir (fUjlfity? 

~ NnOl.lf'lt olpo!Uion n thE>~ from ;at ~ovrCM • ~.J ..Jnd human · dtfinK me wahty cf tht • we bluthe. A. ~n lllnl '-'"led to our otJet; A. eill\ 

blow .nto .Jn'/ pan of ld~~ frQm neigtlbonno st¥E"t:· 

Wby b it importMff 

lad -~ld:v«~n atl~ 111.,..,;ybody"s hulth. ltt ,.n Nvt drect .t!llld:s on tt...e lJn ~f'ld lr u. wo ,4!n.an ~inO~ uri\M.J~.J . Somtp~ 

art mor• Sll!tl$1bve to • I)Oivtlon tt•an othtrt.. Thtst lf'ldud<i! YOU'tQ dltlck en who '"'9'C>Wino r.Jpidty .Jnd ol(l@l' .Jd~s whQ h<~V t~ ~ •rsttm$. 

Poor P\lblk he*h ;abo II'IQ,Irl ecooomic ~'for societY. e.Q.. mer eased h(:.,lt:t'!Qreco«" .:.1'1<1 klu Of~ d:tyS. Arid.;. dt>~n rw ronmC~W. ~~ 

<*lahoma an ant actiVe (Ifact to tve, w«'e and o&av: somed'WtoQ we can aa be 

oro d~. 

W"in cl~l> tile Air 0\HIIIty Vlvh.IOI'I clot 

"km: ~.we wori( to el'f~etf pr««t the public hectllh In Old•honut, weclott\i$by: 

AirQu"lity Rule.5 ~ 

Pl~uu ing 

Ll ~JI,'f{",.;. ,\'0'•' I"' '!.IK".J."•r'·"''l A.K"'il'~ "St:!niiAM.' 

O..V,.,,J"taCCiotorv-.. ~mentoiC 

AQO Is t•klno comcnents •hd llearfn.a l'eoCIUests on th-e Dfoooted c-etttfJUoon lh;JI ~~~"' ;ad('QU,Ih'r t.~.P'O .)n(f ~tOml)lvn!O.•tlL mJinl,•irl 

and mon:e tM 2001 OtOM. Haoonal ~ IW QualeY Standard• . Th• comme-nt ""'"od run'l tt.ro'K>Oh noon M w~w. AOnl ll')tl\. "'hl<.:lMO (I ON"''~ 

r.auest-ed bY 10:00 a.m. M~. • .'281201<1) wOUld be held on weonesda"t. ~ 

10, 201.; fn)m 10cOO•.m.ta U:(l(l ntiOn~l>tQ !J: 1$tf.l(lor..,~IJI'POs-tR.of'lm, 

=W~':r=:: :n~~~~t:x;;::u~t.,f:f1o' ... 100. 24 houn orw. to tht kheduhrd bn•.tiOl lhw JM•nno, to hn<l out lit hli b""'fl~ll ... d. - .... ~) .. ,.(1 

Nptq pf Canstli"lf!O s« Pub!( Ht.:.oog· No ~fl'!;t f« ;~~l)ub~ h"¥V1Q "'"' '

ret'I!Wed br the. do!-W. o1 uoe ]l).dllv nobt« '*"'d 0 / 2ti/20t4. A/2&12014) ~ Uw. I)(Of>OS!IKI clillt~. l'h•r<efOt•, Ch" Plf'.!IMQ ~~tot Wlt(tn,.~ay ApN lO, 

20111 h,.s b>c~n tanc:d-td, "' "rovoded fOI '"ttw oib<lve notJee_ Thot !lvl:HOI'Iwlll ~to XC"'ptco~ti. Qn rl'l"' propoui!Jl'ltil noon, W@odno«<J~1, April lOth. 

~~>oo• .... AI>rll a. IIJH 

W11111 is,. St.nt.-lmplt!nl(:fll<l!l'ocl Pl.na? 

Th<efedlilraiOeanAIIAd ~~lil lr'l 97 at\dw01i""*'<'ed l!'l1990. tPI'~th<t 

~ ftlomtWotk for ~orts to l)f'Otf!tt .Jir ~lity. fbe US £PA hM: l@d tnO$t of ttl@ 

~v:~::.~,~~~~~:==~~(~~,.*~~=~ r~J)OMCd to, :md m;,n;,oed. 

AA CPA~ovtd !tattt lmoMmentibon ~ (!HP) layt OIA. lht: QOahi <lfld pr«lkb.r:t for the 

~=:.:r:" ~"'~~te~~.: ah='vt~t:r~t ~~~~~~T~\e $1.P" rE!gll.ll:;.tty r..WW.cl ¥1(1 Mn.ncif!d•s ,..;:esS.JtY. 

How M~ Ok .. hclnwl's Ait QuaGty thde~ M11de'l Thot AQ_0 Rui!!S Clnd Jlt<l~ s.ctJ0n l)rOC)OS*S 1\M updates lO the As Ouet'( C9'!!'l!'l! wl'ldt 

of nin• ml@tllboH'5 ~d theGcwtmOf' or~s.entv~~ho f 

tal«.oholder$. Ml.ff l)!~ed •·ulot ch.ln()<:$ h:a-1<: bcon opOI'I Or~ re'IM!w nd co,rwroer.t. ~ l"'<t•TlnO' ,,., tv>ld. tf <t nifJ <h<tnge '' ~ve<l by th• CQ!Xd, • is r~ed to 

Xo Ozooe or PM 

w~c~hlntffrd 

AIR ~l/ll.(IY HOM( 

Air Ott"'tk Bttoyrga tgr "" pui;M 

8tg~da AN flrpqjma 

.=! 

:-rr~J>~r -·- "" .. ~ 

~ il -10:)&4\4 

A® I Alr~Jndtx """""""" 

-- No O.to•e "" P~J 

W:ntlll f.fT~ 

--

P • 

~~~ =~~~~~~ ~=~~~'::::~r lhf~w f\111.~ i::=,-------================::::....----------------~rre>~ro ............... ....., .. .=J 

liil.....,., .......... I, ...,. . ........_ .! ______________ _ l;. d C,fj. 

.. ~ 

-10:)&4\4 
Given below is draft language for the body of the certification letter. The language 

would be provided to the Governor’s office to assist in preparing the certification letter 

for the Governor’s signature or her designee (e.g., the Secretary of Energy and

Environment).

Draft Section 110 Infrastructure SIP Certification 

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act require that each state review and revise as 

necessary its SIP following promulgation of a new or revised National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS). [See 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(1) and (2)] On March 12, 2008, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the levels of the Primary and Secondary 8-hour 

NAAQS for ozone [73 Fed.Reg. 16436, Mar. 27, 2008]. EPA issued the “Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2)” in September 2013. Under this guidance, states may certify that their existing 

SIPs meet the “infrastructure” elements of § 110(a)(2), rather than submitting a revised SIP for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Oklahoma's SIP is codified in 40 CFR Part 52, Subpart LL. On behalf of the State of Oklahoma, 

I hereby certify that, as indicated in the enclosed table titled “Oklahoma’s State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Submittal ‘Infrastructure’ Checklist,” Oklahoma’s SIP meets the infrastructure 

obligations for the 2008 Primary and Secondary ozone NAAQS. To date, the only Program 

changes required to meet the revised 2008 ozone NAAQS were revisions to Appendix E and F of 

OAC 252:100, to change the levels of the Primary and Secondary 8-hour ozone standard [CAA §

110(a)(2)(H)]. 

State public participation procedures for such SIP submittals were submitted to EPA for review 

under 40 CFR § 51.102. In a letter dated August 23, 2012, EPA concurred that Oklahoma’s 

procedures are consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR § 51.102 and associated guidance. 

Public notice for this submittal was posted on DEQ’s web site on March 28, 2014, to allow the 

opportunity to provide comments and to request a public hearing preliminarily scheduled for 

April 30, 2014 at DEQ’s offices. [No hearing requests were received during the comment 

period. Therefore, a notice of hearing cancellation was posted on April 28 2014.] Attached are 

copies of comments received during the comment period and/or the public hearing, and a 

Response to Comments document. It is our understanding that the final results of EPA’s review 

of this submittal will be determined through rulemaking and will be published in the Federal 

Register.

Note that this letter and its supporting documentation do not address § 110(a)(2)(I), which 

pertains to the nonattainment planning requirements of Title I, Part D of the Clean Air Act and is 

not governed by the three year SIP submission deadline under § 110(a)(1), because Oklahoma 

currently has no ozone nonattainment areas and no nonattainment plans are due. 
3/28/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 1

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Oklahoma’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 

CAA § 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements in the Current SIP or Pending SIP Revisions 

Updated for the 2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

On March 12, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to 0.075 parts per million (ppm). [40 CFR § 50.15, 73 Fed.Reg.16436, Mar. 27, 2008] Section 110(a)(1) 

of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each state to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to provide for the implementation, maintenance, 

and enforcement of each newly promulgated or revised NAAQS. A SIP identifies how that state will attain and/or maintain the primary and 

secondary NAAQS. The SIP contains state regulations, source-specific requirements, and non-regulatory items such as plans and inventories. The 

initial SIPs for states were approved by the EPA on May 31, 1972 (46 Fed.Reg. 40005). The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality 

(DEQ) is given the primary responsibility and authority to prepare and implement Oklahoma’s air quality management plan under the Oklahoma 

Environmental Quality Act and the Oklahoma Clean Air Act (see generally Title 27A Oklahoma Statutes (O.S.) §§ 2-1-101 et seq.). The federally 

enforceable SIP for Oklahoma is compiled in 40 CFR Part 52, Subpart LL. Approval of additional SIP submittals is pending. 

SIPs are reviewed and revised by the state from time to time as necessary to accommodate changes in State and Federal statutes, rules, policies, and 

program requirements. In addition to SIP revisions to address specific program requirements (e.g., PSD/NSR Program), including those changes that 

directly result from a new or revised NAAQS, EPA has interpreted § 110(a)(1) of the federal CAA to require the state to demonstrate that the SIP 

meets the “infrastructure” requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) each time a NAAQS is issued or revised.1

 The resulting submittal is now 

commonly referred to as an “infrastructure SIP” or “I-SIP.” Under its September 2013 Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)2(“2013 I-SIP Guidance”), EPA allows for certification 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.” The following table summarizes how and where the applicable infrastructure requirements are addressed in Oklahoma’s 

current SIP or pending SIP revisions. In addition to a summary of infrastructure elements as they relate to the various existing NAAQS, the table 

lists any changes or pertinent information specific to the subject NAAQS change. 

This Submittal: 2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS 

In this I-SIP submittal, Oklahoma is demonstrating that it has adequate resources and authority to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2008 Primary 

and Secondary Ozone NAAQS. This submittal was prepared under EPA’s 2013 I-SIP Guidance and 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V – Criteria for 

Determining the Completeness of Plan Submissions. 

 

1

 For Example, EPA approved Oklahoma’s Infrastructure SIP (or “I-SIP”) for the 1997 Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on January 26, 2012 (77 Fed.Reg. 3933). 

2

 Distributed under September 13, 2013 memo from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to EPA’s Regional Air Directors, Regions 1-10.
3/28/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 2

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(A) –

Emission Limits 

and Other Control 

Measures

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 Act.

Oklahoma Environmental Quality Act (27A O.S. §§ 1-1-101 thru 1-4-107), 

Oklahoma Environmental Quality Code (27A O.S. §§ 2-1-101 thru 2-16-107) 

including the Oklahoma Clean Air Act (27A O.S. §§ 2-5-101 thru 2-5-117), 

and other relevant portions, Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) 252:4, 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, and OAC 252:100, Oklahoma Air Pollution 

Control Rules.

Oklahoma has an EPA-approved air permitting program for both major 

sources (OAC 252:100-8) and minor facilities (OAC 252:100-7).

Several SIP revisions are pending. These include portions of the February 

14, 2002 SIP submittal (“Big SIP”); portions of the June 24, 2010 SIP 

submittal (SC-8 revision); the July 16, 2010 SIP submittal (excess 

emissions); portions of the July 23, 2010 SIP submittal (“Big SIP2”); the July 

23, 2010 SIP submittal (NSR Reform); and the March 26, 2012 SIP 

submittal (GHG and PM2.5); as well as the annual SIP revisions for 2010 

(December 28, 2010), 2011 (February 6, 2012), and 2012 (February 4, 

2013). 

In a letter dated March 14, 2014 and at EPA’s request, DEQ withdrew its 

July 16, 2010 SIP submittal (excess emissions) due to the specific legal 

circumstances and uncertainty regarding EPA’s final Start-up, Shut-down, 

and Malfunction policy.

Oklahoma has no maintenance areas.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1960 (c)(48)

This NAAQS Revision:

No specific enforceable emission limitations or other control measures, 

means, or techniques have been identified as necessary to attain or 

maintain the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. OAC 252:100 includes Subchapter 33, 

Control of Emission of Nitrogen Oxides (252:100-33) and Subchapter 37, 

Control of Emission of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) (252:100-37). 

The July 23, 2010 SIP submittal (“Big SIP2”) included changes to

Subchapters 33 and 37. At this time, it is not anticipated that OAC 252:100-

33 or 100-37 will need to be revised as a result of the new NAAQS. Any 

particular issues or changes related to implementation of the 2008 Ozone

NAAQS through Oklahoma’s permitting program would be addressed 

through a separate SIP submission.
3/28/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 3

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(B) –

Ambient Air Quality 

Monitoring/Data 

System

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; 

The Oklahoma Clean Air Act (27A O.S. §§ 2-5-101 thru 2-5-117) provides 

the authority to establish and operate ambient air quality monitors. OAC 

252:100-3, in conjunction with Appendices E and F, enumerates the 

NAAQS and PSD increments.

Oklahoma operates an air quality monitoring network consistent with EPA 

regulations (40 CFR Part 58), and regularly reports results to EPA under 

previously-approved SIP provisions. Each fiscal year, DEQ posts an 

Annual Network Review (ANR) on its web site for public review. Following 

the 30-day public review period, DEQ evaluates and responds to any 

comments, and submits the review to EPA Region 6 monitoring staff for 

their review. The FY14 ANR was posted for public review from August 5, 

2013 to September 9, 2013. No public comments were received, and the 

final FY14 ANR was submitted to EPA. Monitoring results may also be 

accessed through DEQ’s web site at:

http://www.deq.state.ok.us/aqdnew/monitoring/index.htm

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1960(c)(22)

This NAAQS Revision:

Oklahoma’s program has monitored ozone from the 1970’s to present.

Oklahoma’s ambient air monitoring network is consistent with the ozonerelated monitoring requirements of 40 CFR Part 58. No changes to the 

ozone monitoring network were required by the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. 
3/28/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 4

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(C) –

Program for 

Enforcement of 

Control Measures

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;

Oklahoma’s EPA-approved air permitting program includes appropriate 

enforcement authority and permitting for modification and construction of 

stationary sources. DEQ’s powers and duties to implement air quality 

programs (including implementing Oklahoma’s SIP) are described in 27A 

O.S. § 2-5-105, and include authority to “... [e]nforce rules of the Board and 

orders of the Department and the Council.” 27A O.S. § 2-5-105(4). More 

specific enforcement authorities are described throughout the Oklahoma 

Clean Air Act, 27A O.S. §§ 2-5-101 et seq., and in OAC 252:4-9, 

Administrative Proceedings. Oklahoma’s requirements for construction and 

operating permits for minor facilities and (minor) modifications to minor 

facilities are in OAC 252:100-7, Permits for Minor Facilities. The 

construction permit requirements for PSD and other major sources, and 

requirements for both major and minor modifications to PSD and other 

major sources, as well as requirements for the Part 70 (Title V) operating 

permit program, are in OAC 252:100-8, Permits for Part 70 Sources and 

Major New Source Review. OAC 252:4-7, Environmental Permit Process,

contains additional permit requirements.

The EPA interprets the portion of § 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to a permitting 

program that applies to nonattainment NSR within nonattainment areas 

(CAA Title I part D) to be outside the scope of the infrastructure SIP 

requirements and does not otherwise address it in the 2013 I-SIP Guidance. 

Although Oklahoma does not currently have any designated nonattainment 

areas or maintenance areas, Oklahoma's SIP contains the provisions for the 

NSR nonattainment area permitting program in OAC 252:100-8, Part 9

Major Sources Affecting Nonattainment Areas.

Changes to the permitting program are included in pending SIP revisions 

submitted on February 14, 2002 (minor facility permitting), June 24, 2010 

SIP submittal (SC-8 revision), July 23, 2010 (NSR Reform), December 28, 

2010 (PSD Increment and NAAQS for Pb), February 6, 2012 (GHG 

Tailoring and PM2.5 Implementation), and the February 4, 2013 SIP 

submittal (2012 annual update). Note that Oklahoma’s PSD and Title V/Part 

70 permitting program applies to sources that emit greenhouse gases 

(GHGs) in accordance with EPA’s tailoring rule, and subsequent narrowing 

of EPA’s approval of Oklahoma’s PSD program.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1929
3/28/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 5

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

This NAAQS Revision:

No specific enforceable emission limitations or other control measures, 

means, or techniques have been identified as necessary to attain or 

maintain the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. Any particular issues or changes related 

to implementation of the 2008 Ozone NAAQS through Oklahoma’s 

permitting, compliance, and enforcement programs (e.g., PSD) would be 

addressed through a separate SIP submission.
3/28/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 6

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(D)(i) –

Interstate 

Transport 

Provisions

contain adequate provisions—

(i) prohibiting, consistent with the provisions 

of this title, 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

EPA's 2013 I-SIP guidance does not address interstate transport provisions 

which prohibit significant contribution to nonattainment in, or interfere with 

maintenance by, any other state with respect to the NAAQS. If necessary, 

the requirements in § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) will be handled in a separate 

Transport SIP.

However, Oklahoma's air quality control rule at OAC 252:100-8-35 requires 

major stationary sources to demonstrate that the source’s emissions would 

not cause or contribute to any increase in ambient concentrations that 

would exceed any NAAQS in any air quality control region. The State’s 

PSD program meets the basic requirements for implementing all NAAQS.

SIP revisions submitted on July 23, 2010 and February 6, 2012, which are 

still pending, contain modifications to OAC 252:100-8-35.

EPA concluded that emissions from Oklahoma significantly contribute to 

interference with maintenance of the 8-hour 1997 Ozone NAAQS in another 

state and issued a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in a supplemental 

rule (76 Fed.Reg. 80760, Dec. 27, 2011) to the Transport Rule (aka Cross 

State Air Pollution Rule (76 Fed.Reg. 48208, Aug. 8, 2011)) requiring

Oklahoma to participate in the NOX Ozone Season trading program. 

However, a December 30, 2011 order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit stayed the Transport Rule. On August 21, 2012, 

that Court vacated the Transport Rule and the Transport Rule FIPs and 

remanded them to EPA. The Court allowed CAIR to remain in effect until 

the promulgation of a valid replacement. Oklahoma is not covered under 

CAIR. On June 24, 2013 the Supreme Court granted EPA's request to 

review the lower court ruling that overturned the Transport Rule.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1930

This NAAQS Revision:

In 2012, the 2011 Cross State Air Pollution Rule, which assessed interstate 

transport for the 1997 Ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, was 

vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court. The U.S. Supreme Court has heard oral 

arguments on an appeal, but has not rendered a decision. EPA is currently 

in the process of developing an ozone modeling platform and a system to 

assess each state’s impact on nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance of the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS in another state for the 

eastern half of the contiguous United States.
3/28/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 7

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(D)(i) –

Interstate 

Transport 

Provisions

contain adequate provisions—

(i) prohibiting, consistent with the provisions 

of this title, any source or other type of 

emissions activity within the state from emitting 

any air pollutant in amounts which will--

(II) interfere with measures required to be 

included in the applicable implementation plan 

for any other State under part C to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality or to 

protect visibility, 

New major stationary sources and modifications are subject to a 

comprehensive PSD permitting program. Under OAC 252:100-8, Part 7, 

Oklahoma’s EPA-approved air permitting program includes pre-construction 

review of PSD sources, including review for impacts of emissions of all 

“regulated NSR pollutants,” and requires demonstration that any increase in 

emissions would not cause or contribute to any increase in ambient 

concentrations that would exceed any NAAQS in any air quality control 

region. EPA approved the portion of Oklahoma’s Transport SIP relating to §

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (PSD) for the 1997 Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS on 

November 26, 2010 (75 Fed.Reg. 72695). 

Oklahoma’s Regional Haze Implementation Plan Revision, (“RH SIP”), 

submitted in February 2010, describes Oklahoma’s measures to protect 

visibility and assure that emissions do not interfere with any other state’s 

measures to protect visibility. These measures include provisions in OAC 

252:100-8, Part 11. EPA partially approved and partially disapproved 

Oklahoma’s Regional Haze SIP on December 28, 2011 (76 Fed.Reg. 

81728) [See discussion under element § 110(a)(2)(J) – PSD and Visibility 

Protection (Part C)]. EPA stated that the RH SIP did not incorporate some 

emission reductions that were relied on to demonstrate non-interference 

with other states’ visibility protections. In the same Federal Register notice, 

EPA also partially approved and partially disapproved portions of the 

Interstate Transport SIP for an Assessment of Oklahoma’s Impact on 

Downwind Nonattainment for the National Ambient 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5

Air Quality Standards (“Transport SIP”), submitted May 10, 2007 and 

supplemented December 10, 2007, that address § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with 

respect to protection of visibility. EPA issued a FIP requiring reduction of 

SO2 emissions for six units, and found that “the controls under this FIP, in 

combination with the controls required by the portion of the Oklahoma RH 

submittal that we are approving, will serve to prevent sources in Oklahoma 

from emitting pollutants in amounts that will interfere with efforts to protect 

visibility in other states.” Oklahoma submitted a revision to its RH SIP and 

Transport SIP on June 14, 2013 to replace the FIP as it relates to two of the 

six units concerned. EPA approved this revision effective April 7, 2014. (79 

Fed.Reg. 12944 & 12954, March 7, 2014). 

40 CFR § 52.1920(c) and 

(e)

40 CFR §§ 52.1920(d) 

and (e), 52.1923, and 

52.1928
3/28/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 8

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

This NAAQS Revision:

Any specific ozone-related issues in Oklahoma’s permitting program (e.g., 

increments or significant impact levels) would be addressed through a 

separate submission.

Ozone from ozone precursor emissions is not believed to contribute 

significantly to visibility impairment. Oklahoma’s Regional Haze 

Implementation Plan Revision, submitted in February 2010, demonstrates 

that Oklahoma’s PM2.5 emissions do not interfere with any other state’s 

measures to protect visibility. This portion was approved by EPA on 

December 29, 2011 (76 Fed.Reg. 81838).

40 CFR § 52.1920(e)
3/28/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 9

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) –

Interstate and 

International 

Transport 

Provisions

contain adequate provisions—

(ii) insuring compliance with the applicable 

requirements of sections 126 and 115 (relating 

to interstate and international pollution 

abatement);

Oklahoma’s EPA-approved Title V Operating (and PSD) Program includes 

requirements for providing a notice of draft permit to affected states under 

OAC 252:100-8-8 (SIP revision approved November 26, 2010 at 75

Fed.Reg. 72695). This notice meets the requirements of § 126 of the CAA. 

Evaluation requirements under the PSD Program are adequate to assure 

compliance with international pollution abatement requirements. There are 

no final findings under § 115 of the CAA against this State with respect to 

any existing NAAQS.

40 CFR § 52.1920(c)

This NAAQS Revision:

No source or sources within Oklahoma are the subject of an active finding 

under § 126 of the CAA with respect to the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. 

There are no final findings under § 115 of the CAA against this State with 

respect to this NAAQS.

Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required to 

implement the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.

§ 110(a)(2)(E)(i) –

Adequate 

Resources

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);

Oklahoma has previously demonstrated that it currently has and will 

continue to have adequate personnel and other resources to carry out its air 

quality programs. The powers and duties of the DEQ to implement air 

quality programs (including implementing Oklahoma’s SIP) are described in 

27A O.S. § 2-5-105, and include authority to accept and expend funds 

necessary to carry them out. DEQ receives air quality program funds 

through state appropriations, permit application fees, annual operating fees, 

and federal grants under CAA §§ 103 & 105, among others. 

40 CFR §§ 52.1920(e) 

and 52.1960(c)(45)(i)

This NAAQS Revision:

Oklahoma will continue to provide the resources needed to carry out its air 

quality responsibilities. No significant additional personnel or other 

resources have been identified as required to implement the 2008 Ozone

NAAQS, except as otherwise noted.
3/28/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 10

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) –

Adequate 

Resources (State 

Boards)

provide 

(ii) requirements that the state comply with 

the requirements respecting state boards under 

section 128, and

The Oklahoma Environmental Quality Code lays out the composition and 

powers & duties of the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) (27A O.S. § 2-2-

101) and the Air Quality Advisory Council (27A O.S. §§ 2-2-201(H) and 2-5-

107). These powers & duties include their roles in promulgating DEQ rules, 

but do not include approving permits or enforcement orders under the CAA. 

The powers & duties and conflict of interest provisions for DEQ staff and 

Executive Director are described in 27A O.S. § 2-3-101 and 27A O.S. § 2-3-

201, respectively.

40 CFR § 52.1920(e) and 

40 CFR § 52.1960(c)(17) 

and (45)(i)

This NAAQS Revision:

Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required as 

a result of a change in a particular NAAQS, including the 2008 Ozone

NAAQS.

§ 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) –

Adequate 

Resources (Local 

or Regional 

Implementation)

provide 

(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;

Not Applicable.

§ 110(a)(2)(F) –

Stationary Source 

Monitoring System 

and Reporting

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, 

which reports shall be available at reasonable 

times for public inspection; 

Source emissions monitoring requirements are addressed in OAC 252:100-

43, Testing, Monitoring and Recordkeeping.

Source emissions inventory requirements are addressed in OAC 252:100-5, 

Registration of Air Contaminant Sources.

Area, mobile, and non-road data are reported to EPA on a 3-year cycle.

OAC 252:100, Air Pollution Control; OAC 252:4-1-5, Availability of a 

Record; 51 O.S. §§ 24A.1 et seq., Oklahoma Open Records Act.

40 CFR § 52.1960(c) (48)

40 CFR § 52.1920(c)

40 CFR § 52.1920(c)

This NAAQS Revision:

Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required as 

a result of a change in a particular NAAQS, including the 2008 Ozone

NAAQS.
3/28/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 11

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(G) –

Emergency 

Episodes

provide for authority comparable to that in 

section 303 and adequate contingency plans to 

implement such authority;

Chapter 6 of Oklahoma’s SIP, as submitted in 1972 and revised in 1988, 

sets forth the state’s Emergency Episode Plan (EEP), as required under §

110(a)(2)(G) and 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart H – Prevention of Air Pollution 

Emergency Episodes and, along with provisions included in the February 

2002 SIP update, describes and implements State authority comparable to 

that in § 303. (For the purpose of EEPs, 40 CFR § 51.150 classifies regions 

separately with respect to the following pollutants: sulfur oxides, particulate 

matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone.) 

As indicated in 40 CFR §§ 52.1934 and 52.1960(c)(38), EPA approved the 

plan as submitted in 1972 and revised in 1988. 

40 CFR §§ 52.1934 and 

52.1960(c)(38)

This NAAQS Revision:

The measures in place in Oklahoma’s approved EEP are adequate to 

address an emergency episode and do not need to be updated due to the 

2008 Ozone NAAQS.
3/28/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 12

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(H) –

Future SIP 

Revisions

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 

Act; 

Under authority of OAC 252:100-3-2 and 252:100-3-3, Appendices E and F 

of OAC 252:100 enumerate the primary and secondary air quality standards 

(NAAQS), respectively. 

DEQ’s powers and duties to implement air quality programs (including 

implementing Oklahoma’s SIP) are described in 27A O.S. § 2-5-105, and 

include authority to:

“3. Prepare and develop a general plan for proper air quality 

management in the state in accordance with the Oklahoma Clean Air 

Act;” 

and 

“20. Carry out all other duties, requirements and responsibilities 

necessary and proper for the implementation of the Oklahoma Clean Air 

Act and fulfilling the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act.” 

[27A O.S. § 2-5-105(3) and (20)] 

Any substantive changes to Oklahoma’s SIP, such as NAAQS updates and 

resulting program modifications, are initiated through the rulemaking 

process, which includes agency, public, gubernatorial, and legislative review 

processes. Public notice is provided (published/posted) for all steps in the 

rulemaking process, in accordance with the state Administrative Procedures 

Act (75 O.S. §§ 250.1 through 323), Open Records Act (51 O.S. §§ 24A.1 

through 24A.29), and Open Meetings Act (25 O.S. §§ 301 through 314), 

along with corresponding DEQ and state procedural rules. The notices 

include the opportunity to provide comments prior to and at the public 

hearing before the Air Quality Advisory Council and at the public hearing 

before the Environmental Quality Board. 

Documentation of these changes, along with documentation of any 

implementation or infrastructure changes, is then submitted by the Governor 

(or the Oklahoma Secretary of Energy and Environment, acting as the 

Governor’s designee) to EPA as a SIP revision. This process is followed 

regardless of whether it results from a NAAQS update or a finding by the 

Administrator. State public participation procedures for SIP submittals that 

do not include rulemaking were submitted to EPA on August 17, 2012 for 

review. In a letter dated August 23, 2012, EPA concurred that the

procedures are consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR § 51.102 and 

associated guidance.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1960
3/28/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 13

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

This NAAQS Revision:

Appendix E of OAC 252:100 was updated to incorporate the 2008 Ozone

NAAQS effective July 1, 2009. The updated Appendix E was submitted to 

EPA as a SIP revision in December 2010.

This SIP submittal fulfills the stated requirement.

§ 110(a)(2)(I) –

Nonattainment 

Area Plan 

Requirements

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);

Not applicable. EPA’s 2013 I-SIP Guidance interprets the requirements of §

110(a)(2)(I), which pertain to specific requirements for attainment plans for 

designated nonattainment areas, to be outside the scope of the I-SIP 

requirements.3

§ 110(a)(2)(J) –

Consultation with 

Government 

Officials (§ 121)

meet the applicable requirements of section 

121 ... (relating to consultation), ...

Oklahoma’s approved SIP includes established consultation with various

entities. Section 2-5-105 of the Oklahoma Clean Air Act specifically gives 

the DEQ the authority to advise, consult, and cooperate with other agencies 

of the State, towns, cities and counties, industries, other states and the 

federal government, and with affected groups in the prevention and control 

of new and existing air contamination sources within the State. Oklahoma 

does not anticipate that significant changes would be required as a result of 

a change in a particular NAAQS.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1960

§ 110(a)(2)(J) –

Public Notification 

(§ 127)

meet the applicable requirements of ... section 

127 ... 

Public notification procedures to meet the requirements of § 127 of the CAA 

are established in Oklahoma’s SIP. DEQ provides notification of ambient air 

concentration levels for all NAAQS through its annual Air Data Reports, 

forecasting reports, and health advisories.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1960

This NAAQS Revision:

The 2008 Ozone NAAQS is included in Oklahoma’s SIP public notification 

requirements. DEQ provides notification of ozone concentration levels 

through its annual Air Data Reports, near real-time health advisories, and 

Ozone Watch days. Oklahoma does not anticipate that any significant public 

notification changes would be required to implement this NAAQS.

 

3

 page 52, Section III. Guidance on Individual Infrastructure SIP Elements, Element I – Section 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas, 2013 I-SIP Guidance
3/28/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 14

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(J) –

PSD and Visibility 

Protection (Part C)

meet the applicable requirements of ... part C 

... (relating to prevention of significant 

deterioration of air quality and visibility 

protection);

Oklahoma’s EPA-approved PSD permitting program, which addresses all 

regulated NSR air pollutants, operates under OAC 252:100-8, Part 7 –

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Requirements for Attainment 

Areas; the existing PSD delegation agreement; and approved and pending 

portions of the SIP. 

Oklahoma’s Regional Haze Implementation Plan Revision (“RH SIP”), 

submitted in February 2010 and amended in a revision submitted June 14, 

2013, describes Oklahoma’s measures to protect visibility, including 

provisions in OAC 252:100-8, Part 11. [See discussion under element §

110(a)(2)(D)(i) – Interstate Transport Provisions, Subelement (II)]. 

In the 2013 I-SIP Guidance, EPA stated the belief that there are no new 

visibility protection requirements under Part C of the CAA that would result 

from a revised NAAQS. Therefore, the visibility sub-element of Element J 

need not be addressed in an infrastructure SIP submission4.

40 CFR § 52.1920(c)

40 CFR §§ 52.1920(c), (d)

& (e), 52.1923, and 

52.1928

This NAAQS Revision:

Specific issues or changes related to implementation of the 2008 Ozone

NAAQS through Oklahoma’s PSD permitting program would be addressed 

through a separate SIP submission.

As noted, no visibility protection obligations under § 110(a)(2)(J) are 

anticipated as a result of this NAAQS.

§ 110(a)(2)(K) –

Air Quality 

Modeling/Data

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;

Oklahoma conducts air quality modeling to support its demonstrations of 

attainment, and reports results to EPA. Oklahoma will continue to update 

modeling protocols as appropriate to accommodate evolving program 

requirements and standards. 

Oklahoma currently has no designated nonattainment areas. Source 

modeling requirements are also included in the PSD permitting program in 

OAC 252:100-8-35.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1960

This NAAQS Revision:

Oklahoma is designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and has 

not had an ozone nonattainment area since 1990. No ozone SIP modeling 

has been required. 

 

4

 page 55, Section III. Guidance on Individual Infrastructure SIP Elements, Element J – Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public Notification, and 

PSD and Visibility Protection, 2013 I-SIP Guidance
3/28/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 15

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(L) –

Permitting Fees

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, 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 title V; 

27A O.S. § 2-5-106 authorizes the DEQ through the EQB to promulgate 

rules regarding permit fees and 27A O.S. § 2-5-113 establishes that the 

owner or operator of any source required to have a permit must pay a 

permit fee to cover the cost of implementing and enforcing Oklahoma’s Air 

Quality permit program. Oklahoma’s EPA-approved Title V Operating 

Program includes permit application fees and annual operating fees under 

OAC 252:100-8-1.7 and 252:100-5-2.2, respectively (formerly Regulation 

1.4.1(d) Permit fees).

40 CFR §§ 52.1920(c)

and 52.1960(c)(48)(ii)(A)

This NAAQS Revision:

Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required to 

implement the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.
3/28/14 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 16

2008 Primary and Secondary Ozone NAAQS Update 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(M) –

Consultation/ 

Participation by 

Affected Local 

Entities

provide for consultation and participation by 

local political subdivisions affected by the plan.

Oklahoma’s approved SIP includes established opportunities for 

consultation and participation by local political subdivisions affected by 

Oklahoma’s SIP. 

DEQ’s powers and duties to implement air quality programs (including 

implementing Oklahoma’s SIP) described in 27A O.S. § 2-5-105 authorizes 

the DEQ to advise, consult and cooperate with other agencies of the State, 

towns, cities and counties, industries, other states and the federal 

government, and with affected groups in the prevention and control of new 

and existing air contamination sources within the State. The powers and 

duties of the Air Quality Advisory Council, as listed in 27A O.S. § 2-5-107, 

include the “authority and discretion to provide a public forum for the 

discussion of issues it considers relevant to the air quality of the state, and 

to ... hold public hearings to receive public comment in fulfillment of federal 

requirements regarding the [SIP] and make recommendations to the [DEQ]

concerning the [SIP].”

Any substantive changes to Oklahoma’s SIP, such as NAAQS updates and 

resulting program modifications, are initiated through the rulemaking 

process, which includes public notice and hearing procedures. (See the 

Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act [75 O.S. §§ 250 – 323], DEQ 

procedural rules in OAC 252:4, and procedures approved under 40 CFR§

51.102(g).) Documentation of these changes, along with documentation of 

any implementation or infrastructure changes, is then submitted to EPA as a 

SIP revision. 

Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required as 

a result of a change in a particular NAAQS.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1960
1 

Summary of Comments and Responses 

Oklahoma’s I-SIP Submittal for the 2008 Primary Ozone (O3) NAAQS 

CAA Requirements Under § 110(a)(1) & 2 

DEQ received no request for a public hearing during the notice period, therefore, as stated in the 

public notice, a hearing was not held. One set of comments was received during the comment 

period, submitted on April 30, 2014 by Laurie Williams, Associate Attorney, on behalf of Sierra 

Club. 

Sierra Club 

Sierra Club (SC) prefaced its specific comments with considerable background discussion of the 

Ozone NAAQS and I-SIPi requirements under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA rules 

and policies, which required no response. The following is a summary of specific comments and 

responses. 

Comment: Oklahoma’s I-SIP fails to ensure that its sources are not significantly contributing to 

nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the NAAQS in downwind states. (page 15) 

Response: Per EPA’s Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements 

under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), dated September 2013, the Oklahoma 

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is not addressing transport in this SIP. The D.C. 

Circuit lifted the stay on CSAPR on October 23, 2014, and states currently await EPA’s directive 

regarding their §110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations after the EME Homer City decisions. While this 

I-SIP submittal does not make an assertion regarding §110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), Oklahoma’s SIP does 

not rely solely on the Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) 252:100-8-35 to provide protection 

against interstate transport of pollution. 

Comment: Oklahoma’s Draft I-SIP fails to include emission limits and other restrictions on 

sources of ozone precursors, including anthropogenic sources like nitrogen oxides (“NOx”) and 

volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”), to ensure that areas not designated nonattainment will 

attain and maintain the 2008 eight-hour Ozone NAAQS. (page 8) 

Response: In 77 Fed.Reg. 30,088, 30,141-142 (May 21, 2012) Air Quality Designations for the 

2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Implementation of the 2008 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Nonattainment Area Classifications Approach, 

Attainment Deadlines and Revocation of the 1997 Ozone Standards for Transportation 

Conformity Purposes; Final Rules, Oklahoma was designated Attainment for the 75 ppb ozone 

standard. A combination of National (mobile source), and co-benefit (NOx reductions due to 
2 

Regional Haze, Greenhouse Gas, and Mercury rules) reductions have returned the state of 

Oklahoma to attainment of the 75 ppb ozone standard in 2014. 

Comment: ODEQ has not even attempted to demonstrate that emissions allowed by the draft ISIP will ensure compliance with the eight-hour ozone standard. (page 10) 

Response: A demonstration that emissions allowed by the current Oklahoma SIP are adequate to 

attain a new ozone standard is required for an attainment SIP not an infrastructure SIP. SIPquality photochemical modeling is a very time intensive process and takes about three years to 

complete. That is why it is not required for Marginal areas. In CAA Section 181, Classification 

and Attainment Dates, Marginal areas (The classification Oklahoma might have been designated 

based on 2011 through 2013 ozone design values.) are only given three years to attain the 

standard. For all practical purposes, if photochemical modeling is required for an attainment 

SIP, it would take three years to complete the photochemical modeling, and an additional two to 

three years to develop and go through the EPA approval process for the necessary emission 

limits. 

Comment: Adding control devices and emission limits on electric generating units are a cost 

effective option to reduce NOx and attain and maintain the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. (page 11) 

Response: DEQ implemented and enforced federal measures that are applicable to electric 

generating units and delegable to states. Based on reliable but not yet certified data for 2014, all 

areas in Oklahoma currently attain the 2008 O3 NAAQS. In the last ten years over 3,000 

megawatts of wind generation (zero emissions) has been added in the State of Oklahoma. Also, 

since 2011, emissions of NOx from acid rain reporting electric generators dropped by 36%. 

Comment: The Draft I-SIP fails to include measures that ensure compliance with section 

110(a)(2)(A) (enforceable emission limits, schedules and timetables for compliance to meet the 

requirements of this act) of the Act regarding the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. (page 13) 

Response: This is an Infrastructure SIP, not an Attainment SIP. As stated by EPA on March 27, 

2014 (79 Fed.Reg. 17046) “In light of the structure of the CAA, EPA’s long-standing position 

regarding infrastructure SIPs is that they are general planning SIPs to ensure that the state has 

adequate resources and authority to implement a NAAQS in general throughout the state and not 

detailed attainment and maintenance plans for each individual area of the state.” 

Furthermore, EPA has explicitly addressed this issue in its September 2013 “Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) 
3 

and 110(a)(2)” (Guidance). There, EPA states that I-SIPs merely “should identify existing EPAapproved SIP provisions or new SIP provisions” that “limit emissions of pollutants relevant to 

the subject NAAQS,” but “emissions limitations and other control measures needed” will be due 

on a later date for those areas designated nonattainment. EPA has further confirmed this by 

stating that when evaluating I-SIPs, it has “long interpreted emission limits and control measures 

for attaining the standards as being due when nonattainment planning requirements are due” and 

that “EPA is not evaluating the existing SIP provisions for this purpose[;] instead, EPA is only 

evaluating whether the state’s SIP has basic structural provisions for the implementation of the 

NAAQS.” 79 Fed.Reg. 27241 at 27245-27246 (May 13, 2014). Thus, it is not necessary for an 

air agency to provide additional emissions limitations or control measures until a designation of 

nonattainment has been made. 

Comment: Oklahoma’s draft I-SIP fails to include information regarding the Emergency 

Episode Plan. (page 16) 

Response: The State of Oklahoma has an Approved Emergency Episode Plan (EEP). EEPs are a 

1948 vintage concept. An EEP was beneficial when pollutants could be predicted to build-up 

over multiple days or weeks, to a level that would greatly exceed the NAAQS, and many sources 

could be required to shutdown. The proposed I-SIP documents Oklahoma’s EPA-approved EEP 

for all covered pollutants in Chapter 6 of the state’s SIP, which was submitted in 1972 and 

revised in 1988. (see 40 C.F.R. §§ 52.1934 and 52.1960(c)(38)). DEQ acknowledges that the 

full original SIP document is not currently available online; however, it is subject to the Open 

Records Act. No request for a copy of the EEP was received during the comment period. 

The EEP is not a functional concept in Oklahoma in 2014, mainly because: 1) the first action 

level (Alert level) for the EEP for ozone is .100 ppm for a 12 hour average (Due to the normal 

diurnal fluctuation in ozone concentrations, exceeding this level is very rare in Oklahoma.); and 

2) the larger sources of ozone precursors are not easily shutdown and started up again (electric 

generating facilities). By the time a DEQ representative could contact the sources to shutdown, 

the level of ozone concentration would have dropped well below the .100 ppm Alert level. With 

regard to the O3 Warning Level, DEQ has no record that Oklahoma has ever recorded a Warning 

level (0.40 ppm), or an Emergency level (0.60 ppm). 

Oklahoma’s EEP has never been used in response to an ozone emergency episode or that of any 

other pollutant. The DEQ does not believe that it is anyone’s intent to force DEQ to waste 

resources revising a plan that will never be used. 

Starting in 1991, for the Tulsa metropolitan area, and 1992 for the Oklahoma City metropolitan 

area, the DEQ has called ozone watches. These watches are called by 4:00 pm the day before, 

and advertised in many ways to encourage the public to do what they can to reduce their 

emissions and exposure. Additionally, for the last five years, the DEQ has issued health 
4 

advisories when it has determined that actual ozone or Particular Matter (PM) concentrations 

measured at locations across the state may exceed the NAAQS. The DEQ has determined that 

this is a more practical use of resources and better protects public health from the effects of air 

pollution. 

Comment: EPA regulations implementing the Clean Air Act require that Infrastructure SIPs 

must impose emission limits adequate to prohibit NAAQS exceedance in areas not designated 

nonattainment. 40 C.F.R. Section 51.112(a). The regulation clearly states that all SIPs must 

contain emission limits that adequately ensure the NAAQS are achieved. (page 4) 

Response: As stated by EPA on March 27, 2014 (79 Fed.Reg. 17049) “Thus, the present-day 40 

CFR 51.112 contains consolidated provisions that are focused on control strategy SIPs and the 

infrastructure SIP is not such a plan.” Thus, section 51.112 does not apply to this infrastructure 

SIP. 

Comment: Consistent with the Clean Air Act, prior EPA interpretations of the act require 

infrastructure SIPs to impose emission limits adequate to prohibit NAAQS exceedance in areas 

not designated nonattainment. – See Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State 

of Missouri, 71 Fed.Reg. 12,623, 12,624 (Mar. 13, 2006). - See Approval of Air Quality 

implementation plans; Indiana; Disapproval of State Implementation Plan Revision for 

ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor; Final Rule, 78 Fed.Reg.78,720, 78,721 (Dec. 27, 2013). (page5) 

Response: Neither of the referenced SIPs are Infrastructure SIPs, thus they are irrelevant to 

proving the requirements of infrastructure SIPs. Please refer to the above responses regarding 

the elements of infrastructure SIPs under the CAA.

 

i

Note that in its comments, Sierra Club uses the term Infrastructure SIP or ISIP to refer to the state’s full existing 

and EPA-approved program and SIP, as distinguished from the state’s “I-SIP submittal,” i.e., its review and 

certification of the adequacy of its program and SIP. 
Doc 10 - Comment email from Sierra Club.txt

From: Bradley, Cheryl

Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 12:44 PM

To: Ashford, Leon

Cc: Thomas, Scott

Subject: FW: Comments on Oklahoma's Draft ISIP for 2008 Ozone

Attachments: OK Exhibits.zip; FINAL SC Comments on OK I-SIP for O3.pdf

Comments received today. I will send a confirmation to Ms. Pearlman that we 

received them.

________________________________________

From: Elizabeth Toba Pearlman [etplaw@gmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 11:19 AM

To: Bradley, Cheryl

Cc: Laurie Williams; Isabelle Riu

Subject: Comments on Oklahoma's Draft ISIP for 2008 Ozone

Dear Ms. Bradley:

Attached please find Sierra Club's comments and exhibits (zipped) regarding 

Oklahoma's Draft ISIP for 

2008 Ozone. For your convince, a copy of these comments and all exhibits can be 

found on 

box.com<http://box.com> at https://app.box.com/s/wh8hgcoy5w4a00r9r2u7. In addition,

a copy will 

be mailed with a CD including all documents.

Please confirm that you have received the comments. If you have any questions or 

concerns, you may 

reach me at etplaw@gmail.com<mailto:etplaw@gmail.com> or (202) 643-

4068<tel:%28202%29%20643-4068>.

Sincerely,

Toba Pearlman

--

Elizabeth Toba Pearlman | etplaw@gmail.com<mailto:etplaw@gmail.com> | (202) 643-

4068<tel:%28202%29%20643-4068>

--

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

This electronic mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain information

belonging to 

the sender, which may be confidential and legally privileged. This information is 

intended only for the 

use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended

recipient, any 

disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of 

the information 

contained in this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you received this 

transmission in error, please 

notify the sender at (202) 643-4068<tel:%28202%29%20643-4068> and delete the message

and its 

contents. Thank you.

Page 1
50 F Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001 TEL: (202) 675-2380 FAX: (202) 547-6009 www.sierraclub.org

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND U.S. MAIL

Cheryl Bradley 

Air Quality Division 

Department of Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 1677 

Oklahoma City, OK 73101-1677 

Cheryl.bradley@deq.ok.gov 

April 30, 2014 

Re: Oklahoma’s Section 110 Infrastructure SIP Certification 2008 Primary and 

Secondary Ozone NAAQS

Dear Ms. Bradley: 

On behalf of the Sierra Club, its over 3,300 members in Oklahoma, and others 

who are adversely impacted by Oklahoma’s sources of ozone pollution, we submit the 

following comments on Oklahoma’s Section 110 Infrastructure SIP Certification 2008 

Primary and Secondary Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) 

(“Draft I-SIP”). Oklahoma must submit an Infrastructure State Implementation Plan 

(“Infrastructure SIP” or “I-SIP”) that addresses all of the requirements in sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “Act”) for the March 27, 2008 eighthour primary Ozone NAAQS, as required by sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air 

Act (“CAA” or “Act”). 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) & (2).1

 As currently drafted, Oklahoma’s 

Draft I-SIP does not satisfy a number of these essential requirements, including 

requirements to establish enforceable emission limits and address significant 

contributions to downwind states, and so requires significant revision prior to approval. 

The following comments explain these deficiencies in greater detail.2

 

1

 In addition to our members in Oklahoma, 190 supporters expressed concern over Oklahoma’s Draft I-SIP, 

current ozone levels, and the lack of aqequate emission limits in the State. See Supporters Comments on 

ODEQ Ozone SIP, attached hereto as Ex. 1.

2 A copy of these comments and all exhibits can be found at 

https://app.box.com/s/wh8hgcoy5w4a00r9r2u7.
2

The primary NAAQS define the levels of air quality that the EPA Administrator 

determines to be necessary to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 7409(b)(1). In 2008, EPA revised the primary ozone standard to 75 parts 

per billion (“ppb”) of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum eight-hour concentration 

averaged over 3 year. This revised standard if properly implemented will result in 

improvements in public health (including preventing premature deaths) and the 

environment. 

When EPA revised the ozone standard, EPA recognized it was providing 

increased protection for public health, especially for children, the elderly, and asthmatics. 

This standard is meant to protect “against an array of O3 [ozone]-related adverse health 

effects that range from decreased lung function and increased respiratory symptoms to 

serious indicators of respiratory morbidity including emergency department visits and 

hospital admissions for respiratory causes, and possibly cardiovascular-related morbidity 

as well as total nonaccidental and cardiorespiratory mortality.” See National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard for Ozone, 73 Fed. Reg. 16,436, 16,436 (Mar. 27, 2008). Further, 

increased ozone levels may contribute to premature death, especially in people with heart 

and lung disease. . EPA, Fact Sheet: Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Ozone, at 5 (2008), http://www.epa.gov/glo/pdfs/2008_03_factsheet.pdf. 

Ozone also damages vegetation and trees, including forests, parks, and crops. Id. at 2. 

EPA estimates that the 2008 eight-hour Ozone NAAQS has the potential to avoid 260 to 

2,000 premature deaths annually as of 2020. Id. The total benefits in ozone reduction 

from this standard are estimated to save $2 to $17 billion per year. Id. In fact, 2011 and 

2012 ozone ambient monitoring data indicate that EPA’s estimates of the health benefits 

from reducing ozone exposure may have been low.3

 Due to these and other serious 

impairments caused by ozone exposure, the Oklahoma’s Department of Environmental 

Quality (“ODEQ”) must properly implement the eight-hour Ozone NAAQS through this 

I-SIP process in order to protect public health as required by law. 

According to the Notice of Opportunity for Public Hearing and Comment from 

Oklahoma’s Department of Environmental Quality, written comments will be considered 

if received by 12:00 P.M. on April 30, 2014, making this submission timely. 

I. LEGAL BACKGROUND 

The Clean Air Act creates a framework for the “development of cooperative 

Federal, State, regional, and local programs to prevent and control air pollution.” 42 

U.S.C. § 7401(a)(4). Pursuant to section 109(b)(1) of the Act, EPA has established 

 

3

 In 2012, much of the country experienced record high temperatures and very high ozone levels. However, 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS benefit analysis was based on 2008 ozone levels and thus did not account for the

higher ozone levels that were experienced in 2012. Current science indicates that temperatures experienced 

during 2012 will soon become typical due to climate change. If we do not reduce greenhouse emissions 

rapidly and substantially, the hottest summer of the last 20 years is expected to occur every other year, or 

even more frequently. See, e.g., “Changes in Ecologically Critical Terrestrial Climate Conditions,” 

Science, 2 Aug. 2013, Vol. 341, no. 6145, 486-492. Therefore, the benefits analysis likely underestimated 

the ozone reductions the 2008 ozone NAAQS will require and consequently the benefit the standard will 

provide.

 
3

primary NAAQS for six criteria air pollutants, “the attainment and maintenance of which 

. . . are requisite to protect the public health.” Id. § 7409(b)(1). States have “primary 

responsibility” for assuring air quality within the state. Id. § 7407(a). Following 

promulgation of a NAAQS, the Act requires that a state shall “adopt and submit to the 

Administrator . . . a plan which provides for implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of such primary [NAAQS].” Id. § 7410(a)(1). For attainment and 

unclassifiable areas, section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that these plans (which EPA refers to 

as Infrastructure SIPs or I-SIPs) “include enforceable emission limitations . . . as well as 

schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements” of the Clean Air Act, including the requirement to maintain the 

NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410(a)(2)(A), 7410(a)(1); Conn. Fund for Env’t, Inc. v. EPA, 

696 F.2d 169, 172 (2d Cir. 1982) (CAA requires that SIPs contain “measures necessary 

to ensure the attainment and maintenance of NAAQS”); Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. 

EPA, 666 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The Clean Air Act directs states to develop 

implementation plans—SIPs—that ‘assure’ attainment and maintenance of national 

ambient air quality standards (“NAAQS”) through enforceable emission limitations.”) 

(citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 7407(a), 7410(a)(2)(A)); Hall v. EPA, 273 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 

2001) (“Each State must submit a [SIP] that specif[ies] the manner in which [NAAQS] 

will be achieved and maintained within each air quality control region in the State”) 

(internal citations omitted); see also EPA, “Sulfur Dioxide Implementation—Programs 

and Requirements for Reducing Sulfur Dioxide,” available at

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/implement.html. 

EPA may approve an Infrastructure SIP only if it meets the requirements of 

110(a)(2) of the Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(A)-(M). The state bears the burden of 

demonstrating that its SIP submission satisfies the standards of section 110(a)(2). Mich. 

Dept. of Envtl. Quality v. Browner, 230 F.3d 181, 183, 185 (6th Cir. 2000) (affirming 

EPA’s rejection of a SIP proposal where the state “failed to offer evidence that [the] 

proposed rules will not interfere with the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.”). 

For a plan to be adequate, it “must demonstrate that the measures, rules, and regulations 

contained in it are adequate to provide for the timely attainment and maintenance of the 

national standard that it implements.” 40 C.F.R. § 51.112(a). 

A. The Plain Language and Legislative History of the Clean Air Act 

Require That Infrastructure SIPs Must Impose Emission Limits 

Adequate to Prevent NAAQS Exceedances in Areas Not 

Designated Nonattainment. 

The Clean Air Act, on its face, requires I-SIPs to be adequate to prevent 

exceedances of the NAAQS. Following promulgation of a NAAQS, a state must “adopt 

and submit to the Administrator . . . a plan which provides for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of such [NAAQS].” 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1). Pursuant to 

section 110(a)(2)(A), this I-SIP must “include enforceable emission limitations . . . as 

well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to 

meet the applicable requirements” of the Clean Air Act (which include the requirement to 

maintain compliance with the NAAQS). Id. § 7410(a)(2)(A) (emphasis added). As 

defined by the Act, the term “emission limitation” means “a requirement established by 
4

the State or the Administrator which limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of 

emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis, including any requirement relating to 

the operation or maintenance of a source to assure continuous emission reduction, and 

any design, equipment, work practice or operational standard promulgated under this 

chapter.” Id. § 7602(k). Thus, the plain language of section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that ISIPs include enforceable emission limits on sources sufficient to ensure maintenance of 

the NAAQS. 

The legislative history of the Clean Air Act supports this interpretation. As the 

Senate Committee Report accompanying the 1970 Clean Air Act explained, the Act 

“would establish certain tools as potential parts of an implementation plan and would 

require that emission requirements be established by each State for sources of air 

pollution agents or combinations of such agents in such region and that these emission 

requirements be monitored and enforceable.” Sen. Cmte. on Pub. Works Rpt. at 12 (Sept. 

17, 1970) (emphasis added), attached hereto as Ex. 2. This was reaffirmed in the 

subsequent Senate Conference Report, which stated that: “In order to implement the 

national ambient air quality standards, these [state implementation] plans must provide 

for emission limitations on all services in the region covered by the plan, together with 

schedules and timetables of compliance, systems for monitoring both ambient air and 

emissions from individual sources, and adequate enforcement authority.” Sen. Conf. 

Rpt., 116 Cong. Rec. 42,381, 42,384 (Dec. 18, 1970) (emphasis added), attached hereto 

as Ex. 3.4

B. EPA Regulations Implementing the Clean Air Act Require That 

Infrastructure SIPs Must Impose Emission Limits Adequate to 

Prohibit NAAQS Exceedances in Areas Not Designated 

Nonattainment. 

EPA regulations implementing section 110(a)(2) also require that I-SIPs be 

adequate to prevent exceedances of the NAAQS. Pursuant to these regulations, in order 

for a SIP to be approved by EPA, it “must demonstrate that the measures, rules, and 

regulations contained in it are adequate to provide for the timely attainment and 

maintenance of the national standard that it implements.” 40 C.F.R. § 51.112(a). The 

regulation clearly states that all SIPs must contain emission limits that adequately ensure 

the NAAQS is achieved. Id. Although these regulations were developed before the 

 

4 Although the language of current section 110(a)(2)(A) was originally found in section 110(a)(2)(B), its

substance has remained faithful to the statements found in the Senate Committee Reports. There were only 

two substantive changes between 1970 and the present. First, the addition of former section 172(c)’s 

requirement that SIPs’ emission limitations, schedules, and timetables be “enforceable.” See Rpt. of the 

Senate Cmte. on Envt. and Pub. Works accompanying the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1989 at 20 (Dec. 

20, 1989) (explaining that “Paragraph (1) of rewritten section 110(c) combines and streamlines existing 

section 110(a)(2)(b) and the enforceability requirements of section 172(c) of current law”), attached hereto 

as Ex. 4; see also 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c) (section 172(c)) (requiring that a SIP revision submitted before July 

1, 1982 pursuant to a demonstration under subsection (a)(2) “shall contain enforceable measures to assure 

attainment of the applicable standard not later than December 1, 1987”). Second, the clarification in the 

1990 Clean Air Act Amendments that the “means[] or techniques” for meeting the requirements of the Act 

included “economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights.” 42 

U.S.C § 7410(a)(2)(A).
5

Clean Air Act separated Infrastructure SIPs from nonattainment SIPs—a process that 

began with the 1977 amendments and was completed by the 1990 amendments—the 

regulations nonetheless continue to apply to I-SIPs. EPA has not changed the regulation 

since 1990, and in the preamble to the final rule promulgating 40 C.F.R. § 51.112, EPA 

expressly identifies that its new regulations were not implementing Subpart D, the new 

nonattainment provisions of the Act. See Air Quality Implementation Plans; 

Restructuring SIP Preparation Regulations, 51 Fed. Reg. 40,656, 40,656 (Nov. 7, 1986) 

(“It is beyond the scope of th[is] rulemaking to address the provisions of Part D of the 

Act . . . .”). Consequently, 40 C.F.R. § 51.112 was intended to apply to I-SIPs. Thus, it 

is clear that I-SIPs must contain “measures, rules, and regulations” sufficient to ensure 

maintenance of the NAAQS. 

C. Consistent with the Clean Air Act, Prior EPA Interpretations of 

the Act Require Infrastructure SIPs to Impose Emission Limits 

Adequate to Prohibit NAAQS Exceedances in Areas Not 

Designated Nonattainment. 

EPA has relied on section 110(a)(2)(A) and 40 C.F.R. § 51.112 on multiple 

occasions to reject Infrastructure SIPs that did not contain specific emissions limits 

sufficient to demonstrate attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. For example, in 

March 2006, EPA disapproved Missouri’s attempt to revise the SO2 emission limits in its 

I-SIP for two power plants because the new emission limits would not ensure 

maintenance of the short-term sulfur dioxide NAAQS. See Approval and Promulgation 

of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri, 71 Fed. Reg. 12,623, 12,624 (Mar. 13, 2006). 

In so doing, EPA explained that “Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the [Act] requires, in part, that 

the [state implementation] plan include emission limitations to meet the requirements of 

the Act, including the requirement in section 110(a)(1) that the plan must be adequate to 

attain and maintain ambient air quality standards.” Id. EPA further explained that “40 

C.F.R. 51.112 requires that the plan demonstrate that rules contained in the SIP are 

adequate to attain the ambient air quality standards.” Id. In the case of Missouri’s 

proposed I-SIP, EPA expressed concern that the sulfur dioxide emission rates for two 

power plants in question were “not protective of the short-term sulfur dioxide NAAQS” 

because, while Missouri had lowered the emission rates for the facilities, it had 

dramatically increased the averaging times (from a 3-hour average to an annual average) 

without providing “a demonstration, as required by the [Clean Air Act] and EPA 

regulations, that the [sulfur dioxide national ambient air quality] standards, and 

particularly the three-hour and the twenty-four hour standards, can be protected by an 

annual emission limit.” Id. 

More recently, in December 2013, EPA rejected a revision to Indiana’s sulfur 

dioxide I-SIP pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 51.112, because Indiana failed to demonstrate that 

the I-SIP, as revised, was sufficient to ensure maintenance of the sulfur dioxide NAAQS. 

See Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; Disapproval of State 

Implementation Plan Revision for ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor; Final Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. 

78,720, 78,721 (Dec. 27, 2013). Indiana had submitted a request to EPA to revise its 

sulfur dioxide SIP for the ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor facility to remove the SO2

emission limit for the blast furnace flare at the facility. Id. In the proposed disapproval, 
6

EPA explained that “[u]nder 40 C.F.R. 51.112(a), each SIP must demonstrate that the 

measures, rules, and regulations it contains are adequate to provide for the timely 

attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.” See Approval of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Indiana; Disapproval of State Implementation Plan Revision for 

ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor; Proposed Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. 17,157, 17,158 (Mar. 20, 

2013). Because Indiana did not demonstrate that the ArcelorMittal blast furnace gas 

flare’s existing emission limit was “redundant, unnecessary, or that its removal would not 

result in or allow an increase in actual SO2 emissions,” and, consequently, that removal 

of the limit would not “affect the validity of the emission rates used in the existing 

attainment demonstration, thus undermining the SIP’s ability to ensure protection of the 

SO2 NAAQS,” EPA rejected the proposed amendment. Id. at 17,159; see also 78 Fed. 

Reg. at 78,721. 

In addition, while in its recent Infrastructure SIP guidance EPA purported to 

postpone certain I-SIP start-up, shutdown, and malfunction (“SSM”) requirements, 

nowhere in that guidance does EPA discuss postponement of any other I-SIP 

requirement.5 See U.S. EPA, Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), at 19-20 (Sept. 13, 2013) 

[hereinafter “EPA I-SIP Guidance”]. This is simply a further indication that the CAA 

requires I-SIPs to include emission limits adequate to ensure attainment of the NAAQS 

and that the imposition of such limits may not be delayed. 

D. Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions Hold That Infrastructure 

SIPs Must Impose Emission Limits Adequate to Prohibit NAAQS 

Exceedances in Areas Not Designated Nonattainment. 

Since the inception of the modern Clean Air Act in 1970, courts have interpreted 

the language presently found in section 110(a)(2)(A) to require that SIPs contain 

enforceable emission limits sufficient to prevent exceedances of the NAAQS. In Train v. 

NRDC, a seminal case on SIP approval requirements, the Supreme Court explained that: 

In complying with this requirement [that a SIP provide for attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS], a State’s plan must include ‘emission 

limitations,’ which are regulations of the composition of substances 

emitted into the ambient air from such sources as power plants, service 

stations, and the like. They are the specific rules to which operators of 

pollution sources are subject, and which if enforced should result in 

ambient air which meets the national standards. 

421 U.S. 60, 78 (1975); see also id. at 67 (citing language from then-current section 

110(a)(2)(B) now found in section 110(a)(2)(A)). 

Courts of appeals have echoed the same conclusion. For example, in 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources v. EPA, the Third Circuit stated 

that the Clean Air Act “directs the EPA to withhold approval from a state implementation 

 

5 Sierra Club disagrees, however, with EPA’s apparent postponement of those same SSM requirements; 

such postponement is unsupported by the CAA. 
7

plan if the ‘maintenance of [the] standard’ cannot be assured.” 932 F.2d 269, 272 (3rd 

Cir. 1991).6 The court observed that the “need to maintain the Clean Air Act standards 

once they are reached is well-recognized by the Courts.” Id. Other courts have provided 

similar analyses. In Mision Industrial, Inc. v. EPA, for example, the First Circuit 

explained that, “[b]efore approving an air quality implementation plan or revision, the 

Administrator must determine that it ‘includes emission limitations . . . and such other 

measures as may be necessary to insure attainment and maintenance of (the) primary or 

secondary standard . . . .’” 547 F.2d 123, 129 (1st Cir. 1976) (quoting former section 

110(a)(2)(B)).

 The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments do not alter this picture. Court decisions 

since the 1990 amendments have continued to hold that I-SIPs must have emission limits 

that maintain the NAAQS. In Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. 

EPA, the Supreme Court explained that an Infrastructure SIP under CAA section 

110(a)(1) must be a “plan which provides for implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of [NAAQS].” 540 U.S. 461, 470 (2004) (quoting section 110(a)(1)). 

“While States have wide discretion in formulating their plans . . . SIPs must include 

certain measures Congress specified to assure that national ambient air quality standards 

are achieved.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). Thus, in order for EPA to 

approve a SIP, it “must ‘include enforceable emission limitations and other control 

measures, means, or techniques . . . as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable [CAA] requirements.’” Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(A)). 

 The circuit courts have also been clear that section 110(a)(2)(A) from the post1990 Clean Air Act requires enforceable emission limits in I-SIPs. For example, the 

Ninth Circuit affirmed that “[t]he Clean Air Act directs states to develop implementation 

plans—SIPs—that ‘assure’ attainment and maintenance of national ambient air quality 

standards (‘NAAQS’) through enforceable emission limitations.” Mont. Sulphur &

Chem. Co., 666 F.3d at 1180 (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 7407(a), 7410(a)(2)(A)) (emphasis 

added). And the Sixth Circuit has explained that “EPA’s deference to a state is 

conditioned on the state’s submission of a plan ‘which satisfies the standards of § 

110(a)(2)’ and which includes emission limitations that result in compliance with the 

NAAQS.” Mich. Dept. of Envtl Quality, 230 F.3d at 185 (quoting Train, 421 U.S. at 79). 

 Additionally, in Hall v. EPA, the Ninth Circuit held that EPA had not fulfilled its 

responsibility under another provision—section 110(l)7

—to evaluate whether a revised 

air quality plan will achieve the pollution reductions required under the Act. 273 F.3d at 

1152. In Hall, EPA incorrectly approved a revision to an air quality plan solely on the 

basis that the revisions did not relax the existing SIP, rather than “measur[ing] the 

existing level of pollution, compar[ing] it with the national standards, and determin[ing] 

 

6

 The court was interpreting the 1977 version of the statute in which Subpart 1 of Part D had been added, 

id. at 271 n.1, but relied on the language of then-current section 110(a)(2)(B) (now found in section 

110(a)(2)(A)). Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, 32 F.2d at 272. 7

 Section 110(l) provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he Administrator shall not approve a revision of a [state 

implementation] plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment 

and reasonable further progress . . . or any other applicable requirement of this chapter.” 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7410(l).
8

the effect on this comparison of specified emission modifications.” Id. at 1157-58 

(quoting Train, 421 U.S. at 93). EPA claimed a statutory equivalence between nonrelaxation of rules approved in 1981 and non-interference with current attainment 

requirements. Id. at 1155. The court rejected EPA’s application of the “no relaxation” 

rule, finding it inconsistent with the Act because it set an improper baseline that failed to 

take into consideration the 1990 amendments, which set new deadlines for attainment and 

established other new requirements for incremental progress towards attainment. Id. at 

1160-61. Those current attainment requirements were the baseline from which EPA 

should have measured “non-interference.” Id. EPA’s analysis was required to reflect 

consideration of the prospects of meeting current attainment requirements under a revised 

air quality plan. Id. Just as a plan revision must not interfere with attainment of the 

NAAQS under section 110(l), an I-SIP must likewise include enforceable limits sufficient 

to ensure the initial plan provides for maintenance of the NAAQS under 110(a)(2)(A). 

II. OKLAHOMA’S DRAFT I-SIP FAILS TO ENSURE THE 

ATTAINMENT AND MAINTANCE OF THE PRIMARY OZONE 

NAAQS, AND THUS MUST BE REVISED. 

Oklahoma’s Draft I-SIP fails to include emission limits and other restrictions on 

sources of ozone precursors, including anthropogenic sources like nitrogen oxides 

(“NOx”) and volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”), to ensure that areas not designated 

nonattainment will attain and maintain the 2008 eight-hour Ozone NAAQS. As 

discussed, under section 110(a)(2)(A), the I-SIP must “include enforceable emission 

limitations . . . as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary 

or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements” of the Clean Air Act (which include 

the requirement to maintain compliance with the NAAQS). 

Emission limits are especially important for meeting the eight-hour Ozone 

NAAQS, because fuel combustion from sources such as electric generating units “is one 

of the largest anthropogenic sources of emissions of NOX in the United States.” 73 Fed. 

Reg. at 16504.8

 Specifically, in Oklahoma, coal-fired electric generating units are 

responsible for thirteen percent of all NOx emissions released in the State, or 61,291 tons 

in 2011. See Ex. 5, NOx NEI All Sectors(2011)_28 Apr 2014.xlsx, Excel Worksheet 

“Percentage Summary (All States)”, attached hereto as Ex. 5; see also EPA, The National 

Emissions Inventory, Sector Summaries, 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011inventory.html. 2011inventory.html. For example, 

as modeled by EPA, Oklahoma sources contributed approximately 28 ppb to the 

nonattainment modeled at the Tulsa monitors. See EPA, CSAPR_Ozone and 

PM2.5_Contributions, attached hereto as Ex. 10. Sources near Tulsa are likely 

significant contributors to Tulsa’s ozone problem. Oklahoma’s total NOx emissions are 

also significant, especially when compared with emissions from other states. National 

Emissions Inventory (“NEI”) data from 2011 shows that Oklahoma’s sources collectively 

emitted over 468,700 tons of NOx, making it’s emissions higher than those of thirty nine 

other states or the eleventh greatest emitter of NO2 in the nation. See Ex. 4, NOx NEI All 

Sectors(2011)_28 Apr 2014.xlsx, Excel Worksheet “Ranking of State NOx Totals”. Yet 

 

8

 In addition to EGUs, oil and gas production is a major source of ozone precursors in Oklahoma, and the 

state should require measures to reduce those emissions as part of the I-SIP.
9

Oklahoma fails to demonstrate how it plans to address these significant NOx emissions 

and other ozone precursors. 

A. EPA’s monitoring data demonstrates that Draft I-SIP fails to attain and 

maintain the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. 

Oklahoma’s proposed SIP fails to impose necessary restrictions on ozone 

precursor sources sufficient to ensure the attainment and maintenance of the 2008 Ozone 

NAAQS in areas designated attainment as shown by the EPA’s own ozone monitoring 

data. Ozone monitor data reveals that eleven counties from 2010-2012 had exceedances 

that are above attainment/unclassifiable levels. Looking at data from 2011-2013, ten 

counties again show exceedances of 0.076 ppm or higher. These monitors reveal that 

ozone concentrations in these areas exceed the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, and thus ozone 

concentrations are above the level deemed safe for public health. See OK Ozone 

Monitors 2009-2013, Excel Worksheet “OK Ozone Monitors 2009-13”, attached hereto 

as Ex. 6; see also EPA AirData: Monitor Values Report, 

http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html. Despite these exceedences, no areas with 

monitoring exceedances, and in fact no area in Oklahoma, is designated nonattainment. 

77 Fed. Reg. 30,088, 30,141-142 (May 21, 2012) (labeling all of Oklahoma unclassifiable 

/attainment). Oklahoma must demonstrate how the Draft I-SIP is designed to address 

these exceedences to ensure attainment and maintainance of the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. 

The 2008 eight-hour ozone monitor values are listed below for the violating 

counties from 2009 to 2013. 
10

Table 1: Fourth Highest Monitor Values of Counties with Three-Year Averages 

from 2010 to 2013 equal to 0.076 ppm or Above 

County

(Monitor 

Number)

Average

2010-2012

Average

2011-2013

Caddo

(#400159008) 0.077 0.080

Canadian

(#400170101) 0.076 0.076

Cherokee

(#400219002) 0.076 0.074

Cleveland

(#400270049) 0.076 0.076

Comanche

(#400310651) 0.075 0.077

Creek

(#400370144) 0.078 0.078

Kay

(#400719010) 0.072 0.077

Mayes

(#400979014) 0.078 0.077

Oklahoma

(#401090033) 0.077 0.078

Oklahoma

(#401090096) 0.077 0.076

Oklahoma9

(#401091037) 0.079 0.079

Ottawa

(#401159004) 0.076 0.076

Tulsa10

(#401430137-1) 0.080 0.08

Tulsa

(#401430174) 0.077 0.077

Tulsa

(#401430178) 0.078 0.077

Tulsa

(#401431127) 0.08 0.080

See Ex. 5. 

 ODEQ has not even attempted to demonstrate that emissions allowed by the Draft 

I-SIP will ensure compliance with the eight-hour ozone standard.11 As demonstrated by 

EPA’s own monitoring data, these three-year averages show an alarming trend in 

Oklahoma’s air quality.12 The air quality is not improving. In most areas, ozone 

 

9

 This monitor and thus county also showed exceedances from 2009-2011. 10 This monitor and thus county also showed exceedances from 2009-2011. 11 ODEQ stated that “[n]o specific enforceable emission limitations or other control measures, means, or 

techniques have been identified as necessary to attain or maintain the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.” Draft I-SIP at 

2. However, ODEQ is clearly mistaken because the monitors show exceedances of the 2008 standard.

12 The evidence of poor air quality is particularly troubling in light of Oklahoma’s asthma rates. As of 2008, 

the Center for Disease Control reported 241,011 adults and 88,825 children living with asthma. See
11

concentrations are actually getting worse. The monitoring data proves that Oklahoma 

Draft I-SIP is inadequate to meet the 2008 ozone standards. In order for Oklahoma to 

comply with the Clean Air Act and the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A), Oklahoma 

must revise its I-SIP to include enforceable emission limits and other measures which 

will ensure the attainment and maintenance of the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. 

B. Adding control devices and emissions limits on electric generating 

units are a cost effective option to reduce NOx and attain and 

maintain the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. 

Under section 110(a)(2)(A), the I-SIP must “include enforceable emission 

limitations . . . as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary 

or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements” of the Clean Air Act (which include 

the requirement to maintain compliance with the NAAQS. Control devices and limits on 

coal-fired electric generating units (“EGUs”) are likely the most cost effective option to 

ensure the 2008 Ozone NAAQS are attained and maintained. Nitrogen Oxides, an ozone 

precursor, can be reduced cost-effectively through installation of selective catalytic 

reduction (“SCR”) technology at EGUs where it is not already in place and by imposing 

short-term stringent emission limits on all EGUs. Notably, at least three major coalburning power plants in Oklahoma do not have SCR technology or have not announced 

plans to retire: Muskogee, Sooner, and one unit at the GRDA plant. 

In Oklahoma where at least ten counties show exceedances of the 2008 Ozone 

NAAQS, all EGUs should have emission limits based on available and demonstrated 

control technology. SCR catalysts have been applied over the last 20 years as retrofits to 

existing power plants across the country and have a proven track record of meeting low 

emission rates. In particular, a limit of 0.07 pound per MMBtu (“lb/MMBtu”) based on 

an eight-hour averaging time that applies at all times, including during startup and shut 

down is readily achieveable. EPA has long acknowledged that 90% removal efficiency 

for SCR on coal-burning units is achievable. See EPA, “Ambient Air Quality Impact 

Report for Desert Rock Energy Facility PSD Permit,” at 8, attached hereto as Ex. 7. 

Thus, taking even the highest emission rate that EPA has set with no post-combustion 

control, that is 0.5 lb/MMBtu and applying the 90% control from SCR, an emission limit 

of 0.05 lb/MMBtu is clearly achievable. However, ODEQ could add a 40% “safety 

factor” and establish limitations in the ISIP at 0.07 lb/MMBtu. A review of the 

RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse demonstrates that numerous PSD permits for coalburning boilers were issued during the “coal rush” of the first decade of this century with 

emission limits of 0.07 lb/MMBtu. Towards the end of the coal rush, BACT was lowered 

to 0.05 lb/MMBtu. EPA acknowledged, in setting BACT for the Desert Rock facility, 

that even 0.05 lb/MMBtu involves a significant “safety factor.” In 2001, Babcock & 

Wilcox Company, in its paper, “How Low Can We Go”, attached hereto as Ex. 8, said 

that 0.016 lb/MMBtu was achievable for bituminous coal and 0.008 lb/MMBtu for 

Powder River Basin coal. See Ex. 8 at 5, Table 2. 

Actual data confirms that 0.07 lb/MMBtu is easily achievable. For example, 

 

Center for Diesease Control, State Profiles: Asthma in Oklahoma, 

http://www.cdc.gov/asthma/stateprofiles/asthma_in_ok.pdf.
12

during the 2006 ozone season, approximately 88 coal-fired units achieved emission limits 

of less than 0.07. See CAMD NOx Ranked Low to High Ozone 2006, attached hereto as 

Ex. 9. While these emission rates should be based on 0.07 lb/MMBtu, the limit should 

actually set as a lb/hour limit, calculated by multiplying 0.07 MMBtu/hr times the 

maximum allowable heat input or maximum heat input in prior permit applications for 

the EGU. Setting the limit in lb/hour ensures consistent protection of the ambient air 

quality regardless of whether the claimed maximum heat input capacity for the unit is 

accurate or changes in the future. In addition, a limit in lb/hour addresses the issue of 

startup and shutdown. Even if the NOx emission rate in lb/MMBtu is higher during 

startup and shutdown when the SCR cannot be engaged, the source should be able to 

remain under the limit because the heat input is lower during startup and shutdown. 

Ideally, the limit should be based on a 1-hour or 8-hour averaging time to protect 

the 8-hour averaging time of the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. This is especially important for 

coal burning EGUs, because electricity demand tends to be highest on hot, summer days, 

which coincides with those times when ozone levels are the worst. Without short-term 

averaging times, EGUs could emit NOx at higher rates at precisely the time when the 

ozone levels are the worst and still meet the emission limit using a longer-term average 

period by reducing their NOx emissions during periods when the ozone levels are not as 

severe. 

Under no circumstances can any averaging time longer than a 24-hour averaging 

time with an emission limit based on 0.070 lb/MMBtu comply with the legal 

requirements. To begin with, over seven years ago, EPA determined that an emission 

limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu based on a 24-hour averaging time was economically and 

technically achievable and thus BACT for a coal-fired power plant. See Ex. 7at 14.13 

Furthermore, while the emission rates provided in Exhibit 9 are for the entire ozone 

season, there are dozens of units that operate substantially below 0.070 lb/MMBtu. If a 

coal-burning EGU unit normally operated at rates similar to these units, it would have the 

ability to comply with the 24-hour average based on 0.070 lb/MMBtu even if in some 

hours it operated at a higher rate. Similarly, with other technologies such as low NOx

burners and overfire air, the emission rates could be in the 0.15 lb/MMBtu range when 

the SCR is not operating. For example, the Labadie power plant in Missouri operates in 

the 0.11 to 0.12 lb/MMBtu range without post- combustion controls. A boiler with a 0.15 

lb/MMBtu emission rate without operating SCR and an SCR that can remove 90% NOx

can operate 8 hours with no SCR in a 24 hour period and still maintain compliance with a 

24-hour average emission limit based on 0.070 lb/MMBtu. Finally, as noted above, the 

limit should actually be set in lb/hr. Therefore, the units could operate at a lower heat 

input for certain hours in order to maintain compliance with a 24-hour average limit. 

 

13 The fact that EPA’s decision was for the proposed Desert Rock facility, rather than an existing facility, is 

a distinction without a difference. Similarly, the Newmont facility had a 24-hour averaging time limit of 

0.067 lb/MMBtu almost a decade ago. Id.
13

C. The Draft I-SIP fails to include measures that ensure compliance 

with section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act regarding the 2008 Ozone 

NAAQS.

Oklahoma’s Draft I-SIP fails to include measures that sufficiently demonstrate 

that it will comply with section 110(a)(2)(A), and therefore it cannot ensure the proper 

implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS as required. As 

discussed, under section 110(a)(2)(A), the I-SIP must “include enforceable emission 

limitations . . . as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary 

or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements” of the Clean Air Act (which include 

the requirement to maintain compliance with the NAAQS). Yet, Oklahoma’s submission 

neither includes nor references emission limitations or other required measures that 

ensure compliance with the eight-hour primary Ozone NAAQS. See generally Draft ISIP. 

The statutory and regulatory sections that ODEQ incorporated into its Draft I-SIP 

are insufficient to ensure compliance with the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.14 In particular, 

ODEQ’s Draft I-SIP does not provide sufficient emission limits on large NOx sources to 

guarantee the NAAQS will be attained and maintained. For example, with respect to new 

solid fossil fuel-burning sources, the Draft I-SIP cites to the existing Oklahoma Air 

Pollution Control Rules, OAC 252:100-33, standard of 0.70 lb/MMBtu, which is too 

weak to comply with the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. See Draft I-SIP at 2. That limit is ten 

times higher than the limit proven to be easily achievable, as discussed above. Moreover, 

critically, it only applies to new sources and does not address older, inefficient EGUs that 

are emitting NOx at much higher levels. In addition, if the sources cannot meet this limit 

during startup or shutdown, Oklahoma’s existing regulations allow it to be waived and 

replaced with laxer requirements. As evidenced by the fact that at least ten counties in 

Oklahoma have design values exceeding the NAAQS, these weak existing provisions do 

not ensure that Oklahoma will attain and maintain the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. The 

exceedences demonstrated by EPA’s monitoring data shows that more stringent 

requirements must be placed on sources of ozone precursors. See Ex. 6. It is clear that 

the standards contained within the Draft I-SIP were created for the less stringent, 

outdated 1997 NAAQS and must be revised to reflect the applicable 2008 standard. 

 

14 Sierra Club notes that Oklahoma has submitted Ozone Advance Plans for Oklahoma City and Tulsa. See 

generally Letter from Eddie Terrill, Division Director, Air Quality Division, ODEQ, to Laura Bunte, Ozone 

Advance (Oct. 25, 2013), available at

http://www.incog.org/Environmental_Planning/Documents/FINAL%20Tulsa%20Path%20Forward%20Act

ion%20Plan%20for%20Ozone%20Advance%20Oct-2013.pdf [hereinafter “Tulsa Ozone Advance”]; see 

also generally Eddie Terrill, Division Director, Air Quality Division, ODEQ, to Laura Bunte, Ozone 

Advance (May 31, 2013) available at http://www.epa.gov/ozoneadvance/pdfs/20130531ok.pdf [hereinafter 

“Oklahoma City Ozone Advance”]. While we applaud Oklahoma’s recognition of the problem in at least 

two counties and its efforts to address the ozone exceedances, the plans contain many voluntary measures, 

which are legally insufficient to ensure attainment and maintaniance of the NAAQS. These plans also 

suggest that Oklahoma acknowledges the need to revise its NOx emission limit on major sources. See Tulsa 

Ozone Advance at 28; see also Oklahoma City Ozone Advance at 4. We would be happy to provide more 

information about adequate NOx emission limits as part of the ozone advance plan process. Further, we 

are concerned about the plan’s suggested averaging time, a thirty-day rolling average. Id. A thirty-day 

rolling averaging period is inadequate to protect an eight-hour standard. 
14

Further, the Draft I-SIP impermissibly allows for ambient air incremental 

increases, variances, exceptions, or exclusions with regard to limits placed on sources of 

ozone precursors, and so further fails to assure attainment of the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. 

The Draft I-SIP incorporates existing regulatory provisions that allow exemptions from 

enforcement that undermine the programs meant to ensure attainment and maintenance 

with the NAAQS. See Draft I-SIP at 2. For instance, in the Oklahoma Clean Air Act, a 

variance may be granted by the Council for any provision of the Oklahoma Clean Air Act 

under certain circumstances. See 27A O.S.§2-5-109. Moreover, OAC 252:100-9-8 

allows owners and operators of any size sources to be relieved of a civil or administrative 

penalty, thus evading enforcement actions for excess emissions during periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction. These provisions and others not discussed in these 

comments undermine the efficacy of the I-SIP by permitting sources to evade 

enforcement and emit excess emissions, preventing Oklahoma from attaining and 

maintaining the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. 

As a result of all of these inadequacies, exemptions, variances, and other 

shortfalls not listed in these comments, the Draft I-SIP cannot ensure that Oklahoma will 

attain and maintain the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. In particular, the Draft I-SIP fails to 

address large sources of NOx pollution. Oklahoma must revise its I-SIP to include 

enforceable emission limits at its largest sources, the Muskogee, Sooner, and GRDA 

power plants, that address the exceedances shown by the monitoring data and that 

otherwise address the eight-hour Ozone NAAQS, and it must update its emission 

regulations to ensure that proper mass limitations and short term averaging periods are 

imposed on large NOx sources, including coal-fired power plants. 

D. Enforceable emission limits are necessary to avoid nonattainment 

designations 

In addition to being a required component of the I-SIP, enforceable emission 

limits—either in permits or source-specific SIP provisions—are necessary to avoid 

nonattainment designations in areas where modeling or monitoring shows that ozone 

levels exceed the eight-hour NAAQS. Oklahoma should use this I-SIP process to address 

current ozone exceedances in at least ten counties and prevent these counties from being 

redesignated as nonattainment for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, or designated nonattainment 

for the forthcoming Ozone NAAQS, by adding appropriate enforceable emission limits 

on NOx sources.15 In order to comply with section 110(a)(2)(A) and avoid nonattainment 

designations for areas impacted by high ozone levels, ODEQ must amend the Draft I-SIP 

to ensure that large sources of NOx cannot continue to contribute to exceedances of the 

eight-hour Ozone NAAQS. 

 

15 In January, EPA solicited comments on the Ozone NAAQS. See generally Review of National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for Ozone; Draft Document (Doc ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0699-0116) (Jan. 29. 

2014).
15

III. OKLAHOMA’s I-SIP FAILS TO ENSURE THAT ITS SOURCES 

ARE NOT SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTING TO 

NONATTAINMENT OR INTERFERENCE WITH 

MAINTENANCE OF THE NAAQS IN DOWNWIND STATES. 

Oklahoma must address interstate transport of Oklahoma’s emissions that would 

contribute to exceedances or interfere with the maintenance of the NAAQS. Under 

section 110(a)(2)(D), a SIP must contain “adequate provisions (i) prohibiting . . . any 

source . . . 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 . . . .” 42 

U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I); see also EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, No. 12-1182, 

slip op. at 14 (U.S. Apr. 29,2014) (reiterating that this is a mandatory duty) [hereinafter 

“Homer City”]. Oklahoma’s Infrastructure SIP, as proposed, fails to address any crossstate impacts that are due to sources within the state. See Draft I-SIP at 6. This is 

inadequate and should result in EPA disapproving the submittal. 

 The Clean Air Act sets a mandatory duty for states to submit I-SIPs within three 

years of promulgation of a NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1). Under CAA section 110, 

there is no prerequisite action required, such as EPA issuing guidance, before states must 

fulfill their mandatory duty. S ee Homer City at 14 (“the CAA sets a series of precise 

deadlines to which the States and EPA must adhere.”). ODEQ cannot rely on the fact 

that EPA’s 2013 I-SIP Guidance does not address interstate transport provisions. See

Draft I-SIP at 6.16 This guidance directly contradicts the language of the Clean Air Act. 

Therefore, Oklahoma must create a SIP to address Prongs 1 and 2 of the interstate 

provisions and provide the public with an opportunity to comment on it.17

 Moreover, ODEQ cannot rely on its Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program and Air Quality Impact regulation, OAC 252:100-8-35. See Draft I-SIP at 6. 

That program and regulation apply only to new sources and modifications. Thus, sources 

are only evaluated under those regulations when built or undergoing a major modification 

and only evaluated for contribution to the NAAQS at the time of that action. Thus, a 

plant built as recently as 2007 would not have submitted to ODEQ an analysis of its 

compliance with the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. Consequently, ODEQ must revise its I-SIP to 

adequately address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

 

16 The Supreme Court has resoundingly disapproved the belief that states cannot address the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), the Good Neighbor provision, until EPA first calculates the budget of emisisons and gives 

upwind states the opportunity to propose SIP’s allocating those budgets among in-state sources before 

issuing a FIP. See Homer City, 696 F.3d 7, 37 (D.C. Cir. 2012), rev’d, No. 12-1182, slip op. at 27-28 (U.S. 

Apr. 29,2014) (stating “nothing in the statute places EPA under an obligation to provide specific metrics to 

States before they undertake to fulfill their good neighbor obligations” and finding the D.C. Circuit 

impermissably altered the clear deadlines in the Act).

17 Just as EPA has historically used air dispersion modeling in attainment designations and SIP revisions, so 

has the agency relied on modeling to assess cross-state impacts under the Act’s Good Neighbor provision—

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Under Clean Air Interstate Rule (“CAIR”) and the Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule (“CSAPR”), as well as the 2003 NOx SIP Call, EPA has used modeling to determine pollutants’ crossstate impacts. Note that the D.C. Circuit court never questioned the agency’s use of modeling to assess 

cross-state impacts. See generally North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
16

In light of the recent Homer City Supreme Court decision, ODEQ should act 

quickly to address pollution that may be contributing to another state’s nonattainment or 

interfering with another state’s maintenance of the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. The Court’s 

decision means Oklahoma must address its exceedances under its own volition, or EPA 

will be required to act instead. Oklahoma should take the opportunity now to place 

enforceable emission limits on large sources contributing to problems with the attainment 

and maintenance of the NAAQS in other states. ODEQ must provide provisions in its 

proposed I-SIP to ensure that pollution from Oklahoma is not preventing other states 

from attaining or maintaining the eight-hour ozone NAAQS. 

IV. OKLAHOMA’S DRAFT I-SIP FAILS TO INCLUDE 

INFORMATION REGARDING THE EMERGENCY EPISODE 

PLAN.

Under section 110(a)(2)(G), Oklahoma must provide an emergency plan. Here, 

Oklahoma claims that this requirement has been satisfied by a plan submitted in 1972 and 

revised in 1988. See Draft I-SIP at 11.18 However, ODEQ does not provide the plan or a 

link to the plan for the public to evaluate whether it is sufficient to meet the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(G). In order for the public to adequately weigh whether the 

emergency episode plan is sufficient, Oklahoma must provide the plan. Thus, Oklahoma 

should revise its Draft I-SIP to include the emergency plan. 

V. CONCLUSION 

The Draft I-SIP fails to ensure that the eight-hour Ozone NAAQS are attained and 

maintained, as described above. Oklahoma must adopt new provisions into the I-SIP to 

protect public health and comply with the Act’s requirements. Sierra Club would be 

happy to provide any other information that might assist Oklahoma in evaluating the 

impacts of these sources and developing an I-SIP in full compliance with the Clean Air 

Act.

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Elizabeth Toba Pearlman

Elizabeth Toba Pearlman 

Office of Elizabeth Toba Pearlman 

1523 27th Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20007 

(202) 643-4068 

etplaw@gmail.com 

 

18 The Commenter disagrees that Oklahoma can ignore its duty to address visibility requirements under 

Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(J). See Draft I-SIP at 13. The statute clearly states that each plan shall 

meet the requirements relating to visibility protection. See 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(J).
17

Laurie Williams 

Associate Attorney 

Sierra Club 

50 F Street, NW, Eighth Floor 

 Washington, DC 20001 

 (202) 548-4597 

 laurie.williams@sierraclub.org 

 On behalf of Sierra Club