## 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

11 

## 0uidance 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:astructure 11 

## 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 1 2, 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 o f 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 cha nges 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 Compl eteness of Plan Submissions.

1 

### For Example, EPA approved Oklahoma’s Infrastructure SIP (or “I-SIP”) for the 1997 Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 

### 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 Administra tive 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 revision s 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 PM 2.5 ); 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 3 7 , Control of Emission of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) (252:100

- 37 ) , and subchapter 39, Emission of Volatile Organic Compou nds (VOCs) in Nonattainment Areas and Former Nonattainment Areas (252:100

- 39)

. The July 23, 2010 SIP submittal (“Big SIP2 ”) included changes to Subchapter s 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 t o 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, enumerate s 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 Netw ork 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 r eview to EPA R egion 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 o zone from the 1970’s to present

. Oklahoma ’s ambient air monitoring network is consistent with the o zone

related monitoring requirements of 40 CFR Part 58

. No changes to the

o zone monitoring network we re 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 na tional 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 ( T itle 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 maintena nce 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 progra m that applies to nonattainment NSR within nonattainment areas (CAA T itle I part D) to be outside the scope of the infrastructure SIP requirements 3 and 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 PM 2.5 Implementation), and the February 4 , 201 3 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 na rrowing 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 thro ugh 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 Pro vi sions 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 res pect 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, 4 but does not otherwise address interstate transport provisions which prohibit significant contribution to no nattainment 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 ai r quality control rule at OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35 requires major stationary sources to demonstrate that t he 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 NO X 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 PM 2.5 

### 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 PM 2.5 

### NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 

### NAAQS (76 Fed. Reg. 81838, Dec. 29, 2011). In the same action, EPA approved the portions of th e 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 NO X 

### 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
g uidance and implement any finally adjudicated program changes

. EPA is currently in the process of developin g an ozone modeling platform and a system to assess each state ’ s impact on nonattainment or interferenc e with maintenance of the 2008 8

- hour Ozone NAAQS in another state for the eastern half of the c ontiguous 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 NAAQ S 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 PM 2.5 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, Par t 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 disapp roved portions of the Interstate Transport SIP for an Assessment of Oklahoma’s Impact on Downwind Nonattainment for the National Ambient 8

- hour Ozone and PM 2.5 Air Quality Standards (“Transport SIP”)

, submitted May 10, 2007 and supplemented December 10, 20 07

, that address § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to protection of visibility. EPA issued a FIP requiring reduction of SO 2 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 Transpo rt 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 significan t impact levels) would be addressed through a separate submission.

Ozone from o zone 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 PM 2.5 emissions do not interfere with any other state’s measures to protect visibility

. T his 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 unde r OAC 252:100

- 8

- 8 (SIP revision approved November 26, 2010 at 75 Fed.Reg. 72695 ) . This notice meet s the requirements of § 126 of the CAA.

Evaluation requirements under the PSD Program are adequate to assure compliance with international pollution abateme nt 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 fro m 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 appropriation s, permit application fees, annual operating fees, and f ederal grants under CAA § § 103 & 105

, among other s

. 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 en forcement 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 200 8 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 implementa tion 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 emiss ions 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 inspe ction; 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
sep arately with respect to the following pollutants: s ulfur 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 emer gency 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 ozon e 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 whi ch 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 t

he 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 a t 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 a nd 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 201 0

. 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 a pproved 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 notificat ion of o zone 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.

Okla homa’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 G uidance

, EPA stated the belief that there are no new visibility protection requirements under P art C of the CAA that would result from a revised NAAQS

. T herefore, the visibility sub

- element of Element J need not be addressed in an infrastructure SIP submission 7

. 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 qua lity 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 curren tly 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 th e 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 a pproved SIP includes established opportunities for consultation and participation by local political subdi visions 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, to wns, 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 m odifications, 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 CF R § 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

20 08 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 Depa rtment 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 1 st 

## 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., Mo nday, 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 a nd 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 ce rtification 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 noti ce 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 Wm O ows Internet**lxplor r**  prov1ded by Oklahoma OfQ



### • l i!u**ntt l'/~**  . do.,

. state .ok .us 'oaa..w/"<i". n tm•

Flo Edt View Favootes T ools Hoi>

F avorites 

### I

- 

### g Al ta \lstaMar1 P age )!j Comedok<lld.W>ma Wob..**clroct,.arch** ·W eb s

..

·rn

.. @J**Dogpilo~ar ch**  itl FmHotm.oi 

### • ' t**~** @.] GPO>IJti.Qataba,. Search OO: saus ·SeardwlQ fur Soenco**W-totl-<;o-Qual** ... X (.

, • !li'l • P age • S.fetyo Tools • fi • » 

# L:;

Oklahoma Departm e nt of Envl1onmenlal Quality

Qnn D r

ese i {Fundr ng

AOD Site Ind ex

Will E mi s s i on s**~** E nvi r o nm e n ta l**~** 

# r--- Welcome to the Air Qua lit y Division 

### mm:cr!:l I EPA BURNWJSll lo TUTORIALS I**IMu~n"E olAI**  I ASTHKA • AJR I



# Open for 

# Comments:**1** IO (a)(2) In frast ru c tu re Stale I m pl e m e n t ati o n Pl a n**1()()8** P ri m ary & S ec

o nd ary Ozo n e Na t io nal

, \mille/I t A i r Qualill' Sra nd a 1d s

We are t aki n g co m ments u nti l n oo n 4 / 3 0 / 14 a n d h ea ri n g requests un t i ll O a.m. Mo n day 4 / 28 / 1 4 o n o u r in frastruct ur e review for i mpl e m entinQ t h e 2008 ch a n Qes t o t h e Prim ary a nd Se<:o nd ary Ozo n e NAAQS.

Get More I n f o rma bon On The Ru l es & Planning Pa ge

Wh a t is a i r qu a lity ? The amo unt o= p o ll ut i o n in the a ir fr om a ll so ur ces 4 natura l an d h u man

- define s th e q u a li ty o f : h e a ir we b r ea th e

. Ai r po ll u t io n i s n ' t lim l: e d t o o u r d ti es; it c a n blo w in to a n y p a rt of Ok l a hom a f r om n e i g hb oring s t ates

. Why i s it im portan t ? B a d a ir qu a lit y ca n a ff ect e v ery b o d y ' s h ea lt h

. I t can h ave d i rect e ff ects o n the l u n gs , a n d i t ca n worse n a n ex i s tin g co n di ti on, suc h as ast h m a. Some pe o pl e
a r e mor e se n s iti ve to a i r po lluti o n th a n o th e r s. Th ese i ncl u d e yo u n Q c hil d r e n
w h o a r e g r ow in Q r ap i d l y a nd o l de r a dult s w h o h a v e r ed u ce d i m m un e sys t e m s.

P oo r public h ea lth a l so i ncu r s ec o n om i c co s t s for society

, e. g

. , in creased h ea lt h<:a r e cos t s a n d l oss of workino d avs

. And a dean e n v ir o n m en t m a k es 

## [ r • start l**~** w otco m o to tho Air Q

- H : '/<LlES\SIP MASTB!V

.. 1 Sk10 to Ma1n Content

# l**~** 

# · - Air Oua ll tv Index

No O zo o

e o

r PM
W

o t c b In [!f ee t

AIR Q U A LITY H O M E

Mo n1 to r jng A1r Oyalitv &

A lerttna the PubiK

Air Oualrtv Resou r ces for the PYbhc

R ea y ! atory programs**I'll~** 

### II [e I ntomo t I l'r oto<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?**  Sp eci al Announ c e m e nt s

N ew ! O p e n f o r Co mm e n ts: Pr oposed 2 00 8 Ozo n e N AA Q S I -S I P

AQO is tak i ng comme n ts and hearing requests on the proposed certification that O k lahoma h as adequat e resou r ces and authority to im p lemen t
, ma t nt at n , and enforce the 2008 Ozone (03) National Amb i ent Air Qua l ity standards (NAAQS). The

co mm e nt period runs through noon on Wednesday

, Ap ri l 30th. A hearing (if one is req u ested by 10 : 00 a.m. Monday, 4/28/20 14 ) wou l d be held on Wednesday, April 3 0, 20 1 4 from 10:00 a

. m. to 12:00 noor i n CEQ's 1st Floor Mu l tipurpose Room

. See the**linked ~**  and proposed**infrastructure** rev1ew " table & Wfl:

cert i fication l etter for more speofi c s. Yol. may check this web site or call (405) 702 · 4100, 24 hours prior to the schedu l ed ti'Tle for the hearing, to find out if it has been

c a ncell ed

. Pos t ed**~n:h** 2 8. 2014

2014 Emissions Inventory Works h op p r es entati o n s N o w Av p ih t ble !

The presentatiOns from ou r 20 1 4 Em t ssi::ms Inventory Workshop are now poste d. Gene r al 1ssues and new report i ng ouidance were presented along w ith training developed for those reporting inventories for the first time. Posted Jan.-ylt, 2014

Emis s i o n I n v e nt o ry Requir e m e n ts f o r PB R Fa c i lit i es

Emergency revis • ons to OA C 252 : 100

- 5 we re s i gned i nto effect on 9 / 10/2013 by Gove r nor Fallin. New facilities obta•ning a Permt by Rule ( PBR) in 2 0 13 wi ll not be

ro:>no 1 i ro:>rt

.. , c" o

hmit- "'"' o:>micocoinn ;,.., ., ......

,.,. , , fnr**,.~,,;n ,**  ;,.., 'J01'1 l=:"'icoco i n,.., in,e>n

.. nrie>c fnr

t • surt l l e Wh at'sN cwin Ah'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 Edi t View F o5VOI'ites

FavoritM 

### I ""' [J

l:!tln**esel lf** **und~ng**

AOp S ite Index



## r-- Ai r Qua lity Rules & Planning

AQ O i s ta k i n!J co m m e nts and h e ar in!J r e q u ests on the proposed certifi cation that Oklahoma h a s adeQuate resources and authonty to Implement, ma1nta1n, and enforce the 2008 Ozone Nationa l Amb i ent Air Quality Standa r ds (NAAQ S ). The comment period runs through noon on Wednesd a y, April 30th. A h eari n g (if one is requested by 10 : 00 a

. m. Monda y, 4/28 /201 4 ) would be held on Wednesday, April 30, 2014 from 10 : 00 a .m. to 12:00 noon in DEQ ' s 1st F l oor Mu l tipurpose Roo m

. See the**ed ~**  and p r ooosed

.. infrastnJct ur e**revtew ~**  tab l e & .d!.5lft**Q~rtifiCatlon** l e tter for more speofiCs. You may check th t s web site o r call (405) 702

· 4100, 24 h ours prior to the schedu l ed time for the hearing, to find o ut if i t has been cancelled. Posted H Mc h 28. 2 01 4

What is

. a Stat e Imp l e m e nta ti on Plan ? latnh &**~ca l**  services

The fed • e.ra l Clean Ai r Act beca m e law i n 197 1 and was amen d ed in 1 990. It provides the nationa l framework for efforts to protect a i r qual i ty

. The U S EPA has d e lega te d most of t 11e avai l ab le pro g rams f or imp l ementing and enforcing the act to the Air Qu a lity Divis i on of DEQ

. Regu l a6o n a t the state level means that local needs a nd condit i ons are better understolJd, responded to

, and managed.

An EPA

- approv e d State Imp l ementa tion P l an (S IP ) lays out the goa l s and procedures f or the dai l y operatio n s of AQD. It includes t he Oklahoma Atr Oy a lity Rules and other stra t egies developed at the state leve l for imp l ementing the various federal air quality programs

. The SIP i s regu l arty reviewed and amended as necessary.

How iJr e O kla h o ma's A ir Q uality Rul e s Mad e? The AQD Rules and P l a n n i n g Section proposes ru le updates to t he A1r Oyality Couool

, whidl consists of nine members appointed b y the Governor to represent various Oklahoma

s t a k eho l ders, Afte r proposed rule changes have been open for public review and comment, p u blic hearin Q s are he l d. If a rule change i s appr oved by the Council, i t is recommended to the Q!ili 1 homa Env i ronmenta l Qua l ity Soard

. Once adopted by the Board, the n e w ru l es p r oceed to th e State legislature and the Governor for final approva l.

Upcom i ng Air Qua l ity Counci l meeting dates

, proposed rules and agendas can be found**h~ .**  CIK:k M(g: for a Quick Re f erence Guide to PubiK: PartK:1pat:10n in the A i r Quality Rulemalcin g P rocess !

U pco m i n g Pu b l ic M ee tin gs**sta rt** **ll Rules&.**  Plann i Rg Hom.- H:\R l.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 o r PM Wa t c h [a [ (f ee t

A1r Ou a litv Home

WHAT 'S NEW I N A IR Q U A UTY ?

.:J**In~t Pro~Modt::Off**  _j 0 • • .,. , 00 % • ..d**~** P> li!!J (f l) ' ' '""' I!!

- 

# ..**~** 

### r:: l .!l

" ""'

=---------- p

.

Sk1p to Ma1n Con t ent

## l**~** 

# · - Atr Oya li ty Index

N o O zo n e o r PM
W atc b In [ ((ec t

Air Qu a lity Home

RULE S & P LANNING**~**

Air Du a lity Rules

Oklahoma Air Qua l ity Counp t

Reot o naj Haze

.e!..i.o.n!n.a**~ ~r**  9 1nt<mct I P,otectedMode,off Ej_l ll l' a • + , 100 % ---:--:a:**~** fl:> lliJ ()>J 3'36PM 1!1**u.c:~** t.mlSll>a1**JfC' ~** **:~~.; l**  

## Op e n f or C ornmc n t s:

!illlli•l(Jl llllnmrurture

811111 lm t llt•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 noo n 4/30 / 14**~n (l**  ht_., nno**ep,~ ~~**  until 10 .)

. m.**MMd<~v** 4 /2 4/ 1 • on our**'ll astruetu** **~** re'nll!w lor**IITII)tem~** lh t 2008 eh a n ou t o t:h e Prim.'ltY .:. nd**$~ry O~o** **f:** NAA QS

.**Nol'G~Ml'$r ftJr•pu** **blk ~**  w.n**~by** tM dPU of thtt 3041y r)O(b (Mnl)d

. JbM! (or.,_ tbue

,. .**bit ~**  iWr ll'lrQ..

HOwo ro Mlol'e Q)Mtnfltlt •

Wb o t b o i r (fUjlf i ty?**~** NnOl.lf'lt olpo!Uion n**th E>~**  f rom ;at**~ovrCM** •**~.J ..Jnd**  huma n · dtfinK

me wa ht y cf tht • we bl ut h e. A.**~n** lllnl '-'"led to our otJet ; A. eill\ blow .nt o .J n '/ pan of**ld ~~**  f r Qm n eigtlbonno st¥E"t:·
Wby b it i mportMff la d**-~ ld:** **v«~n atl~**  111.,..,;ybody"s h ulth

. lt t
,. 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$1bve to • I)Oivtlon tt• an othtr t.. Thtst lf'ldud<i! YOU'tQ dltlck en who '"'9'C>W ino r .Jpidty .J nd o l(l @l'**.Jd~s** w hQ**h<~V t~** **~** •r sttm$.

Poor P\lblk h e*h ;abo II'IQ,Irl ecooomic**~'for** societY

. e .Q.

. mer e ased h(:.,lt:t'!Qreco«" .:.1'1<1 kl u**Of~** d:tyS

. Arid.;.**dt >~** **n rw** **ronmC~W. ~~**  <*lahoma an ant actiVe (Ifact t o tve
, w«'e and o&av : somed'WtoQ we ca n aa be**oro d~** **.** W"in**cl~l>** ti le Ai r 0\HIII t y V l vh. I OI'I clo t "km:**~.w e**  w ori( to**el'f ~etf**  pr««t the public hectllh In Old•honut

, weclott\i$by :

AirQu"l i ty Rul e.5**~ Pl~uu** **ing Ll** **~JI,'f{",.;. ,\** **'0'•'** I "' '!.IK".J."•r'·"''l**A.K"'il'~** "St:!niiAM.'**O..V,.,,J"taCCiotorv -..** **~mentoi C** 

AQO Is t• k lno c omcnents •hd ll ea rfn.a l'eoCIU es ts 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

, 20 1.; fn)m 10 c OO•.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:f 1o** **'**

... 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 i s,. St.n t.-lmp l t! nl(:fll<l!l'ocl Pl.na ?**Th <efedlilraiOeanAIIAd** **~~lil lr'l** **97 at\dw** **01****i""*'<'ed****l!'l1990 .** **tPI'~th<t ~**  ft lomtW otk fo r**~o rts**  t o l)f'O t f!tt .J ir**~lity .**  fbe US £ PA hM:**l@d** tnO$t of ttl@**~v:~::.~,~~****~~~:==~~(~~,.*~~=~****r~J)OMCd** to
, :md m;,n;,oed

.
AA**CP A~ovtd**  !tattt lmoMmentibon**~** ( !HP ) l ay t OIA. lh t: QOahi <lfld pr«lkb.r:t f or th e**~=:.:r:" ~"'~~te~~.:** **ah='vt~t :r** **~t ~~** **~~ ~~T~\e**  $ 1 .P" rE!gll.ll:;. tt y r..WW.cl ¥1(1 Mn.ncif!d•s ,..;: esS.JtY.

How**M~** Ok

.. hclnwl ' s A i t QuaGty**thd e~**  M 11de '

l Th ot AQ_0 Rui !!S Cl nd**Jlt <l** **~** s.ctJ0n l)r OC)OS* S 1 \M updates l O t he As Ouet'( C9'!!'l!'l! wl'ldt**of nin•**  ml@tllboH'5**~d th** **eGcwtmOf' or~s.entv~~ho** **f tal«.oholder$.**  Ml. ff**l)!~ed** • · ul ot ch.ln()<: $ h:a-1<: b con o p OI'I**Or~** re'IM!w**nd** c o, rwroer.t.**~** l"' <t•TlnO'

,,., tv>ld. t f <t nifJ <h<t n ge ' '**~ve<l** by th• CQ!Xd

, • i s**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**  flrpqjm a

.=!



# . .**~ :-rr** **~J> ~r** **-·- ""** **~ il**  -10: )&4\4



## A

® I """""""" 

# -

-**Alr~Jndtx**
No O.to •e ""**P~J W:ntlll** **f. fT~** 



# -- P •**~~~ =~~~~~~** **~=~~~'::::~r lh** **f~w f\11** **1.~ i::=** **,------- ================::::....** **----------------~rr e>** **~r o**  ....... ........ ....., .. .=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). [ Se e 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 [7 3 Fed.Reg. 16436, Mar. 27, 2008]. EPA issued the “Guidance on Infrastru cture 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 c ha nge 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 a re 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 provi de 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 nonatt ainment 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 oz one 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 1 2, 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] Secti on 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 S IP 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 cha nges 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 Compl eteness of Plan Submissions.

1 

### For Example, EPA approved Oklahoma’s Infrastructure SIP (or “I-SIP”) for the 1997 Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 

### 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 Ad ministrative 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 revision s 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 SI P submittal (“Big SIP2 ”); the July 23, 2010 SIP submittal (NSR Reform); and the March 26, 2012 SIP submittal (GHG and PM 2.5 ); 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 3 7

, Control of Emission of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) (252:100

- 37 )

. The July 23, 2010 SIP submittal (“Big SIP2 ”) included changes to Subchapter s 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, enumerate s the NAAQS and PSD increments.

Oklahoma operates an air quality moni toring 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 r eview to EPA R egion 6 monitoring staff for their review

. The FY14 ANR was posted for public review from August 5, 2013 to September 9, 2013. No publ ic 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 o zone from the 1970’s to present

. Oklahoma ’s ambient air monitoring network is consistent with the o zone

related monitoring requirements of 40 CFR Part 58

. No changes to the

o zone monitoring network we re 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 permi t 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
progr ams (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 ( T itle 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 T itle 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 Maj or 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), Decembe r 28, 2010 (PSD Increment and NAAQS for Pb), February 6, 2012 (GHG Tailoring and PM 2.5 Implementation), and the February 4 , 201 3 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 na rrowing 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 t hrough 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 Pro vi sions 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 res pect 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 t he 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 req uirements 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 NO X 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 remand ed 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 Tra nsport 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 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, was vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court. The U. S. Supreme Court has heard o ral arguments on an appeal , but has no t rendered a decision. EPA is currently in the process of developin g an ozone modeling platform and a system to assess each state ’ s impact on nonattainment or interferenc e with maintenance of the 2008 8

- hour Ozone NAAQS in another state for the eastern half of the c ontiguous 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 si gnificant 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 woul d 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 PM 2.5 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 i n 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 disapp roved portions of the Interstate Transport SIP for an Assessment of Oklahoma’s Impact on Downwind Nonattainment for the National Ambient 8

- hour Ozone and PM 2.5 Air Quality Standards (“Transport SIP”)

, submitted May 10, 2007 and supplemented December 10, 20 07

, that address § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to protection of visibility. EPA issued a FIP requiring reduction of SO 2 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 Transpo rt 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 significan t impact levels) would be addressed through a separate submission.

Ozone from o zone 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 PM 2.5 emissions do not interfere with any other state’s measures to protect visibility

. T his 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 unde r OAC 252:100

- 8

- 8 (SIP revision approved November 26, 2010 at 75 Fed.Reg. 72695 ) . This notice meet s 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 fro m 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 appropriation s, permit application fees, annual operating fees, and f ederal grants under CAA § § 103 & 105

, among other s

. 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 en forcement 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 200 8 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 implementa tion 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 emiss ions 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 inspe ction; 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, Subp art 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: s ulfur 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 sta ndard, 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 imp lements, 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), respecti vely.

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 a t 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 a nd 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 201 0

. 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 a pproved 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 notificat ion of o zone 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.

Okla homa’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 G uidance

, EPA stated the belief that there are no new visibility protection requirements under P art C of the CAA that would result from a revised NAAQS

. T herefore, the visibility sub

- element of Element J need not be addressed in an infrastructure SIP submission 4

. 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 qua lity 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 curren tly 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 th e 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 a pproved SIP includes established opportunities for consultation and participation by local political subdi visions 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, to wns, 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 m odifications, 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 CF R § 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 (O 3 

## ) 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-SIP i 

## 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 tr ansport 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 (“NO x 

## ”) 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 return ed the state of Oklahoma to attainment of the 75 ppb ozone standard in 2014.

Comment: OD EQ 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

at tain a new ozone standard is required for an attainment SIP not an infrastructure SIP. SIPquality photoche mical 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, Marg inal areas (T he classification Oklahoma might have been designated based on 2011 through 2013 ozone design values.) are only given three years to attain the
standard. Fo r 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 NO x 

## and attain and maintain the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. (page 11)

Response: DEQ im plemented 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 O 3 

## 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 NO x 

## 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 EE P
for all covere d 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 O 3 

## 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 neve r 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.

Comme nt: 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 

## V IA 

## E LECTRONIC 

## M AIL AND 

## U.S. M AIL



## 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 sections110(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, 19 0 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 O 3 

## [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 b ecome 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 benefit s analysi s 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 subs ection (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 requiremen ts 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 SO 2 

## 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 SO 2 

## 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 SO 2 

## 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 SO 2 

## 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

ex plained 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)). Pe nnsylvania 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 requi rement 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 (“NO x 

## ”) 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 NO X 

## 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 NO x 

## 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 NO 2 

## 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 sh ould require measures to reduce those emissions as part of the I

- SIP.

## 9 Oklahoma fails to demonstrate how it plans to address these significant NO x 

## 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 ) 0.0 76 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

Oklahoma 9 

### (# 401091037 ) 0.079 0.079 Ottawa (# 401159004 ) 0.076 0.076 Tulsa 10 

### (# 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 enforceabl e 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 imposingshort-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 theRACT/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 Pro files: 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 NO x 

## 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

actu ally 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 NO x 

## emission rate in lb/MMBtu is higher during

st artup 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 NO x 

## 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 NO x 

## emissions during periods when the ozone levels are not as

se vere.

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 NO x 

## 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% NO x 

## 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 NO x 

## 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 Tuls a. 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%20fo r%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/20130531 ok.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 insufficien t to ensure attainment and maintaniance of the NAAQS. These plans also suggest that Oklahoma acknowledges the need to revise its NO x 

### emission limit on major sources. See Tulsa Ozone Advance at 28; see also Oklahoma City Ozone Advance at 4. We would be ha ppy to provide more information about adequate NO
x 

### 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 NO x 

## 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 NO x 

## 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 NO x 

## 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 NO x 

## cannot continue to contribute to exceedances of the eight-hour Ozone NAAQS.

15 

### In January, EPA solicited comments on the O zone 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 ad equately address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

16 

### The S upreme 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 metr ics 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 S IP 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 NO x 

### SIP Call, EPA has used modeling to determine pollutants’ cross

state 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. C ir. 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 mai ntained, 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 v isibility 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