1 

# Technical Support Document

Oklahoma Permits SIP Revisions

EPA’s Evaluation of Revisions to the PSD Permitting Provisions in the Oklahoma SIP for PM 2.5 

## Emissions at

OAC 252:100, Subchapter 8

– Permits for Part 70 Sources

Submitted on: February 6, 2012

July 18, 2016

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Adina Wiley, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, Air Permits Section ( 6MM

- AP ), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202

- 2733, (214) 665

- 2115.2 

## Contents
I. Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 3

II. Technical Evaluation of the February 6, 2012 O klahoma SIP Submittal

........................... 6
A. Evaluation of the February 6, 2012, Oklahoma SIP Submittal with respect to the Part 51, Appendix V Comp leteness Checklist

................................ ................................ ................. 6

B. Evaluation of the February 6, 2012, Oklahoma SIP submittal with respect to the federal requirements PSD P ermitting

................................ ................................ ........................... 11
1. Background of Federal Actions

................................ ................................ .................. 11
2. Evaluation of OAC 252:100

- 8

- 33. Exemptions.

................................ ......................... 13
3. Evaluation of OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35. Air Quality Impact Evaluation.

........................... 14
C. Evaluation of the February 6, 2012, Oklahoma SIP submittal with respect to section 110(l) of the CAA

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 15

III. Conclusion

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 173 

## I. Executive Summary

This Technical Support Document (TSD) reviews severable portions of one revision to the Oklahoma State Implementation Plan (SIP) for major source permitting in attainment areas under the Clean Air Act. This review will determine if the revisions to the Oklahoma SIP are c onsistent with the requirements of the CAA and EPA’s regulations, policy and guidance.

This TSD reviews only the voluntary exemptions to PSD permitting of emissions of PM 2.5 submitted by the State of Oklahoma on February 6, 2012. Specifically, this TSD only addresses the provisions that establish the PM 2.5 Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and the PM 2.5 Signi ficant Monitoring Concentration (SMC) . The remainder of the February 6, 2012 submittal is being addressed by the EPA in a separate rulemaking.

Table 1 below identifies the disposition of each submitted provision.

Table 1 : Summary of the Oklahoma Revisions Submitted February 6, 2012 Section Title Date Submitted to EPA Ado pted by State Comments

OAC 252:100

- 1

- 3 General Provisions, Definitions February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 EPA proposed approval on 06/30/2016. See 81 FR 42587

. OAC 252:100

- 1

- 4 General Provisions, Units, abbreviations and acronyms February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 EPA proposed approval on 06/30/2016. See 81 FR 42587. OAC 252:100

- 3

- 4 Air Quality Standards and Increments, Significant deterioration increments February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 EPA proposed approval on 06/30/2016. See 81 FR 42587. March 30, 2005

OAC 252:100

- 7

- 2.1 Permits for Minor Facilities, Minor permits for greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting facilities February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 EPA proposed disapproval on January 11, 2016. See 81 FR 1141. EPA finalized disapproval on May 23, 2016. See 81 FR 32239. OAC 252:100

- 8

- 2 Permits for Part 70 Sources, Definitions February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate proposed action. OAC 252:100

- 8

- 31 PSD, Definitions February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 EPA proposed disapproval on January 11, 2016, of the severable portions of the definition of “subject to regulation” at OAC4 Table 1 : Summary of the Oklahoma Revisions Submitted February 6, 2012 Section Title Date Submitted to EPA Ado pted by State Comments

252:100

- 8

- 31 pertaining to the permitting of Step 2, non

- anyway sources. See 81 FR 1141. EPA finalized th is disapproval on May 23, 2016. See 81 FR 32239. The remainder of these revisions were proposed by EPA in a separate action on 06/30/2016. See 81 FR 42587. OAC 252:100

- 8

- 33 PSD, Exemptions February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 EPA is reviewing the PM 2.5 SMC at OAC 252:100

- 8

- 33(c)(1)(C) in this action. All other revisions to OAC 252:100

- 8

- 33 have been proposed by EPA in a separate action on 06/30/2016. See 81 FR 42587. OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35 PSD, Air quality impact evaluation February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 EPA is reviewing the PM 2.5 SILs at OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35(a)(2) in this action. All other revisions to OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35 have been proposed by EPA in a separate action on 06/30/2016. See 81 FR 42587. OAC 252:100

- 8

- 50.1 NNSR, Incorporation by reference Febr uary 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 EPA proposed approval on 06/30/2016. See 81 FR 42587. OAC 252:100

- 8

- 51 NNSR, Definitions February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 EPA proposed approval on 06/30/2016. See 81 FR 42587. OAC 252:100

- 8

- 51.1 NNSR, Emissions reductions and offsets February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 EPA proposed approval on 06/30/2016. See 81 FR 42587.5 Table 1 : Summary of the Oklahoma Revisions Submitted February 6, 2012 Section Title Date Submitted to EPA Ado pted by State Comments

OAC 252:100

- 8

- 52 NNSR, Applicability determination for sources in attainment areas causing or contributing to NAAQS violations February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 EPA proposed approval on 06/30/2016. See 81 FR 42587.

OAC 252:100, Appendix E Appendix E, Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 EPA proposed approval on 06/30/2016. See 81 FR 42587.

## II. Technical Evaluation of the February 6, 2012 Oklahoma SIP Submittal

This technical review of the February 6, 2012, revisions to OAC 252:100

- 8

- 33(c)(1)(C) and OAC 252:100

- 8

- 3 5(a)(2) consists of a comparison between the relevant Clean Air Act requirements and the corresponding sections in the SIP submittal.



### A

. Evaluation of the February 6, 2012, Oklahoma SIP Submittal with respect to the Part 51, Appendix V Completeness Chec klist

Appendix V to 40 CFR Part 51 establishes the criteria for determining the completeness of plan submissions. Appendix V to Part 51 is outlined below:

1.0 Purpose: This appendix V sets forth the minimum criteria for determining whether a State imple mentation plan submitted for consideration by EPA is an official submission for purposes of review under § 51.103.

1.1 The EPA shall return to the submitting official any plan or revision thereof which fails to meet the criteria set forth in this append ix V, and request corrective action, identifying the component(s) absent or insufficient to perform a review of the submitted plan.

1.2 The EPA shall inform the submitting official whether or not a plan submission meets the requirements of this appendix V within 60 days of EPA's receipt of the submittal, but no later than 6 months after the date which the State was required to submit the plan or revision. If a completeness determination is not made by 6 months from receipt of a submittal, the submittal sh all be deemed complete by operation of law on the date 6 months from receipt. A determination of completeness under this paragraph means that the submission is an official submission for purposes of §51.103.

The attached checklist outlines the basic criteria included under 2.1 and 2.2 of Appendix V.

Section 2.3 of Appendix V describes the "parallel process procedure" which EPA can use to expedite the review and adoption of SIP revisions. The February 6, 201 2 SIP revision was not submitted with a request for parallel processing; therefore Section 2.3 of Appendix V to 40 CFR Part 51 is not included in this review.7 SIP Completeness Checklist for the February 6, 2012. Oklahoma SIP Submittal

1. The package is sent with a formal submittal letter from the Governor or his or her designee requesting EPA's approval of the revision.

Mr. Gary Sherrer, Oklahoma State Secretary of the Environment, in a letter dated February 6, 2012, submitted revisions to the Oklaho ma SIP to amend the PSD program

at OAC 252:100

- 8

- 33 and OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35 to provide voluntary exemptions from permitting of PM 2.5 emissions . This submittal package also included amendments to other portions of the Oklahoma SIP not under review in this TSD.

In a letter dated March 30, 2011, Governor Mary Fallin designated the authority to submit revisions to the Oklahoma SIP to the Oklahoma Secretary of the Environment.

2. Evidence is included that the State has adopted the revision in the State code or b ody of regulations, or that the State has issued the permit, order, consent agreement (hereafter document) in final form. This evidence would include the date of adoption or final issuance and the effective date of revision, if different from adoption/iss uance date.

The revisions to OAC 252:100

- 8

- 33 and OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35 were adopted on May 3, 2011, effective July 1, 2011.

3. Evidence is included that the State has necessary legal authority under State law to adopt and implement the revision, e.g., a citation of the appropriate State authority.

27A O.S. §2

- 5

- 105 designates the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality as the administrative agency for the Oklahoma Clean Air Act. The ODEQ has the authority to carry out all duties, requirements, and r esponsibilities necessary and proper for the implementation of the Oklahoma CAA and fulfilling the requirements of the federal CAA under 27A O.S. §§1

- 3

- 101(B)(8), 2

- 3

- 101(E)(1), and 2

- 5

- 105.

4. A copy is included of the actual regulation or document submi tted for approval and incorporation by reference into the SIP including an indication of the changes made to the existing approved plan where applicable. The submittal shall be a copy of the official State regulation document signed, stamped, and dated by the appropriate State official indicating that it is fully enforceable by the State. The effective date of the regulation document shall, whenever possible, be indicated in the document itself.

The February 6, 2012, submittal included a copy of the offici al State regulation documents. The effective date of the revisions to OAC 252:100

- 8

- 33 and OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35 is July 1, 2011.

5. Evidence is included that the State followed all the procedural requirements of its laws and/or its constitution in the conduc ting and completing the adoption/issuance of the plan.8 The February 6, 2012, SIP submittal included a letter signed by Eddie Terrill, Director of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, that demonstrated the SIP submittal was developed pursuan t to the requirements of the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act, 75 O.S. 2501.1 through 323 and 40 CFR 51.102(d), 51.102(f), and Appendix V.

6. Evidence is included that public notice was given of the proposed changes consistent with the procedures approved by EPA, including the date of publication of such notice, (e.g., notarized or certified copies of any public notices published in newspapers). (The notice should be at least 30 days prior to the public hearing(s).

The notice of public hearing for the revisions to OAC 252:100

- 8

- 33 and OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35 was published in the Oklahoma Register on December 15, 2010.

7. A certification is included indicating that public hearing(s) was/were held in accordance with the info rmation provided in the public notice(s) and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable.

The public hearings for the revisions to OAC 252:100

- 8

- 33 and OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35 were held on January 19, 2011.

8. A compilation of public comments and the Stat e's response is included.

The February 6, 2012, submittal included a compilation of the comments received and the State’s response.

The State should include the following technical information in its SIP revision request package.

1. Identification of al l regulated pollutants affected by the revision is included.

The February 6, 2012, submittal revises the Oklahoma PSD permitting regulations to provide exemptions from permitting for emissions of PM 2.5

.

2. Identification of the locations of affected sources including the EPA attainment/nonattainment designation of the locations and the status of the attainment plan for the affected area(s) is included.

The February 6, 2012 , revisions to the Oklahoma PSD program will apply statewide.9 3. Quantificati on of the changes in SIP allowable emissions from the affected sources is included. (Examples include estimates of changes in current actual emissions from affected sources and/or, where appropriate, quantification of changes in actual emissions from affe cted sources through calculations of the differences between certain baseline levels and allowable emissions anticipated if the revisions were approved.)

Not required for the February 6, 2012, revisions to the Oklahoma PSD permit programs. Allowable emiss ions consistent with the PSD permitting requirements will be addressed on a permit

- by

- permit basis.

4. Demonstration is included that the NAAQS/PSD increments/RFP demonstration and visibility as applicable would be protected if the revision were approve d and implemented.

The February 6, 2012 revisions to the Oklahoma PSD permit program provide for exemptions of permitting from PM 2.5 emissions

.

5. FOR REDESIGNATIONS:

a. Is there a fully approved maintenance plan for the primary ambient air quality standards for at least 10 years as required by §175A of the Clean Air Act? Not applicable.

b. Are contingency measures included? Not applicable.

6. Modeling information, if applicable, is required to support the proposed revision.

Modeling information is not necessary to support the February 6, 2012 SIP submittal. Modeling will be provided on a permit

- by

- permit basis in accordance with the PSD regulations.

7. Evidence is included where necessary, that emission limitations are bas ed on continuous emission reduction technology (e.g., add

- on controls, industrial/process equipment designs, reformulated materials, etc.).

The February 6, 2012 SIP submittal does not establish emission limitations. Emission limitations will be establishe d on a permit

- by

- permit basis according to the applicable PSD requirements.

8. Evidence is included indicating that a SIP revision contains emission limitations, work practice standards, and recordkeeping/reporting requirements to ensure stated emission l evels.

The February 6, 2012, SIP submittal does not establish emission limitations, work practice standards, and recordkeeping/reporting requirements to ensure stated emission10 levels. Each PSD permit will include these items as necessary to implement the CAA and the PSD permit program.

9. Compliance/enforcement strategies including how compliance will be determined in practice (including at what frequency).

The February 6, 2012, SIP submittal does not establish compliance/enforcement strategies. Each per mit will separately address compliance/enforcement.

10. As appropriate, special economic and technological justifications are included per applicable EPA policies or an explanation why such justifications are not necessary should be included. For example, requests for alternative RACT may require such justification.

These justifications are not necessary for the February 6, 2012 SIP submittal.

The February 6, 2012 SIP submittal satisfies the completeness criteria established in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V.11 

### B

. Evaluation of the February 6, 2012, Oklahoma SIP submittal with respect to the federal requirements PSD Permitting

1. Background of Federal Actions

Under Section 165(a) of the CAA, a major source may not commence construction unless the source has been issued a permit and satisfied certain requirements. Among those requirements, the permit applicant must demonstrate that emissions from construction or operation of the facility will not cause, or contribute to, air pollution in excess of any increment, NAAQS, or any other applicable emission standard of standard of performance. This statutory requirement has been incorporated into federal regulations at 40 CFR 51.166(k)(1). Moreover, to support this analysis, PSD permit applications must contain air quality monitoring data representing air quality in the area affected by the proposed source for the 1

- year period preceding receipt of the application. This statutory requirement has been incorporated into federal regulations at 40 CFR 51.166(m)(ii)

- (iv).

In 2010, the EPA promulgated regulations for SIPs concerning PSD permitting for PM 2.5 which included two voluntary screening tools: SILs and SMCs. 75 FR 64864 (Oct. 20, 2010). The SILs are screening tools that states with PSD SIPs apply in the issuance of a PSD permit to demonstrate that the proposed source’s allowable emissions will not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS or increment. The SMC has been used to exempt sources from the requirement in the CAA to collect preconstruction monitoring data for up to 1 year before submitting a permit application in order to help determ ine existing ambient air quality. 78 FR 73699 (Dec. 9, 2013).

Sierra Club filed a petition for review of the PSD regulations containing the PM 2.5 SILs and SMC with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court). On J anuary 22, 2013, the Court issued an opinion granting a request from the EPA to vacate and remand to the EPA portions of the October 20, 2010, PSD regulations establishing the PM 2.5 SIL and further vacating the portions of the PSD regulations establishing a PM 2.5 SMC. See

, Sierra Club v. EPA , 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

In response to the Court’s decision, the EPA amended its regulations to remove the affected PM 2.5 SIL regulations from the federal regulations and to replace the existing PM 2.5 SMC value with a “zero” threshold. See , 78 FR 73698 (Dec. 9, 2013). In that rulemaking, the EPA removed the regulatory text related to the affected PM 2.5 SILs at sections 51.166(k)(2) and 52.21(k)(2). Although the Court vacated the PM 2.5 SMC provisions in 40 CFR 51 .166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c), the EPA did not remove the affected regulatory text, but instead revised the concentration for the PM 2.5 SMC listed in sections 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) to zero micrograms per cubic meter (0 μ g/m 3 ). B ecause 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(iii) and 40 CFR 52.21(i)(5)(iii) establish an exemption from air monitoring requirements for any pollutant “not listed in paragraph (i)(5)(i),” the EPA explained that it would not be appropriate to remove the reference to PM 2.5 in paragraph (i)(5)(i). Were the EPA to completely remove PM 2.5 from the list of pollutants in sections 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) of the PSD regulations, PM 2.5 would no longer be a listed pollutant and the paragraph (iii) provision could be interpreted as giving reviewing authorities the discretion to exempt permit applicants from the requirement to12 conduct monitoring for PM 2.5 , in contravention of the Court’s decision and the CAA. Instead, the EPA revised the concentration listed in sectio ns 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) to “0” micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ). This means that there is no air quality impact level below which a reviewing authority has the discretion to exempt a source from the PM 2.5 monitoring requirements at 40 CFR 52.21(m)

. This TSD only addresses the severable portions of the February 6, 2012, Oklahoma SIP submittal that pertain to the exemptions from PSD permitting for PM 2.5 , the SILs and SMC.13 2

. Evaluation of OAC 252:100

- 8

- 33. Exemptions.

Backgrou nd of OAC 252:100

- 8

- 33. Exemptions.

• The Oklahoma SIP includes OAC 252:100

- 8

- 33 as adopted by the ODEQ on May 15, 2001, effective June 1, 2001. EPA approved this provision on November 26, 2010. See 75 FR 72695.

• ODEQ has submitted four revisions to the Oklahoma SIP for exemptions from PSD requirements at OAC 252:100

- 8

- 33, as follows.

o Revisions effective June 15 , 2006; submitted July 16, 2010

– addressed by EPA in a separate action.

o Revisions effective June 1, 2009; submitted June 24, 2010

– addressed by E PA in a separate action.

o Revisions effective July 1, 20 11; submitted February 6, 2012

– the revisions to OAC 252:100

- 8

- 33(c)(1)(C) are included in this TSD. Remainder of these revisions are addressed in a separate action.

o Revisions effective July 1, 2012; submitted January 18, 2013

– addressed by EPA in a separate action.

The following table includes EPA’s evaluation of the revisions to OAC 252:100

- 8

- 33.

Table 2 : Evaluation of OAC 252:100

- 8

- 33. Exemptions. EPA’s Evaluation
Revisions effective July 1, 201 1; Submitted February 6, 2012. c) Exemption from air quality analysis requirements in OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35(c). 1. The monitoring requirements of OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35(c) regarding air quality analysis are not applicable for a particular pollutant if the emission increase of the pollutant from a proposed major stationary source or the net emissions increase of the pollutant from a major modification would cause, in any area, air quality impacts less than the following significant monitoring concentrations (SMC): A. Carbon monoxide

- 575 Fg/m 3 , 8

- hour average, B. Nitrogen dioxide

- 14 μg/m 3 , annual average, C. PM 2.5 - 4 μg/m 3 24

- hour average, D. PM 10 - 10 μg/m 3 , 24

- hour average, E. Sulfur dioxide

- 13 μg/m 3 , 24

- hour average, F. Ozone

- no de minimis air quality level is provided for ozone, however any net increase of 100 TPY or more of VOC or NOx subject to PSD would require an ambient impact analysis, including the gathering of ambient air quality data. G. Lead

- 0.1 Fg/m 3 , 3

- month average, H. Fluorides

- 0.25 Fg/m 3 , 24

- hour average, I. Total reduced sulfur

- 10 Fg/m 3 , 1

- hour average, J. Hydrogen sulfide

- 0.2 Fg/m 3 , 1

- hour average, or K. Reduced sulfur com pounds

- 10 Fg/m 3 , 1

- hour average. 2. The monitoring requirements of OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35(c) are not applicable for a particular pollutant if the pollutant is not listed in preceding OAC 252:100

- 8

- 33(c)(1). The revisions to OAC 252:100

- 8

- 33(c)(1) for monitoring

e xemptions are consistent with federal requirements at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i), with the exception of the monitoring exemption for PM 2.5 submitted on February 6, 2012, at OAC 252:100

- 8

- 33(c)(1)(C). The federal exemption for the PM 2.5 SMC was vacated and subsequently revised to 0 μg/m 3 for consisten cy with the requirements of the CAA.

Therefore, the submitted provision for the PM 2.5 SMC is disapprovable as inconsistent with the federal statutory and regulatory permitting requirements for PM 2.5
.14 3

. Evaluation of OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35. Air Quality Impact Evaluation.

Background of OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35. Air Quality Impact Evaluation.

• The Oklahoma SIP includes OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35 as adopted by the ODEQ on June 15, 1998, effective June 25, 1998. EPA approved this provision on November 26, 2010. See 75 FR 72695.

• ODEQ has submitted two revisions to the Oklahoma SIP for the PSD Air Quality Impact Evaluation.

o Revisions effective June 15, 2006; submitted July 16, 2010,

- addressed by EPA in a separate acti on.

o Revisions effective July 1, 2011, effective February 6, 2012

– the revisions to OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35(a)(2) are included in this TSD. Remainder of these revisions are addressed in a separate action

. The following table includes EPA’s evaluation of the revi sions to OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35.

Table 2 : Evaluation of OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35. EPA’s Evaluation Revision effective July 1, 2011; Submitted February 6, 2012. a) Source impact analysis (impact on NAAQS and PSD increment). The owner or operator of the proposed source or modification shall demonstrate that, as of the source’s start

- up date, allowable emissions increase from theat source or modification, in conjunction with all other applicable emissions increases or reductions (including secondary emissions) would not caus e or contribute to any increase in ambient concentrations that would exceed: 1. Required demonstration. The owner or operator of the proposed source or modification shall demonstrate that, as of the source’s start

up date, allowable emissions increase from th at source or modification, in conjunction with all other applicable emissions increases or reductions (including secondary emissions) would not cause or contribute to any increase in ambient concentrations that would exceed: A. Any NAAQS in any air quality co ntrol region; or B. The remaining available PSD increment for the specified air contaminants in any area as determined by the Director. 2. Significant impact levels (SILs). For purposes of PM 2.5 , the demonstration required in OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35(a)(1) is deemed to have been made if the emissions increase from the new stationary source alone or from the modification alone would cause, in all areas, air quality impacts less than the following significant impact levels (SILs). A. The SILs for PM 2.5 annual averaging time a re 0.06 μg/m 3 for a Class I area, 0.3 μg/m 3 for a Class II area, and 0.3 μg/m 3 for a Class III area. B. The SILs for PM 2.5 24

- hour averaging time are 0.07 μg/m 3 for a Class I Area, 1.2 μg/m 3 for a Class II Area, and 1.2 μg/m 3 for a Class III area. The provisi ons submitted on February 6, 2012, at OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35(a)(2), (2)(A) and (2)(B) establish the PM 2.5 SIL. The federal exemption for the PM 2.5 SIL was vacated in January 2013 and subsequently removed by the EAP on December 9, 2013.

The submitted provisions f or the PM 2.5 SIL are therefore disapprovable as inconsistent with the federal statutory and regulatory permitting requirements for PM 2.5
.15 

### C

. Evaluation of the February 6, 2012, Oklahoma SIP submittal with respect to section 110(l) of the CAA

Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act states:

Each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under this Act shall be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of this Act.

Our analysis indicates that the February 6, 2012, revisio ns to the Oklahoma PSD program were adopted and submitted as revisions to the Oklahoma SIP after reasonable notice and public hearing.

Disapproval of the submitted PM 2.5 SILs at OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35(a)(2) ensures that the provisions at OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35(a)(1) 1 in the existing SIP continue to apply to PM 2.5 . Namely, that the owner or operator of the proposed source or modification shall demonstrate that, as of the source's start

- up date, allowable emissions increases from that source or modification, in conjun ction with all other applicable emissions increases or reductions (including secondary emissions) would not cause or contribute to any increase in ambient concentrations that would exceed any NAAQS in any air quality control region; or the remaining availa ble PSD increment for the specified air contaminants in any area, as determined by the Director of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality.

Disapproval of the submitted PM 2.5 SMC at OAC 252:100

- 8

- 33(c)(1) means that PM 2.5 will not be a listed po llutant in the state’s requirement for ambient monitoring data, and would appear to allow PSD permit applicants to avoid submitting PM 2.5 monitoring data as part of their permit application. To address this concern, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality submitted a letter on February 25, 2016, that demonstrated the State retains authority to require
pre

- and post

- construction PSD monitoring for PM 2.5 under the Oklahoma PSD SIP, in the event that the EPA disapproves OAC 252:100

- 8

- 33(c)(1); specifi cally, the authority granted the ODEQ Director under OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35.1(b)(3) 2 to request information regarding the air quality impact of the source or modification. The ODEQ interprets this SIP provision to grant the Director the authority to request moni toring data for PM 2.5 as required under 40 CFR 51.166(m). Further, as noted in our December 9, 2013, final rule, any State regulations or approved SIP provisions adopting the PM 2.5 SIL and SMC are unlawful and may not be applied even prior to their removal from the applicable State regulations or SIP. See 78 FR 73698, 73700. Because reliance on the PM 2.5 SIL and SMC has been deemed unlawful and because the State has provided a letter demonstrating underlying authority in the Oklahoma SIP at OAC 252:100

- 8

-

1 The EPA prop osed approval of OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35(a)(1) on June 30, 2016, as consistent with federal PSD requirements. See 81 FR 42587

. 2 The EPA proposed approval of OAC 252:100

- 8

- 35.1(b)(3) on June 30, 2016, as consistent with federal PSD requirements. See 81 FR 42587

.16 35 .1(b)(3) to require pre

- and post

- construction monitoring for PM 2.5 ; we have determined it is appropriate to disapprove the submitted PM 2.5 SMC provisions at OAC 252:100

- 8

- 33(c)(1).

The EPA has an obligation under section 110 of the CAA to act on submitt ed SIP revisions unless these revisions are withdrawn by the State. Therefore, the EPA has a duty to act on the submitted Oklahoma provisions pertaining to the PM 2.5 SILs and SMC because these provisions were submitted for EPA’s review on February 6, 2012, and the state has not withdrawn the portion of the SIP submission containing these provisions. Our proposed action today will disapprove this portion of the February 6, 2012 SIP submission because these provisions are inconsistent with the federal statutory and regulatory SIP permitting requirements for PM 2.5

.17 

## III. Conclusion

The technical analysis provided in the preceding sections has compared the applicable sections of the CAA and 40 CFR Parts 51 and the February 6, 2012 Oklahoma SIP Submittal , to adopt the EPA’s vacated PSD PM 2.5 S ILs and SMC . The EPA’s analysis found that the proposed revisions to the Oklahoma SIP should be disapproved because the revisions are inconsistent with the federal statutory and regulatory permitting requirements for PM 2.5

. As such, the EPA should propose disapproval of the following revisions:

• Substantive revisions to the Oklahoma SIP at OAC 252:100

- 8

- 33(c)(1)(C) establishing the PM 2.5 SMC as submitted on February 6, 2012; and

• Substantive revisions to the Oklahoma PSD program in OAC 252:100

- 8

- 3 5(a)(2) establishing the PM 2.5 PSD SIL as submitted on February 6, 2012.