Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 72695 

EPA-APPROVED NEW MEXICO REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject 

State approval/submittal date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Part 74 ..................................... Permits—Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration.

8/31/2009 11/26/2010 [Insert citation of publication].

* * * * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE NEW MEXICO SIP 

Name of SIP provision 

Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal/effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Interstate transport for the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.

New Mexico ..... 9/17/2007 6/10/2010 .................. Revisions to prohibit significant contribution to 

nonattainment in any other state. 

Approval for revisions to prohibit interference 

with maintenance and PSD measures in any 

other state. 

Interstate transport for the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.

New Mexico ..... 9/17/2007 11/26/2010 [Insert citation of publication].Revisions to prohibit interference with maintenance and PSD measures in any other state. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29397 Filed 11–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2007–0314; FRL–9230–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Oklahoma; 

State Implementation Plan Revisions 

for Interstate Transport of Pollution, 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration, 

Nonattainment New Source Review, 

Source Registration and Emissions 

Reporting and Rules of Practice and 

Procedure 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving part of a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Oklahoma that demonstrates that 

adequate provisions are in place to 

prohibit Oklahoma air emissions from 

interfering with Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

measures required in the SIP of any 

other state for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and the 1997 fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. Specifically, 

EPA is approving the Oklahoma 

Interstate Transport SIP provisions that 

address the requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that emissions from 

sources in Oklahoma do not interfere 

with measures required in the SIP of 

any other state under part C of the CAA 

to prevent ‘‘significant deterioration of 

air quality.’’ EPA is also approving 

portions of revisions to the Oklahoma 

SIP submitted on February 14, 2002, 

and June 24, 2010. The February 14, 

2002, revisions we are approving relate 

to PSD and Nonattainment New Source 

Review (NNSR) for major sources, 

source registration and emissions 

reporting and other rules of practice and 

procedure (except for revisions relating 

to minor sources). The June 24, 2010, 

revisions we are approving include 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) as an ozone 

precursor in Oklahoma’s PSD SIP for 

purposes of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. This action is being taken 

under section 110 and parts C and D of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

December 27, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R06–OAR– 

2007–0314. All documents in the docket 

are listed at www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. The file will be made 

available by appointment for public 

inspection in the Region 6 Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) Review Room 

between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 

p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. 

Contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 

214–665–7253 to make an appointment. 

If possible, please make the 

appointment at least two working days 

in advance of your visit. There will be 

a 15 cent per page fee for making 

photocopies of documents. On the day 

of the visit, please check in at the EPA 

Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl 

Young, Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, telephone 

(214) 665–6645; fax number (214) 665– 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
72696 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1Because we are only acting on the revisions for 

major sources, the previously approved SIP for 

minor sources remains in effect. 

2Commenter cited 42 U.S.C. 7475(a)(3), 42 U.S.C. 

7475(e)(3). 

3Appendix W is 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W— 

Guideline on Air Quality Models. 

4Commenter cited 43 FR 26380, 26398 (June 19, 

1978). ‘‘(k) Source impact analysis. The owner or 

operator of the proposed source or modification 

shall demonstrate that allowable emission increases 

from the proposed source or modification, in 

conjunction with all other applicable emissions 

increases or reductions (including secondary 

emissions), would not cause or contribute to air 

pollution in violation of: (1) Any national ambient 

air quality standard in any air quality control 

region; or (2) Any applicable maximum allowable 

increase over the baseline concentration [a.k.a. 

increment] in any area.’’ And ‘‘(l) Air quality 

models. (1) All estimates of ambient concentrations 

required under this paragraph shall be based on 

applicable air quality models, data bases, and other 

requirements specified in appendix W of part 51 of 

this chapter (Guideline on Air Quality Models). (2) 

Where an air quality model specified in appendix 

W of part 51 of this chapter (Guideline on Air 

Quality Models) is inappropriate, the model may be 

modified or another model substituted. Such a 

modification or substitution of a model may be 

made on a case-by-case basis or, where appropriate, 

on a generic basis for a specific state program. 

Written approval of the Administrator must be 

obtained for any modification or substitution. In 

addition, use of a modified or substituted model 

must be subject to notice and opportunity for public 

comment under procedures developed in 

accordance with paragraph (q) of this section.’’ 

7263; e-mail address 

young.carl@epa.gov. For further 

information regarding PSD or NNSR, 

contact: Rick Barrett or Dinesh 

Senghani, Air Permits Section (6PD–R), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, telephone 

(214) 665–7227 or (214) 665–7221; fax 

number (214) 665–7263; e-mail address 

barrett.richard@epa.gov or 

senghani.dinesh@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean the 

EPA. 

Outline 

I. Final Action 

A. Oklahoma Demonstration of Adequate 

Provisions Prohibiting Emissions That 

Interfere With Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Measures in Other States 

B. Oklahoma SIP Revisions Submitted on 

February 14, 2002 and June 24, 2010 

II. What is the background for this action? 

III. What comments did EPA receive and how 

has EPA responded to them? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Final Action 

A. Oklahoma Demonstration of 

Adequate Provisions Prohibiting 

Emissions That Interfere With 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Measures in Other States 

We are approving a submission from 

the State of Oklahoma demonstrating 

that the State has adequately addressed 

one of the required elements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), the element that 

requires that the State Implementation 

Plan prohibit air pollutant emissions 

from sources within a state from 

interfering with measures required to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in any other state. We have 

determined that emissions from sources 

in Oklahoma do not interfere with 

measures to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in any other 

state for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

or of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)). 

B. Oklahoma SIP Revisions Submitted 

on February 14, 2002 and June 24, 2010 

We are also approving portions of 

revisions to the Oklahoma SIP 

submitted by the State on February 14, 

2002, and June 24, 2010. The February 

14, 2002, revisions we are approving are 

the portions related to: (1) PSD for major 

stationary sources and major 

modifications; (2) NNSR permitting 

requirements for major stationary 

sources and major modifications as a 

revision to the Oklahoma NNSR SIP; (3) 

source registration and emissions 

reporting as part of the Oklahoma Major 

NSR SIP; and (4) other rules of practice 

and procedure as part of the Oklahoma 

Major NSR SIP.1 The June 24, 2010, 

revisions we are approving address NOX

as an ozone precursor in Oklahoma’s 

PSD SIP for purposes of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

In this action, we are not addressing 

the elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS, that pertain to prohibiting air 

pollutant emissions from within 

Oklahoma from: (1) Significantly 

contributing to nonattainment in any 

other state, (2) interfering with 

maintenance of the relevant NAAQS in 

any other state, and (3) interfering with 

measures required to protect visibility 

in any other state. We are also not 

addressing: (1) SIP revisions submitted 

on February 14, 2002, for Minor NSR 

SIP purposes, and (2) other SIP 

revisions submitted on June 24, 2010, 

that do not address NOX as an ozone 

precursor. 

More information on the SIP revisions 

we are approving can be found in our 

proposal published in the September 17, 

2010 Federal Register (75 FR 56923). 

We are approving the SIP revisions 

pursuant to section 110 and parts C and 

D of the CAA. 

II. What is the background for this 

action? 

The background for today’s actions is 

discussed in detail in our September 17, 

2010, proposal to approve revisions to 

the Oklahoma SIP (75 FR 56923). In it, 

we proposed to approve revisions to the 

Oklahoma SIP related to: (1) Oklahoma’s 

demonstration that adequate provisions 

are in place to prohibit Oklahoma air 

emissions from adversely affecting 

another state’s PSD measures through 

interstate transport for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS or standards and the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and (2) Oklahoma 

Administrative Code (OAC) revisions 

submitted on February 14, 2002, and 

June 24, 2010. 

III. What comments did EPA receive 

and how has EPA responded to them? 

We received comment letters from 

WildEarth Guardians and the Sierra 

Club on our proposed rulemaking. The 

comment letters are available for review 

in the electronic docket for this 

rulemaking at the regulations.gov Web 

site (Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2007– 

0314). Our responses to the comments 

are below. 

Comment: One commenter provided 

comments on air quality models to be 

used to analyze and assess ozone and 

PM2.5 impacts in the Oklahoma PSD 

program. The commenter stated that the 

CAA requires PSD regulations that 

specify with reasonable particularity 

each air quality model or models to be 

used under specified sets of conditions.2

The commenter continued that EPA 

promulgated the PSD regulations in 

1980, which included specific 

regulations to satisfy the requirements 

of the CAA. These PSD regulations 

included a requirement that a major 

source or major modification of a major 

source of air pollution cannot be 

constructed unless the owner or 

operator of such facility demonstrates, 

as required pursuant to section 42 

U.S.C. 7410(j), that emissions from 

construction or operation of such 

facility will not cause, or contribute to, 

air pollution in excess of any (A) 

maximum allowable increase or 

maximum allowable concentration for 

any pollutant in any area to which this 

part applies more than one time per 

year, (B) national ambient air quality 

standard in any air quality control 

region. The commenter indicated that 

EPA promulgated 40 CFR 52.21(k) & 

(l)(2008) to carry out the obligations of 

42 U.S.C. 7475(e)(3)(D) and EPA 

incorporated by reference its Guideline 

on Air Quality Models as Appendix W 

into its permitting regulations.3 4 The 

commenter concluded that EPA’s 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 72697 

5Commenter cited U.S.C. 7475(a)(3) indicating 

that it requires that within six months after August 

7, 1977, EPA promulgate regulations respecting 

which models should be used for the analysis 

required under this subsection. The commenter also 

stated that 42 U.S.C. 7475(a)(3)(D) requires EPA to 

specify with reasonable particularity each air 

quality model or models to be used under specified 

sets of conditions for purposes of this part and that 

EPA can make unique determinations based on 

meteorology or terrain issues. 

6Commenter included two possible 

photochemical grid models as examples: 

Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions 

(CAMx) and Community Multiscale Air Quality 

modeling system (CMAQ). 

7 In addition to the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.166(m) 40 CFR 52.21(i)(xi)(5)(i) indicates that 

‘‘No de minimis air quality level is provided for 

ozone.’’ However, any net emissions increase of 100 

tons per year or more of volatile organic compounds 

or nitrogen oxides subject to PSD would be required 

to perform an ambient impact analysis, including 

the gathering of ambient air quality data. 40 CFR 

51.165 and 51.166 also require permitting 

authorities to demonstrate that the proposed source 

will not cause or contribute to violation of the 

ozone NAAQS per 40 CFR 52.21(k). 

Appendix W titled ‘‘Guideline on Air 

Quality Modeling’’ is a regulation. 

The commenter indicated that EPA’s 

regulations (including Appendix W) do 

not recommend which models must be 

used in the PSD program for the 1997 

8-hour or PM2.5 NAAQS as required by 

42 U.S.C. 7475(a)(3) to ensure proper 

implementation of this critical PSD 

element.5 The commenter cited 40 CFR 

51, Appendix W, Section 5.2.1.c (ozone) 

and 5.2.2.1.c (PM2.5) that indicate that 

for single source analysis, such as what 

would be conducted for PSD, the choice 

of methods used to assess the impact of 

an individual source depends on the 

nature of the source and its emissions 

and the model users should consult 

with the (EPA) Regional Office to 

determine the most suitable approach 

on a case-by-case basis. The commenter 

alleges that this provision is cited by 

permitting agencies for the proposition 

that there is no model available and 

major sources of ozone precursors and 

PM2.5 obtain their PSD permits without 

demonstrating that they will not cause 

or contribute to a violation of the 1997 

8-hour NAAQS using any modeling 

method. 

The commenter asserted that EPA has 

not promulgated a guideline model for 

analysis of ozone precursors for ozone 

impacts or for PM2.5 ambient analysis in 

Appendix W. The commenter noted that 

Appendix A to Appendix W discusses 

potential models to be used, but no 

actual recommendation has been made 

as to which model or models must be 

utilized to assure that new or modified 

major stationary sources in Oklahoma 

do not cause or contribute to a violation 

of the 1997 8-hour ozone or PM2.5

NAAQS. The commenter asserts that 

EPA was obligated to resolve this 

dilemma through its Proposed Rule to 

ensure that Oklahoma’s SIP complies 

with the statutory requirements of the 

Clean Air Act. The commenter 

continues that EPA’s PSD regulations, 

40 CFR part 51, Appendix W, and the 

Oklahoma SIP do not specify with 

reasonable particularity the model or 

models that will be used to ensure this 

outcome. The commenter noted that in 

a petition filed with the EPA in July of 

this year, the Sierra Club called on the 

EPA to require that photochemical grid 

models be used to demonstrate that a 

source will not cause or contribute to a 

violation of the 1997 8-hour Ozone or 

PM2.5 NAAQS.6 The petition noted that 

EPA and states in some respects have 

already used these models to ensure that 

individual sources do not cause or 

contribute to a violation of the NAAQS. 

Furthermore, these models have the 

advantage of ensuring that the impact of 

ozone and PM2.5 precursors are taken 

into account to ensure that new or 

modified major stationary sources do 

not cause or contribute to NAAQS 

violations. 

The commenter concluded that EPA 

should not approve this SIP until EPA 

specifies with reasonable particularly 

the model or models that must be used 

to ensure that new or modified major 

stationary sources in Oklahoma do not 

cause or contribute to violations of the 

1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 

in accordance with 40 CFR 52.21(k) and 

the Oklahoma SIP, and the Agency has 

no basis for concluding that the 

Proposed Rule complies with the Clean 

Air Act, including the requirements of 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and Section 

110(l). 

Response: EPA’s PSD regulations are 

found at 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21. PSD 

requirements for SIPs are found in 40 

CFR 51.166. Similar PSD requirements 

for SIPs which have been disapproved 

and for SIPs incorporating EPA’s 

regulations by reference are found in 40 

CFR 52.21. These regulations do require 

an ambient impact analysis for ozone 

and PM2.5 (40 CFR 51.166(k), (l) and (m) 

and 40 CFR 52.21(k), (l) and (m)). The 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.166(l) state that 

for air quality models the SIP shall 

provide for procedures which specify 

that: 

‘‘(1) All applications of air quality 

modeling involved in this subpart shall 

be based on the applicable models, data 

bases, and other requirements specified 

in appendix W of this part (Guideline 

on Air Quality Models). 

(2) Where an air quality model 

specified in appendix W of this part 

(Guideline on Air Quality Models) is 

inappropriate, the model may be 

modified or another model substituted. 

Such a modification or substitution of a 

model may be made on a case-by-case 

basis or, where appropriate, on a generic 

basis for a specific State program. 

Written approval of the Administrator 

must be obtained for any modification 

or substitution. In addition, use of a 

modified or substituted model must be 

subject to notice and opportunity for 

public comment under procedures set 

forth in § 51.102.’’ 

We are approving in the SIP a revision 

to OAC 252:100–8–35(e) submitted on 

February 14, 2002, that meets the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(l). OAC 

252:100–8–35(e) states: ‘‘(e) Air quality 

models. 

(1) Any air quality dispersion 

modeling that is required under Part 7 

of this Subchapter for estimates of 

ambient concentrations shall be based 

on the applicable air quality models, 

data bases and other requirements 

specified in the Guidelines on Air 

Quality Models, OAQPS 1.2–080, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

April, 1978 and subsequent revisions. 

(2) Where an air quality impact model 

specified in the Guidelines on Air 

Quality Models is inappropriate, the 

model may be modified or another 

model substituted, as approved by the 

Executive Director. Methods like those 

outlined in the Workbook for the 

Comparison of Air Quality Models, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

April, 1977 and subsequent revisions, 

can be used to determine the 

comparability of air quality models.’’ 

Additionally, we are approving 

revisions to OAC 252:100–8–31 and 8– 

33 submitted on February 14, 2002, and 

June 24, 2010, which result in the 

Oklahoma SIP at OAC 252:100–8–35 

requiring air quality impacts analysis for 

ozone consistent with 40 CFR 

51.166.(m).7

The commenter is correct in the 

statement that EPA has not selected a 

single preferred model in Appendix A 

to Appendix W for conducting ozone 

impacts. Because of the complexity of 

modeling ozone and PM2.5 as described 

below, we do not believe a model is 

available that is appropriate in all 

situations to model these pollutants. 

Therefore, we continue to believe it is 

appropriate for States to work with EPA 

Regional Offices as described in 

Appendix W to determine the 

appropriate approach to modeling these 

pollutants. As pointed out by the 

commenter, Oklahoma’s SIP requires a 

demonstration that emissions from a 

new major source or a major 

modification of a major source will not 

result in an unacceptable impact to 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
72698 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

8Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality 

Air Dispersion Modeling Guidelines, January 2008, 

Page 3: ‘‘Until EPA publishes guidelines for 

compliance for individual sources, large sources 

will be included in available photochemical 

modeling datasets and will be modeled with the 

Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions 

(CAMx) to assess impacts and demonstrate 

compliance with the standard.’’ 

9Appendix A to Appendix W of 40 CFR 51— 

Summaries of Preferred Air Quality Models, Part 

A–1. 

10EPA memorandum, dated March 23, 2010, 

‘‘Modeling Procedures for Demonstrating 

Compliance with PM2.5 NAAQS’’, from Stephen D. 

Page, Director of Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. 

11EPA memorandum, dated February 26, 2010, 

‘‘Model Clearinghouse Review of Modeling 

Procedures for Demonstrating Compliance with 

PM2.5 NAAQS’’, from Tyler Fox, Leader of Air 

Quality Modeling Group of the Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards. 

12 July 29, 2010, letter from Eddie Terrill, 

Director, Air Quality Division, Oklahoma 

Department of Environmental Quality to Thomas 

Diggs, Associate Director for Air Programs, EPA 

Region 6. 

ambient air. Furthermore, as described 

below, Oklahoma has followed 

Appendix W for new potential sources 

of ozone and PM2.5. 

With regard to ozone, a proposed 

emission source’s emissions impacts are 

dependent upon local meteorology and 

pollution levels in the surrounding 

atmosphere. Ozone is formed from 

chemical reactions in the atmosphere. 

The level of impact a new source can 

have on ozone levels is dependent, in 

part, upon the pollutants already in the 

surrounding atmosphere with which 

emissions from the new source can 

react. In addition, meteorological factors 

such as wind speed, temperature, wind 

direction and atmospheric stability are 

also important. The most sophisticated 

analyses try to account for meteorology 

and this interaction with emissions from 

surrounding sources. EPA has not 

indentified an established modeling 

system that would fit all situations and 

take into account all of the additional 

local information about sources and 

meteorology. As the commenter 

indicated the most sophisticated 

modeling analyses usually add a source 

into an existing modeling system and 

model the impact change from the 

source using a photochemical grid 

model, such as CAMx or CMAQ. There 

are also reactive plume models, 

however, that may be appropriate. We 

have approved the use of plume models 

in some instances, but these models are 

not always appropriate because of the 

difficulty in obtaining the background 

information to make an appropriate 

assessment of the photochemistry and 

meteorology impacts. 

EPA has not selected a specific model 

for conducting an ozone analysis as it 

depends upon the details about the 

modeling systems available and if they 

are appropriate for assessing the 

proposed source impacts. Considering 

that a full development of a 

photochemical modeling system can be 

on the order of $100,000–250,000 or 

more, it is not generally appropriate to 

require a source to develop an entire 

photochemical modeling system just to 

evaluate its impacts. However, when an 

existing photochemical modeling 

system is available, it should be 

evaluated for potential use. More often 

now than 10 or 15 years ago, a 

photochemical modeling system may be 

available that covers the geographic area 

of concern, but even if photochemical 

modeling is available, it must be 

evaluated to determine its 

appropriateness for conducting an 

impact analysis. Things to consider in 

evaluating appropriateness of a 

photochemical modeling system include 

meteorology, year of emissions 

projections, model performance issues 

in the area of concern or in areas that 

might impact projections in the area of 

concern, etc. Therefore, even if 

photochemical modeling systems exist, 

they may be deemed inappropriate for 

use in evaluating a proposed source for 

ozone modeling. Because of these 

scientific issues EPA has not issued a 

‘‘Preferred Model’’ for conducting source 

impacts on ozone to Appendix A of 

Appendix W. 

In the specific situation of Oklahoma, 

the state conducted photochemical 

modeling as part of an Early Action 

Compact in the 2002–2004 timeframe. 

This photochemical modeling system 

was developed specifically for 

Oklahoma with a 4-kilometer fine grid 

and includes a base year emission 

inventory of 1999 and future year 

emission inventory projection of 2007. 

Oklahoma has been conducting 

sensitivity runs using their 

photochemical modeling system to 

evaluate the impacts of proposed 

sources of NOX and VOC as part of their 

review of permit applications.8

Oklahoma proposed and EPA Region 6 

agreed that Oklahoma’s photochemical 

modeling system was acceptable and it 

would be an appropriate tool for 

assessing ozone impacts when it is 

required. Oklahoma has been following 

this procedure for over 5 years for 

sources of emissions that were greater 

than 365 tons per year, and usually 

models anything greater than 200 tons 

per year of NOX or VOCs. Based on 

previous modeling, EPA Region 6 and 

Oklahoma determined that sources with 

less annual emissions would not likely 

show an impact large enough to be a 

concern. 

It is also difficult to specify a 

preferred model for PM2.5 for similar 

reasons as described for ozone. While 

some PM2.5 is directly emitted from 

sources (primary), depending on the 

source type, PM2.5 is also formed by 

emissions condensing outside the stack 

or through chemical reactions with 

pollutants already in the atmosphere 

(secondary). EPA promulgated 

AERMOD as an acceptable model for 

performing near-field analyses of 

primary pollutants.9 EPA considers that 

AERMOD is an acceptable model for 

estimating impacts of primary PM2.5, but 

EPA has not developed a near-field 

model that includes the necessary 

chemistry algorithms to estimate 

secondary or condensible emission 

impacts in an ambient air analysis. To 

address this issue, EPA issued modeling 

guidance in 2010 to give further 

direction on how to conduct an ambient 

impact analyses for PM2.5.10 11 This 

guidance provided that, with 

appropriate selection of a background 

monitor value, much of the PM2.5

secondary and condensibles could be 

accounted for using monitoring data. In 

the case of a large source of secondary 

PM2.5 or condensibles, additional 

modeling may be appropriate using 

other models for the secondary 

component, such as a photochemical 

model. Oklahoma has agreed to review 

proposed source modeling in 

accordance with EPA modeling 

guidance for PM2.5 and to either model 

coarse particulate matter (PM10) with a 

demonstration that the modeling is 

adequate as a surrogate for PM2.5

impacts or to model PM2.5 impacts 

directly using the AERMOD model in 

accordance with 40 CFR Appendix W 

and EPA’s recent PM2.5 modeling 

guidance.12

As the commenter pointed out, 

Appendix W Sections 5.2.1.c and 

5.2.2.1.c stipulate that the EPA Regional 

Office has the authority to work with 

the state/local permitting authorities on 

a case-by-case basis in determining the 

adequate modeling approach for 

assessing ozone and PM2.5 impacts. Due 

to the complexity of modeling Ozone 

and PM2.5, we believe this is an 

appropriate approach rather than 

specifying a preferred model that would 

not be appropriate in all circumstances. 

The Oklahoma SIP requires sources 

follow the Guideline on Air Quality 

Models (40 CFR part 51, Appendix W) 

in performing modeling to ensure that 

new or modified major stationary 

sources in Oklahoma do not cause or 

contribute to violations of the Ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS in Oklahoma or other 

States. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 72699 

13As noted in our proposal, OAC 252:100–8–31 

was revised to include a NOX emissions rate of 40 

tons per year in the definition of significant (75 FR 

56923, 56927). 

In conclusion, for the reasons stated 

above it is difficult to identify and 

implement a national modeling tool. 

EPA has a standard approach in its PSD 

SIP and FIP rules of not mandating the 

use of a particular modeling tool, 

instead treating the choice of a 

particular modeling tool for ozone and 

for non-primary PM2.5 as circumstancedependent. For primary PM2.5 ambient 

air analysis the guideline model is 

AERMOD. EPA then determines 

whether the State’s SIP revision 

submittal meets the PSD SIP 

requirements. Oklahoma has an EPAapproved PSD SIP that meets the EPA 

PSD SIP requirements. EPA guidance 

provides that a State does not interfere 

with the PSD program of other states if 

its own PSD program meets Federal 

requirements. Emissions from sources 

within Oklahoma are not interfering 

with the PSD of other states because the 

State of Oklahoma meets the Federal 

requirements for PSD. Therefore, we 

believe that the Oklahoma SIP has 

measures in place to insure that 

emissions from Oklahoma do not 

interfere with PSD programs in other 

States. 

Comment: A comment was received 

that EPA cannot approve the portion of 

the Oklahoma SIP which requires an 

ambient impact analysis, including the 

gathering of air quality data, for any net 

emissions increase of 100 tons per year 

or more of NOX subject to PSD, (OAC 

252:100–8–33(c)), and cannot conclude 

that the Oklahoma SIP does not interfere 

with PSD measures required in any 

other State. The commenter stated that 

we propose to approve Oklahoma’s 

finding that, unless a source emits 100 

tons/year of NOX or VOCs an analysis of 

impacts to ambient ozone 

concentrations is not required, that 

there is no support for this significance 

threshold, and it appears contrary to the 

Clean Air Act. The commenter further 

discussed our citation of 40 CFR 

51.166(i)(5)(i)(e), stating that the 

regulation does not state that an analysis 

of ambient ozone impacts is not 

required if NOX or VOC emissions are 

below the 100 tons/year threshold, (as 

noted by the statement ‘‘No de minimis 

air quality level is provided for ozone’’), 

but rather only states that such analysis 

is generally required if emissions are 

higher than the 100 ton/year threshold. 

Response: We disagree that we cannot 

(1) approve the revision to OAC 

252:100–8–33 and (2) conclude that the 

Oklahoma SIP does not interfere with 

PSD measures required in any other 

State. We believe the commenter is 

mistaken in what the Oklahoma SIP 

requires. Under the Oklahoma SIP 

revisions we are approving, a new major 

source with a significant emissions 

increase of NOX or VOC emissions, or a 

major source with a significant net 

emissions increase of NOX or VOC 

emissions from a major modification 

must conduct an analysis of impacts to 

ambient ozone concentrations (OAC 

252:100–8–35(a)).13 However, such a 

source with a net emissions increase 

less than 100 tons/year of NOX or VOCs 

will not have to gather ambient air 

quality [monitoring] data (OAC 

252:100–8–33(c)). The EPA regulations 

cited at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(e) 

similarly allow for this exemption with 

respect to monitoring ozone air quality. 

The revisions we are approving (1) are 

consistent with the Clean Air Act and 

EPA regulations for regulating NOX and 

VOC emissions and (2) ensure that the 

Oklahoma SIP does not interfere with 

PSD measures required in any other 

State. Table 1 is a comparison of 

Oklahoma and EPA PSD regulations for 

regulating NOX emissions for ozone. 

TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF OKLAHOMA AND EPA PSD REGULATIONS FOR REGULATING NOX EMISSIONS FOR OZONE

PSD issue Oklahoma regulations being approved EPA regulations 

Regulation of NOX as 

an ozone precursor.

OAC 252:100–8–31. Definitions 

* * * * * 

‘‘Regulated NSR pollutant’’ means (A) A regulated NSR pollutant is: (i) Any pollutant for 

which a NAAQS has been promulgated and 

any constituents or precursors for such pollutants identified by the Administrator (e.g., 

VOC and NOX are precursors for ozone); 

40 CFR 51.166(b)(49) Regulated NSR pollutant, for purposes of this 

section, means the following: (i) Any pollutant for which a national 

ambient air quality standard has been promulgated and any pollutant identified under this paragraph (b)(49)(i) as a constituent or 

precursor to such pollutant. Precursors identified by the Administrator for purposes of NSR are the following: (a) Volatile organic 

compounds and nitrogen oxides are precursors to ozone in all attainment and unclassifiable areas. 

Definition of Major 

Source for NOX.

OAC 252:100–8–31. Definitions 

* * * * * 

‘‘Major stationary source’’ means 

* * * * * 

(B) A major source that is major for VOC or 

NOX shall be considered major for ozone. 

40 CFR 51.166(b) Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(1) (ii) A major source that is major for volatile organic compounds or 

NOX shall be considered major for ozone. 

Definition of ‘‘Significant’’ OAC 252:100–8–31. Definitions 

* * * * * 

‘‘Significant’’ means: (A) In reference to a net 

emissions increase or the potential of a 

source to emit any of the following pollutants, significant means a rate of emissions 

that would equal or exceed any of the following rates: 

* * * * * 

(v) ozone: 40 TPY [tons per year] of VOC or 

NOX, 

40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i) Significant means, in reference to a net 

emissions increase or the potential of a source to emit any of the 

following pollutants, a rate of emissions that would equal or exceed 

any of the following rates: 

Pollutant and Emissions Rate 

* * * * * 

Ozone: 40 tpy of volatile organic compounds or nitrogen oxides 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
72700 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF OKLAHOMA AND EPA PSD REGULATIONS FOR REGULATING NOX EMISSIONS FOR OZONE— 

Continued 

PSD issue Oklahoma regulations being approved EPA regulations 

Exemptions with respect 

to monitoring.

OAC 252:100–8–33. Exemptions 

* * * * * 

(c) Exemption from monitoring requirements. 

The monitoring requirements of OAC 

252:100–8–35 are not applicable for a particular pollutant if the emission increase of 

the pollutant from a new source or the net 

emissions increase of the pollutant from a 

modification would cause, in any area, air 

quality impacts less than the following listed 

amounts, or are pollutant concentrations 

that are not on the list. 

* * * * * 

(E) 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, 

* * * * * 

40 CFR 51.166(i)(5) The plan may provide that the reviewing authority may exempt a proposed major stationary source or major modification from the requirements of paragraph (m) of this section 

[paragraph (m) is ‘‘Air quality analysis’’], with respect to monitoring 

for a particular pollutant, if: (i) The emissions increase of the pollutant from a new stationary source or the net emissions increase of 

the pollutant from a modification would cause, in any area, air 

quality impacts less than the following amounts: 

* * * * * 

(e) Ozone; 1

* * * * * 

1 No de minimis air quality level is provided for ozone. However, any 

net emissions increase of 100 tons per year or more of volatile organic compounds or nitrogen oxides subject to PSD would be required to perform an ambient impact analysis, including the gathering of air quality data. 

Comment: One commenter provided 

comments on Oklahoma SIP provisions 

that address excess emissions during 

periods of startup, shutdown and 

malfunction (SSM). The commenter 

asserted that Oklahoma’s SSM SIP 

provisions are inconsistent with EPA 

policy and have the potential to 

undermine the effectiveness of the good 

neighbor requirements of the Act. He 

further contends that the current SSM 

provisions interfere with the 

assumptions on which this rulemaking 

is based. The commenter argues that 

Oklahoma cannot ensure that emissions 

from sources within its borders will not 

interfere with NAAQS in other states 

when that determination does not 

account for the impermissibly broad 

SSM SIP provisions. The commenter 

also urged EPA to require Oklahoma to 

make changes to the existing SSM SIP 

provisions. 

Response: In the proposal, we 

proposed to find that the SIP revision 

submittal met the CAA requirements 

that emissions from sources in 

Oklahoma do not interfere with 

measures required in the SIP of any 

other State under part C of the CAA to 

prevent ‘‘significant deterioration of air 

quality.’’ The comments relating to 

excess emissions provisions and their 

impact upon NAAQS in other states are 

outside the scope of this action. 

In the proposal, we specifically note 

that we are not taking action on Chapter 

100, Subchapter 9 (Excess Emissions 

Reporting Requirements). Further, in 

this action on 110(a)(2)(D)(i), we are not 

taking an action that reapproves the 

existing SSM provisions in the 

Oklahoma SIP. On July 15, 2010, the 

state withdrew the 2002 submittal on 

Chapter 100, Subchapter 9 (Excess 

Emissions Reporting Requirements) and 

submitted revised SSM provisions. We 

plan to take action on the submission at 

a later date. Commenters should 

resubmit their comments then. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Review 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 72701 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by January 25, 2011. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxides, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: November 10, 2010. 

Lawrence E. Starfield, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart LL—Oklahoma 

■ 2. In § 52.1920: 

■ a. The table in paragraph (c) entitled 

‘‘EPA APPROVED OKLAHOMA 

REGULATIONS’’ is amended as follows: 

■ i. Revising the entries under 

‘‘Regulation 1.4 Air Resources 

Management Permits Required’’ for 

Sections 1.4.1(a) through 1.4.3(c). 

■ ii. Removing the centered heading and 

the entries for ‘‘1.4.4 Major Sources— 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) Requirements for Attainment 

Areas’’ and removing the centered 

heading and the entries for ‘‘1.4.5. Major 

Sources—Nonattainment Areas’’. 

■ iii. Adding a new centered heading 

titled ‘‘Subchapter 1. General 

Provisions’’ immediately after the 

heading for Chapter 4 (OAC 252:4) 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, 

followed by new entries for Sections 

252:4–1–1 through 252:.4–1–9. 

■ iv. Adding a new centered heading 

titled ‘‘Subchapter 7. Environmental 

Permit Process’’ immediately after the 

entry for Section 252:4–5–9, followed by 

a new centered heading titled ‘‘PART 1. 

THE PROCESS’’, followed by new 

entries for Sections 252:4–7–1 through 

252:4–7–19, followed by a new centered 

heading titled ‘‘PART 3. AIR QUALITY 

DIVISION TIERS AND TIME LINES’’, 

followed by new entries for Sections 

252:4–7–31 through 252:4–7–34. 

■ v. Adding a new entry for ‘‘252:4, 

Appendix C’’ immediately after the 

entry for 252:4, Appendix B under 

Appendices for OAC 252:Chapter 4. 

■ vi. Revising the centered heading 

titled ‘‘Subchapter 5. Registration of Air 

Contaminant Sources’’ to read 

‘‘Subchapter 5. Registration, Emissions 

Inventory and Annual Operating Fees’’, 

revising the entry for Section 252:100– 

5–1, adding a new entry for Section 

252:100–5–1.1, revising the entry for 

Section 252:100–5–2, adding new 

entries for Sections 252:100–5–2.1 and 

252:100–5–2.2, and revising the entry 

for Section 252:100–5–3 under 

‘‘CHAPTER 100 (OAC 252:100), AIR 

POLLUTION CONTROL’’. 

■ vii. Adding a new centered heading 

titled ‘‘Subchapter 8. Permits for Part 70 

Sources’’ immediately after the entry for 

Section 252:100–5–3, followed by a new 

centered heading titled ‘‘PART 1. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS’’, followed by 

new entries for Sections 252:100–8–1 

through 252:100–8–1.5, followed by a 

new centered heading titled ‘‘PART 5. 

PERMITS FOR PART 70 SOURCES’’, 

followed by new entries for Sections 

252:100–8–2 through 252:100–8–8, 

followed by a new centered heading 

titled ‘‘PART 7. PREVENTION OF 

SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) 

REQUIREMENTS FOR ATTAINMENT 

AREAS’’, followed by new entries for 

Sections 252:100–8–30 through 

252:100–8–37, followed by a new 

centered heading titled ‘‘PART 9. 

MAJOR SOURCES AFFECTING 

NONATTAINMENT AREAS’’, followed 

by new entries for Sections 252:100–8– 

50 through 252:100–8–54. 

■ b. Paragraph (e) is amended by 

revising the heading of the table to read 

‘‘EPA APPROVED NONREGULATORY

PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY

MEASURES IN THE OKLAHOMA SIP’’ and 

adding a new entry for the Oklahoma 

Transport SIP at the end of the table. 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1920 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED OKLAHOMA REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

OKLAHOMA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS 

Regulation 1.4. Air Resources Management Permits Required 

Regulation 1.4.1 General Permit Requirements 

1.4.1(a) ............. Scope and purpose ............................ 1 5/19/1983 8/25/1983, 48 FR 38635 ..................... Minor sources only. 

1.4.1(b) ............. General requirements ......................... 6/4/1990 7/23/1991, 56 FR 33715 ..................... Minor sources only. 

1.4.1(c) ............. Necessity to obtain permit .................. 6/4/1990 7/23/1991, 56 FR 33715 ..................... Minor sources only. 

1.4.1(d) ............. Permit fees .......................................... 1 5/19/1983 8/25/1983, 48 FR 38635 ..................... Minor sources only. 

1.4.2 Construction Permit 

1.4.2(a) ............. Standards required ............................. 6/4/1990 7/23/1991, 56 FR 33715 ..................... Minor sources only. 

1.4.2(b) ............. Stack height limitation ......................... 6/11/1989 8/20/1990, 55 FR 33905 ..................... Minor sources only. 

1.4.2(c) ............. Permit applications ............................. 6/4/1990 7/23/1991, 56 FR 33715 ..................... Minor sources only. 

1.4.2(d) ............. Action on applications ......................... 1 5/19/1983 8/25/1983, 48 FR 38635 ..................... Minor sources only. 

1.4.2(e) ............. Public review ....................................... 6/11/1989 8/20/1990, 55 FR 33905 ..................... Minor sources only. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
72702 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED OKLAHOMA REGULATIONS—Continued 

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

1.4.2(f) .............. Construction permit conditions ........... 1 5/19/1983 8/25/1983, 48 FR 38635 ..................... Minor sources only. 

1.4.2(g) ............. Cancellation of authority to construct 

or modify.

1 2/6/1984 7/27/1984, 49 FR 30184 ..................... Minor sources only. 

1.4.2(h) ............. Relocation permits .............................. 11/14/1990 7/23/1991, 56 FR 33715 ..................... Minor sources only. 

1.4.3 Operating Permit 

1.4.3(a) ............. Requirements ...................................... 1 5/19/1983 8/25/1983, 48 FR 38635 ..................... Minor sources only. 

1.4.3(b) ............. Permit applications ............................. 1 5/19/1983 8/25/1983, 48 FR 38635 ..................... Minor sources only. 

1.4.3(c) ............. Operating permit conditions ................ 1 5/19/1983 8/25/1983, 48 FR 38635 ..................... Minor sources only. 

*******

OKLAHOMA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 

TITLE 252. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

CHAPTER 4 (OAC 252:4). RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 

Subchapter 1. General Provisions 

252:4–1–1 ........ Purpose and authority ........................ 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:4–1–2 ........ Definitions ........................................... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:4–1–3 ........ Organization ........................................ 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:4–1–4 ........ Office location and hours; communications.6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:4–1–5 ........ Availability of a record ........................ 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:4–1–6 ........ Administrative fees ............................. 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:4–1–7 ........ Fee credits for regulatory fees ........... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:4–1–8 ........ Board and councils ............................. 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:4–1–9 ........ Severability ......................................... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

*******

Subchapter 7. Environmental Permit Process 

PART 1. THE PROCESS 

252:4–7–1 ........ Authority .............................................. 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:4–7–2 ........ Preamble ............................................. 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:4–7–3 ........ Compliance ......................................... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:4–7–4 ........ Filing an application, ........................... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:4–7–5 ........ Fees .................................................... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:4–7–6 ........ Receipt of applications ....................... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:4–7–7 ........ Administrative completeness review .. 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:4–7–8 ........ Technical review ................................. 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:4–7–9 ........ When review times stop ..................... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:4–7–10 ...... Supplemental time .............................. 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:4–7–11 ...... Extensions .......................................... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:4–7–12 ...... Failure to meet deadline ..................... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 72703 

EPA-APPROVED OKLAHOMA REGULATIONS—Continued 

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

252:4–7–13 ...... Notices ................................................ 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

NOT in SIP: Paragraph (e) 

and paragraph (f) requirements for permits 

other than Part 70 permits. 

252:4–7–14 ...... Withdrawing applications .................... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:4–7–15 ...... Permit issuance or denial ................... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:4–7–16 ...... Tier II and III modifications ................. 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:4–7–17 ...... Permit decision-making authority ....... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:4–7–18 ...... Pre-issuance permit review and correction.6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:4–7–19 ...... Consolidation of permitting process ... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

PART 3. AIR QUALITY DIVISION TIERS AND TIME LINES 

252:4–7–31 ...... Air quality time lines ........................... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:4–7–33 ...... Air quality applications—Tier II ........... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:4–7–34 ...... Air quality applications—Tier III .......... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

*******

Appendices for OAC 252: Chapter 4 

*******

252:4, Appendix 

C.

Permitting process summary .............. 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

*******

CHAPTER 100 (OAC 252:100). AIR POLLUTION CONTROL 

*******

Subchapter 5. Registration, Emission Inventory and Annual Operating Fees 

252:100–5–1 .... Purpose ............................................... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:100–5–1.1 Definitions ........................................... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

NOT in SIP: Paragraph (D) 

under ‘‘Regulated air pollutants’’. 

252:100–5–2 .... Registration of potential sources of air 

contaminants.

6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:100–5–2.1 Emission inventory .............................. 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:100–5–2.2 Annual operating fees ......................... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:100–5–3 .... Confidentiality of proprietary information.6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

Subchapter 8. Permits for Part 70 Sources 

PART 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 

252:100–8–1 .... Purpose ............................................... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:100–8–1.1 Definitions ........................................... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:100–8–1.2 General information ............................ 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:100–8–1.3 Duty to comply .................................... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
72704 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED OKLAHOMA REGULATIONS—Continued 

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

252:100–8–1.4 Cancellation or extension of a construction permit or authorization 

under a general construction permit.

6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:100–8–1.5 Stack height limitations ....................... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

PART 5. PERMITS FOR PART 70 SOURCES 

252:100–8–2 .... Definitions ........................................... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

NOT in SIP: Paragraph (C) 

under ‘‘Insignificant activities’’. 

252:100–8–3 .... Applicability ......................................... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:100–8–4 .... Requirements for construction and 

operating permits.

6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:100–8–5 .... Permit applications ............................. 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:100–8–6 .... Permit content ..................................... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:100–8–6.1 General permits .................................. 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:100–8–6.2 Temporary sources ............................. 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:100–8–6.3 Special provisions for affected (acid 

rain) sources.

6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:100–8–7 .... Permit issuance .................................. 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:100–8–7.1 Permit renewal and expiration ............ 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:100–8–7.2 Administrative permit amendments 

and permit modifications.

6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:100–8–7.3 Reopening of operating permits for 

cause.

6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:100–8–7.4 Revocations of operating permits ....... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:100–8–7.5 Judicial review .................................... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:100–8–8 .... Permit review by EPA and affected 

states.

6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

PART 7. PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) REQUIREMENTS FOR ATTAINMENT AREAS 

252:100–8–30 .. Applicability ......................................... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:100–8–31 .. Definitions ........................................... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

Revisions submitted on 

June 24, 2010 are approved as follows: a 

major source that is 

major for NOX shall be 

considered major for 

ozone in the definition of 

Major Stationary Source; 

Regulated NSR pollutant 

definition; and definition 

of Significant. 

252:100–8–32 .. Source applicability determination ...... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:100–8–33 .. Exemptions ......................................... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

The revision to OAC 

252:100–8–33(c)(E) submitted on June 24, 2010 

is approved. 

252:100–8–34 .. Best available control technology ....... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:100–8–35 .. Air quality impact evaluation ............... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:100–8–36 .. Source impacting Class I areas ......... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:100–8–37 .. Innovative control technology ............. 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 72705 

EPA-APPROVED OKLAHOMA REGULATIONS—Continued 

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

PART 9. MAJOR SOURCES AFFECTING NONATTAINMENT AREAS 

252:100–8–50 .. Applicability ......................................... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:100–8–51 .. Definitions ........................................... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:100–8–52 .. Source applicability determination ...... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

NOT in SIP: paragraph 

(b)(2). 

252:100–8–53 .. Exemptions ......................................... 6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

252:100–8–54 .. Requirements for sources located in 

nonattainment areas PSD or NNSR 

program submissions containing 

rule changes for PM2.5.

6/11/2001 11/26/2010 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

*******

1Submitted. 

* * * * * (e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE OKLAHOMA SIP 

Name of SIP provision 

Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Interstate transport for the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide ............ 5/1/2007 11/26/2010 

[Insert citation of 

publication]. 

Approval for revisions to prohibit 

interference with Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration in any 

other State. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29398 Filed 11–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2010–0669; FRL–9231–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Idaho 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State for Idaho for the 

purpose of addressing the ‘‘good 

neighbor’’ provisions of the Clean Air 

Act (the Act or CAA) section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS or standards) and the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. This SIP revision 

addresses the requirement that the State 

of Idaho’s SIP have adequate provisions 

to prohibit air emissions from adversely 

affecting another state’s air quality 

through interstate transport. In this 

action, EPA is approving the Idaho 

Interstate Transport SIP provisions that 

address the requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) that emissions from Idaho 

sources do not significantly contribute 

to nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state, interfere 

with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state, and interfere 

with measures required in the SIP of 

any other state under part C of 

subchapter I of the CAA to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality. 

This action is being taken under section 

110 and part C of subchapter I of the 

CAA. 

DATES: This action is effective on 

December 27, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State’s SIP 

revision and other information 

supporting this action are available for 

inspection at EPA Region 10, Office of 

Air, Waste, and Toxics (AWT–107), 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, 

Washington 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donna Deneen, EPA Region 10, Office of 

Air, Waste, and Toxics (AWT–107), 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 

98101, or at (206) 553–6706. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, we mean 

EPA. Information is organized as 

follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

II. What is the background for this action? 

III. Response to Comments 

A. Comments Relating to the ‘‘Significant 

Contribution to Nonattainment’’ Element 

B. Comments Relating to the ‘‘Interfere 

With Maintenance’’ Element 

C. Comment Relating to Section 110(l) 

IV. Final Action 

V. Scope of Action 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving a portion of Idaho’s 

Interstate Transport State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS submitted by the Idaho 

Department of Quality (IDEQ) on June 

28, 2010. Specifically, we are approving 

the portion of the plan that addresses 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES