# Technical Support Document

EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0783

Disapproval of Revisions to the Arka nsas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma State Implementation Plans for the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Biomass Deferral, Step 2 GHG Permitting and Minor S ource GHG Permitting

Revisions to Arkansas Regulation 19, Chapter 2 submitted on November 6, 2012

Revisions to 20.2.74 NMAC submitted on January 8, 2013

Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-2.1 submitted on February 6, 2012

Revisions to OAC 252:100-1-3 and OAC 252: 100-8-31 submitted on January 18, 2013

December 2, 2015

No material in this submittal package was de signated as Confidential Business Information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adina Wiley United States Environmental Prot ection Agency Region 6, Air Permits Section (6PD-R), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, (214) 665-2115.2 

## Contents

I. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. .... 3

A. What actions are evaluated in th is Technical Support Document? ..................................... 3

B. Summary Tables of Submittals Covered in this TSD ......................................................... 4

II. Technical Evaluation of the Novemb er 6, 2012 Arkansas SIP Submittal ............................. 12

A. Evaluation of the November 6, 2012 Arkansas SIP Submittal with respect to Appendix V
to Part 51 .................................................................................................................... ....... 12

B. Evaluation of the November 6, 2012, Arkansas SIP submittal with resp ect to the federal requirements for PSD Permitting ...................................................................................... 16

C. Evaluation of the November 6, 2012 Arkansas SIP submittal respect to section 110(l) of
the CAA ....................................................................................................................... ..... 17

III. Technical Evaluation of the January 8, 2013 New Mexico SIP Submittal ........................... 18

A. Evaluation of the January 8, 2013, New Mexico SIP Submittal with respect to the Part 51, Appendix V Completeness Checklist ............................................................................... 18

B. Evaluation of the January 8, 2013, New Mexico SIP submittal with respect to the federal requirements for PSD Permitting ...................................................................................... 23

C. Evaluation of the January 8, 2013, New Mexico SIP submittal with respect to section 110(l) of the CAA ............................................................................................................. 24

IV. Technical Evaluation of the February 6, 2012 Oklahoma SIP Submittal ............................. 25

A. Evaluation of the February 6, 2012, Oklahoma SIP Submittal with respect to the Part 51, Appendix V Completeness Checklist ............................................................................... 25

B. Evaluation of the February 6, 2012, Oklahoma SI P submittal with respect to the federal requirements minor NSR and PSD Permitting ................................................................. 30

C. Evaluation of the February 6, 2012, Oklahoma SIP submittal with respect to section 110(l) of the CAA ............................................................................................................. 31

V. Technical Evaluation of the January 18, 2013 Oklahoma SIP Submittal ............................. 33

A. Evaluation of the January 18, 2013, Oklahoma SIP Submittal with respect to the Part 51, Appendix V Completeness Checklist ............................................................................... 33

B. Evaluation of the January 18, 2013, Oklahoma SIP submittal with respect to the federal requirements for PSD Permitting ...................................................................................... 38

C. Evaluation of the January 18, 2013, Oklahoma SIP submittal with respect to section 110(l) of the CAA ............................................................................................................. 39

V. Conclusion .................................................................................................................... ......... 413 

## I. Executive Summary
A. What actions are evaluated in this Technical Support Document?

This technical support document (TSD) reviews severable provisions submitted to the Arkansas, New Mexico and Oklahoma SIPs to adopt th e EPA’s July 20, 2011 GHG Biomass Deferral. This
TSD also reviews one revision to the Oklahoma SIP to provide for minor source permitting for GHG emissions and for PSD permitting of sources that are required to have a PSD permit based solely on emissions of GHGs. This review will determine if the following submitted revisions are consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA’s policy and guidance.

Arkansas November 6, 2012, SIP Submittal

On June 22, 2012, the Arkansas Pollution Contro l &Ecology Commission adopted revisions to Regulation 9 – Permit Fee Regulations, Regulation 19 – Regulations of the Arkansas Plan of Implementation for Air Pollution Control, and Regulation 26 – Regulations of the Arkansas Operating Air Permit Program. On October 26, 2012, APC&EC adopted additional revisions to Regulation 19. Governor Beebe submitted these regul ations as a revision to the Arkansas SIP in a letter dated November 6, 2012.

As part of this action, EPA is addressing the following revisions contained in the November 6, 2012 submittal that were adopted on Oc tober 26, 2012, effective November 18, 2012, respectively:

 Substantive revisions to Regulation 19, Chapter 2 to implement the GHG Biomass
Deferral in the definition for “CO 2 equivalent emissions”.

New Mexico January 8, 2013, SIP Submittal

In a letter dated January 8, 2013, David Martin, Secretary of the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED), submitted revisions to the New Mexico SIP that were adopted by the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (NM EIB) on January 7, 2013. The submitted revisions were effective on February 6, 2013. This SIP submittal included revisions to the New Mexico PSD Permitting Program at 20.2.74 NMAC. The revision to 20.2.74.7(AZ)(2)( a ) NMAC addressing the GHG Biomass Deferral is the only por tion of this submittal under review in this
TSD.

Oklahoma February 6, 2012, SIP Submittal

In a letter dated Febr uary 6, 2012, Gary Sherrer, the Okla homa Secretary of Environment, submitted revisions to the Oklahoma SIP. The submitted revisions included provisions for minor source permitting of greenhouse gases at OAC 252:100-7-2.1 and provisions for GHG PSD permitting for non-anyway sources, or step 2 sources. Today’s TSD will only address the GHG minor source permitting provisions and the provisions for non-anyway source permitting that have now been vacated and removed by the EPA. Th is submittal also included other revisions to the Oklahoma major source permitting programs that will be addressed separately in other
actions.

Oklahoma January 18, 2013, SIP Submittal4 In a letter dated January 18, 2013, Gary Sherrer, the Oklahoma Secretary of Environment,
submitted revisions to the Oklahoma SIP. The submitted revisions included revisions to the
General Definitions for the OK SIP at OAC 252: 100-1-3 and the OK PSD pr ogram definitions at OAC 252:100-8-31 effective on July 1, 2012, to a ddress the GHG Biomass Deferral. Only the portions of these definitions pertaining to the GHG Biomass Deferral will be addressed in this
TSD. This submittal also included other revisions to the Oklahoma SIP for Incinerator Control requirements and requirements for the cont rol of emissions of sulfur compounds.



### B. Summary Tables of Subm ittals Covered in this TSD

Table 1: Summary of the Arkansas Revisions Submitted November 6, 2012
Section Title Date Submitted to
EPA Adopted by State Comments

Regulation 9, Chapter 5 Air Permit Fees November 6, 2012 June 22, 2012 and October 26, 2012 Approved by EPA on April 30, 2015.
See 80 FR 24216. Regulation 19, Chapter 1 Title, Intent, and Purpose November 6, 2012 June 22, 2012 and October 26, 2012 Approved by EPA on March 4, 2015.
See 80 FR 11573.

Regulation 19, Chapter 2 Definitions November 6, 2012 June 22, 2012 and October 26, 2012 All revisions except
for the GHG
Biomass Deferral provisions in the
definition of CO 2 Equivalent
Emissions were approved by EPA on March 4, 2015.
See 80 FR 11573.
This TSD evaluates only the Biomass Deferral provisions
in the definition of
CO 2 e submitted on November 6, 2012.

Regulation 19, Chapter 4 Minor Source
Review November 6, 2012 June 22, 2012 and October 26, 2012 No action at this time; Severable from provisions for
PSD because
addresses Minor NSR only.

Regulation 19, Chapter 9 Prevention of Significant
Deterioration November 6, 2012 June 22, 2012 and October 26, 2012 Approved by EPA on April 2, 2013, at
78 FR 19596.5 Table 1: Summary of the Arkansas Revisions Submitted November 6, 2012
Section Title Date Submitted to
EPA Adopted by State Comments

Regulation 19, Appendix A Insignificant
Activities List November 6, 2012 June 22, 2012 and October 26, 2012 No action at this time; Severable from provisions for
PSD because
addresses Minor NSR only.

Regulation 26, Chapter 3 Requirements for a Permit, Applicability November 6, 2012 June 22, 2012 and October 26, 2012 No action at this time; Severable from provisions for Title I SIP purposes,
Revisions to
Arkansas Title V program to address GHG permitting
under Title V. Regulation 26, Chapter 4 Applications for
Permits November 6, 2012 June 22, 2012 and October 26, 2012 No action at this time; Severable from provisions for Title I SIP purposes,
Revisions to
Arkansas Title V program to address GHG permitting
under Title V.

Table 2: Summary of the New Mexico Revisions Submitted January 8, 2013
Section Title Date Submitted to
EPA Adopted by State Comments

20.2.70.7 NMAC Definitions January 8, 2013 Adopted January 7,
2013 Effective February 6, 2013 No action at this time; Severable from provisions for Title I SIP purposes;
Revisions to the
New Mexico Title V Operating Permits Program. 20.2.74.7 NMAC Definitions January 8, 2013 Adopted January 7,
2013 Effective February 6, 2013 All revisions except 20.2.74.7(AZ)(2)( a )
NMAC were approved by EPA on December 11,
2013. See 78 FR
75253.
This TSD evaluates only the revisions to 20.2.74.7(AZ)(2)( a )
NMAC.
20.2.74.320 NMAC Actuals Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs) January 8, 2013 Adopted January 7,
2013 Approved by EPA on December 11,6 Effective February 6, 2013 2013. See 78 FR
75253.

Table 3: Summary of the Oklahoma Revisions Submitted February 6, 2012
Section Title Date Submitted to
EPA Adopted by State Comments

OAC 252:100-1-3 General Provisions,
Definitions February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action. OAC 252:100-1-4 General Provisions, Units, abbreviations and acronyms February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action. OAC 252:100-3-4 Air Quality
Standards and Increments, Significant
deterioration
increments February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action. 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 Reviewed in this
TSD.

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 action. OAC 252:100-8-31 PSD, Definitions February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 Severable portions
of the definition of “subject to regulation” at OAC
252:100-8-31 pertaining to the permitting of Step 2, non-anyway
sources will be
addressed in this
action. The
remainder of these
revisions will be addressed by EPA in a separate action. OAC 252:100-8-33 PSD, Exemptions February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action. OAC 252:100-8-35 PSD, Air quality impact evaluation February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.
OAC 252:100-8-
50.1 NNSR, Incorporation by
reference February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action. OAC 252:100-8-51 NNSR, Definitions February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.7 Table 3: Summary of the Oklahoma Revisions Submitted February 6, 2012
Section Title Date Submitted to
EPA Adopted by State Comments

OAC 252:100-8-
51.1 NNSR, Emissions
reductions and
offsets February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action. 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 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.

OAC 252:100, Appendix E Appendix E, Primary Ambient Air Quality
Standards February 6, 2012 February 25, 2011 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.

Table 4: Summary of the Oklahoma Revisions Submitted January 18, 2013
Section Title Date Submitted to
EPA Adopted by State Comments

OAC 252:100-1-3 General Provisions,

Definitions January 18, 2013 May 1, 2012 Severable portion of

the definition of

“carbon dioxide equivalent” for the

GHG Biomass

Deferral will be

addressed in this

action. The

remainder of the
revisions to OAC

252:100-1-3 will be

addressed in a separate action. OAC 252:100-2-1 Incorporation by Reference (IBR), Purpose January 18, 2013 November 15, 2011 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action. OAC 252:100-2-3 IBR, Incorporation by Reference January 18, 2013 November 15, 2011 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.

OAC 252:100-8-2 Permits for Part 70 Sources and Major

New Source Review (NSR) Sources, Requirements for

construction and operating permits January 18, 2013 November 15, 2011 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.

OAC 252:100-8-4 Permits for Part 70 and Major NSR,

Definitions January 18, 2013 November 15, 2011 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.8 Table 4: Summary of the Oklahoma Revisions Submitted January 18, 2013
Section Title Date Submitted to
EPA Adopted by State Comments

OAC 252:100-8-31 PSD, Definitions January 18, 2013 November 15, 2011 Severable portion of

the definition of “subject to regulation” for the

GHG Biomass

Deferral will be

addressed in this

action. The

remainder of the
revisions to OAC

252:100-8-31 will

be addressed in a separate action. OAC 252:100-8-33 PSD, Exemptions January 18, 2013 November 15, 2011 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.

OAC 252:100-8-

51.1 NNSR, Emission

reductions and

offsets January 18, 2013 November 15, 2011 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.

OAC 252:100-17-1 Incinerators General Provisions, Purpose January 18, 2013 May 4, 2010 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.

OAC 252:100-17-

1.1 Incinerators General Provisions,

Reference to 40

CFR January 18, 2013 May 4, 2010 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.

OAC 252:100-17-

1.2 Incinerators General Provisions, Terminology related

to 40 CFR January 18, 2013 May 4, 2010 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.

OAC 252:100-17-

1.3 Incinerators General Provisions,

Incinerators and fuel-burning equipment or units January 18, 2013 May 4, 2010 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.

OAC 252:100-17-2 Incinerators, General Purpose Incinerators, Applicability January 18, 2013 May 4, 2010 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.

OAC 252:100-17-

2.1 Incinerators, General Purpose Incinerators, Exemptions January 18, 2013 May 4, 2010 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.

OAC 252:100-17-

2.2 Incinerators, General Purpose Incinerators,

Definitions January 18, 2013 May 4, 2010 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.9 Table 4: Summary of the Oklahoma Revisions Submitted January 18, 2013
Section Title Date Submitted to
EPA Adopted by State Comments

OAC 252:100-17-4 Incinerators, General Purpose Incinerators,

Particulate Matter January 18, 2013 May 4, 2010 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.

OAC 252:100-17-5 Incinerators, General Purpose Incinerators, Incinerator design and operation requirements January 18, 2013 May 4, 2010 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.

OAC 252:100-17-

5.1 Incinerators, General Purpose Incinerators,
Alternative incinerator design requirements January 18, 2013 May 4, 2010 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.

OAC 252:100-17-7 Incinerators, General Purpose Incinerators, Test

methods January 18, 2013 May 4, 2010 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.

OAC 252:100-17-8 Incinerators,

Biomedical Waste Incinerators, Applicability January 18, 2013 August 24, 2010 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.

OAC 252:100-17-9 Incinerators,

Biomedical Waste Incinerators,

Definitions January 18, 2013 August 24, 2010 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.

OAC 252:100-17-

10 Incinerators,

Biomedical Waste Incinerators, Design and operation January 18, 2013 August 24, 2010 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.

OAC 252:100-17-

11 Incinerators,

Biomedical Waste Incinerators,

Emission limits January 18, 2013 August 24, 2010 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.

OAC 252:100-31-1 Control of Sulfur Compounds, General Provisions, Purpose January 18, 2013 February 24, 2012 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.

OAC 252:100-31-2 Control of Sulfur Compounds, General Provisions,

Definitions January 18, 2013 February 24, 2012 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.

OAC 252:100-31-4 Control of Sulfur Compounds, General Provisions,

Excess emission January 18, 2013 February 24, 2012 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.10 Table 4: Summary of the Oklahoma Revisions Submitted January 18, 2013
Section Title Date Submitted to
EPA Adopted by State Comments

reporting and alternative reporting

schedule

OAC 252:100-31-7 Control of Sulfur Compounds,

Ambient Air

Concentration Limits or Impacts

for New and Existing Equipment, Sources, or Facilities,

Allowable H2S

ambient air

concentrations for new and existing

sources January 18, 2013 February 24, 2012 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.

OAC 252:100-31-

13 Control of Sulfur Compounds, Existing Equipment Standards, Requirements for existing sulfuric acid plants January 18, 2013 February 24, 2012 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.

OAC 252:100-31-

15 Control of Sulfur Compounds, Existing Equipment Standards, Requirements for existing kraft pulp

mills January 18, 2013 February 24, 2012 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.

OAC 252:100-31-

16 Control of Sulfur Compounds, Existing Equipment Standards, Requirements for existing fossil-fuel

fired steam
generators January 18, 2013 February 24, 2012 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.

OAC 252:100-31-

25 Control of Sulfur Compounds, New Equipment Standards, Requirements for new fuel-burning equipment January 18, 2013 February 24, 2012 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.

OAC 252:100-31-

26 Control of Sulfur Compounds, New Equipment January 18, 2013 February 24, 2012 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.11 Table 4: Summary of the Oklahoma Revisions Submitted January 18, 2013
Section Title Date Submitted to
EPA Adopted by State Comments

Standards, Requirements for new petroleum and natural gas

processes OAC 252:100-31-

27 Control of Sulfur Compounds, New Equipment Standards, Pulp

Mills January 18, 2013 February 24, 2012 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.

OAC 252:100, Appendix A Allowable

Particulate Matter

Emission Rate for

Incinerators January 18, 2013 May 4, 2010 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action. May 3, 2011

OAC 252:100, Appendix Q IBR January 18, 2013 November 15, 2011 Will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.12 

## II. Technical Evaluation of the November 6, 2012 Arkansas SIP
Submittal

A. Evaluation of th e November 6, 2012 Arkansas SIP Submittal with respect to Appendix V to Part 51

The criteria for completeness determination ar e found in Appendix V to Part 51 - Criteria for determining the completeness of plan submissions and are outlined below:

1.0 Purpose: This appendix V sets forth the minimum criteria for determining whether a State implementation 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 appendix 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 de termination is not made by 6 months from receipt of a submittal, the submittal shall be deemed complete by operation of law on the date 6 months from receipt. A determination of complete ness under this paragraph means that the
submission is an official s ubmission for purposes of §51.103.

The attached checklist outlines the basic criter ia included under 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 of Appendix V.

Section 2.3 of Appendix V describes the "paralle l process procedure" which EPA can use to expedite the review and adopti on of SIP revisions Section 2.3 of Appendix V to 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable to the November 6, 2012, Arkansas SIP submittal.13 SIP Completeness Checklist for the November 6, 2012 Arkansas SIP Submittal

Administrative Materials (2.1) 1. The package is sent with a formal submitta l letter from the Governor or his or her designee requesting EPA's approval of the revision.

The SIP revision was submitted by a letter from Governor Mike Beebe, dated November 6, 2012. The SIP submittal was received by EPA Region Air Permits Section on December 3, 2012.

2. Evidence is included that the State has adopt ed the revision in the State code or body of regulations, or that the State has issued th e permit, order, consen t 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/issuance date.

The revisions were adopted by the APC&EC on June 22, 2012, effective on July 9, 2012.

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

The Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission is authorized to adopt the amendments to APC&EC Regulation No 19. Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated (A.C.A.) § 8-1-203(b)(1)(A), “Promulgation of rules and re gulations implementing the substantive statutes charged to the Arkans as Department of Environmental Quality for
administration.”

4. A copy is included of the actual regulation or document submitted for approval and incorporation by reference into the SIP includin g an indication of the changes made to the existing approved plan where applicable. Th e submittal shall be a copy of the official State regulation document signed, stamped, and dated by the appropria te 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 November 6, 2012, submittal included a copy of the official State regulation document, signed, stamped, and dated by J ohn Chamberlin, Chairman. The adopted rules were effective on July 12, 2012, and November 18, 2012.

5. Evidence is included that the State followed all the procedural requirements of its laws and/or its constitution in conducting and comple ting the adoption/issuance of the plan.

The SIP submittals were developed pursuant to 40 CFR 51.104.14 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 copi es of any public notices publis hed in newspapers). (The notice should be at least 30 days prior to the public hearing(s)).

Notices of public hearing were published in the following newspaper on the dates listed:

 The Arkansas Democrat Gazette: February 2 and 3, 2011.

A public hearing was held in North Little Rock, AR on March 8, 2011.

7. A certification is included indi cating that public hearing(s) was/were held in accordance with the information provided in the pub lic notice(s) and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable.

A responsive summary of the March 8, 2011, hearing was included that provided evidence the hearing was conducted pursuant to the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission rulemaking procedures.

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

A responsive summary of the March 8, 2011, hearing was included that groups public comments into similar categor ies and explains why the Ar kansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission accepts or rejects the ra tionale for each category. APC&EC also received written testimony from Re gion 6 during the comment period.

Technical Support (2.2)

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

1. Identification of all regu lated pollutants affected by the revision is included.

 The revisions to the Arkansas PSD pr ogram apply to all pollutants regulated under the PSD program.

 The November 6, 2012 revisions expand the applicability of the PSD program to regulate GHGs above certain thresholds, consistent with EPA’s GHG Tailoring
Rule.

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

The November 6, 2012 SIP submittal amends th e PSD permitting program that applies
statewide in Arkansas. These submitted re gulations apply for all pollutants regulated under the Arkansas PSD program.15 3. Quantification of the changes in SIP allowa ble 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 affected sources through calculations of the differen ces between certain baseline levels and allowable emissions anticipat ed if the revisions were approved.)

The November 6, 2012 SIP submittal amends the existing Arkansas PSD program. Quantification of changes in the SIP allowable emissions from the affected sources is not necessary for inclusion. Any new sources of GHG emissions subject to regulation under the PSD program will follow the SIP-approved PSD permitting process.

4. Demonstration is included that the NAAQ S/PSD increments/RFP demonstration and visibility as applicable would be prot ected if the revision were approved and implemented.

The November 6, 2012 SIP submittal amend s the existing PSD progr am to IBR federal requirements as of November 29, 2005, and adopt and implement the GHG Tailoring
Rule thresholds. There is no demons tration included that the NAAQS/PSD increments/RFP demonstration and visibility are protected because there are no current NAAQS or increment for GHGs and the GHG thre sholds will not interfere with RFP or visibility.

5. FOR REDESIGNATIONS:

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

b. Are contingency measures included? Not applicable.

6. Modeling information, if app licable, is required to s upport the proposed revision.

Modeling information is not necessary to support these SIP revisions.

7. Evidence is included where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction technology (e.g., add-on controls, industria l/process equipment designs, reformulated materials, etc.).

The November 6, 2012 SIP submittal amends the existing PSD program to update the IBR date of federal requirements and adopt and implement the GHG Tailoring Rule thresholds. Any requirements for emission li mitations or emission reduction technology for GHGs will be implemented pursuant to the SIP-approved PSD permitting program.16 8. Evidence is included indicating that a SIP re vision contains emission limitations, work practice standards, and recordkeeping/reporti ng requirements to ensure stated emission
levels.

The November 6, 2012 SIP submittal amend s the existing PSD program and do not
contain or revise emission limitations or workplace standar ds. Emission limitations and workplace standards will be established in in dividual PSD permits i ssued pursuant to the federally approved Arkansas PSD program.

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

The November 6, 2012 SIP submittal amend s the existing PSD program to update the IBR date of federal requirements and adopt and implement the GHG Tailoring Rule thresholds. Compliance will be determin ed on an individual permit basis for PSD permits issued pursuant to the federa lly approved Arkansas PSD program.

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

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

The November 6, 2012, SIP submittal meets the completeness criteria established in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V.



### B. Evaluation of the November 6, 2012, Ar kansas SIP submittal with respect to the federal requirements for PSD Permitting

This TSD only addresses the portion of the November 6, 2012, Arkansas SIP submittal that pertains to the Biomass Defe rral for GHG PSD permitting. Specifica lly, only the portion of the general definition of “CO2 equivalent emissions (CO2e)” at Regulation 19, Chapter 2 as follows:

Table 5: Analysis of Revisions to Regulation 19, Chapter 2 EPA’s Analysis SIP-Approved by EPA on March 4,
2015 at 80 FR 11573.

“CO2 equivalent emissions” (CO2e) shall represent an amount of GHGs emitted, and shall be computed by multiplying the mass amount of emissions in tons per year (tpy), for each of the six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas’s associated global warming potential published at Table A - 1 to subpart A of 40 Revisions submitted on November 6, 2012.

“CO2 equivalent emissions” (CO2e) shall represent an amount of GHGs emitted, and shall be computed by multiplying the mass amount of emissions in tons per year (tpy), for each of the six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas’s associated global warming potential published at Table A - 1 to subpart A of 40 The revisions to the definition of
“CO 2 equivalent emissions” submitted on November 6, 2012,
are identical to the EPA’s Biomass Deferral provisions that were promulgated on July 20, 2011, at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49).

This Biomass Deferral was vacated by the DC Circuit Court on July 12, 2013.17 Table 5: Analysis of Revisions to Regulation 19, Chapter 2 EPA’s Analysis CFR part 98 - Global Warming Potentials (which is incorporated by reference as finalized by EPA as of October 30, 2009), and summing
the resultant value for each to compute a tpy CO2 equivalent
emissions. CFR part 98 - Global Warming Potentials (which is incorporated by reference as finalized by EPA as of October 30, 2009), and summing
the resultant value for each to compute a tpy CO2 equivalent emissions. For purposes of this definition, prior to July 21, 2014, the mass of the greenhouse gas
carbon dioxide shall not include carbon dioxide emissions resulting
from the combustion or decomposition of non-fossilized and biodegradable organic material originating from plants, animals, or microorganisms (including products, by-products, residues and waste from agriculture, forestry and
related industries as well as the nonfossilized and biodegradable organic fractions of industrial and municipal wastes, including gases and liquids recovered from the decomposition of non-fossilized and biodegradable organic material). The Biomass Deferral itself has already expired and therefore cannot be used by any Arkansas PSD sources. However, the provision was submitted as a
revision to the Arkansas SIP and
has not been withdrawn from our
consideration. Th erefore, the EPA has an obligation to act on the submitted provision.

The submitted provision should be disapproved because it is no longer a usable or functioning component
of the Arkansas GHG PSD

program.



### C. Evaluation of the November 6, 2012 Ar kansas SIP submittal respect to section 110(l) of the CAA

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

Each revision to an implementation plan submitte d by a State under this Act shall be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public he aring. The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfer e with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as de fined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of this Act.

Thus, under section 110(l), the November 6, 2012, SIP submittal containing revisions to the
Arkansas General Definitions for use in the Ar kansas PSD permitting program must not interfere with attainment or reasonable further progress or any other applicable re quirement of the Act. The EPA has already approved the remainder of the November 6, 2012, revisions to the Arkansas PSD permitting program to provide th e authority to regulate GHGs and issue PSD permits consistent with fede ral requirements. The remaining portion of the November 6, 2012, submitted general definition of “CO2 equivalent emissions” is to adopt a now-expired provision allowing for an exemption of biomass from GHG PSD permitting. The EPA must act on the submitted Biomass Deferral language because of our obligations under section 110 of the Act which require us to take acti on on revisions to a SIP unless th e provisions are withdrawn. Our action to propose disapproval of the expi red provision will not undermine any existing18 requirement of the Arkansas SIP or the CAA b ecause the provision can no longer be used under
federal law.



## III. Technical Evaluation of the January 8, 2013 New Mexico SIP
Submittal

This technical review of the January 8, 2013, revisions to 20.2.74 NMAC consists of a comparison between the relevant Clean Air Act requirements and the corresponding sections in the SIP submittal. The January 8, 2013, SIP submitta l will also be reviewed for completeness as under Part 51, Appendix V.



### A. Evaluation of the January 8, 2013, New Mexico SIP Submittal with respect to the Part 51, Appendix V Completeness Checklist

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

1.0 Purpose: This appendix V sets forth th e minimum criteria for determining whether a State implementation plan submitted for consid eration 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 appendix 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 th e 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 shall be deemed complete by operation of law on the date 6 months from receipt. A determination of co mpleteness under this paragraph means that
the submission is an official submission for purposes of §51.103.

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

Section 2.3 of Appendix V describes the "paralle l process procedure" which EPA can use to expedite the review and adoption of SIP revi sions. The January 8, 2013 NM 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.19 SIP Completeness Checklist for the January 8, 2013 New Mexico SIP Submittal

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

Mr. David Martin, Secretary of the New Mexi co Environment Department, in a letter dated January 8, 2013, submitted revisions to the New Mexico SIP to amend the PSD program at 20.2.74 NMAC. EPA Region 6 Air Planni ng Section received the submittal on January 18, 2013. This submittal package also in cluded amendments to the New Mexico Operating Permits Program at 20.2.70 NMAC, but as explained previously in Section I of this TSD, 20.2.70 NMAC is not under review in this TSD.

In a letter dated August 31, 2011, Governor Martin ez designated the authority to submit
revisions to the New Mexico SIP to the Secretary of the New Mexico Environment Department.

2. Evidence is included that the State has adopt ed the revision in the State code or body of regulations, or that the State has issued th e permit, order, consen t 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/issuance date.

The revisions were adopted by the NM EIB on January 7, 2013, and became effective on February 6, 2013.

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

The New Mexico Air Quality Act provides for regulation at 74-2-5.1 NMSA 1978. Duties and powers of the department and the local agency; and for plan revisions at 74-2-5.2 NMSA 1978. State air pollution control age ncy; specific duties and powers of the department.

4. A copy is included of the actual regulation or document submitted for approval and incorporation by reference into the SIP includin g 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 appropria te 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 January 8, 2013 submittal included a copy of the official State regulation document, signed and dated by Ms. Deborah Peacock, Chair of the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board. The effective dat e is indicated as February 6, 2013.

5. Evidence is included that the State followed all the procedural requirements of its laws and/or its constitution in the conducting a nd completing the adoption/issuance of the plan.20 The January 8, 2013, SIP submittal included a letter signed by Bill Grantham, Assistant
General Counsel to the New Mexico Environm ent Department, that demonstrated the SIP submittal was developed pursuant to 20.1.1 NMAC – Rulemaking Procedures. The NM EIB is authorized to adopt revisions to the NM PSD/NNSR program under the New Mexico Air Quality Contro l Act, NMSA 1978, §74-2-5.

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 c opies of any public notices publ ished in newspapers). (The notice should be at least 30 days prior to the public hearing(s).

Notices of public hearings were published in the following publications on the date
listed:

 The Albuquerque Journal on October 6, 2012.

 The New Mexico Register on September 28, 2012.

7. A certification is included indi cating that public hearing(s) was/were held in accordance with the information provided in the pub lic notice(s) and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable.

The submittal package included a transcrip t of the December 3, 2012 public hearing.

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

The NMED did not receive any comments on the rulemaking.

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

1. Identification of all regu lated pollutants affected by the revision is included.

The January 8, 2013 submittal revises the New Mexico PSD permitting regulations to defer the applicability of the GHG PSD provisions for sources of biomass.

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

The January 8, 2013, revisions to 20.2.74 NMAC will apply to major sources subject to the PSD permitting program statewide.21 3. Quantification of the changes in SIP allowa ble 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 affected sources through calculations of the differenc es between certain baseline levels and allowable emissions anticipat ed if the revisions were approved.)

Not required for the January 8, 2013 revisions to the New Mexico PSD permit program.
Allowable emissions consistent with the PSD permitting requirements will be addressed on a permit-by-permit basis.

4. Demonstration is included that the NAAQ S/PSD increments/RFP demonstration and visibility as applicable would be prot ected if the revision were approved and implemented.

The January 8, 2013 revisions to the New M exico PSD permit program are adopted and
submitted consistent with th e revisions to the federal GHG PSD permitting requirements. Adoption of these programs will protect the NAAQS/PSD increments/RFP demonstration and visibility.

5. FOR REDESIGNATIONS:

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

b. Are contingency measures included? Not applicable.

7. Modeling information, if app licable, is required to s upport the proposed revision.

Modeling information is not necessary to support the January 8, 2013 SIP submittal. Modeling will be provided on a permit-by-p ermit basis in accordance with the PSD regulations.

7. Evidence is included where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction technology (e.g., add-on controls, industria l/process equipment designs, reformulated materials, etc.).

The January 8, 2013 SIP submittal does not establish emission limitations. Emission limitations will be established on a permit-by -permit basis according to the applicable PSD requirements.

8. Evidence is included indicating that a SIP re vision contains emission limitations, work practice standards, and recordkeeping/reporti ng requirements to ensure stated emission
levels.22 The January 8, 2013, SIP submittal does not estab lish emission limitations, work practice standards, and recordkeeping/reporting requireme nts to ensure stated emission levels. Each PSD permit will include these items as necessary to impl ement the CAA and the PSD permit program.

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

The January 8, 2013, SIP submittal does not establish compliance/enforcement strategies. Each PSD permit will separately address compliance/enforcement.

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

These justifications are not necessa ry for the January 8, 2013 SIP submittal.

The January 8, 2013 NM SIP submittal satisfies the completeness criter ia established in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V.

### B. Evaluation of the January 8, 2013, New Mexico SIP submittal with respect to the federal requirements for PSD Permitting

This TSD only addresses the portion of the Ja nuary 8, 2013, New Mexico SIP submittal that pertain to the Biomass Deferral for GHG PSD permitting. Specifically, only the portion of the definition of “subject to regulation” at 20.2.74.7(AZ)(2)( a ) as follows:

Table 6: Analysis of Revisions to 20.2.74.7 NMAC EPA’s Analysis SIP-Approved on December 11, 2013 (78 FR 75253) As submitted by NMED on January 8, 2013 AZ.“Subject to regulation” means, for any air pollutant, that the pollutant is subject to either a provision in the act, or a nationally-applicable regulation codified by the administrator in subchapter C of 40 CFR Chapter I, that requires actual control of the quantity of emissions of that pollutant, and that such a control requirement has taken effect and is operative to control, limit or restrict the quantity of emissions of that pollutant released from the regulated activity. Except that: No revisions under review. Language provided for context only.

SIP-Approved on December 11, 2013 (78 FR 75253) As submitted by NMED on January 8, 2013
1. “greenhouse gases (GHGs)” shall not be subject to regulation except as provided in paragraphs AZ(4) and (5) of this section and shall not be subject to regulation if the stati onary source maintains its total sourcewide emissions below the GHG PAL level, meets the requirements in 20.2.74.320 NMAC, and complies with the PAL permit containing the GHG PAL; No revisions under review. Language provided for context only.

SIP-Approved on December 11, 2013 (78 FR 75253) As submitted by NMED on January 8, 2013
2. for purposes of Paragraphs (3) through (5) of subsection AZ of this section, the term “tons per year CO2 equivalent emissions (CO2e)” shall represent an amount of GHGs emitted, and shall be computed
asfollows: No revisions under review. Language provided for context only.

SIP-Approved on January 22, 2013 (78 FR 4339) as submitted by NMED on May 23, 2011

a. multiplying the mass
amount of emissions (tons per year), for each of the six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential published at table A-I to subpart A of 40 CFR part 98 – Global Warming Potentials; Revisions submitted January 8, 2013

a. multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tons per year), for each of the six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential published at table A-I to subpart A of 40 CFR part 98 – Global Warming Potentials; for purposes of this subparagraph, prior to July 21, 2014, the mass of the greenhouse gas carbon
dioxide shall not include
carbon dioxide emissions resulting from the
combustion ordecomposition of nonfossilized and The revisions to the definition of “subject to regulation” at 20.2.74.7(AZ)(2)( a ) NMAC submitted on January 8, 2013, are identical to the
EPA’s Biomass Deferral provisions that were promulgated on July 20, 2011 at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49).

This Biomass Deferral was vacated by the DC Circuit Court on July 12, 2013.

The Biomass Deferral itself has already expired and therefore cannot be used by any New Mexico PSD sources. However, the provision was submitted as a24 Table 6: Analysis of Revisions to 20.2.74.7 NMAC EPA’s Analysis biodegradable organic material originating fromplants, animals or microorganisms (including products, by-products,
residues and waste from agriculture, forestry, and related industries, as well
as the non-fossilized and biodegradable organic
fractions of industrial and municipal wastes, including gases and liquids
recovered from thedecomposition of nonfossilized and biodegradable organic material); revision to the New Mexico
SIP and has not been
withdrawn from our
consideration. Therefore, the EPA has an obligation to act on the submitted provision.

The submitted provision should be disapproved because it is no longer a usable or functioning component of the NM GHG PSD program.

SIP-Approved on December 11, 2013 (78 FR 75253) As submitted by NMED on January 8, 2013
b. sum the resultant value from Subparagraph (a) of Paragraph (2) of Subsection AZ of this section for each gas to compute a tons per year CO2e; No revisions under review. Language provided for context only.



### C. Evaluation of the Januar y 8, 2013, New Mexico 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 submitte d by a State under this Act shall be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public he aring. The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfer e with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as de fined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of this Act.

Thus, under section 110(l), the January 8, 2013, SIP submittal containing revisions to the NM PSD permitting program must not interfere with a ttainment or reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the Act. The EPA has already approved the January 8, 2013, revisions to the New Mexico PSD permit pr ogram to adopt and implement the GHG PAL permitting provisions as finalized by the EPA. Th e remainder of the January 8, 2013, submittal is to adopt a now-expired provi sion allowing for an exemption of biomass from GHG PSD permitting. The EPA must act on the submitted Biomass Deferral language because of our obligations under section 110 of the Act which require us to take action on revisions to a SIP unless the provisions are withdr awn. Our action to propose disappr oval of the expired provision will not undermine any existing requirement of the NM SIP or the CAA because the provision can no longer be used under federal law.25 

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

This technical review of the February 6, 2012, revisions to OAC 252:100-7-2.1 and OAC 252:100-8-31 consists of a comparison between th e relevant Clean Air Act requirements and the corresponding sections in the SIP submittal. The January 18, 2013, SIP submittal will also be reviewed for completeness as under Part 51, Appendix V.



### A. Evaluation of the February 6, 2012, Oklahoma SI P Submittal with respect to the Part 51, Appendix V Completeness Checklist

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

1.0 Purpose: This appendix V sets forth th e minimum criteria for determining whether a State implementation plan submitted for consid eration 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 appendix 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 th e 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 shall be deemed complete by operation of law on the date 6 months from receipt. A determination of co mpleteness under this paragraph means that
the submission is an official submission for purposes of §51.103.

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

Section 2.3 of Appendix V describes the "paralle l process procedure" which EPA can use to expedite the review and adoption of SIP revi sions. The February 6, 2012 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.26 SIP Completeness Checklist for the February 6, 2012. Oklahoma SIP Submittal

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

Mr. Gary Sherrer, Oklahoma State Secretar y of the Environment, in a letter dated February 6, 2012, submitted revisions to the Oklahoma SIP to amend the Minor NSR Program at OAC 252:100-7-2.1 and PSD program at OAC 252:100-1-3 and OAC 252:100-8-31 for GHG permitting. 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 Ma ry 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 adopt ed the revision in the State code or body of regulations, or that the State has issued th e permit, order, consen t 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/issuance date.

The revisions to OAC 252:100-7-2.1 and OA C 252:100-8-31 were adopted on May 3, 2011, effective July 1, 2011.

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

27A O.S. §2-5-105 designates the Oklahoma De partment of Environmen tal Quality as the administrative agency for the Oklahoma Cle an Air Act. The ODEQ has the authority to carry out all duties, requirements, and re sponsibilities necessary and proper for the implementation of the Oklahoma CAA and fulfil ling 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 submitted for approval and incorporation by reference into the SIP includin g 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 appropria te 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 official State regulation documents. The effective date of the r evisions to OAC 252:10 0-7-2.1 and OAC 252:100- 8-31 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 conducting a nd completing the adoption/issuance of the plan.27 The February 6, 2012, SIP submittal included a lette r signed by Eddie Terrill, Director of the Oklahoma Department of Environmenta l Quality, that demonstrated the SIP submittal was developed pursuant to the requ irements of the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act, 75 O.S. 2501.1 thro ugh 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 c opies of any public notices publ ished in newspapers). (The notice should be at least 30 days prior to the public hearing(s).

 The notice of public hearing for th e revisions to OA C 252:100-7-2.1and OAC 252:100-8-31 was published in the Oklahoma Register on December 15, 2010.

7. A certification is included indi cating that public hearing(s) was/were held in accordance with the information provided in the pub lic notice(s) and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable.

The public hearings for the revisions to OAC 252:100-7-2.1 and OAC 252:100-8-31 were held on January 19, 2011.

8. A compilation of public comments and the State'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 followi ng technical information in its SIP revision request package.

1. Identification of all regu lated pollutants affected by the revision is included.

The January February 6, 2012, submittal revises the Oklahoma Minor NSR and PSD permitting regulations to address emissions of GHGs.

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

The January 18, 2013, revisions to the Oklahoma Minor NSR and PSD program will apply statewide.28 3. Quantification of the changes in SIP allowa ble 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 affected sources through calculations of the differen ces between certain baseline levels and allowable emissions anticipat ed if the revisions were approved.)

Not required for the February 6, 2012, revi sions to the Oklahoma Minor NSR and PSD permit programs. Allowable emissions c onsistent with the Minor NSR and PSD permitting requirements will be addressed on a permit-by-permit basis.

4. Demonstration is included that the NAAQ S/PSD increments/RFP demonstration and visibility as applicable would be prot ected if the revision were approved and implemented.

The February 6, 2012 revisions to the Ok lahoma minor NSR and PSD permit program require additional permitting of GHG emissions . Adoption of these programs will protect the NAAQS/PSD increments/RFP demonstration and visibility.

5. FOR REDESIGNATIONS:

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

b. Are contingency measures included? Not applicable.

8. Modeling information, if app licable, is required to s upport the proposed revision.

Modeling information is not necessary to support the February 6, 2012 SIP submittal. Modeling will be provided on a permit-by-per mit basis in accordance with the minor NSR and PSD regulations.

7. Evidence is included where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction technology (e.g., add-on controls, industria l/process equipment designs, reformulated materials, etc.).

The February 6, 2012 SIP submittal does not es tablish emission limitations. Emission limitations will be established on a permit-by -permit basis according to the applicable minor NSR and PSD requirements.

8. Evidence is included indicating that a SIP re vision contains emission limitations, work practice standards, and recordkeeping/reporti ng requirements to ensure stated emission
levels.29 The February 6, 2012, SIP submittal does not establish emission limitations, work practice standards, and recordkeeping/reporting requirements to ensu re stated emission levels. Each minor NSR or PSD permit will incl ude these items as necessary to implement the CAA and the minor NSR or 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 permit will separat ely address compliance/enforcement.

10. As appropriate, special economic and tec hnological jus tifications are included per applicable EPA policies or an explanation why such justificati ons 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.

### B. Evaluation of the February 6, 2012, Oklahoma SI P submittal with respect to the federal requirements minor NSR and PSD Permitting

This TSD only addresses the severable por tions of the February 6, 2012, Oklahoma SIP submittal that pertain to the minor source GHG permitting and PSD permitting for non-anyway

sources.

Table 7: Analysis of Revisions to OK SIP February 6, 2012 Analysis of Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-2.1 EPA comments Revisions effective July 1, 2011; Submitted February 6, 2012 Minor permits for greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting facilities Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions sh all not be included in a minor facility permit nor cause a facility to be subject to minor facility permitting requirements contained in OAC 252:100-7, unless the owner or operator of that facility requests that GHG emission limits and/or physical or operational limitations be included in a minor permit for the facility to set enforceable limits to keep potential GHG emission levels below the applicability threshold levels for the PSD construction permit program and/or the Part 70 operating permit program. Physical or operational limitations may include, but are not limited to, air pollution control equipment, restrictions on hours of operation, and/or restrictions on the type or amount of materials combusted, stored, or processed. The EPA is disapproving the
submitted revision at OAC 252:100- 7-2.1 to establish minor permits for GHG emitting facilities. These provisions are no longer valid under
federal law because PSD and title V applicability is not triggered by a
source’s GHG emissions.

Analysis of Revisions to OAC 252:100-8-31 EPA comments Revisions effective July 1, 2011; Submitted February 6, 2012 “Subject to regulation” means, for any air pollutant, that the pollutant issubject to either a provision in the federal Clean Air Act, or a nationallyapplicable regulation codified by the EPA Administrator in subchapter C of Chapter I of 40 CFR, that requires actual control of the quantity of emissions of that pollutant, and that such a control requirement has taken effect and is operative to control, limit, or restrict the quantity of emissions of that pollutant released from the regulated activity. Except
that:
A. Greenhouse gases (GHG) shall not be subject to regulation except as provided in (D) through (E) of this definition.
B. For purposes of (C) through (E) of this definition, the term TPY CO2 equivalent emissions (CO2e) shall represent an amount of GHG emitted, and shall be computed as follows:
i. Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (in TPY). for each of the six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHG, by the gas' associated global warming potential (GWP) published in Table A-I to subpart A of40 CFR Part 98 B Global Warming Potentials.
ii. Summing the resultant value from (B)(i) of this definition for each gas to compute a TPY CO2e.
C. The term emissions increase as used in (D) through (E) of this
definition shall mean that both a significant emissions increase (as calculated using the procedures in OAC 252:100-8-30(b)(1) through (5)) and a significant net emissions increase (as defined in the definitions of “net emissions increase” and “significant” in 252: 100-8-31) occur. For the pollutant GHG, an emissions increase shall be based on TPY CO2e, and shall be calculated assuming the pollutant GHG is a regulated NSR pollutant, and “significant” is defined as 75,000 TPY CO2e and the emissions The EPA is disapproving the February 6, 2012, submitted revisions at OAC 252:100-8-31, definition of “subject to regulation”, paragraph E, because the provisionspertain to PSD permitting of nonanyway (or step 2) sources of GHGs. The step 2 GHG PSD permitting requirements were vacated by the Supreme Court in UARG v. EPA,
and removed from federal regulations by the EPA on August 19, 2015.

The EPA is separately evaluating the
remainder of the definition of “subject to regulation” at OAC
252:100-8-31 as submitted on February 6, 2012.31 are otherwise subject to regulation as previously described in
this definition.
D. Beginning January 2, 2011. the pollutant GHG is subject to regulation if it meets the other requirements of this definition
and if:
i. The stationary source is a new major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant that is not GHG, and also will emit or will have the potential to emit 75.000 TPY CO2e or more; or
ii. The stationary source is an existing major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant that is not GHG and also will have an emissions increase or a regulated NSR pollutant, and an emissions increase 75.000
TPY CO2e or more.
E. Beginning July 1, 2011, in addition to the provisions in (D) of this definition, the pollutant GHG shall also be subject to regulation:
i. At a new stationary source that will emit or have the potential to emit 100,000 TPY CO2e; or
ii. At an existing stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 100,000 TPY CO2e when such stationary source undertakes a physical change or change in the method of operation that will result in an emissions increase 75, 000 TPY CO2e or more.
F. If federal legislation or a federal court stays, invalidates, delays the effective date, or othe rwise renders unenforceable by the EPA, in whole or in part, the EPA's tailoring rule (75 FR 31514, June 3, 2010), endangerment finding (74 FR 66496, December 15, 2009), or light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emission standard (75 FR 25686, May 7, 2010), this definition shall be enforceable only to the extent th at it is enforceable by the EPA.



### 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 submitte d by a State under this Act shall be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public he aring. The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfer e with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as de fined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of this Act.

Thus, under section 110(l), the February 6, 2012, Oklahoma SIP submittal containing revisions to the Oklahoma minor NSR and PSD perm itting programs for GHG regulation must not
interfere with attainment or r easonable further progre ss or any other appli cable requirement of the Act. We are proposing disapproval of severable portions of this submittal that are inconsistent with federal law and regulato ry requirements GHG permitting. As such, our proposed disapproval will not undermine any applicable requirement of the CAA.3233 

## V. Technical Evaluation of the January 18, 2013 Oklahoma SIP
Submittal

This technical review of the January 18, 2013, revisions to OAC 252:100-1-3 and OAC 252:100- 8-31 consists of a comparison between the re levant Clean Air Act requirements and the corresponding sections in the SIP submittal. The January 18, 2013, SIP submittal will also be reviewed for completeness as under Part 51, Appendix V.



### A. Evaluation of the January 18, 2013, Ok lahoma SIP Submittal with respect to the Part 51, Appendix V Completeness Checklist

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

1.0 Purpose: This appendix V sets forth th e minimum criteria for determining whether a State implementation plan submitted for consid eration 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 appendix 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 th e 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 shall be deemed complete by operation of law on the date 6 months from receipt. A determination of co mpleteness under this paragraph means that
the submission is an official submission for purposes of §51.103.

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

Section 2.3 of Appendix V describes the "paralle l process procedure" which EPA can use to expedite the review and adoption of SIP re visions. The January 18, 2013 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.34 SIP Completeness Checklist for the January 18, 2013 Oklahoma SIP Submittal

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

Mr. Gary Sherrer, Oklahoma State Secretar y of the Environment, in a letter dated January 18, 2013, submitted revisions to the Ok lahoma SIP to amend the PSD program
at OAC 252:100-1-3 and OAC 252:100-8-31. Th is submittal package also included amendments to other portions of the Okl ahoma SIP not under review in this TSD.

In a letter dated March 30, 2011, Governor Ma ry 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 adopt ed the revision in the State code or body of regulations, or that the State has issued th e permit, order, consen t 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/issuance date.

The revisions to OAC 252:100-1-3 were adopt ed on May 1, 2012, effe ctive July 1, 2012. The revisions to OAC 252:100-8-31 were adopt ed on March 29, 2012, effective on July 1,
2012.

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

27A O.S. §2-5-105 designates the Oklahoma De partment of Environmen tal Quality as the administrative agency for the Oklahoma Cle an Air Act. The ODEQ has the authority to carry out all duties, requirements, and re sponsibilities necessary and proper for the implementation of the Oklahoma CAA and fulfil ling 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 submitted for approval and incorporation by reference into the SIP includin g 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 appropria te 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 January 18, 2013 submittal included a copy of the official State regulation documents. The effective date of the r evisions to OAC 252:10 0-1-3 and OAC 252:100-8- 31 is July 1, 2012.

5. Evidence is included that the State followed all the procedural requirements of its laws and/or its constitution in the conducting a nd completing the adoption/issuance of the plan.35 The January 18, 2013, SIP submittal included a lette r signed by Eddie Terrill, Director of the Oklahoma Department of Environmenta l Quality, that demonstrated the SIP submittal was developed pursuant to the requ irements of the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act, 75 O.S. 2501.1 thro ugh 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 c opies of any public notices publ ished in newspapers). (The notice should be at least 30 days prior to the public hearing(s).

 The notice of public hearing for the revi sions to OAC 252:100-1-3 was published in the Oklahoma Register on December 1, 2011.

 The notice of public hearing for th e revisions to OAC 252:100-8-31 was published in the Oklahoma Register on December 15, 2010.

7. A certification is included indi cating that public hearing(s) was/were held in accordance with the information provided in the pub lic notice(s) and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable.

The public hearings for the revisions to OAC 252:100-1-3 were held on January 18, 2012 and February 24, 2012; the public hearings fo r the revisions to OAC 252:100-8-31 were held on January 19, 2011 and February 25, 2011.

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

The January 18, 2013 submittal included a comp ilation of the comments received and the State’s response.

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

1. Identification of all regu lated pollutants affected by the revision is included.

The January 18, 2013 submittal revises the Oklahoma PSD permitting regulations to defer the applicability of the GHG PSD provisions for sources of biomass.

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

The January 18, 2013, revisions to the Oklahoma PSD program will apply to major sources subject to the PSD permitting program statewide.36 3. Quantification of the changes in SIP allowa ble 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 affected sources through calculations of the differen ces between certain baseline levels and allowable emissions anticipat ed if the revisions were approved.)

Not required for the January 18, 2013 revisions to the Oklahoma PSD permit program.
Allowable emissions consistent with the PSD permitting requirements will be addressed on a permit-by-permit basis.

4. Demonstration is included that the NAAQ S/PSD increments/RFP demonstration and visibility as applicable would be prot ected if the revision were approved and implemented.

The January 18, 2013 revisions to the Okl ahoma PSD permit program are adopted and
submitted consistent with th e revisions to the federal GHG PSD permitting requirements. Adoption of these programs will protect the NAAQS/PSD increments/RFP demonstration and visibility.

5. FOR REDESIGNATIONS:

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

b. Are contingency measures included? Not applicable.

9. Modeling information, if app licable, is required to s upport the proposed revision.

Modeling information is not necessary to support the January 18, 2013 SIP submittal. Modeling will be provided on a permit-by-p ermit basis in accordance with the PSD regulations.

7. Evidence is included where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction technology (e.g., add-on controls, industria l/process equipment designs, reformulated materials, etc.).

The January 18, 2013 SIP submittal does not est ablish emission limitations. Emission limitations will be established on a permit-by -permit basis according to the applicable PSD requirements.

8. Evidence is included indicating that a SIP re vision contains emission limitations, work practice standards, and recordkeeping/reporti ng requirements to ensure stated emission
levels.37 The January 18, 2013, SIP submittal does not establish emission limitations, work practice standards, and recordkeeping/reporting requirements to ensu re stated emission levels. Each PSD permit will in clude these items as necessa ry 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 January 18, 2013, SIP submittal does not establish compliance/enforcement strategies. Each PSD permit will separately address compliance/enforcement.

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

These justifications are not necessary for the January 18, 2013 SIP submittal.

The January 8, 2013 SIP submittal satisfies the completeness criteria established in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V.38 

### B. Evaluation of the January 18, 2013, Ok lahoma SIP submittal with respect to the federal requirements for PSD Permitting

This TSD only addresses the portion of th e January 18, 2013, Oklahoma SIP submittal that pertain to the Biomass Deferral for GHG PSD permitting. Specifically, only the portion of the definition of “carbon dioxide equivalent” at OAC 252:100-1-3 and the definition of “subject to regulation” in OAC 252:100-8-31as follows:

Table 8: Analysis of Revisions to the Oklahoma SIP January 18, 2013 Analysis of Revisions to OAC 252:100-1-3 EPA comments Revisions effective July 1, 2012; Submitted January 18, 2013 “Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions” or “CO2e” means an amount of GHG emitted, and shall be computed by multiplying the mass amount of emissions, for each of the six gree nhouse gases in the pollutant GHG, by the gas’ associated global warming potential (GWP) published in Table A-1 to subpart A of 40 CFR Part 98 B Global Warming Potentials, and summing the resultant value fo r each to compute a CO2e. For purposes of the definitions of “subject to regulation” in OAC 252:100-8- 2 and 252:100-8-31, prior to July 21, 2014, the mass of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide shall not include carbon dioxide emissions resulting from the combustion or decomposition of non-fossilized and biodegradable organic materials originating from plants, animals, or micro-organisms (including products, by-products, residues and waste from agriculture, forestry and rela ted industries, as well as the nonfossilized and biodegradable organic fractions of industrial and municipal wastes, including gases and liquids recovered from the decomposition of non-fossilized and biodegrad able organic material). The EPA is separately evaluating the
definition of “carbon dioxide equivalent emissions” as submitted on February 6, 2012.

The revisions submitted to the definition of CO2e on January 18, 2013, adopt the GHG Biomass Deferral promulgated by the EPA on July 11, 2011 at 76 FR 43490. The Biomass Deferral expired on July 21, 2014. Further, the deferral was vacated by the D.C. Circuit on July 12, 2013.

The Biomass Deferral itself has already expired and therefore cannot be used by any Oklahoma PSD sources. However, the provision was
submitted as a revision to the
Oklahoma SIP and has not been
withdrawn from our consideration. Therefore, the EPA has an obligation to act on the submitted provision.

The submitted provision should be disapproved because it is no longer a usable or functioning component of the Oklahoma GHG PSD program. Analysis of Revisions to OAC 252:100-8-31 EPA comments Revisions effective July 1, 2012; Submitted January 18, 2013. “Subject to regulation” means, for any air pollutant, that the pollutant issubject to either a provision in the federal Clean Air Act, or a nationallyapplicable regulation codified by the EPA Administrator in subchapter C of Chapter I of 40 CFR, that requires actual control of the quantity of emissions of that pollutant, and that such a control requirement has taken effect and is operative to control, limit, or restrict the quantity of emissions of that pollutant released from the regulated activity. Except
that:
G. Greenhouse gases (GHG) shall not be subject to regulation except as provided in (D) through (E) of this definition.
H. For purposes of (C) through (E) of this definition, the term TPY CO2 equivalent emissions (CO2e) shall represent an amount of GHG emitted, and shall be computed as follows: The EPA is separately evaluating the definition of “subject to regulation” as submitted on February 6, 2012, with the exception of paragraph E.

The revisions submitted to the definition of “subject to regulation” at OAC 252:100-8-31 on January 18, 2013, adopt the GHG Biomass Deferral promulgated by the EPA on July 11, 2011 at 76 FR 43490. The Biomass Deferral expired on July 21, 2014. Further, the deferral was39 Table 8: Analysis of Revisions to the Oklahoma SIP January 18, 2013 Analysis of Revisions to OAC 252:100-1-3 EPA comments
i. Multiplying the mass amount of em issions (in TPY). for each of the six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHG, by the gas' associated global warming potential (GWP) published in Table A-I to subpart A of40 CFR Part 98 B Global Warming Potentials. For purposes of this definition, prior to July 21, 2014, the mass of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide shall not include carbon dioxide emissions resulting from the combustion or decomposition of non-fossilized and biodegradable organic material originating from plants, animals, or micro-organisms (including products, by-products, residues and waste from agriculture, forestry and related industries, as well as the non-fossilized and biodegradable organic fractions of industrial and municipal wastes, includinggases and liquids recovered from the decomposition of nonfossilized and biodegradable organic material).
ii. Summing the resultant value from (B)(i) of this definition for each gas to compute a TPY CO2e.
I. The term emissions increase as used in (D) through (E) of this
definition shall mean that both a significant emissions increase (as calculated using the procedures in OAC 252:100-8-30(b)(1) through (5)) and a significant net emissions increase (as defined in the definitions of “net emissions increase” and “significant” in 252: 100- 8-31) occur. For the pollutant GHG, an emissions increase shall be based on TPY CO2e, and shall be calculated assuming the pollutant GHG is a regulated NSR pollutant, and “significant” is defined as 75,000 TPY CO2e and the emissions are otherwise subject to regulation as previously described in this definition.
J. Beginning January 2, 2011. the pollutant GHG is subject to regulation if it meets the other requirements of this definition and if:
i. The stationary source is a new major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant that is not GHG, and also will emit or will have the potential to emit 75.000 TPY CO2e or more; or
ii. The stationary source is an ex isting major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant that is not GHG and also will have an emissions increase or a regulated NSR pollutant, and
an emissions increase 75.000 TPY CO2e or more.
K. NOT IN SIP.
L. If federal legislation or a federal co urt stays, invalidates, delays the effective date, or otherwise renders unenforceable by the EPA, in whole or in part, the EPA's tailoring rule (75 FR 31514, June 3, 2010), endangerment finding (74 FR 66496, December 15, 2009), or light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emission standard (75 FR 25686, May 7, 2010), this definition shall be enforceable only to the extent that it is enforceable by the EPA. vacated by the D.C. Circuit on July 12, 2013.

The Biomass Deferral itself has already expired and therefore cannot be used by any Oklahoma PSD sources. However, the provision was
submitted as a revision to the
Oklahoma SIP and has not been
withdrawn from our consideration. Therefore, the EPA has an obligation to act on the submitted provision.

The submitted provision should be disapproved because it is no longer a usable or functioning component of the Oklahoma GHG PSD program.



### C. Evaluation of the January 18, 2013, Oklahoma SIP submittal with respect to section 110(l) of the CAA

Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act states:40 Each revision to an implementation plan submitte d by a State under this Act shall be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public he aring. The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfer e with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as de fined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of this Act.

Thus, under section 110(l), the January 18, 2013, SI P submittal containing revisions to the Oklahoma PSD permitting program must not interfere with attainment or reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the Act. The EPA is separately evaluating the revisions to the Oklahoma SIP and PSD progr am that are not related to the GHG Biomass Deferral. The EPA must act on the submitted Biomass Deferral language because of our obligations under section 110 of the Act which require us to take action on revisions to a SIP unless the provisions are wit hdrawn. Our action to propose di sapproval of the expired GHG Biomass Deferral provision will not undermine any existing requirement of the OK SIP or the CAA because the provision can no longer be used under federal law.41 

## V. Conclusion

The technical analysis provided in the preceding s ections has compared the applicable sections of the CAA and 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 to the pr oposed revisions to the Arkansas SIP submitted on November 6, 2012; the New Mexico SIP submitted on January 8, 2013; and the Oklahoma SIP submitted on January 18, 2013, to adopt the EPA’s expired GHG Biomass Deferral. The EPA’s analysis found that the proposed revisions to the Arkansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma SIPs should be disapproved because the provision is no longer consistent with federal law. As such, the EPA should propose disapproval of the following revisions:

 Substantive revisions to the Arkansas SIP definition of “C O2 equivalent emissions” at Regulation 19, Chapter 2 to implement the GHG Biomass Deferral as submitted on November 6, 2012; and

 Substantive revisions to the New Mexico SI P definition of “Subjectto Regulation” at 20.2.74.7 (AZ)(2)( a ) NMAC implementing the GHG Biomass Deferral as submitted on January 8, 2013.

 Substantive revisions to the Oklahoma SI P definition of “carbon dioxide equivalent emissions” at OAC 252:100-1-3 and “subjec t to regulation” at OAC 252:100-8-31 implementing the GHG Biomass Deferral as submitted on January 18, 2013.

The technical analysis also identified portions of the February 6, 2012, Oklahoma SIP submittal that provide for permitting of GHGs inconsistent with federal laws. As such, the EPA should propose to disapprove th e following revisions:

 Substantive revisions to the Oklahoma SIP establishing Minor NSR GHG permitting requirements at OAC 252:100-7-2.1 as submitted on February 6, 2012; and

 Substantive revisions to the Oklahoma PSD program in OAC 252:100-8-31 establishing PSD permitting requirements for non-anyway sources at paragraph (E) of the definition of “subject to regulation” as submitted on February 6, 2012.