Oklahoma State Implementation Plan Elements 

to Meet the Section 110(a)(2) Requirements of the Clean Air Act 

for the following National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): 

2008 Lead (Pb), 2008 Ozone, 2010 Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and 2010 Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

Docket ID EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0812 

Technical Support Document 

August 2016 

Table of Contents: 

I. Introduction and Background 

II. SIP elements required under Section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS and 

 the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS, the State submittals and EPA analysis 

III. EPA’s Recommendation 

Appendix A 

Appendix B 

I. Introduction and Background 

In this technical support document (TSD), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 

evaluating the submittals provided by the State of Oklahoma (Oklahoma) to meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2008 Pb and ozone 

national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or standards) and the 2010 NO2 and SO2

NAAQS. More detail on these standards, section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, and the submittals 

we are reviewing to satisfy the section 110(a)(2) requirements for Oklahoma are provided below. 

Throughout this TSD, “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA. Section I further provides 

additional background material on the NAAQS, State Implementation Plan (SIPs), and related 

issues. 

Section II of this TSD provides a description of each element required under section 

110(a)(2) of the Act, the State’s response, and our analysis of such response. Copies of the 

State’s submittals are in the docket for this rulemaking. 

Section III of the TSD includes our recommendation for action on each of the elements 

reviewed herein. 

A. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Section 108 of the CAA requires EPA to establish NAAQS for pollutants that may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare and to develop a primary and 

secondary standard for each NAAQS. The primary standard is designed to protect human health 

with an adequate margin of safety and the secondary standard is designed to protect public 

welfare. EPA has set NAAQS for six common air pollutants, also referred to as criteria 

pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur 

dioxide. These standards present state and local governments with the minimum air quality levels 

they must meet to comply with the Act. Section 109 of the Act also requires EPA to complete a 

thorough review of the NAAQS and make such revisions in such standards and promulgate such 

new standards as may be appropriate, at least every five years. 
2

B. Section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act 

Under sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) of the CAA, states are required to submit plans to 

provide for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS. Moreover, 

section 110(a)(1) requires that each state, within 3 years after the promulgation of a national 

primary ambient air quality standard, submit a plan which provides for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of such primary (and secondary) standards within such state. 

Section 110(a)(2) lists the specific elements that must be included in these submissions, also 

known as “infrastructure” elements, which include for example, requirements for air pollution 

control measures and monitoring that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. The submittals described here are commonly referred to as state implementation plans 

or SIPs and we use the term “i-SIP” to distinguish the infrastructure submittal. A more detailed 

description of a SIP is provided in section C below. The statutory language in sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2) is provided in Appendix A of this TSD. 

States typically have met many of the infrastructure elements required in section 

110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous NAAQS. Nevertheless, 

pursuant to section 110(a)(1), Oklahoma must review and revise, as appropriate, their existing 

SIP to ensure that it is adequate to address the revised NAAQSs. To assist states in meeting this 

statutory requirement, EPA issued guidance on October 14, 2011, to address the infrastructure 

elements required of the SIP under CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Pb standard.1

EPA issued additional guidance on September 13, 2013, addressing the infrastructure elements 

required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the other five NAAQS.2

On October 5, 2012, February 28, 2014, and January 28, 2015, the designee for 

Oklahoma provided submittals to EPA,3 certifying that the Oklahoma SIP meets the 

infrastructure obligations for the following NAAQS: the 2008 Pb NAAQS (see the October 5, 

2012 submittal); the 2010 NO2 NAAQS (see the February 28, 2014 submittal); the 2008 ozone 

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS (see the two submittals dated January 28, 2015). 

This TSD evaluates the submittals provided to certify that the Oklahoma SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 lead and ozone NAAQS and the 2010 NO2 and 

SO2 NAAQS. 

C. The State Implementation Plan 

The SIP is an air quality plan. It can include state statutes, air pollution regulations, 

control strategies, other means or techniques, and technical analyses developed by the state, to 

ensure that the state meets the NAAQS. The SIP is required by section 110 and other provisions 

of the Act. The SIPs can be extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable 

documents and supporting information such as emissions inventories, monitoring networks, and 

modeling demonstrations. Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to EPA 

 

1

 “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required under Sections 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),” Memorandum from Stephen 

D. Page, October 14, 2011. 

2

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

110(a)(2),” Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013. 

3

 On March 30, 2011, the Governor of Oklahoma provided us with a letter naming the Secretary of Environment as 

designee for submittal of SIP revisions to the EPA. On September 24, 2013, after reorganization of State agencies, 

the Governor of Oklahoma provided us with a letter naming the Secretary of Energy and Environment as designee 

for submittal of SIP revisions to the EPA. Such designation letters are in the docket for this rulemaking. 
3

for approval and once approved, the SIP is federally enforceable. Each federally approved SIP 

protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its source. 

D. Lead, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide 

On April 30, 1971, we published the first NAAQS for NO2, Ozone, and SO2 (36 FR 

8186). The first NAAQS for Pb was published on October 5, 1978 (43 FR 46246). These 

standards are reviewed periodically, often becoming more stringent. For more information on 

these standards and the process for setting and reviewing the NAAQS, please visit EPA’s web 

site: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants. 

E. Additional Information 

As indicated in the Federal Register action for this TSD, this proposed rulemaking will 

not cover four substantive issues that are not integral to acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission: (i) existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of start-up, 

shutdown, or malfunction at sources, that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies 

addressing such excess emissions (“SSM”); (ii) existing provisions related to “director's 

variance” or “director's discretion” that purport to permit revisions to SIP approved emissions 

limits with limited public process or without requiring further approval by EPA, that may be 

contrary to the CAA (“director's discretion”); (iii) existing provisions for minor source NSR 

programs that may be inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA and EPA’s regulations that 

pertain to such programs (“minor source NSR”); and, (iv) existing provisions for PSD programs 

that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA’s “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 

FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (“NSR Reform”). 

Instead, EPA has indicated that it has other authority to address any such existing SIP defects in 

other rulemakings, as appropriate. A detailed rationale for why these four substantive issues are 

not part of the scope of infrastructure SIP rulemakings can be found in EPA’s July 13, 2011, 

final rule entitled, “Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standards” in the section entitled, “What is the scope of this final 

rulemaking?” (See 76 FR 41075 at 41076-41079). 

II. SIP elements required under Section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 lead and ozone NAAQS and the 

2010 NO2 and SO2 primary NAAQS, the State submittals and EPA analysis 

The Federally approved SIP for each state is listed in Title 40, Part 52, of the US Code of 

Federal Regulations (denoted 40 CFR 52). The first section in this subpart for any state is often 

the “Identification of plan,” which lists the EPA-approved provisions of the SIP, as provided 

under section 110 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410, and 40 CFR 51 to meet the NAAQS. The status of 

the Oklahoma SIP is provided in 40 CFR Part 52, Subpart LL, sections 1920 to 1960. The 

Identification of plan for Oklahoma is at 40 CFR Part 52.1920; this constitutes the applicable SIP 

for Oklahoma, for purposes of the Act. 

Per the General Preamble to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (April 16, 1992 at 57 

FR 13498), section 110(a)(2) sets forth elements that a SIP must contain in order to be fully 

approved.4

 Below we examine the elements required in section 110(a)(2) and the documentation 

provided by Oklahoma. Where useful, we include tables showing dates the applicable state rules 

were approved by EPA into the Oklahoma SIP. 

 

4

 The discussion of section 110(a)(2), subsections (A) through (M) begins on p. 13556 of the General Preamble. 
4

1. Enforceable emission limits and other control measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires 

SIPs to include enforceable emission limits and other control measures, means or techniques, as 

well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as necessary or appropriate to meet the 

requirements of the Act. 

The State’s response: Oklahoma has an EPA-approved air permitting program for major sources 

(OAC 252:100-8) and minor facilities (OAC 252:100-7).5 Oklahoma does not have 

nonattainment or maintenance areas under the 2008 Pb or ozone NAAQS, nor under the 2010 

NO2 or SO2 NAAQS. 

EPA analysis: Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that all measures and other elements in the SIP be 

enforceable. This subsection also authorizes SIPs to contain certain nontraditional techniques for 

reducing pollution – economic incentives, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights. 

EPA reads this language to require even these other means of achieving reductions to be 

enforceable.6

We list the following from the Oklahoma Air Pollution Control Regulations as relevant in 

determining whether the Oklahoma SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A): 

Regulation 1.4.1 General Permit Requirements 

Regulation 1.4.2 Construction Permit 

Regulation 1.4.3 Operating Permit 

Regulation 3.8 Control of Emission of Hazardous Air Contaminants 

Regulation 1.4.1 provides for general permit requirements and fees. Regulation 1.4.2 

provides for stack height limitations, construction permit applications and conditions, and 

relocation permits. Regulation 1.4.3 addresses operating permit requirements and conditions. 

Regulation 3.8 provides for the emission standards for hazardous air contaminants. 

We also believe the following from Chapters 4 and 100 within Title 252 of the Oklahoma 

Administrative Code (denoted OAC 252 or 252) are relevant in determining whether the 

Oklahoma SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A): 

252:4 Rules of Practice and Procedure 

 Subchapter 7: Environmental Permit Process 

 Subchapter 9: Administrative Proceedings 

 Appendix C: Permitting process summary 

252:100 Air Pollution Control 

 Subchapter 1: General Provisions 

 Subchapter 3: Air Quality Standards and Increments 

 Subchapter 5: Registration, Emissions Inventory and Annual Operating Fees 

 Subchapter 8: Permits for Part 70 Sources 

 Subchapter 9: Excess Emission and Malfunction Reporting Requirements 

 Subchapter 13: Open Burning 

 Subchapter 17: Incinerators 

 

5

 The rules at OAC 252:100-7 (Permits for Minor Facilities) have not been submitted for approval into the 

Oklahoma SIP and, as described in section I.E. above, are not essential to our action on the infrastructure submittals. 6

 See the General Preamble to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (57 FR 13498, p. 13556). 
5

 Subchapter 31: Control of Emission of Sulfur Compounds 

 Subchapter 33: Control of Emission of Nitrogen Oxides 

 Subchapter 37: Control of Emission of Organic Materials 

 Subchapter 39: Emission of Organic Materials in Nonattainment Areas 

 Subchapter 43: Sampling and Testing Requirements 

 Subchapter 45: Monitoring of Emissions 

 Appendix E: Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards 

 Appendix F: Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Subchapter 7 of chapter 4 (denoted 252:4-7) provides information on the permitting 

process, including but not limited to compliance dates. 252:4-9 describes the administrative 

procedure for enforcement of the provisions set forth in OAC 252, including determination of 

penalties. 252:100-1 provides definitions of words and phrases used in 252:100 and in the 

Oklahoma Clean Air Act (OCAA). 252:100-3 enumerates the primary and secondary ambient air 

quality standards and the significant deterioration increments. 252:100-5 requires 

owners/operators of air pollution sources to provide the ODEQ with information on the 

emissions from each source. 252:100-8 includes the substantive requirements for permits for Part 

70 sources.7

 252:100-9 establishes a system designed to provide timely and accurate data on 

excess air emissions in the State caused by malfunction, shutdown, startup, or regularly 

scheduled maintenance. 252:100-13 restricts open burning of refuse and other combustible 

materials in order to reduce the emission of contaminants produced by these activities. 252:100-

17 defines requirements for incinerator design and places limits on incinerator output, which are 

based on opacity. 252:100-31 controls emissions of sulfur compounds from stationary sources by 

setting standards for industrial sources. 252:100-33 restricts the emission of nitrogen oxides 

(NOx) from stationary sources by setting emission limits for fuel combustion operations and 

nitric acid plants. 252:100-37 limits the emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from 

stationary sources and prescribes standards and practices for storage and loading of VOCs, use of 

organic solvents in cleaning and coating, and other processes which could emit these pollutants. 

252:100-39 controls the emissions of VOCs from stationary sources located in nonattainment 

areas, and specifies additional control measures needed in sources affecting those areas. 252:100-

43 provides requirements on air pollution sampling and testing. 252:100-45 outlines basic 

requirements for monitoring of emissions, and their recording and testing. 

Appendices E and F show the State’s primary and secondary ambient air quality 

standards, including Pb, ozone, NO2 and SO2. These ambient air quality standards are consistent 

with the 2008 NAAQS for Pb and ozone and the 2010 primary NAAQS for NO2 and SO2. 

We also find Chapter 20 within OAC 595 as relevant in determining whether the 

Oklahoma SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A): 

595:20 Inspection and Equipment for Motor Vehicles 

 Subchapter 3: Emission and Mechanical Inspection of Vehicles 

 Subchapter 9: Class AE Inspection Station, Vehicle Emission Anti-Tampering Inspection 

 Subchapter 11: Annual Motor Vehicle Inspection and Emission Anti-Tampering 

Inspection Records and Reports 

 

7

 Part 70 sources are also known as Title V operating permits, after Title V of the CAA, which addresses such 

permits. The Operating Permit Program ensures that air quality control requirements are in place and met. For more 

information on the Title V program, please visit https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/title-v-permits. 
6

595:20-3 and 595:20-9 describe the general instructions for vehicle mechanical 

equipment inspection, and explain when a vehicle emission anti-tampering inspection is 

required. 595:20-11 describes the records and reports required to be completed by inspectors 

performing the annual vehicle inspection and the emission anti-tampering inspection. 

The State's rules detailed above have already been approved by EPA into the Oklahoma 

SIP and thus are enforceable by the state and EPA, and US citizens are offered legal recourse to 

address violations as described in section 304 of the Act. See Table 1 below for EPA approval 

dates and citations. 

The Oklahoma SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2008 Pb and 

ozone NAAQS and the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. 

Table 1: Oklahoma rules relevant to meeting section 110(a)(2)(A), as determined by EPA: 

Relevant Section of Oklahoma’s SIP EPA Approval citation(s) 

Regulation 1.4.1: General Permit Requirements 8/25/1983 at 48 FR 38635 and 

7/23/1991 at 56 FR 33715

Regulation 1.4.2: Construction Permit 48 FR 38635, 7/27/1984 at 49 FR 

30184, 8/20/1990 at 55 FR 33905, 

and 56 FR 33715

Regulation 1.4.3: Operating Permit 48 FR 38635

Regulation 3.8, Control of Emission of Hazardous Air 

Contaminants 

8/15/1983 at 48 FR 36819 

252 OAC 4, Rules of Practice and Procedure 

Subchapter 7: Environmental Permit Process 

11/26/2010 at 75 FR 72695 

Subchapter 9: Administrative Proceedings 12/29/2008 at 73 FR 79400 

Appendix C: Permitting process summary 75 FR 72695 

252 OAC 100, Air Pollution Control 

Subchapter 1: General Provisions 

11/3/1999 at 64 FR 59629 

Subchapter 3: Air Quality Standards and Increments 64 FR 59629 and 73 FR 79400

Subchapter 5: Registration of Air Contaminant Sources 75 FR 72695

Subchapter 8: Permits for Part 70 Sources 75 FR 72695 and 

12/28/11 at 76 FR 81728 

Subchapter 9: Excess Emission and Malfunction Reporting 

Requirements

64 FR 59629

Subchapter 13: Open Burning 73 FR 79400

Subchapter 17: Incinerators 11/3/2015 at 80 FR 67650

Subchapter 31: Control of Emission of Sulfur Compounds 64 FR 59629 and 73 FR 79400 

Subchapter 33: Control of Emission of Nitrogen Oxides 64 FR 59629 and 73 FR 79400 

Subchapter 37: Control of Emission of Organic Materials 73 FR 79400 

Subchapter 39: Emission of Organic Materials in Nonattainment 

Areas 

73 FR 79400 

Subchapter 43: Sampling and Testing Methods 64 FR 59629 

Subchapter 45: Monitoring of Emissions 64 FR 59629 and 73 FR 79400 

Appendix E: Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards 80 FR 67650

Appendix F: Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards 80 FR 67650

595 OAC 20, Inspection and Equipment for Motor Vehicles 

Subchapter 3: Emission and Mechanical Inspection of Vehicles 

2/29/1996 at 61 FR 7709 

Subchapter 9: Class AE Inspection Station, Vehicle Emission AntiTampering Inspection 61 FR 7709 
7

Relevant Section of Oklahoma’s SIP EPA Approval citation(s) 

Subchapter 11: Annual Motor Vehicle Inspection and Emission 

Anti-Tampering Inspection Records and Reports 

61 FR 7709 

2. Ambient air quality monitoring and data analysis system: Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires 

SIPs to include provisions for establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitors, 

collecting and analyzing ambient air quality data, and making these data available to EPA upon 

request. 

The State’s response: Oklahoma operates an air quality monitoring network consistent with EPA 

regulations at 40 CFR Part 58 and regularly reports results to EPA. Each fiscal year, the DEQ 

posts an Annual Network Review on its website for public review. Following the 30-day public 

review period, the DEQ evaluates and responds to any comments, and submits the Review to 

EPA Region 6 monitoring staff for their review. Monitoring results may also be accessed 

through the DEQ’s web site at: http://www.deq.state.ok.us/aqdnew/monitoring/index.htm 

EPA analysis: In addition to the State’s response, we add the following as relevant in 

determining whether the Oklahoma SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B): 

252:100-3: Air Quality Standards and Increments 

Appendix E: Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Appendix F: Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards 

252:100-3 enumerates the primary and secondary ambient air quality standards and the 

PSD increments. Appendices E and F are tables showing the State’s primary and secondary 

ambient air quality standards. Appendices E and F are consistent with the 2008 Pb and ozone 

NAAQS and Appendix E is consistent with the 2010 NO2 and SO2 primary NAAQS. 

The OCAA provides the ODEQ with authority to establish and operate ambient air 

quality monitors and was approved into the Oklahoma SIP on June 23, 1994 (59 FR 32365). The 

OCAA is currently codified under Title 27A of the Oklahoma Statutes (O.S.). The current 

version of the Oklahoma Statutes retains the enforcement authority approved into the Oklahoma 

SIP in 1994. 

EPA’s regulations in part 58 of the CFR indicate the necessary data for States to collect 

and submit as part of their SIP. The existing regulations remain in effect, pursuant to section 193, 

until the EPA elects to amend them.8

 Oklahoma’s air quality surveillance system was approved 

by the EPA on May 31, 1972 (see 37 FR 10842, 10887). A revision to Oklahoma’s air quality 

surveillance network was approved into the SIP on March 28, 1979 (44 FR 18490), which 

updated Oklahoma’s air quality surveillance network for particulate matter, SO2, and 

photochemical oxidants. On August 6, 1981, EPA approved Oklahoma’s air quality surveillance 

system that consists of a network of monitoring stations designated as State and Local Air 

Monitoring Stations, which measure ambient concentrations of those pollutants for which 

standards have been established in 40 CFR Part 50 (see 46 FR 40005). 

Until relatively recently, the State was not required to deploy monitors to measure the 

concentration of lead. However, the 2008 Pb rule established, among other things, new 

requirements for Pb monitoring networks, including the requirement that new Pb monitors be 

 

8

 See the General Preamble to the Act’s 1990 Amendments (57 FR 13498, p. 13556). 
8

located in close proximity to the largest Pb emissions sources.9

 As the State air pollution control 

agency, the ODEQ maintains a network of air quality monitoring stations pursuant to 40 CFR 

58.3(a). The ODEQ’s annual monitoring network plans for fiscal years (FYs) 2015 and 2016 

were approved by the EPA in a letter dated September 15, 2015.10 The network includes, but is 

not limited to, monitors measuring ambient concentrations of lead, ozone, NO2 and SO2. These 

monitors meet the technical requirements of 40 CFR 58, Subpart B and those that have not been 

certified as meeting the federal requirements are identified as “non-regulatory” or “special 

purpose” monitors. The ODEQ website posts past and current concentrations of ozone and SO2

and current concentrations of NO2 measured in the network of monitors. The State submits air 

monitoring data to EPA quarterly and certifies the data annually. 

The Oklahoma SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 2008 Pb and 

ozone NAAQS, and for the 2010 NO2 and SO2 primary NAAQS. 

Table 2: Oklahoma rules relevant to meeting section 110(a)(2)(B), as determined by EPA: 

Relevant Section of Oklahoma’s SIP EPA Approval/Federal Register(s) 

Subchapter 3: Air Quality Standards and Increments 11/3/1999 at 64 FR 59629 and 

12/29/2008 at 73 FR 79400

Appendix E: Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards 11/3/2015 at 80 FR 67650

Appendix F: Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards 80 FR 67650

3. Program for enforcement of control measures: Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to 

include a program providing for enforcement of the measures described in subparagraph (A), and 

the regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas 

covered by the SIP as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved, including a permit 

program as required in parts C and D. 

The State's response: Oklahoma’s approved air permitting program includes appropriate 

enforcement authority and permitting for modification and construction of stationary sources. 

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

Oklahoma’s SIP) are described in 27A OS 2-5-105, and include authority to “[e]nforce rules of 

the Board and orders of the Department and the Council” (27A OS 2-5-1-5(4)). Oklahoma’s PSD 

and Title V/Part 70 permitting program applies to sources that emit greenhouse gases in 

accordance with EPA’s tailoring rule and subsequent narrowing of EPA’s approval of the PSD 

program. 

EPA analysis: In addition to the State’s response, we add the following from the Oklahoma Air 

Pollution Control Regulations as relevant in determining that the Oklahoma SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C): 

Regulation 1.4.1 General Permit Requirements 

Regulation 1.4.2 Construction Permit 

Regulation 1.4.3 Operating Permit 

 

9

 See 75 FR 71033, November 22, 2010. 

10 The State’s submittal and our approval letter are provided in the docket for this rulemaking action. 
9

Regulation 1.4.1 provides for general permit requirements and permit fees. Regulation 

1.4.2 provides for construction permit applications and conditions, and relocation permits. 

Regulation 1.4.3 addresses operating permit requirements and conditions. These regulations, as 

approved in the SIP, address minor sources only.11

We also recognize the following from OAC 252 as relevant in determining that the 

Oklahoma SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C): 

252:4 Rules of Practice and Procedure 

 Subchapter 7: Environmental Permit Process 

 Subchapter 9: Administrative Proceedings 

 Appendix C: Permitting process summary 

252:100 Air Pollution Control 

Subchapter 3: Air Quality Standards and Increments 

Subchapter 5: Registration of Air Contaminant Sources 

Subchapter 9: Excess Emission and Malfunction Reporting Requirements 

Subchapter 13: Open Burning 

Subchapter 17: Incinerators 

Subchapter 31: Control of Emission of Sulfur Compounds 

Subchapter 33: Control of Emission of Nitrogen Oxides 

Subchapter 37: Control of Emission of Organic Materials 

Subchapter 39: Emission of Organic Materials in Nonattainment Areas 

Subchapter 45: Monitoring of Emissions 

We also find the following from OAC 595 as relevant in determining that the Oklahoma 

SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C): 

595:20: Inspection and Equipment for Motor Vehicles 

Subchapter 3: Emission and Mechanical Inspection of Vehicle 

Subchapter 7: Inspection Stickers and Monthly Tab Inserts for Windshield and 

Trailer/Motorcycle 

Subchapter 11: Annual Motor Vehicle Inspection and Emission Anti-Tampering 

Inspection Records and Reports 

The OCAA at 27A O.S. 2-5-105(4) provides the ODEQ with enforcement authority for 

the rules it has adopted. Furthermore, at 27A O.S. 2-5-105(14) the OCAA authorizes the ODEQ 

to bring appropriate court action and obtain injunctive or other proper relief where such action is 

determined necessary. The OCAA was approved by EPA for incorporation into the SIP on June 

23, 1994 (59 FR 32365).12 In addition, the requirements at 40 CFR 52.1923, addressing Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) to reduce emissions of SO2 and NOx for Units 4 and 5 of 

the Oklahoma Gas and Electric (OG&E) Muskogee plant, and Units 1 and 2 of the OG&E 

Sooner plant include enforcement. See 76 FR 81758 (December 28, 2011) and 79 FR 12944 

(March 7, 2014). 

The administrative proceedings for enforcement actions, including administrative 

compliance orders and determination of penalty, are provided under 252:4-9. The Emission and 

 

11 The EPA is reviewing revisions to these rules but has yet to complete its proposed action. 

12 The current version of the Oklahoma Statutes retains the enforcement authority approved into the SIP in 1994. 
10

Mechanical Inspection of Vehicles recordkeeping and reporting requirements are provided under 

595:20, subchapters 3, 7, and 11. Among the issues addressed in 252:100, subchapters 3, 5, 8, 9, 

13, 17, 31, 33, 37, 39, 43, 45, and Appendices E and F, we found allowable emission rates, 

permits for Part 70 sources, compliance, control plan requirements, control schedules, 

monitoring and testing requirements, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements (see Table 3 

below). These clarify the boundaries beyond which regulated entities in Oklahoma can expect 

enforcement action. 

Part C of the Act requires prevention of significant deterioration of air quality, denoted as 

PSD and codified at 40 CFR 51.166. The PSD program regulates the construction of any new 

stationary source or major modifications at existing stationary sources for pollutants where the 

area the source is located is designated as attainment/unclassifiable with the NAAQS. Regulation 

1.4.1 of the Oklahoma Air Pollution Control Regulations provides for general permit 

requirements. Regulations 1.4.2 and 1.4.3 provide for construction and operating permits. The 

rules at 252 OAC chapter 100, subchapter 3, set forth the PSD increments, which are consistent 

with EPA’s PSD increments in accordance with 40 CFR 51.166 (see Table 3 below). PSD 

increments limit increases in pollutant concentration due to new sources. Permits for Part 70 

Sources (at 252:100-8) includes but is not limited to construction and operating permits, best 

available control technology, PSD for attainment areas, and major sources affecting 

nonattainment areas. 

Oklahoma’s PSD program was initially approved into the SIP on August 25, 1983 (see 48 

FR 38635), giving the State authority to issue PSD permits and enforce them. In response to the 

new PM10 NAAQS promulgated by EPA on July 1, 1987, Oklahoma revised its existing 

regulations for PSD to reflect the new NAAQS. These revisions were approved into the 

Oklahoma SIP on February 12, 1991 (56 FR 05653). Oklahoma revised its SIP again by adopting 

PSD nitrogen dioxide (NO2) increments and related requirements, and EPA approved such 

revisions on July 23, 1991 (56 FR 33715). On November 8, 1999, EPA approved additional 

revisions to the PSD rules into the Oklahoma SIP, which brought the Oklahoma SIP regulations 

up-to-date with the Federal NSR requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart P, Visibility Protection 

(64 FR 60683). On March 10, 2003 and December 24, 2003, EPA revised the Oklahoma SIP by 

incorporating newly promulgated paragraphs of the Federal PSD rule into the Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) portion of the State’s SIP.13 These revisions were made in order to 

ensure comprehensive and consistent implementation of the Federal PSD program by State, 

local, and tribal agencies where EPA determined that they have the responsibility to implement 

the Federal PSD program. On December 29, 2008, EPA approved revisions to the Oklahoma 

values for particulate matter significant deterioration increments in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.166.14 On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16205), EPA determined that Oklahoma failed to submit a 

SIP addressing changes to the part C PSD permit program required by the November 29, 2005 

(70 FR 71612) final rule that made NOx a precursor for ozone in the part C regulations at 40 

CFR 51.166 and in 40 CFR 52.21. In response, the State submitted revisions that identify NOx as 

a precursor for ozone, which were approved into the SIP on November 26, 2010 (75 FR 72695). 

Additional revisions that update the State’s PSD permit program to be consistent with federal 

permitting requirements were proposed for approval on June 30, 2016 (81 FR 42587). 

The statutory and regulatory programs that address the construction and modification of 

stationary sources are termed new source review (NSR) and are provided under parts C and D of 

 

13 Please see 68 FR 11316 (March 10, 2003) and 68 FR 74483 (December 24, 2003). 14 See 73 FR 79400. 
11

the Act, and 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.166. NSR is a permitting program that regulates the 

construction of new stationary sources of air pollution and major modifications to existing 

stationary sources. These sources are required by the CAA to obtain an air pollution permit 

before beginning construction. 252:100-8 includes requirements for sources located in 

nonattainment areas. On May 18, 1983, EPA approved into the Oklahoma SIP nonattainment 

NSR provisions, which set forth legally enforceable procedures for the preconstruction review of 

new sources and modifications which would locate to a nonattainment area.15 In response to the 

new PM10 NAAQS promulgated by EPA on July 1, 1987, Oklahoma revised its NSR regulations 

to reflect the new NAAQS and such revisions were approved on February 12, 1991 (56 FR 

05653). The Oklahoma nonattainment NSR program addresses volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) and NOx, as well as “any pollutant for which a national ambient air quality standard has 

been promulgated.” 

The Oklahoma SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 ozone 

and Pb NAAQS and for the 2010 SO2 and NO2 NAAQS. 

Table 3: Oklahoma rules relevant to meeting section 110(a)(2)(C), as determined by EPA: 

Relevant Section of Oklahoma’s SIP EPA Approval citation(s) 

Regulation 1.4.1: General Permit Requirements Aug 25, 1983 at 48 FR 38635 

and Jul 23, 1991 at 56 FR 33715

Regulation 1.4.2: Construction Permit 48 FR 38635, Jul 27, 1984 at 49 

FR 30184, Aug 20, 1990 at 55 

FR 33905, and 56 FR 33715

Regulation 1.4.3: Operating Permit 48 FR 38635

Regulation 3.8, Control of Emission of Hazardous Air Contaminants Aug 15, 1983 at 48 FR 36819 

OAC 252:4, Rules of Practice and Procedure 

Subchapter 7: Environmental Permit Process

75 FR 72695 

Subchapter 9: Administrative Proceedings Dec 29, 2008 at 73 FR 79400 

Appendix C: Permitting process summary 75 FR 72695 

OAC 252:100, Air Pollution Control 

Subchapter 3: Air Quality Standards and Increments 

64 FR 59629 and 73 FR 79400 

81 FR 42587 (proposal)

Subchapter 5: Registration of Air Contaminant Sources 64 FR 59629 

81 FR 42587 (proposal)

Subchapter 8: Permits for Part 70 Sources 75 FR 72695 

81 FR 42587 (proposal) 

Subchapter 8, Part 11: Visibility Protection Standards Dec 28, 2011 at 76 FR 81728 

Subchapter 9: Excess Emission and Malfunction Reporting 

Requirements

64 FR 59629

Subchapter 13: Open Burning 73 FR 79400

Subchapter 17: Incinerators 73 FR 79400

Subchapter 31: Control of Emission of Sulfur Compounds 64 FR 59629 and 73 FR 79400 

Subchapter 33: Control of Emission of Nitrogen Oxides 64 FR 59629 and 73 FR 79400 

Subchapter 37: Control of Emission of Organic Materials 73 FR 79400 

Subchapter 39: Emission of Organic Materials in Nonattainment 

Areas 

73 FR 79400 

Subchapter 43: Sampling and Testing Methods 64 FR 59629 

Subchapter 45: Monitoring of Emissions 64 FR 59629 and 73 FR 79400 

 

15 See 48 FR 22297. 
12

Relevant Section of Oklahoma’s SIP EPA Approval citation(s) 

Appendix E: Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards 73 FR 79400 

Appendix F: Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards 73 FR 79400 

OAC 595:20, Inspection and Equipment for Motor Vehicles 

Subchapter 3: Emission and Mechanical Inspection of Vehicles 

Feb 29, 1996 at 61 FR 7709 

Subchapter 7: Inspection Stickers and Monthly Tab Inserts for 

Windshield and Trailer/Motorcycle 

61 FR 7709 

Subchapter 11: Annual Motor Vehicle Inspection and Emission AntiTampering Inspection Records and Reports 61 FR 7709 

4. Interstate transport, and interstate and international pollution abatement: Section 

110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

also has two components: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to address any emissions 

activity in one state that contributes significantly to nonattainment, or interferes with 

maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state; and section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to 

include provisions prohibiting any sources or other types of emissions activity in one state from 

interfering with measures required of any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality or from interfering with measures required of any other state to protect visibility. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring compliance with 

sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement. 

Section 126(a) requires new or modified sources to notify neighboring states of potential impacts 

from the source. Section 115 relates to the international pollution abatement portion of 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii). 

The State's response: Concerning 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prongs 1 and 2: 

Regarding the 2008 ozone and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, Oklahoma does not assert that it meets 

all requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which relate to interstate pollutant transport 

affecting attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. 

Regarding the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS, Oklahoma does not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state. Regarding 

the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, EPA designated all areas of the United States as 

unclassifiable/attainment (see 77 FR 9532, February 17, 2012); therefore, sources in Oklahoma 

do not contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other 

state with respect to the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

Concerning 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), prong 3 (PSD): 

For the 2008 ozone and Pb NAAQS and the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS, Oklahoma's air 

quality control rule at OAC 252:100-8-35 requires major stationary sources to demonstrate that 

the source’s emissions would not cause or contribute to any increase in ambient concentrations 

that would exceed any NAAQS in any air quality control region. The State’s PSD program meets 

the basic requirements for implementing all NAAQS. SIP revisions submitted on July 23, 2010 

and February 6, 2012, [which EPA proposed for approval June 30, 2016 (81 FR 42587)], contain 

modifications to Oklahoma’s PSD rules. 

Concerning 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), prong 4 (visibility): 

 For the 2008 Pb NAAQS, lead emissions are believed to contribute to visibility 

impairment only to the extent that they contribute to the amount of particulate matter (PM) in the 

atmosphere. Oklahoma's Regional Haze (RH) Implementation Plan Revision (submitted in 

February 2010) demonstrated that Oklahoma's PM2.5 emissions do not interfere with any other 
13

state's measures to protect visibility and was approved by EPA on December 29, 2011 (76 FR 

81838). In addition, a memorandum from Mark Schmidt, (EPA), titled The Estimated 

Contribution of Ambient Lead (Pb) to Class I Area Visibility Impairment, dated 11/7/2011, states 

“In conclusion, it appears that the Pb-related visibility effects (in Class I and other areas) are 

insignificant in comparison to those associated with sulfate, nitrate, and carbon PM.” 

 For the 2008 ozone NAAQS, ozone from ozone precursor emissions is not believed to 

contribute significantly to visibility impairment. Oklahoma’s RH Implementation Plan Revision 

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

to protect visibility (see 76 FR 81838, December 29, 2011). 

 For the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, Oklahoma’s RH Implementation Plan Revision includes 

reductions in NOx emissions for certain facilities, and demonstrates that Oklahoma’s PM2.5

emissions do not interfere with any other state’s measures to protect visibility (see 76 FR 81838, 

December 29, 2011). 

For the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, any contribution to visibility impairment or interference with 

any other state’s measures to protect visibility attributable to SO2 emissions are addressed 

through Oklahoma’s RH Implementation Plan Revision, as amended, and through EPA’s related 

actions. Although no visibility protection obligations are anticipated as a result of this NAAQS 

change, other program actions taken to assure maintenance of the revised SO2 NAAQS will 

indirectly assist in avoiding interference with any other state’s measures to protect visibility. 

Concerning 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): For each of the 2008 Ozone, 2008 Pb, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS, no source(s) within Oklahoma are the subject of an active finding under section 126 of 

the CAA with respect to these NAAQS. In addition, there are no final findings under section 115 

of the CAA against Oklahoma with respect to these NAAQS. 

EPA analysis for 110(a)(2)(D)(i): 

Lead (Pb): Regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), lead is a basic metal element, which means no 

complex chemistry is needed to form lead or Pb compounds in the ambient air. Lead is a dense 

metal and consequently, Pb emissions do not undergo the same transport episodes as ozone. 

Therefore, ambient concentrations of Pb are typically highest near Pb sources and more 

specifically, there is a sharp decrease in ambient Pb concentrations as the distance from the 

source increases. According to EPA's report entitled Our Nation's Air: Status and Trends 

Through 2010, Pb concentrations that are not near a source of Pb are approximately 8 times less 

than the typical concentrations near the source.16 Similarly, although Pb can be a component of 

coarse and fine particles, Pb generally comprises only a small fraction of these particles. A recent 

EPA study conducted to evaluate the extent that Pb could impact visibility concluded that Pbrelated visibility impacts at Class I areas were found to be insignificant (e.g., less than 0.10% 

contribution).17 There are no areas within Oklahoma that are designated as nonattainment with 

respect to the 2008 lead NAAQS. There are two significant sources of Pb emissions within the 

state that emit Pb in amounts equal to or exceeding 0.5 tons per year and no sources within two 

 

16 See the docket for this rulemaking. This report is also available through the EPA’s National Service Center for 

Environmental Publications at https://www.epa.gov/nscep. 

17 Analysis by Mark Schmidt, OAQPS, “Ambient Pb's Contribution to Class I Area Visibility Impairment,” June 

17, 2011.
14

miles of a neighboring state line.18 In addition, review of Pb concentrations measured in 

Oklahoma (2013 – 2015) show no violations of the lead standard.19 Regarding section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), Oklahoma has an approved PSD program, regulating all NSR pollutants, 

including greenhouse gas (GHG), which prevents significant deterioration in nearby states. 

Because significant impacts from Pb emissions from stationary sources are limited to short 

distances from such sources, visibility is not effected by lead emissions. We are proposing that 

the Oklahoma SIP meets sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for Pb. 

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2): Regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), on February 17, 2012, EPA 

designated the entire country as “unclassifiable/attainment” for NO2, explaining that this 

designation means that available information does not indicate that the air quality in these areas 

exceeds the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. In other words, Oklahoma and all neighboring states are 

currently designated as “unclassifiable/ attainment” for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. As listed in our 

NO2 Design Values report, there are no NO2 nonattainment or maintenance areas in states 

surrounding Oklahoma, thus Oklahoma does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or 

maintenance of the NO2 NAAQS in any of the contiguous states.20 Furthermore, during the three 

most recent design value periods (2011 through 2013, 2012 through 2014, and 2013 through 

2015) we found no monitors violating the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in the US. Thus, NO2 emissions 

from Oklahoma are not expected to cause or contribute to a violation of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS 

in another state, and such emissions are not likely to interfere with the maintenance of the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS in another state. Regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), Oklahoma has an approved 

PSD program, regulating all NSR pollutants, including GHG, which prevents significant 

deterioration in nearby states. In addition, on December 28, 2011 we finalized a FIP that in 

combination with the controls required by the portion of the Oklahoma RH submittal approved in 

the same rulemaking, would serve to prevent sources in Oklahoma from emitting pollutants in 

amounts that would interfere with efforts to protect visibility in other states (see 76 FR 81728). 

On March 7, 2014, we withdrew the FIP and finalized our approval of the revised Oklahoma RH 

plan and interstate transport affecting visibility. Thus, the Oklahoma SIP includes provisions that 

satisfy the CAA interstate pollution abatement requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

Ozone: In a separate action we will evaluate whether Oklahoma has met the requirements for 

Interstate transport specific to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prongs 1 and 2. Regarding section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), Oklahoma has an approved PSD program, regulating all NSR pollutants, 

including GHG, which prevents significant deterioration in nearby states. In addition, on March 

7, 2014, we finalized our determination that Oklahoma’s RH Implementation Plan Revision 

meets the CAA provisions concerning non-interference with programs to protect visibility in 

other states, consistent with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA (see 79 FR 12944). Thus, the 

Oklahoma SIP satisfies prongs 3 and 4 of the CAA interstate pollution abatement requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

 

18 See the FY2016 Oklahoma annual network monitoring plan in the docket for this rulemaking. 

19 See our 2015 Design Value Reports posted at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report. 20 See https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#Design Value Reports and the docket for this 

rulemaking. 
15

Sulfur dioxide (SO2): In a separate action we will evaluate whether Oklahoma has met the 

requirements for Interstate transport specific to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prongs 1 and 2. 

Regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), Oklahoma has an approved PSD program, regulating all 

NSR pollutants, including GHG, which prevents significant deterioration in nearby states. In a 

separate action we will evaluate whether Oklahoma has met the requirements for visibility 

protection specific to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), prong 4. 

EPA analysis for 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): 

Oklahoma’s SIP-approved PSD program includes notification of neighboring states of the 

issuance of PSD permits and therefore satisfies the requirement for CAA section 126(a). There 

are no findings by EPA that air emissions originating in Oklahoma affect other countries and 

thereby addresses CAA section 115. Thus, we propose to approve the Oklahoma SIP as meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2008 ozone and Pb NAAQS and the 

2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. 

5. Adequate resources and authority: Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires states to provide for (i) 

adequate personnel, funding, and legal authority; (ii) comply with requirements respecting state 

boards under CAA section 128; and (iii) necessary assurances that, where the state has relied on 

a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any plan 

provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan 

provisions. 

The State’s response: 

(i) Oklahoma has previously demonstrated that it currently has and will continue to have 

adequate personnel and other resources to carry out its air quality programs. The powers 

and duties of the DEQ to implement air quality programs (including implementing 

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

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

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

grants under CAA sections 103 & 105, among others. 

(ii) The Oklahoma Environmental Quality Code lays out the composition and powers & 

duties of the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) (27A O.S. § 2-2-101) and the Air 

Quality Advisory Council (27A O.S. §§ 2-2-201(H) and 2-5-107). These powers & duties 

include their roles in promulgating DEQ rules, but do not include approving permits or 

enforcement orders under the CAA. The powers & duties and conflict of interest 

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

27A O.S. § 2-3-201, respectively. 

(iii)Not applicable. 

EPA analysis: Each SIP must show that the state has legal authority to carry out the plan 

(40 CFR 51.230). Oklahoma SIP revisions include a discussion of its legal authority, provided by 

the OCAA. The Oklahoma Environmental Quality Act and the OCAA are both codified at Title 

27A of the Oklahoma Statutes and these statutes both name the DEQ as the State air control 

agency, with principal authority in the State on matters relating to the quality of air resources. 

The 1992 OCAA was incorporated into the SIP at 59 FR 32365 and is now codified in Title 27A 

of the Oklahoma Statutes and charges the DEQ with preparing and developing the SIP. The 1992 
16

OCAA also gives the DEQ the authority to: “Employ and compensate ... consultants and 

technical assistants and ... employees ... as may be necessary to carry out ... the OCAA ...; 

Accept and administer grants or other funds ... for the purpose of carrying out ... the OCAA;” 

and “Budget and receive duly appropriated monies and all other monies available for 

expenditures to carry out the ... OCAA.” See 27A O.S. 2-5-105. In addition, Chapter 9 of the 

original Oklahoma SIP approved on May 31, 1972, titled “Resources,” provides assurances that 

the State has the adequate resources, i.e., personnel and funding, to carry out their SIP (see 37 FR 

10842, 10887). The DEQ also annually receives Federal funds, authorized pursuant to sections 

103 and 105 of the CAA. Section 103 supports specific, non-recurring projects within the air 

program, thus the amount of funding can vary widely from year to year. Section 105 supports the 

foundation of the State’s air quality program, including the air monitoring network and annual 

air quality program activities. Section 105 funding levels are relatively consistent, varying not 

more than about 10% from year to year. Section 105 funds require a 40% match from the State, 

while section 103 funds do not require a match. 

Section 128 of the CAA requires that the SIP contain the following: “(1) any board or 

body which approves permits or enforcement orders under this chapter shall have at least a 

majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion 

of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders under this chapter, and (2) 

any potential conflicts of interest by members of such board or body or the head of an executive 

agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed. A State may adopt any requirements 

respecting conflicts of interest for such boards or bodies or heads of executive agencies, or any 

other entities which are more stringent than the requirements of paragraph (1) and (2), and the 

Administrator shall approve any such more stringent requirements submitted as part of an 

implementation plan.” (See 42 U.S.C. section 7428.) The powers and duties and conflict of 

interest provisions for the DEQ staff and Executive Director are provided at 27A O.S. 2-3-101 

(addressing staff) and 27A O.S. 2-3-201 (addressing the Executive Director). 

The State does not rely on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for 

the implementation of any plan provision; the State has full responsibility for ensuring adequate 

implementation of its SIP provisions. 

The Oklahoma SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E) in its entirety for the 

2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS and the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. 

6. Stationary source emissions monitoring and reporting: Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires states 

to establish a system to monitor emissions from stationary sources and submit periodic emission 

reports. 

The State's response: Source emissions monitoring requirements are addressed in OAC 252:100-

43, Sampling and Testing, and OAC 252:100-45, Monitoring of Emissions. Source emissions 

inventory requirements are addressed in OAC 252:100-5, Registration of Air Contaminant 

Sources. Area, mobile, and non-road data are reported to EPA on a 3-year cycle. OAC 252:100, 

Air Pollution Control; OAC 252:4-1-5, Availability of a Record; 51 O.S. 24A.1 et seq. 

Oklahoma Open Records Act. 

EPA analysis: In addition to the State submittals, we add the following as relevant in determining 

whether the Oklahoma SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F): 
17

From OAC 252:4, Subchapter 1. General Provisions 

From OAC 252:100: 

Subchapter 5: Registration of Air Contaminant Sources 

Subchapter 9: Excess Emission and Malfunction Reporting Requirements 

Subchapter 17: Incinerators 

Subchapter 31: Control of Emission of Sulfur Compounds 

Subchapter 37. Control of Emission of Organic Materials 

Subchapter 43: Sampling and Testing Methods 

Subchapter 45: Monitoring of Emissions 

EPA promulgated monitoring regulations, codified at 40 CFR 51.210 (Subpart K) and 

Minimum Emission Monitoring Requirements in Appendix P to Part 51. Under section 193 of 

the Act, the existing regulations remain effective to the extent they are not inconsistent with the 

current law, until EPA elects to amend them. Under Subpart K, each SIP must: a) provide for 

monitoring the status of compliance with any rules and regulations that set forth any portion of 

the control strategy; b) provide for legally enforceable procedures for requiring owners or 

operators of stationary sources to maintain records of and periodically report to the State; c) 

contain procedures for obtaining and maintaining data on actual emissions reductions achieved 

as a result of implementing transportation control measures; and d) require stationary sources 

subject to emission standards as part of an applicable plan to install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate equipment for continuously monitoring and recording emissions. 

Chapter 8 of the original Oklahoma SIP approved on May 31, 1972, titled “Source 

Surveillance and Enforcement System,” provides for a stationary source surveillance system for 

the State of Oklahoma. The 1992 OCAA21 authorizes the ODEQ to maintain and update at least 

annually an inventory of air emissions from stationary sources (see 27A O.S. 2-5-105). 

Requirements for stationary sources subject to emission standards as part of an applicable plan to 

install, calibrate, maintain, and operate equipment for continuously monitoring and recording 

emissions are provided under the Oklahoma SIP. These can be found at 252:4-1; and 252:100, 

subchapters 5, 9, 19, 25, 31, 37, 43, and 45 (See Table 4 below). 252:4-1-5 details the 

availability of a record required to be submitted to the DEQ. 252:100-5 requires facilities that 

emit air contaminants to file an emission inventory and provide the ODEQ with information 

necessary to evaluate the source’s potential for causing air pollution. 252:100-9 includes the 

general requirements for reporting of excess emissions from a stationary source. 252:100-19 

includes allowable emission rates for specific units and processes. 252:100-25 requires 

continuous monitoring of opacity for fluid bed catalytic cracking unit catalyst generators at 

petroleum refineries and fossil fuel-fired steam generators. 252:100-31 provides for performance 

testing and monitoring of emissions from certain stationary sources of sulfur compound 

emissions. 252:100-37 addresses the submittal of annual emission inventory reports. 252:100-43 

specifies the sampling and testing methods to be used in determining emissions from stationary 

sources. 252:100-45 provides the basic requirements for monitoring, recording and reporting 

emissions. Also, the requirements at 40 CFR 52.1923, addressing BART for SO2 and Interstate 

pollutant transport provisions for Units 4 and 5 of the Oklahoma Gas and Electric Muskogee 

plant, and Units 1 and 2 of the Oklahoma Gas and Electric Sooner plant affecting visibility, 

include testing, monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping. See 76 FR 81758 (December 28, 

 

21 See 59 FR 32365. 
18

2011), and 79 FR 12956 (March 7, 2014). A list of the chapters and Federal Register citations are 

provided below. 

The ODEQ collects and analyzes emissions data from point, area, mobile, and biogenic 

(natural) sources. The DEQ uses this data to track progress towards maintaining the NAAQS, 

develop control and maintenance strategies, identify sources and general emission levels, and 

determine compliance with State and EPA requirements. The State’s emissions data are available 

on the DEQ website (http://www.deq.state.ok.us/aqdnew/emissions/index.htm). Emissions data 

for 2008 through 2014 are posted on the website. 

The National Emissions Inventory (NEI) is EPA’s central repository for air emissions 

data. EPA published the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 4, 2008, which 

modified the requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR 76539, 

December 17, 2008). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data from 17 

to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit emissions data. All states are required to 

submit a comprehensive emissions inventory (EI) every three years and report emissions for 

certain larger sources annually through EPA’s online Emissions Inventory System (EIS). States 

report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and the precursors that form them – NOx, 

SO2, NO2, ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, PM, and VOCs. Many states, including Oklahoma, 

also voluntarily report emissions of hazardous air pollutants. EPA compiles the emissions data, 

supplementing it where necessary, and releases it to the general public through the website 

http://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/trends/. 

Oklahoma does not have any areas designated as nonattainment, so is not required to 

submit nonattainment area emission inventories. The State submits its EI data to EPA in a timely 

fashion. 

The Oklahoma SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2008 Pb and 

ozone NAAQS and the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. 

Table 4: Oklahoma rules relevant to meeting section 110(a)(2)(F), as determined by EPA: 

Relevant Section of Oklahoma’s SIP EPA Approval citation 

252:4-1. General Provisions 

 Section 4-1-5: Availability of a Record 

75 FR 72695 

Subchapter 5: Registration of Air Contaminant Sources 64 FR 59629

Subchapter 9: Excess Emission and Malfunction Reporting 

Requirements

64 FR 59629

Subchapter 17: Incinerators 

 Section 17-4: Particulate Matter 

 Section 17-7: Test Methods 

80 FR 67650

Subchapter 19. Control of Emission of Particulate Matter 73 FR 79400 

Subchapter 23: Control of Emissions from Cotton Gins 

 Section 23-3: Applicability, General Requirements

73 FR 79400

Subchapter 24: Particulate Matter Emissions from Grain, Feed, or 

Seed Operations 

 Section 24-3: Applicability, General Requirements

73 FR 79400

Subchapter 25: Visible Emissions and Particulates 

 Section 25-5: Continuous Emission Monitoring for Opacity

73 FR 79400 

Subchapter 31: Control of Emission of Sulfur Compounds 

 Part 1: General Provisions 

 Part 3: Existing Equipment Standards 

 Part 5: New Equipment Standards

64 FR 59629 

64 FR 59629 

64 FR 59629 and 73 FR 79400 
19

Relevant Section of Oklahoma’s SIP EPA Approval citation 

Subchapter 37. Control of Emission of Organic Materials 

 Section 37-42: Permit by Rule Requirements 

73 FR 79400 

Subchapter 43: Sampling and Testing Methods 

 Section 43-1: Purpose 

 Section 43-2: Test Procedures 

 Section 43-3: Conduct of Tests

64 FR 59629 

Subchapter 45: Monitoring of Emissions 

 Section 45-1: Purpose 

 Section 45-2: Monitoring Equipment Required 

 Section 45-3: Records Required 

 Section 45-4: Compliance Certifications 

 Section 45-5: Enforceability 

64 FR 59629 

64 FR 59629 

64 FR 59629 

73 FR 79400 

73 FR 79400 

7. Emergency powers: Section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to provide for authority to address 

activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, including 

contingency plans to implement the emergency episode provisions in their SIPs. 

The State's response: Chapter 6 of Oklahoma’s SIP sets forth the state’s Emergency Episode 

Plan (EEP), as required under CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) and 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart H – 

Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes and, along with the February 2002 SIP update, 

describes and implements State authority comparable to that in section 303 of the CAA. (For the 

purpose of EEPs, 40 CFR § 51.150 classifies regions separately with respect to the following 

pollutants: sulfur oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone.) As 

indicated in 40 CFR 52.1934, EPA approved the plans as submitted in 1972 and revised in 1988. 

All areas in Oklahoma are classified as Priority III for NO2. 

EPA analysis: We compared the State rules to 40 CFR 51 Subpart H – Prevention of Air 

Pollution Emergency Episodes and Appendix L to Part 51 - Example Regulations for Prevention 

of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes. Subpart H provides a classification system for episode 

plans. Each region in a state is classified separately with respect to each of the criteria pollutants 

except for lead (see 40 CFR 51.150). Please see Table 5 below for the Priority I and other 

classification criteria for ozone, NO2 and SO2. 

A Priority II Region means any area which is not a Priority I region and has ambient 

concentrations as specified in Table 5 below. The regulations do not establish Priority II regions 

for ozone or NO2. A Priority IA Region is any area which is Priority I primarily because of 

emissions from a single point source. Areas that do not meet the criteria for Priority I or II are 

classified Priority III. 
20

Table 5: Classification of Regions for Episode Plans: Ambient concentrations of Ozone, 

NO2 and SO2 (40 CFR 51.150) 

Parameter Priority I Priority II Priority III 

Ozone Greater than 195 μg/m3

(0.10 ppm) 

1-hour maximum 

Not defined Areas which do not 

meet the criteria for 

Priority I 

Nitrogen 

dioxide 

Greater than 100 μg/m3

(0.06 ppm) annual 

arithmetic mean 

Not defined Areas which do not 

meet the criteria for 

Priority I 

Sulfur 

dioxide 

Greater than 100 μg/m3

(0.04 ppm) annual 

arithmetic mean; 

455 μg/m3 (0.17 ppm) 

24-hour maximum 

60-100 μg/m3 (0.02-0.04 ppm) 

annual arithmetic mean; 

260-455 μg/m3

 (0.10-0.17 ppm) 

24-hour maximum; any 

concentration above 1,300 μg/m3

(0.50 ppm) 3-hour average 

Areas which do not 

meet the criteria for 

Priority I or II 

The significant harm level for the each of the pollutants will remain unchanged since 

amended at 52 FR 24713, Jul 1, 1987, and as indicated in 40 CFR 51.151. EPA believes that 40 

CFR Subpart H remains appropriate. Therefore, EPA expects that for purposes of the 2008 ozone 

and 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS, states need only to confirm that they have existing emergency 

episode plan provisions consistent with EPA’s existing regulatory requirements. 

Oklahoma’s Emergency Episode Control Plan (EECP) was last revised on February 12, 

1991 (56 FR 5653), and includes alert, warning, and emergency levels for ozone episode stages. 

The Oklahoma EECP provides for the pollutants specified under 40 CFR 51.150. Using 2013 - 

2015 data, areas within Oklahoma meet the classification for Priority 1 for ozone and Priority III 

for NO2 and SO2.

22 Oklahoma’s EECP is consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 51.151 and 

152, and Appendix L to Part 51. 

The Oklahoma SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS and for the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. 

8. Future SIP revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires states to have the authority to revise their 

SIPs in response to changes in the NAAQS, availability of improved methods for attaining 

NAAQS, or in response to an EPA finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate. 

The State’s response: “DEQ’s powers and duties to implement air quality programs (including 

implementing Oklahoma’s SIP) are described in 27A O.S. §2-5-105, and include authority to: 3. 

Prepare and develop a general plan for proper air quality management in the state in 

accordance with the OCAA; and 20. Carry out all other duties, requirements and responsibilities 

necessary and proper for the implementation of the OCAA and fulfilling the requirements of the 

Federal Clean Air Act. [27A O.S. §2-5-105(3) and (20)]. 

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

modifications, are initiated through the rulemaking process, which includes agency, public, 

 

22 AQI data for this period are provided in the docket for this rulemaking. 
21

gubernatorial, and legislative review processes.... This process is followed regardless of whether 

it results from a NAAQS update or a finding by the Administrator.” 

EPA analysis: The 1992 OCAA was incorporated into the SIP at 59 FR 32365. As described 

earlier in this TSD, the OCAA is now codified under Title 27A, chapter 2, Article 5 of the 

Oklahoma Statutes. Such revisions have not been submitted to the EPA for approval into the SIP, 

but the current version of the Oklahoma Statutes retains the enforcement authority approved into 

the Oklahoma SIP in 1994. 

The Oklahoma SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(H) for the 2008 Pb and 

ozone NAAQS and 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. 

9. Consultation, public notice, and PSD and visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) is 

divided into three components: consultation with government officials, public notification 

requirements, and provisions for PSD and visibility protection. With regards to consultation with 

government officials, this section requires states to provide a process for consultation with local 

governments and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) carrying out NAAQS implementation 

requirements pursuant to section 121 relating to consultation. Section 110(a)(2)(J) further 

requires states to notify the public if NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public 

awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances. Section 110(a)(2)(J) also 

requires States to meet applicable requirements of Part C related to Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration and visibility protection. 

The State's response: For CAA section 121: “Oklahoma’s approved SIP includes established 

consultation with various entities. Section 2-5-105 of the OCAA specifically gives the DEQ 

authority to advise, consult, and cooperate with other agencies of the State, towns, cities and 

counties, industries, other states and the federal government, and with affected groups in the 

prevention and control of new and existing air contamination sources within the State.” 

For CAA section 127: “Public notification procedures to meet the requirements of 127 of 

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

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

health advisories.” 

For PSD and Visibility Protection (Part C): “Oklahoma’s EPA-approved PSD permitting 

program, which addresses all regulated NSR air pollutants, operates under OAC 252:100-8, Part 

7 – Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Requirements for Attainment Areas; the 

existing PSD delegation agreement; and approved and pending portions of the SIP. Oklahoma’s 

Regional Haze Implementation Plan Revision (RH SIP) ... describes Oklahoma’s measures to 

protect visibility, including provisions in OAC 252:100-8, Part 11. EPA approved core elements 

of the [RH] SIP on December 28, 2011 (76 FR 81728). EPA disapproved Oklahoma’s Best 

Available Retrofit Technology determinations for several emissions units and issued a Federal 

Implementation Plan covering those units.” 

EPA analysis: Regarding consultation with government officials and in addition to the authority 

provided to the DEQ under the OCAA at 27A O.S. 2-5-105(5), Chapter 10 of the original 

Oklahoma SIP approved on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10887), provides for inter-governmental 

cooperation. Oklahoma’s Intergovernmental Consultation Plan was revised and approved by 

EPA on May 14, 1982 (47 FR 20771). The revision consisted of the development and 
22

implementation of a State process for consultation and planning with relevant local governmental 

organizations having responsibility for any SIP development process. The 1990 Oklahoma 

Visibility Plan was approved by EPA into the SIP on November 8, 1999 (64 FR 60683), and 

requires the DEQ to notify the FLM of the receipt of any analysis of the anticipated impacts on 

visibility in any Federal Class I area, and to include a complete copy of the permit application of 

any proposed new major stationary source or major modification that may effect visibility in any 

Federal Class I area. The Oklahoma Visibility Plan also requires the DEQ to consider any timely 

analysis performed by the FLM and to coordinate with the FLM in conducting any monitoring of 

visibility in the mandatory Federal Class I area. The Attainment Demonstrations for each of the 

Central Oklahoma and Tulsa Early Action Compact (EAC) Areas were approved by EPA on 

August 16, 2005 (70 FR 48078) and August 19, 2005 (70 FR 48645), respectively, and each 

incorporated a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the DEQ and the regional planning 

organization. Each MOA outlines the duties and responsibilities of each party for 

implementation of pollution control measures for the specific EAC area (see 70 FR 48078 and 70 

FR 48645 for detail). Lastly, an element addressing “Coordination with States and Federal Land 

Managers” was approved under the Regional Haze SIP at 79 FR 12953 (March 7, 2014). The 

Oklahoma SIP meets this portion of the section 110(a)(2)(J) requirements. 

Regarding public notification, section 110(a)(2)(J) further requires states to notify the 

public if NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of measures that can 

be taken to prevent exceedances. On August 4, 1977 (42 FR 39389), the Oklahoma SIP was 

revised by amending Regulation 4.2, which provides for public disclosure of emission data. The 

revision to Regulation 4.2 provided that emission data must be made available at all times to the 

public during normal working hours. On May 14, 1982 (47 FR 20771), EPA approved into the 

Oklahoma SIP a Public Notification Workplan, which consists of a formal procedure for public 

notification, including notification of exceedances of any national primary ambient air quality 

standard, the health hazards associated with such pollution, measures which can be taken to 

prevent such exceedances, and ways for participation in regulatory processes to improve air 

quality. Furthermore, Oklahoma ozone forecasts are made for each day of the ozone season for 

each forecast area,23 and are available to the public through the ODEQ website. The public can 

also subscribe through the DEQ website to an “Air Quality Health Advisory,” which is a graphic 

e-mail notification that tells the subscriber when current air pollution levels are unhealthy for 

sensitive groups or worse, allowing citizens to take steps to protect their health and that of their 

family.24 The Oklahoma SIP meets this portion of the section 110(a)(2)(J) requirements. 

Regarding PSD and visibility protection, section 110(a)(2)(J) requires States to meet 

applicable requirements of Part C related to prevention of significant deterioration and visibility 

protection. As detailed in section C above, Oklahoma’s PSD program has been approved into the 

SIP. The EPA approved Oklahoma’s Visibility Protection Plan for the Federal Class I area on 

November 8, 1999 (64 FR 60683).25 In that rulemaking, we determined that Oklahoma’s 

Visibility Protection Plan meets the visibility monitoring and NSR provisions under 40 CFR 

51.305 and 51.307, respectively. We also determined that Oklahoma’s Visibility Protection Plan 

meets the visibility implementation control strategy and long-term strategy requirements under 

 

23 There are three forecast areas in Oklahoma: Lawton, Oklahoma City, and Tulsa. For more information, please see 

http://www.deq.state.ok.us/aqdnew/AQIndex/AQI.htm. 24 Please see http://www.deq.state.ok.us/aqdnew/AdvisorySignUp.htm. 25 Oklahoma has one mandatory Class I area - the Wichita Mountains National Wildlife Refuge in Comanche 

County near Fort Sill Military Reservation. 
23

40 CFR 51.302 and 51.306, respectively. Oklahoma’s Visibility Protection Plan includes 

visibility impact evaluation requirements and requires the ODEQ to coordinate with the FLM in 

conducting any monitoring of visibility in the mandatory Federal Class I area, to notify the FLM 

of the receipt of any analysis of the anticipated impacts of sources on visibility in any Federal 

Class I area, and to consider any timely analysis performed and submitted by the FLM. With 

regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection, EPA recognizes that states are 

subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under sections 169A and 169B of 

the Act. In the event of the establishment of a new or revised NAAQS however, these visibility 

and regional haze program requirements do not change. Thus, we find that there is no new 

visibility obligation triggered under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new or revised NAAQS 

becomes effective. 

The Oklahoma SIP meets this portion of the section 110(a)(2)(J) requirements for the 

2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS and 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. 

10. Air quality modeling and submission of data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that SIPs 

provide for performing air quality modeling for predicting effects on air quality of emissions 

from any NAAQS pollutant and submission of such data to EPA upon request. 

The State’s response: “Oklahoma conducts air quality modeling to support its demonstrations of 

attainment, and reports results to EPA .... Source modeling requirements are also included in the 

PSD permitting program in OAC 252:100-8-35.” 

EPA analysis: This requirement will be met if the State submits its actual modeling in its SIP 

submittal, and EPA determines that the submitted SIP measures are approvable.26 EPA currently 

does not have regulations concerning modeling for the SIP demonstration purposes, but has 

issued guidance.27 Modeling was submitted with the Tulsa County Ozone Plan;28 the Conoco 

SO2 Emissions Trade SIP revision;29 and the Attainment Demonstration SIPs for each of the 

Central Oklahoma and Tulsa EAC areas.30

The Oklahoma SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2008 Pb and 

ozone NAAQS and 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. 

11. Permitting fees: Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require each major stationary source 

to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing, approving, implementing and enforcing a 

permit. 

The State's response: “27A O.S. §2-5-106 authorizes the DEQ through the EQB to promulgate 

rules regarding permit fees and 27A O.S. §2-5-113 establishes that the owner or operator of any 

source required to have a permit must pay a permit fee to cover the cost of implementing and 

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

Operating Program includes permit application fees and annual operating fees under OAC 

252:100-8-1.7 and 252:100-5-2.2, respectively (formerly Regulation 1.4.1(d) Permit fees).” 

 

26 See the General Preamble to the Act’s 1990 Amendments (57 FR 13498, p. 13556). 

27 See https://www3.epa.gov/scram001/aqmindex.htm. 28 See 56 FR 03777, January 31, 1991. 

29 See 57 FR 08077, March 6, 1992. 

30 See 70 FR 48078 and 70 FR 48645, respectively. 
24

EPA analysis: The 1992 OCAA authorizes the DEQ, through the Board of Environmental 

Quality, to promulgate rules regarding permit fees. Such statute also establishes that the owner or 

operator of any source required to have a permit must pay a permit fee to cover the cost of 

implementing and enforcing Oklahoma’s permit program authorized by the OCAA and the 

CAA.31 Regulation 1.4.1(d) of the Oklahoma Air Pollution Control Regulations provides for 

permit fees, and was approved by EPA into the Oklahoma SIP on August 25, 1983 (48 FR 

38635). The Oklahoma SIP also addresses annual operating fees at OAC 100-5 (see 75 FR 

72695). The Oklahoma SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2008 Pb and 

ozone NAAQS and 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. 

12. Consultation/participation by affected local entities: Section 110(a)(2)(M) requires states 

to provide for consultation and participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions 

affected by the SIP. 

The State’s response: [The] “approved SIP includes established opportunities for consultation 

and participation by local political subdivisions affected by Oklahoma’s SIP. DEQ’s powers and 

duties to implement air quality programs (including implementing Oklahoma’s SIP) described in 

27A O.S. §2-5-105 authorizes the DEQ to advise, consult and cooperate with other agencies of 

the State, towns, cities and counties, industries, other states and the federal government, and with 

affected groups in the prevention and control of new and existing air contamination sources 

within the State. The powers and duties of the Air Quality Advisory Council, as listed in 27A 

O.S. §2-5-107, include the “authority and discretion to provide a public forum for the discussion 

of issues it considers relevant to the air quality of the state, and to ... hold public hearings to 

receive public comment in fulfillment of federal requirements regarding the [SIP] and make 

recommendation to the [DEQ] concerning the [SIP]. Any substantive changes to Oklahoma’s 

SIP ... are initiated through the rulemaking process, which includes public notice and hearing 

procedures.” 

EPA analysis: In addition to the documentation provided by the DEQ above, OAC 252:4, which 

stipulates rules of practice and procedures, addresses rulemaking, hearings and public comment 

periods, is in the approved SIP (see 73 FR 79400 and 75 FR 72695). 

Per 40 CFR 51.240, each SIP must identify organizations, by official title, which will 

participate in developing, implementing and enforcing the plan and the responsibilities of such 

organizations. The plan shall include any related agreements or memoranda of understanding 

among the organizations. As noted in element J above, Oklahoma’s Intergovernmental 

Consultation plan is in the approved SIP (47 FR 20771) and consists of a process for consultation 

and planning with relevant local governmental organizations having responsibility for any SIP 

revision process. As part of the plan, the State entered into formal agreements with designated 

metropolitan planning organizations for air quality planning in their respective areas of the State. 

Also noted in element J above, such agreements are in the form of MOAs with the ACOG and 

INCOG in the Oklahoma City and Tulsa EACs, respectively, and approved into the SIP.32

 

31 As indicated earlier in this TSD, such revisions have not been submitted for approval into the SIP, but the current 

version of the Oklahoma Statutes retains the enforcement authority approved into the Oklahoma SIP in 1994. 

32 See 70 FR 48078 and 70 FR 48645, respectively. 
25

The Oklahoma SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) for the 2008 Pb and 

ozone NAAQS and 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. 

III. EPA’s Recommendation 

Oklahoma provided four submittals that address the requirements of section 110 (a)(2) of the Act 

for each of the 2008 ozone and lead NAAQS and the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. The 

Oklahoma submittals did not certify that the Oklahoma SIP meets the requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2008 ozone and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

Therefore, and as outlined in this TSD, we recommend approval of the following elements 

for the 2008 ozone and Pb NAAQS and the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS: 

Enforceable emission limits and other control measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A) 

Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B) 

Program for enforcement of control measures: Section 110(a)(2)(C) 

Interstate and international pollution abatement: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

Adequate personnel, funding and authority: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) 

Conflict of interest for state boards: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

Stationary source monitoring system: Section 110(a)(2)(F) 

Emergency power: Section 110(a)(2)(G) 

Future SIP revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H) 

Consultation with government officials: Section 110(a)(2)(J) 

Public notification: Section 110(a)(2)(J) 

Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) 

Air quality modeling/submission of such data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) 

Permitting fees: Section 110(a)(2)(L) 

Consultation/participation by affected local entities: Section 110(a)(2)(M) 

We are not taking action on the following elements for the following NAAQS: 

2008 ozone and 2010 SO2 NAAQS: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prongs 1 and 2 

2010 SO2 NAAQS: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), prong 4 
26

Appendix A: EPA’s Approach to the Review of Infrastructure SIP Submissions 

EPA is acting upon this SIP submission that address the infrastructure requirements of 

CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP 

submissions of these types arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), 

states must make SIP submissions “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator 

may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any 

revision thereof),” and these SIP submissions are to provide for the “implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty 

to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned 

upon EPA’s taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 

110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must address. 

EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying 

the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. 

Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to 

distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” 

submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, 

“regional haze SIP” submissions required by EPA rule to address the visibility protection 

requirements of CAA section 169A, and nonattainment new source review permit program 

submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D. 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure SIP 

submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of 

these submissions. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide 

variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which 

pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements 

for both authority and substantive program provisions.33 EPA therefore believes that while the 

timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous, some of the other statutory provisions 

are ambiguous. In particular, EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure 

SIP submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities concerning what is required 

for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP submission. 

The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA to interpret some 

section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP 

submissions for a given new or revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 

110(a)(2) requires that “each” SIP submission must meet the list of requirements therein, while 

EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would 

create a conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the Act, which 

specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.34 Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to 

nonattainment SIP requirements and part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to 

 

33 For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states must provide assurances that they have adequate legal 

authority under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides that states must have a SIPapproved program to address certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) 

provides that states must have legal authority to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are triggered 

in the event of such emergencies. 

34 See, e.g., “Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); 

Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOx SIP Call; Final Rule,” 70 FR 25162, at 25163 – 65 (May 12, 

2005) (explaining relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)). 
27

address nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b) requires EPA to 

establish a schedule for submission of such plans for certain pollutants when the Administrator 

promulgates the designation of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to 

two years, or in some cases three years, for such designations to be promulgated.35 This 

ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a 

strict literal sense, EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable for 

a particular infrastructure SIP submission. 

Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with respect to 

infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements 

in a single SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single 

action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit “a plan” to meet these requirements, 

EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing 

infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP 

submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act on such 

submissions either individually or in a larger combined action. Similarly, EPA interprets the 

CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure 

SIP submission for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submission. For 

example, EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various elements and subelements of the same infrastructure SIP submission.36

Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise with respect to 

infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not 

every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, 

for each new or revised NAAQS. The states’ attendant infrastructure SIP submissions for each 

NAAQS therefore could be different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state 

might need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) 

could be very different for different pollutants, for example because the content and scope of a 

state’s infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely 

new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.37

EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when EPA reviews 

other types of SIP submissions required under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP 

submissions, EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2) 

that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. For example, section 172(c)(7) 

requires that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D have to meet the “applicable 

requirements” of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP submissions must 

meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission limits and control 

 

35 EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set 

specific dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in designated nonattainment areas for various 

pollutants. Note, e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of emissions inventories for the 

ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of the new or 

revised NAAQS. 

36 On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and 

Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2). EPA proposed action for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took 

final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), 

EPA took separate proposed and final actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of 

Tennessee’s December 14, 2007 submittal. 

37 For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to 

measure ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS. 
28

measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By contrast, it 

is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to meet the 

portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of 

the CAA, because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated 

nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this example illustrates, each 

type of SIP submission may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language of section 110(a)(1) 

and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of 

section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP submission. In 

other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP 

submission, regardless of the NAAQS in question or the history of SIP development for the 

relevant pollutant, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. 

Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews infrastructure SIP submissions 

against the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for 

that particular NAAQS. 

Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make recommendations to 

states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed interpretations on newly arising 

issues and in some cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and applied 

to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.38 EPA most recently issued guidance for 

infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).39 EPA developed this document to 

provide states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised NAAQS. 

Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make infrastructure SIP submissions to 

meet basic structural SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of section 110(a)(2) 

that are relevant in the context of infrastructure SIP submissions.40 The guidance also discusses 

the substantively important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section 110(a)(2). 

Significantly, EPA interprets sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP 

submissions need to address certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA 

reviews each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with the applicable statutory 

provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate. 

As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of section 110(a)(2) for 

infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this element, a state must meet the substantive 

requirements of section 128, which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement 

orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure 

SIP submissions to ensure that the state’s SIP appropriately addresses the requirements of section 

 

38 EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for 

infrastructure SIP submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the submission of infrastructure SIP 

submissions, regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such submissions. 

EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist states, as appropriate. 

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

and 110(a)(2),” Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013. 

40 EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance did not make recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP 

submissions to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court 

agreed to review the D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had interpreted 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected 

not to provide additional guidance on the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is 

neither binding nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a particular section has no 

impact on a state’s CAA obligations. 
29

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA’s interpretation that there 

may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately address these substantive statutory 

requirements, depending on the structure of an individual state’s permitting or enforcement 

program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are approved by a multi-member board 

or by a head of an executive agency). However they are addressed by the state, the substantive 

requirements of section 128 are necessarily included in EPA’s evaluation of infrastructure SIP 

submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that the state satisfy the 

provisions of section 128. 

As another example, EPA’s review of infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to the 

PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the 

structural PSD program requirements contained in part C and EPA’s PSD regulations. Structural 

PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD program to address all 

regulated sources and NSR pollutants, including GHGs. By contrast, structural PSD program 

requirements do not include provisions that are not required under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 

51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such as the option to provide 

grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of provisions EPA considers irrelevant in 

the context of an infrastructure SIP action. 

For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA’s review of a state’s infrastructure 

SIP submission focuses on assuring that the state’s SIP meets basic structural requirements. For 

example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a program to 

regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state has an EPA-approved minor 

new source review program and whether the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that 

NAAQS. In the context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA does not 

think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every provision of a state’s existing minor 

source program (i.e., already in the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the 

CAA and EPA’s regulations that pertain to such programs. 

With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an action on a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address 

possible deficiencies in a state’s existing SIP. These issues include: (i) existing provisions related 

to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction that may 

be contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies addressing such excess emissions (“SSM”); (ii) 

existing provisions related to “director’s variance” or “director’s discretion” that may be contrary 

to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while 

limiting public process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for 

PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA’s “Final NSR 

Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 

2007) (“NSR Reform”). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP submission 

without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for such potentially deficient provisions and 

may approve the submission even if it is aware of such existing provisions.41 It is important to 

note that EPA’s approval of a state’s infrastructure SIP submission should not be construed as 

 

41 By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that 

contained a legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions during SSM events, then EPA would 

need to evaluate that provision for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in the context of 

the action on the infrastructure SIP. 
30

explicit or implicit re-approval of any existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the 

three specific issues just described. 

EPA’s approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to identify the CAA 

requirements that are logically applicable to that submission. EPA believes that this approach to 

the review of a particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it would not be 

reasonable to read the general requirements of section 110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 

110(a)(2) as requiring review of each and every provision of a state’s existing SIP against all 

requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of assuring that the state in 

question has the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. 

Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory requirements 

under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded provisions and historical 

artifacts. These provisions, while not fully up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant 

problem for the purposes of “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of a new or 

revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP submission. EPA 

believes that a better approach is for states and EPA to focus attention on those elements of 

section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the 

promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors. 

For example, EPA’s 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with respect to 

carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an 

infrastructure SIP submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need 

only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements is 

based on a reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides 

other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. 

These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately tailored action, depending upon the 

nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a 

“SIP call” whenever the Agency determines that a state’s SIP is substantially inadequate to attain 

or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.42

Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as past approvals of SIP 

submissions.43 Significantly, EPA’s determination that an action on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing SIP deficiencies 

does not preclude EPA’s subsequent reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the 

basis for action to correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it may not be 

appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate director’s discretion 

provisions in the course of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that section 

 

42 For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of 

excess emissions during SSM events. See “Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah 

State Implementation Plan Revisions,” 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011). 

43 EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See 

“Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas 

Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,” 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has 

previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the 

Agency determined it had approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 (June 27, 

1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 

16, 2004) (corrections to CA SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009) (corrections to AZ and NV SIPs). 
31

110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in the course of addressing 

such deficiency in a subsequent action.44

Appendix B: EPA’s Evaluation of the June 23, 2014 United States Supreme Court Decision 

on Green House Gas emissions on infrastructure SIP reviews 

With respect to the infrastructure elements contained in section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), 

EPA interprets the CAA to require each state to make an infrastructure SIP submission for a new 

or revised NAAQS that demonstrates that the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program 

meeting the current requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. One requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) may also be satisfied by demonstrating the air agency has a complete PSD 

permitting program correctly addressing all regulated NSR pollutants. Oklahoma has shown that 

it currently has a PSD program in place that covers all regulated NSR pollutants, including 

greenhouse gases (GHGs), meeting one portion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision addressing the 

application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions. (see Utility Air Regulatory 

Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427) The Supreme Court said that the 

EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a 

major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also said that the EPA could continue 

to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than 

GHGs, contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT). In order to act consistently with its understanding of the Court’s decision 

pending further judicial action to effectuate the decision, the EPA is not continuing to apply EPA 

regulations that would require that SIPs include permitting requirements that the Supreme Court 

found impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not applying the requirement that a state’s SIPapproved PSD program require that sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only 

pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source thresholds, 

or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase 

from a modification (e.g. 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)). EPA anticipates a need to revise federal 

PSD rules in light of the Supreme Court opinion. In addition, EPA anticipates that many states 

will revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of the Supreme Court’s decision. 

The timing and content of subsequent EPA actions with respect to the EPA regulations and state 

PSD program approvals are expected to be informed by additional legal process before the 

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. At this juncture, EPA is not 

expecting states to have revised their PSD programs for purposes of infrastructure SIP 

submissions and is only evaluating such submissions to assure that the state’s program correctly 

addresses GHGs consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision. 

EPA has previously approved Oklahoma SIP revisions submitted to align the State’s PSD 

program rules for GHGs with federal requirements. At present, EPA has determined the 

Oklahoma SIP is sufficient to satisfy the infrastructure elements of Sections 110(a)(2)(C), part of 

(D)(i)(II), and (J) with respect to GHGs because the PSD permitting program previously 

 

44 See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submission from Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a 

director’s discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 

42342 at 42344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director’s discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 

2011) (final disapproval of such provisions). 
32

approved by EPA into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based 

on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the 

application of BACT. Although the approved Oklahoma PSD permitting program may currently 

contain provisions that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision, this does 

not render the infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to satisfy the infrastructure elements of 

Sections 110(a)(2)(C), a portion of (D)(i)(II), and (J). The SIP contains the necessary PSD 

requirements at this time, and the application of those requirements is not impeded by the 

presence of other previously-approved provisions regarding the permitting of sources of GHGs 

that EPA does not consider necessary at this time in light of the Supreme Court decision. 

Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision does not affect EPA’s proposed approval of 

Oklahoma’s infrastructure SIP as to the requirements of the infrastructure elements of sections 

110(a)(2)(C) and (J) or the portion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).