January 28, 2015 

CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Ron Curry, Regional Administrator (6RA) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Region VI 

1445 Ross A venue, Suite 1200 

Dallas, TX 75202-2733 

15r:"F812 PH 6: J4 

Subject: Certification of SIP Elements for the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS under Clean Air Act 

Sections llO(aXI) and (2) 

Dear Administrator Curry: 

In a letter dated September 24, 2013 Governor Mary Fallin appointed me as her designee for the purpose 

of submitting documents to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval and 

incorporation into the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State of Oklahoma. The Oklahoma 

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is given the primary responsibility and authority to prepare 

and implement the state's air quality management plan under Oklahoma Statutes. 

Sections 11 O(aXI) and (2) of the Clean Air Act require that each state review and revise as necessary its 

SIP following promulgation of a new or revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) [See 

U.S.C. § 7410(a)(l) and (2)]. On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the Primary National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Sulfur Dioxide (S02) [75 Fed.Reg. 35520, June 22, 2010]. EPA issued the "Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections IIO(aXI) and 

110(aX2)" in September 2013 ("EPA's 2013 I-SIP guidance,.). Under this guidance, states may certify 

that their existing SIPs meet the "infrastructure" elements of§ 11 O(a)(2), rather than submitting a SIP for 

revised NAAQS such as the 2010 S02 NAAQS. 

Oklahoma's SIP is codified in 40 CFRPart 52, Subpart LL. On behalfofthe State of Oklahoma, I hereby 

certify that, as indicated in the enclosed table titled "Oklahoma's State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Submittal 'Infrastructure' Checklist," Oklahoma's SIP meets the infrastructure obligations for the 20 I 0 

Primary 802 NAAQS. To date, the only Program changes specifically required to meet the revised S~ 

NAAQS were revisions to Appendix E ofOAC 252:100, to change the level and form of the Primary SOl 

standard [CAA § II O(a)(2)(H)]. 

State public participation procedures for such SIP submittals were submitted to EPA for review under 40 

CFR § 51.102. In a letter dated August 23, 2012, EPA concurred that Oklahoma's procedures are 

consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR § 51.102 and associated guidance. Public notice for this 

submittal was posted on DEQ's web site beginning on April30, 2014, to allow the opportunity to provide 

comments and to request a public hearing preliminarily scheduled for June 5, 2014 at DEQ's offices. No 

hearing request was received during the minimum 30-day comment period (5/1/14- 6/1/14). Therefore, 

a notice of hearing cancellation was posted on June 2, 2014, and no hearing was held. Attached is 

documentation of this public notice and submittal process. Also attached are copies of comments 

received during the comment period and a Response to Comments document. It is our understanding that 

the final results of EPA's review of this submittal will be detennined through rulemaking and will be 

published in the Federal Register. 
Note that this letter and its supporting documentation do not address § I 10(a)(2){l), which pertains to the 

nonattainment planning requirements ofTitle I, Part D of the Clean Air Act. These requirements are not 

governed by the three-year SIP submission deadline under§ IIO(a)(l). In addition, Oklahoma currently 

has no so2 nonattainment areas, and no nonattainment plans are due. 

Note also that, consistent with EPA's 2013 I-SIP guidance, this submittal is not intended to assert that 

Oklahoma meets all requirements of§ 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(l), which relate to interstate pollutant transport 

affecting attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. It is our understanding that EPA expects to 

address § 110(a)(2){D)(i)(l) separately through issuance of further guidance. However, the checklist 

does describe certain related aspects of DEQ's infrastructure. 

If you have questions, please contact Mr. Eddie Terrill, Director, Air Quality Division, Oklahoma 

Department of Environmental Quality at {405) 702-4100. 

Sincerely, ~~ ~ 

Michael Tear?TAf'/1. .. · 

Oklahoma Secretary of Energy and Environment 

Enclosures 

cc: Scott Thompson, Executive Director, Department of Environmental Quality 

Eddie Terrill, Director, DEQ Air Quality Division 

cc: Guy Donaldson, Section Chief, Air Planning Section, EPA Region VI (6PD-L) 

Carrie Paige, Air Planning Section, EPA Region VI (6PD-L) 

Terry Johnson, Air Planning Section, EPA Region VI (6PD-L) 

:z: ,..... c 

- ti; 

Q ... > 

lU ,..... a 

.::::> .a: V) 

- IIIII: !:::: 

(.) 

lU 

(\,1 ~ c.... 

w - .q: 

a:: ~ -J 

<:t 

z 

II) 0::: 

4.1 - ,_ 

>< w 
11/10/2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 1 

Oklahoma’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 

CAA § 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements in the Current SIP or Pending SIP Revisions 

Updated for the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard

On June 2, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a new 1-hour primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO2)

1

. Section 110(a)(1) of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each state to submit a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each newly promulgated or revised NAAQS. A SIP identifies how that 

state will attain and/or maintain the primary and secondary NAAQS. The SIP contains state regulations, source-specific requirements, and nonregulatory items such as plans and inventories. The initial SIPs for states were approved by the EPA on May 31, 1972 (46 Fed.Reg. 40005). The 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is given the primary responsibility and authority to prepare and implement Oklahoma’s air 

quality management plan under the Oklahoma Environmental Quality Act and the Oklahoma Clean Air Act (see generally Title 27A Oklahoma 

Statutes (O.S.) §§ 2-1-101 et seq.). The federally enforceable SIP for Oklahoma is compiled in 40 CFR Part 52, Subpart LL. Approval of additional 

SIP submittals is pending. 

SIPs are reviewed and revised by the state from time to time as necessary to accommodate changes in State and Federal statutes, rules, policies, and 

program requirements. In addition to SIP revisions to address specific program requirements (e.g., PSD/NSR Program), including those changes that 

directly result from a new or revised NAAQS, EPA has interpreted § 110(a)(1) of the federal CAA to require the state to demonstrate that the SIP 

meets the “infrastructure” requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) each time a NAAQS is issued or revised2

. The resulting submittal is now 

commonly referred to as an “infrastructure SIP” or “I-SIP.” Under its September 2013 Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)3(“2013 I-SIP Guidance”), EPA allows for certification that “... the already-approved 

SIP contains or references provisions that satisfy all or some of the requirements of section 110(a)(2), as applicable, for purposes of implementing the 

new or revised NAAQS.” The following table summarizes how and where the applicable infrastructure requirements are addressed in Oklahoma’s 

current SIP or pending SIP revisions. In addition to a summary of infrastructure elements as they relate to the various existing NAAQS, the table 

lists any changes or pertinent information specific to the subject NAAQS change. 

 

1

 EPA established the new 1-hour SO2 standard at a level of 75 ppb [see 40 CFR §50.17]. This rule also provided for the automatic future revocation of the previous annual and 24-

hour SO2 NAAQS for most areas following 1 year after designation under the new NAAQS [see 40 CFR § 50.4(e)]. The previous 3-hour secondary standard remains in place 

indefinitely. [see 40 CFR §50.5; 75 Fed.Reg. 35520 (June 22, 2010)]. The EPA has also recently reviewed the air quality criteria and the secondary NAAQS for nitrogen oxides 

and sulfur oxides and retained the current NO2 and SO2 secondary standards. [see 77 Fed.Reg. 20218 (April 3, 2012)] Because these secondary NAAQS were not revised, an I-SIP 

submittal requirement was not triggered for these standards. 

2

 For Example, EPA approved Oklahoma’s Infrastructure SIP (or “I-SIP”) for the 1997 Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on January 26, 2012 (77 Fed.Reg. 3933). 

3

 Distributed under September 13, 2013 memo from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to EPA’s Regional Air Directors, Regions 1-10.
11/10/2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 2 

This Submittal: 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS 

In this I-SIP submittal, Oklahoma is demonstrating that it has adequate resources and authority to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2010 Primary 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS. This submittal was prepared under EPA’s 2013 I-SIP Guidance and 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V – Criteria for 

Determining the Completeness of Plan Submissions. 
11/10/2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 3 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(A) –

Emission Limits 

and Other Control 

Measures

include enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means, or techniques 

(including economic incentives such as fees, 

marketable permits, and auctions of emissions 

rights), as well as schedules and timetables for 

compliance as may be necessary or 

appropriate to meet the applicable 

requirements of this Act.

Oklahoma Environmental Quality Act (27A O.S. §§ 1-1-101 thru 1-4-107), 

Oklahoma Environmental Quality Code (27A O.S. §§ 2-1-101 thru 2-16-107)

including the Oklahoma Clean Air Act (27A O.S. §§ 2-5-101 thru 2-5-117)

and other relevant portions, Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) 252:4, 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, and OAC 252:100, Oklahoma Air Pollution 

Control Rules.

Oklahoma has an EPA-approved air permitting program for both major/Part 

70 sources (OAC 252:100-8) and minor facilities (OAC 252:100-7). [See 

discussion under Element 110(a)(2)(C) – Program for Enforcement of 

Control Measures.]

EPA actions on several SIP revisions are pending. These include portions 

of the February 14, 2002 SIP submittal (“Big SIP”); portions of the June 24, 

2010 SIP submittal (SC-8 revision); the July 16, 2010 SIP submittal (excess 

emissions); portions of the July 23, 2010 SIP submittal (“Big SIP2”); the July 

23, 2010 SIP submittal (NSR Reform); and the March 26, 2012 SIP 

submittal (GHG and PM2.5); as well as the annual SIP revisions for 2010 

(December 28, 2010), 2011 (February 6, 2012), and 2012 (February 4, 

2013).

In a letter dated March 14, 2014 and at EPA’s request, DEQ withdrew its 

July 16, 2010 SIP submittal (excess emissions) due to the specific legal 

circumstances and uncertainty regarding EPA’s final Start-up, Shut-down, 

and Malfunction (SSM) policy4.

Oklahoma currently has no designated nonattainment areas or maintenance 

areas.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1960 (c)(48)

 

4

 Although the SC 9 changes documented in the July 16, 2010 SIP submittal followed EPA’s policy on excess emissions (e.g., SSM & variance/”director’s discretion” provisions) 

that was in place at the time, withdrawal will allow EPA to deal with the revised policy issues on a national basis. 
11/10/2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 4 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

This NAAQS Revision:

No additional specific enforceable emission limitations or other control 

measures, means, or techniques have been identified as necessary to 

attain or maintain the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS (“revised 

SO2 NAAQS”). OAC 252:100 includes Subchapter 31, Control of Emission 

of Sulfur Compounds (252:100-31). The annual SIP revisions for 2012 and 

2013 include several changes to Subchapter 31, the more recent of which 

took the revised SO2 NAAQS into consideration5. No additional changes to

Subchapter 31 have been identified as needed as a result of the revised 

SO2 NAAQS. Any particular issues or changes related to implementation of 

this NAAQS through Oklahoma’s permitting program would be addressed 

through a separate SIP submission, including any identified through the 

Designations process conducted under the proposed Data Requirements 

Rule for the 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS (79 Fed.Reg. 27446, May 13, 2014) or the 

related proposed Settlement Agreement (79 Fed.Reg. 31325, June 2, 

2014).

 

5

 A significant change to SC 31, effective 7/1/12, was affected by the 2010 SO2 NAAQS changes, and was included in the 2012 annual SIP submittal (February 4, 2013). Earlier 

SC 31 changes effective 6/1/02 and 6/12/03 were included in the 2012 annual SIP submittal. The 2013 annual SIP submittal (expected December 2014) will include an additional 

change to SC31 effective 7/1/13 and, due to identified documentation issues, will withdraw and replace the SC 31 portion of the 2012 submittal. 
11/10/2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 5 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(B) –

Ambient Air Quality 

Monitoring/Data 

System

provide for establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices, methods, systems, and 

procedures necessary to monitor, compile, and 

analyze data on ambient air quality, and upon 

request, make such data available to the 

Administrator; 

The Oklahoma Clean Air Act (27A O.S. §§ 2-5-101 thru 2-5-117) provides 

the authority to establish and operate ambient air quality monitors. OAC 

252:100-3, in conjunction with Appendices E and F, enumerates the 

NAAQS and PSD increments.

Oklahoma operates an air quality monitoring network consistent with EPA 

regulations (40 CFR Part 58), and regularly reports results to EPA under 

previously-approved SIP provisions. Each fiscal year, DEQ posts an 

Annual Network Review (ANR) on its website for public review. Following 

the 30-day public review period, DEQ evaluates and responds to any 

comments, and submits the review to EPA Region 6 monitoring staff for 

their review. The FY15 ANR was posted for public review from June 2, 

2014 to July 2, 2014. One public comment was received and addressed,

and the final FY15 ANR was submitted to EPA. Monitoring results may also 

be accessed through DEQ’s web site at:

http://www.deq.state.ok.us/aqdnew/monitoring/index.htm

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1960(c)(22)

This NAAQS Revision:

Oklahoma’s program has monitored sulfur dioxide from the 1970’s to the 

present. Oklahoma is on schedule with updates to its air quality monitoring 

network necessary to implement changes to EPA’s ambient air monitoring 

requirements of 40 CFR Part 58 related to the revised SO2 NAAQS (75 

Fed.Reg. 35520, June 22, 2010). Changes to reporting have been 

implemented as appropriate.
11/10/2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 6 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(C) –

Program for 

Enforcement of 

Control Measures

include a program to provide for the 

enforcement of the measures described in 

subparagraph (A) and regulation of the 

modification and construction of any stationary 

source within the areas covered by the plan as 

necessary to assure that national ambient air 

quality standards are achieved, including a 

permit program as required in parts C and D;

Oklahoma’s EPA-approved air permitting program includes appropriate 

enforcement authority and permitting for modification and construction of 

stationary sources. DEQ’s powers and duties to implement air quality 

programs (including implementing Oklahoma’s SIP) are described in 27A 

O.S. § 2-5-105, and include authority to “... [e]nforce rules of the Board and 

orders of the Department and the Council.” 27A O.S. § 2-5-105(4). More 

specific enforcement authorities are described throughout the Oklahoma 

Clean Air Act, 27A O.S. §§ 2-5-101 et seq., and in OAC 252:4-9, 

Administrative Proceedings.

Oklahoma’s requirements for construction and operating permits for minor 

facilities and (minor) modifications to minor facilities are in OAC 252:100-7, 

Permits for Minor Facilities. The construction permit requirements for PSD 

and other major sources, and requirements for both major and minor 

modifications to PSD and other major sources, as well as requirements for 

the Part 70 (Title V) operating permit program, are in OAC 252:100-8, 

Permits for Part 70 Sources and Major New Source Review. OAC 252:4-7, 

Environmental Permit Process, contains additional permit requirements.

Although Oklahoma does not currently have any designated nonattainment 

areas or maintenance areas, Oklahoma's SIP contains the provisions for the 

nonattainment area New Source Review (NSR) permitting program in OAC 

252:100-8, Part 9. Major Sources Affecting Nonattainment Areas. The EPA 

interprets the portion of § 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to a nonattainment NSR 

permitting program (CAA Title I part D) to be outside the scope of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements6, and does not otherwise address it in the 

2013 I-SIP Guidance.

Note that Oklahoma’s PSD and Title V/Part 70 permitting program applies 

to sources that emit greenhouse gases (GHGs) in accordance with EPA’s 

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

program. 

A number of changes to Oklahoma’s permitting program are included in the 

pending SIP revisions noted under Element § 110(a)(2)(A) – Emission 

Limits and Other Control Measures.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and

52.1929

 

6

Page 4, Section II. General Guidance on Infrastructure SIPs, 2013 I-SIP Guidance
11/10/2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 7 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

This NAAQS Revision:

No specific enforceable emission limitations or other control measures, 

means, or techniques have been identified as necessary to attain or 

maintain the revised SO2 NAAQS. Any particular issues or changes related 

to implementation of this NAAQS through Oklahoma’s permitting, 

compliance, and enforcement programs (e.g., PSD) would be addressed 

through a separate SIP submission.
11/10/2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 8 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) –

Interstate 

Transport 

Provisions

contain adequate provisions—

(i) prohibiting, consistent with the provisions 

of this title, any source or other type of 

emissions activity within the state from emitting 

any air pollutant in amounts which will--

(I) contribute significantly to nonattainment 

in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other 

state with respect to any such national primary 

or secondary ambient air quality standard, or

The 2013 I-SIP guidance states that EPA expects to issue guidance with 

respect to this Subelement,7but does not otherwise address interstate 

transport provisions which prohibit significant contribution to nonattainment 

in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to the 

NAAQS. EPA has indicated that it expects to address § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

separately through issuance of further guidance, and that the requirements 

would be likely be addressed in a separate Transport SIP.

8

However, 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 are 

pending EPA action, contain modifications to OAC 252:100-8-35.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and

52.1930

This NAAQS Revision:

As stated, EPA’s 2013 I-SIP guidance does not address the requirements of 

this Subelement. Therefore, this evaluation is not intended to assert that 

Oklahoma meets all requirements of the interstate transport provisions of § 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Oklahoma expects to accommodate any future related 

guidance and implement any finally adjudicated program changes. DEQ’s 

preliminary analyses of possibly significant emission sources in Oklahoma 

do not indicate that, for the revised SO2 NAAQS, Oklahoma contributes

significantly to nonattainment in nor interfere with maintenance by any other 

state. 

 

7

 Page 3, Section I. Introduction, 2013 I-SIP Guidance

8

 Oklahoma submitted its Interstate Transport SIP for an Assessment of Oklahoma’s Impact on Downwind Nonattainment for the National Ambient 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 Air 

Quality Standards (“Transport SIP”) to EPA in May 2007, with supplemental information submitted in November 2007. EPA approved portions of the Transport SIP relating to § 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (76 Fed.Reg. 81838, Dec. 29, 2011). In the same action, EPA approved the portions of the 

Transport SIP relating to the prohibition against significant contribution to nonattainment of the 8-hour 1997 Ozone NAAQS in any other state. EPA’s analyses performed in 

conjunction with issuance of the Transport Rule (aka Cross State Air Pollution Rule or “CSAPR”, 76 Fed.Reg. 48208, Aug. 8, 2011) concluded that emissions from Oklahoma 

significantly contribute to interference with maintenance of the 8-hour 1997 Ozone NAAQS in another state and issued a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in a supplemental rule 

(76 Fed.Reg. 80760, Dec. 27, 2011) requiring Oklahoma to participate in the NOX Ozone Season trading program. On April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and 

remanded a ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in EME Homer City Generation L.P. v. E.P.A., which had vacated and remanded to EPA the Transport Rule and the 

Transport Rule FIPs. As of November 1, 2014, EPA was evaluating the impact of the decision on states’ §110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations. Following the Supreme Court decision, 

the D.C. Circuit Court lifted the stay on CSPAR on October 23, 2014. 
11/10/2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 9 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) –

Interstate 

Transport 

Provisions

contain adequate provisions—

(i) prohibiting, consistent with the provisions 

of this title, any source or other type of 

emissions activity within the state from emitting 

any air pollutant in amounts which will--

(II) interfere with measures required to be 

included in the applicable implementation plan 

for any other State under part C to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality or to 

protect visibility, 

New major stationary sources and major modifications are subject to 

Oklahoma’s EPA-approved comprehensive PSD permitting program under 

OAC 252:100-8, Part 7. DEQ’s air permitting program includes preconstruction review of PSD sources, including review for impacts of 

emissions of all “regulated NSR pollutants,” and requires demonstration that 

any increase in emissions would not cause or contribute to any increase in 

ambient concentrations that would exceed any NAAQS in any air quality 

control region. EPA approved the portion of Oklahoma’s Transport SIP 

relating to § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (PSD) for the 1997 Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 

on November 26, 2010 (75 Fed.Reg. 72695). 

Oklahoma’s Regional Haze Implementation Plan Revision, (“RH SIP”), 

submitted in February 2010, describes Oklahoma’s measures to protect 

visibility and assure that emissions do not interfere with any other state’s 

measures to protect visibility. These measures include provisions in OAC 

252:100-8, Part 11. EPA partially approved and partially disapproved 

Oklahoma’s Regional Haze SIP on December 28, 2011 (76 Fed.Reg. 

81728). EPA stated that Oklahoma’s RH SIP did not incorporate some 

emission reductions that were relied on to demonstrate non-interference 

with other states’ visibility protections. In the same Federal Register notice, 

EPA also partially approved and partially disapproved portions of the 

Interstate Transport SIP for an Assessment of Oklahoma’s Impact on 

Downwind Nonattainment for the National Ambient 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5

Air Quality Standards (“Transport SIP”), submitted May 10, 2007 and 

supplemented December 10, 2007, that address § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with 

respect to protection of visibility. EPA issued a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) requiring reduction of SO2 emissions for six units, and found that 

“the controls under this FIP, in combination with the controls required by the 

portion of the Oklahoma RH submittal that we are approving, will serve to 

prevent sources in Oklahoma from emitting pollutants in amounts that will 

interfere with efforts to protect visibility in other states.” Oklahoma 

submitted a revision to its RH SIP and Transport SIP on June 14, 2013 to 

replace the FIP as it relates to two of the six units concerned. EPA

approved this revision effective April 7, 2014. (79 Fed.Reg. 12944 & 12954, 

March 7, 2014). 

40 CFR § 52.1920(c) and 

(e)

40 CFR §§ 52.1920(d) 

and (e), 52.1923, and 

52.1928
11/10/2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 10

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

This NAAQS Revision:

Any specific sulfur dioxide-related issues related to Oklahoma’s permitting 

program (e.g., increments or significant impact levels) would be addressed 

through a separate submission.

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 Regional Haze Implementation Plan Revision, as 

amended, and through EPA’s related actions (see above discussion). 

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

NAAQS change (see discussion under element § 110(a)(2)(J) – PSD and 

Visibility Protection (Part C)), 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.

40 CFR § 52.1920(e)
11/10/2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 11

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) –

Interstate and 

International 

Transport 

Provisions

contain adequate provisions—

(ii) insuring compliance with the applicable 

requirements of sections 126 and 115 (relating 

to interstate and international pollution 

abatement);

Oklahoma’s EPA-approved Title V Operating (and PSD) Program includes 

requirements for providing a notice of draft permit to affected states under 

OAC 252:100-8-8 (SIP revision approved November 26, 2010 at 75

Fed.Reg. 72695). This notice meets the requirements of § 126 of the CAA. 

Evaluation requirements under the PSD Program are adequate to assure 

compliance with international pollution abatement requirements. There are 

no final findings under § 115 of the CAA against this State with respect to 

any existing NAAQS.

40 CFR § 52.1920(c)

This NAAQS Revision:

No source or sources within Oklahoma are the subject of an active finding 

under § 126 of the CAA with respect to the revised SO2 NAAQS. 

There are no final findings under § 115 of the CAA against this State with 

respect to this NAAQS.

Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required to 

implement the revised SO2 NAAQS.

§ 110(a)(2)(E)(i) –

Adequate 

Resources

provide 

(i) necessary assurances that the state (or, 

except where the Administrator deems 

inappropriate, the general purpose local 

government or governments, or a regional 

agency designated by the state or general 

purpose local governments for such purpose) 

will have adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority under state (and, as appropriate, 

local) law to carry out such implementation plan 

(and is not prohibited by any provision of 

federal or state law from carrying out such 

implementation plan or portion thereof);

Oklahoma has previously demonstrated that it currently has and will 

continue to have adequate personnel and other resources to carry out its air 

quality programs. The powers and duties of the DEQ to implement air 

quality programs (including implementing Oklahoma’s SIP) are described in 

27A O.S. § 2-5-105, and include authority to accept and expend funds 

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

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

and federal grants under CAA §§ 103 & 105, among others. 

40 CFR §§ 52.1920(e) 

and 52.1960(c)(45)(i)

This NAAQS Revision:

Oklahoma will continue to provide the resources needed to carry out its air 

quality responsibilities. No significant additional personnel or other 

resources have been identified as required to implement the revised SO2

NAAQS, except as otherwise noted.

§ 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) –

Adequate 

Resources (State 

Boards)

provide 

(ii) requirements that the state comply with 

the requirements respecting state boards under 

section 128, and

The Oklahoma Environmental Quality Code lays out the composition and 

powers & duties of the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) (27A O.S. § 2-2-

101) and the Air Quality Advisory Council (27A O.S. §§ 2-2-201(H) and 2-5-

107). These powers & duties include their roles in promulgating DEQ rules, 

but do not include approving permits or 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.

40 CFR § 52.1920(e) and 

40 CFR § 52.1960(c)(17) 

and (45)(i)
11/10/2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 12

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

This NAAQS Revision:

Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required as 

a result of a change in a particular NAAQS, including the revised SO2

NAAQS.

§ 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) –

Adequate 

Resources (Local 

or Regional 

Implementation)

provide 

(iii) necessary assurances that, where the 

state has relied on a local or regional 

government, agency, or instrumentality for the 

implementation of any plan provision, the state 

has responsibility for ensuring adequate 

implementation of such plan provision;

Not Applicable.

§ 110(a)(2)(F) –

Stationary Source 

Monitoring System 

and Reporting

require, as may be prescribed by the 

Administrator—

(i) the installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary steps by 

owners or operators of stationary sources to 

monitor emissions from such sources, 

(ii) periodic reports on the nature and 

amounts of emissions and emissions-related 

data from such sources, and

(iii) correlation of such reports by the state 

agency with any emission limitations or 

standards established pursuant to this Act, 

which reports shall be available at reasonable 

times for public inspection; 

Source emissions monitoring requirements are addressed in OAC 252:100-

43, Testing, Monitoring and Recordkeeping.

Source emissions inventory requirements are addressed in OAC 252:100-5, 

Registration of Air Contaminant Sources.

Area, mobile, and non-road data are reported to EPA on a 3-year cycle.

OAC 252:100, Air Pollution Control; OAC 252:4-1-5, Availability of a 

Record; 51 O.S. §§ 24A.1 et seq., Oklahoma Open Records Act.

40 CFR § 52.1960(c) (48)

40 CFR § 52.1920(c)

40 CFR § 52.1920(c)

This NAAQS Revision:

Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required as 

a result of a change in a particular NAAQS, including the revised SO2

NAAQS.
11/10/2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 13

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(G) –

Emergency 

Episodes

provide for authority comparable to that in 

section 303 and adequate contingency plans to 

implement such authority;

Chapter 6 of Oklahoma’s SIP, as submitted in 1972 and revised in 1988,

sets forth the state’s Emergency Episode Plan (EEP), as required under § 

110(a)(2)(G) and 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart H – Prevention of Air Pollution 

Emergency Episodes and, along with provisions included in the February 

2002 SIP update, describes and implements State authority comparable to 

that in § 303. (For the purpose of EEPs, 40 CFR § 51.150 classifies regions 

separately with respect to the following pollutants: sulfur oxides, particulate 

matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone, based on ambient 

concentrations. § 51.152 requires a contingency plan for Priority I, IA, & II 

regions.)

As indicated in 40 CFR §§ 52.1934 and 52.1960(c)(38), EPA approved the 

plan as submitted in 1972 and revised in 1988 (56 Fed.Reg 5656, Feb. 12, 

1991). 

40 CFR §§ 52.1934 and 

52.1960(c)(38)

This NAAQS Revision:

The measures in place in Oklahoma’s approved EEP are adequate to 

address an emergency episode and do not need to be updated due to the 

revised SO2 NAAQS. Under 40 CFR §51.152, an EEP contingency plan for 

SO2 is not required for any region of Oklahoma.
11/10/2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 14

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(H) –

Future SIP 

Revisions

provide for revision of such plan—

(i) from time to time as may be necessary to 

take account of revisions of such national 

primary or secondary ambient air quality 

standard or the availability of improved or more 

expeditious methods of attaining such standard, 

and 

(ii) except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), 

whenever the Administrator finds on the basis 

of information available to the Administrator that 

the plan is substantially inadequate to attain the 

national ambient air quality standard which it 

implements, or to otherwise comply with any 

additional requirements established under this 

Act; 

Under authority of OAC 252:100-3-2 and 252:100-3-3, Appendices E and F 

of OAC 252:100 enumerate the primary and secondary air quality standards 

(NAAQS), respectively. 

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

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

include authority to:

“3. Prepare and develop a general plan for proper air quality 

management in the state in accordance with the Oklahoma Clean Air 

Act;” 

and 

“20. Carry out all other duties, requirements and responsibilities 

necessary and proper for the implementation of the Oklahoma Clean Air 

Act and fulfilling the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act.” 

[27A O.S. § 2-5-105(3) and (20)] 

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

resulting program modifications, are initiated through the rulemaking 

process, which includes agency, public, gubernatorial, and legislative review 

processes. Public notice is provided (published/posted) for all steps in the 

rulemaking process, in accordance with the state Administrative Procedures 

Act (75 O.S. §§ 250.1 through 323), Open Records Act (51 O.S. §§ 24A.1 

through 24A.29), and Open Meetings Act (25 O.S. §§ 301 through 314), 

along with corresponding DEQ and state procedural rules. The notices 

include the opportunity to provide comments prior to and at the public 

hearing before the Air Quality Advisory Council and at the public hearing 

before the Environmental Quality Board. 

Documentation of these changes, along with documentation of any 

implementation or infrastructure changes, is then submitted by the Governor 

(or the Oklahoma Secretary of Energy and Environment, acting as the 

Governor’s designee) to EPA as a SIP revision. This process is followed 

regardless of whether it results from a NAAQS update or a finding by the 

Administrator. State public participation procedures for SIP submittals that 

do not include rulemaking were submitted to EPA on August 17, 2012 for 

review. In a letter dated August 23, 2012, EPA concurred that the

procedures are consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR § 51.102 and 

associated guidance.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1960
11/10/2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 15

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

This NAAQS Revision:

Appendix E of OAC 252:100 was updated to incorporate the 2010 Primary 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS effective July 1, 2011. The updated Appendix 

E was submitted to EPA as part of the annual SIP revision for 2011 

(February 6, 2012).

This SIP submittal fulfills the stated requirement.

§ 110(a)(2)(I) –

Nonattainment 

Area Plan 

Requirements

in the case of a plan or plan revision for an area 

designated as a nonattainment area, meet the 

applicable requirements of part D (relating to 

nonattainment areas);

Not applicable. EPA’s 2013 I-SIP Guidance interprets the requirements of §

110(a)(2)(I), which pertain to specific requirements for attainment plans for 

designated nonattainment areas, to be outside the scope of the I-SIP 

requirements.9

§ 110(a)(2)(J) –

Consultation with 

Government 

Officials (§ 121)

meet the applicable requirements of section 

121 ... (relating to consultation), ...

Oklahoma’s approved SIP includes established consultation with various 

entities. Section 2-5-105 of the Oklahoma Clean Air Act specifically gives 

the DEQ the authority to advise, consult, and cooperate with other agencies 

of the State, towns, cities and counties, industries, other states and the 

federal government, and with affected groups in the prevention and control 

of new and existing air contamination sources within the State. Oklahoma 

does not anticipate that significant changes would be required as a result of 

a change in a particular NAAQS.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1960

§ 110(a)(2)(J) –

Public Notification

(§ 127)

meet the applicable requirements of ... section 

127 ... 

Public notification procedures to meet the requirements of § 127 of the CAA 

are established in Oklahoma’s approved SIP. DEQ provides notification of 

ambient air concentration levels for all NAAQS through its annual Air Data 

Reports, forecasting reports, and health advisories.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1960

This NAAQS Revision:

The public notification requirements included in Oklahoma’s SIP apply to 

the revised SO2 NAAQS. DEQ provides notification of SO2 concentration 

levels through its annual Air Data Reports, forecasting reports, and near 

real-time health advisories. Oklahoma does not anticipate that any 

significant public notification changes would be required to implement the 

revised SO2 NAAQS.

 

9

 page 52, Section III. Guidance on Individual Infrastructure SIP Elements, Element I – Section 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas, 2013 I-SIP Guidance
11/10/2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 16

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(J) –

PSD and Visibility 

Protection (Part C)

meet the applicable requirements of ... part C 

... (relating to prevention of significant 

deterioration of air quality and visibility 

protection);

Oklahoma’s EPA-approved PSD permitting program, which addresses all 

regulated NSR air pollutants, operates under OAC 252:100-8, Part 7 –

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Requirements for Attainment 

Areas; the existing PSD delegation agreement; and approved and pending 

portions of the SIP. [See discussion under Element § 110(a)(2)(C) –

Program for Enforcement of Control Measures.]

Oklahoma’s Regional Haze Implementation Plan Revision (“RH SIP”), 

submitted in February 2010 and amended in a revision submitted June 14, 

2013, describes Oklahoma’s measures to protect visibility, including 

provisions in OAC 252:100-8, Part 11. [See discussion under Element §

110(a)(2)(D)(i) – Interstate Transport Provisions, Subelement (II)].

In the 2013 I-SIP Guidance, EPA stated that there are no new visibility 

protection requirements under Part C of the CAA that would result from a 

revised NAAQS. Therefore, the visibility sub-element of Element J need not 

be addressed in an infrastructure SIP submission10.

40 CFR § 52.1920(c)

40 CFR §§ 52.1920(c), (d) 

& (e), 52.1923, and 

52.1928

This NAAQS Revision:

Specific issues or changes related to implementation of the revised SO2

NAAQS through Oklahoma’s PSD permitting program would be addressed 

through a separate SIP submission.

As noted, no visibility protection obligations under § 110(a)(2)(J) are 

anticipated as a result of this NAAQS change.

 

10 page 55, Section III. Guidance on Individual Infrastructure SIP Elements, Element J – Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public Notification, and 

PSD and Visibility Protection, 2013 I-SIP Guidance
11/10/2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 17

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(K) –

Air Quality 

Modeling/Data

provide for:

(i) the performance of such air quality 

modeling as the Administrator may prescribe 

for the purpose of predicting the effect on 

ambient air quality of any emissions of any air 

pollutant for which the Administrator has 

established a national ambient air quality 

standard, and 

(ii) the submission, upon request, of data 

related to such air quality modeling to the 

Administrator;

Under its general statutory authority (e.g., 27A O.S. §§ 2-3-202 and 2-5-

105), DEQ conducts air quality modeling to support its demonstrations of 

attainment, and reports results to EPA. Source modeling requirements are 

also authorized in 27A O.S. 2-5-112, and included in the PSD permitting 

program in OAC 252:100-8-35. Oklahoma currently has no designated 

nonattainment areas. Oklahoma will continue to update modeling protocols 

as appropriate to accommodate evolving program requirements and 

standards. 

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1960

This NAAQS Revision:

Oklahoma has had no designated nonattainment areas for the SO2 NAAQS, 

and no SO2 SIP modeling has been required. In a letter dated February 7, 

2013, EPA deferred designation action on the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for 

Oklahoma, while noting that its review of monitored air quality data from 

2009-2011 showed no violations of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any areas of 

Oklahoma. DEQ will continue to review and update modeling protocols as 

appropriate to implement the revised SO2 NAAQS. DEQ will also continue 

to utilize appropriate modeling to evaluate the significant SO2 emission 

sources in Oklahoma that potentially impact attainment of the NAAQS, i.e., 

those identified in advance of the Designations process conducted under 

the proposed Data Requirements Rule for the 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS (79 

Fed.Reg. 27446, May 13, 2014) and/or the related proposed Settlement 

Agreement (79 Fed.Reg. 31325, June 2, 2014). [See also 78 Fed.Reg. 

47191, Aug. 5, 2013]

§ 110(a)(2)(L) –

Permitting Fees

require the owner or operator of each major 

stationary source to pay to the permitting 

authority, as a condition of any permit required 

under this Act, a fee sufficient to cover—

(i) the reasonable costs of reviewing and 

acting upon any application for such a permit, 

and 

(ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit 

for such source, the reasonable costs of 

implementing and enforcing the terms and 

conditions of any such permit (not including any 

court costs or other costs associated with any 

enforcement action), until such fee requirement 

is superseded with respect to such sources by 

the Administrator's approval of a fee program 

under title V; 

27A O.S. § 2-5-106 authorizes the DEQ through the EQB to promulgate 

rules regarding permit fees and 27A O.S. § 2-5-113 establishes that the 

owner or operator of any source required to have a permit must pay a 

permit fee to cover 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).

40 CFR §§ 52.1920(c)

and 52.1960(c)(48)(ii)(A)

This NAAQS Revision:

Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required to 

implement the revised SO2 NAAQS.
11/10/2014 Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 18

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(M) –

Consultation/ 

Participation by 

Affected Local 

Entities

provide for consultation and participation by 

local political subdivisions affected by the plan.

Oklahoma’s 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 recommendations to the [DEQ]

concerning the [SIP].”

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

resulting program modifications, are initiated through the rulemaking 

process, which includes public notice and hearing procedures. (See the 

Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act [75 O.S. §§ 250 – 323], DEQ 

procedural rules in OAC 252:4, and procedures approved under 40 CFR § 

51.102(g).) Documentation of these changes, along with documentation of 

any implementation or infrastructure changes, is then submitted to EPA as a 

SIP revision. 

Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required as 

a result of a change in a particular NAAQS.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1960
SCOTT A. THOMPSON 

Executive Director 

January 12, 2015 

OKLAHOMA 

DEPARTMENT Of ENVIRONMENTAl QUAliTY 

OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Ron Curry, Regional Administrator (6RA) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -Region VI 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 

Dallas, TX 75202-2733 

MARY FALUN 

Governor 

RE: Documentation of Procedures for Submittal of Certification of SIP Elements for the 2010 

Primary S02 NAAQS under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(l) and (2) 

Dear Administrator Curry: 

This letter is to certify that the procedures for preparation and submittal of Oklahoma's 

Certification of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements for the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide 

(S02) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under Clean Air Act Sections 

llO(a)(l) and (2) were in compliance with the requirements of the Oklahoma Administrative 

Procedures Act, 75 O.S. §§ 250.1 through 323, and 40 CFR § 51.102 and 40 CFR Part 51, 

Appendix V, 2.l(g). State public participation procedures for such SIP submittals were 

submitted to EPA for review under 40 CFR § 51.102. In a letter dated August 23, 2012, EPA 

concurred that the procedures are consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR § 51.102 and 

associated guidance. 

The Notice of Opportunity for Public Hearing and Comment on the proposed certification that 

Oklahoma has adequate resources and authority to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2010 

Primary S02 NAAQS was posted on the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality's 

(DEQ) web site beginning on Wednesday, April 30, 2014. The notice set a tentative public 

hearing for Thursday, June 5, 2014, and included information on how the public could request a 

public hearing and submit written or oral comments on the proposed submittaL The notice 

provided that if no request for a public hearing was received by 10:00 a.m., Monday, June 2, 

2014 (the close of the minimum 30-day notice period), the hearing would be cancelled, and a 

notice announcing the cancellation would be posted on the DEQ web site at least 24 hours prior 

to the scheduled time for the hearing. A contact phone number for information on the public 

hearing was also included in the notice. No hearing requests were received during the minimum 

30-day comment period (5/1/14 6/1114). Therefore, a notice of hearing cancellation was posted 

on the DEQ web site on June 3, 2014. In addition to posting the two notices on DEQ's web site, 

an electronic notification (email) was sent to those on AQD's standing email mailing list. 

707 NORTH ROBINSON, P.O. BOX 1677, OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73101-1677 

printed on recycled paper with soy ink 
Ron Curry 

EPA Regional Administrator 

2010 S02 NAAQS I-SIP Certification Documentation 

January 12, 2015 

Because the submittal involves no rules or program changes, nor matter of significant public 

interest, newspaper and direct mail notifications were not prepared. 

One set of comments was received during the comment period; therefore, a Response to 

Comments document was prepared. Enclosed with this letter are copies of the Notice of 

Opportunity for Public Hearing and Comment and the Notice of Hearing Cancellation, along 

with copies of comments received during the comment period and a Response to Comments 

document, and screen shots of relevant DEQ web pages. Note that exhibits and modeling files 

submitted in support of the comments have been included with the full I-SIP submission on 

electronic media. 

If you have questions or require additional information, please contact Ms. Cheryl Bradley, 

Environmental Programs Manager, at (405) 702-4218. 

Eddie Terrill, Director 

Air Quality Division 

ET:CB:gg 

Enclosures: 

Notice of Opportunity for Public Hearing and Comment 

Notice of Hearing Cancellation 

Screen Shots ofRelevant DEQ Web Pages 

Full I-SIP Submission on Electronic Media 

2 
50 F Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001 TEL: (202) 675-2380 FAX: (202) 547-6009 www.sierraclub.org

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL 

June 5, 2014 

Cheryl Bradley 

Air Quality Division 

Department of Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 1677 

Oklahoma City, OK 73101-1677 

Cheryl.Bradley@deq.ok.gov 

Re: Sierra Club Comments Concerning Oklahoma’s Compliance with Clean Air 

Act Section 110 Infrastructure Certification for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide 1-

hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Dear Ms. Bradley: 

On behalf of the Sierra Club, its over 3,300 members in Oklahoma, and others 

who are adversely impacted by Oklahoma‟s sources of sulfur dioxide (“SO2”) pollution, 

we submit the following comments on Oklahoma‟s Compliance with Clean Air Act 

(“CAA” or “Act”) Section 110 Infrastructure Certification for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide 1-

hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) (“Draft ISIP”). Oklahoma 

must submit an Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (“Infrastructure SIP” or “ISIP”) 

that addresses all of the requirements in sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act 

for the June 2, 2010 one-hour primary SO2 NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1) & (2). As 

currently drafted, Oklahoma‟s Draft ISIP does not satisfy a number of essential 

requirements, including requirements to establish enforceable emission limits and address 

significant contributions to downwind states. The following comments explain these 

deficiencies in greater detail.1

By addressing the deficiencies in its Draft ISIP, the state of Oklahoma would 

benefit in four ways. First, and most importantly, Oklahoma would take the action 

 

1 A copy of these comments and all exhibits can be found at 

https://app.box.com/s/7mou1er9vzpkfu7hhi1z
2

required to improve public health impacts in the state. There are at least nine counties in 

which facilities are permitted to exceed the SO2 NAAQS. Since the NAAQS set ambient 

pollution levels that states should not exceed in order to protect the health of its citizen, 

the potential public health benefits of addressing these deficiencies are significant. For 

example, more than 80,000 children and 290,000 adults are currently living with asthma 

in Oklahoma2; in 2011, hospitalizations from asthma cost Oklahomans $72 million.3 

Second, Oklahoma would meet its obligations under the Clean Air Act and insulate itself 

from corrective action by the EPA. Third, Oklahoma could prevent the inevitable future 

designation of nine counties as being in nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, thus 

sparing the state from having to comply with rigorous supplemental Clean Air Act 

requirements. Finally, the state could bring regulatory certainty to coal-fired power 

plants in Oklahoma, which could ultimately save these regulated entities money, as 

utilities decide how to comply with a number of environmental regulations. 

I. Legal Background. 

A. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

The Clean Air Act is, at its core, a directive to protect the public from harmful air 

pollution. Indeed, “pollution prevention” is a “primary goal” of the CAA. 42 U.S.C. 

§7401(c). Pursuant to this mandate, EPA is required to promulgate “primary ambient air 

quality standards [“NAAQS”]. . . the attainment and maintenance of which . . . are 

requisite to protect the public health.” 42 U.S.C. § 7409(b)(1). So far, EPA has identified 

six criteria pollutants—sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, ozone, 

nitrogen oxide, and lead—that have scientifically demonstrated effects on health and the 

environment, at certain levels. 

The NAAQS represent a ceiling of air pollution concentrations that apply 

throughout the country. As such, the primary NAAQS form the basis for regulating air 

emissions for the entire country and provide the foundation for setting specific emission 

limitations for most large stationary sources. The primary national ambient air quality 

standards set ambient pollution levels, which should not be exceeded in order to protect 

public health with an adequate margin of safety. See 42 U.S.C. § 7409(b)(1). These 

standards serve as the basis for development and approval of infrastructure state 

implementation plans. 

B. Sulfur Dioxide: Public Health Impacts and the Current NAAQS. 

Exposure to SO2 in even very short time periods—such as five minutes—has 

significant health impacts and causes decrements in lung function, aggravation of asthma, 

and respiratory and cardiovascular morbidity. See Primary National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard for Sulfur Dioxide Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 35,520, 35,525 (June 22, 2010) 

(hereinafter “Final Rule”). EPA has also determined that SO2 exposure can also aggravate 

existing heart disease, leading to increased hospitalizations and premature deaths. See

Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. at 35,525. 

 

2

 http://www.ok.gov/health2/documents/Asthma%20in%20OK%20Children%202013.pdf

3

 http://www.ok.gov/health2/documents/Asthma%20in%20OK%20adults%202013.pdf
3

On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the primary SO2 NAAQS by establishing a new 

one-hour standard at a level of 75 ppb which is met when the 3-year average of the 

annual 99th percentile of the daily maximum one-hour average concentrations is less than 

or equal to 75 ppb. See Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur 

Dioxide Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 35,520 (June 20, 2010), [hereinafter “Final SO2

NAAQS Rule”]. The primary SO2 NAAQS was set at such a level in order to protect 

public health from the serious threats posed by short-term exposure to SO2. 

Due to both the shorter averaging time and the numerical difference, the new 1-

hour SO2 NAAQS is far more protective of human health than the prior SO2 NAAQS and 

promises huge health benefits. EPA has estimated that 2,300-5,900 premature deaths and 

54,000 asthma attacks a year will be prevented by the new standard. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 

Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the SO2 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) tbl. 5.14 (2010). Timely implementation of the new NAAQS is thus 

critical. Each year of delay in implementing the SO2 NAAQS nationally means 5,900 

people will die prematurely and 54,000 asthma attacks will occur unnecessarily. Each 

year of delay will likewise drive up the medical costs that individuals will have to pay, 

and will be another year in which people must abstain from everyday activities such as 

exercise, school, and work. EPA estimates that the net benefit of implementing the 75 

ppb SO2 NAAQS is up to $36 billion dollars. 75 Fed. Reg. 35,520, 35,588 (June 22, 

2010). Due to these and other serious impairments caused by short-term SO2 exposure, 

the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (“ODEQ”) must properly 

implement the one-hour SO2 NAAQS through this ISIP process in order to protect public 

health as required by law. 

C. Legal Requirements for Infrastructure SIPs. 

Once the NAAQS are set, the CAA establishes a statutory framework and 

timeline to maintain and attain the NAAQS, with some exceptions. States have “primary 

responsibility” for assuring air quality within the state. Id. § 7407(a). Within three years 

of promulgation of a NAAQS, a state must “adopt and submit to the Administrator . . . a 

plan which provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such primary 

[NAAQS].” Id. § 7410(a)(1). For attainment and unclassifiable areas, section 

110(a)(2)(A) requires that these Infrastructure SIPs “include enforceable emission 

limitations . . . as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary 

or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements” of the Clean Air Act, including the 

requirement to maintain the NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410(a)(2)(A), 7410(a)(1); Conn. 

Fund for Env’t, Inc. v. EPA, 696 F.2d 169, 172 (2d Cir. 1982) (CAA requires that SIPs 

contain “measures necessary to ensure the attainment and maintenance of NAAQS”);

Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The Clean 

Air Act directs states to develop implementation plans—SIPs—that „assure‟ attainment 

and maintenance of national ambient air quality standards (“NAAQS”) through 

enforceable emission limitations.”) (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 7407(a), 7410(a)(2)(A)); Hall v. 

EPA, 273 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Each State must submit a [SIP] that 

specif[ies] the manner in which [NAAQS] will be achieved and maintained within each 

air quality control region in the State”) (internal citations omitted); see also EPA, “Sulfur 
4

Dioxide Implementation—Programs and Requirements for Reducing Sulfur Dioxide,” 

available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/implement.html. 

EPA may approve an Infrastructure SIP only if it meets the requirements of 

110(a)(2) of the Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(A)-(M). The state bears the burden of 

demonstrating that its SIP submission satisfies the standards of section 110(a)(2). Mich. 

Dept. of Envtl. Quality v. Browner, 230 F.3d 181, 183, 185 (6th Cir. 2000) (affirming 

EPA‟s rejection of a SIP proposal where the state “failed to offer evidence that [the] 

proposed rules will not interfere with the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.”). 

An adequate Infrastructure SIP “must demonstrate that the measures, rules, and 

regulations contained in it are adequate to provide for the timely attainment and 

maintenance of the national standard that it implements.” 40 C.F.R. § 51.112(a). 

1. The Plain Language and Legislative History of the Clean Air Act 

Require That Infrastructure SIPs Must Impose Emission Limits 

Adequate to Prevent NAAQS Exceedances in Areas Not 

Designated Nonattainment. 

The Clean Air Act, on its face, requires ISIPs to prevent exceedances of the 

NAAQS. Following promulgation of a NAAQS, a state must “adopt and submit to the 

Administrator . . . a plan which provides for implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of such [NAAQS].” 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1). Pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(A), this ISIP must “include enforceable emission limitations . . . as well as 

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

applicable requirements” of the Clean Air Act (which include the requirement to maintain 

compliance with the NAAQS). Id. § 7410(a)(2)(A) (emphasis added). As defined by the 

Act, the term “emission limitation” means “a requirement established by the State or the 

Administrator which limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air 

pollutants on a continuous basis, including any requirement relating to the operation or 

maintenance of a source to assure continuous emission reduction, and any design, 

equipment, work practice or operational standard promulgated under this chapter.” Id. § 

7602(k). Thus, the plain language of section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that ISIPs include 

enforceable emission limits on sources sufficient to ensure attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS. 

The legislative history of the Clean Air Act also supports this interpretation. As 

the Senate Committee Report accompanying the 1970 Clean Air Act explained, the Act 

“would establish certain tools as potential parts of an implementation plan and would 

require that emission requirements be established by each State for sources of air 

pollution agents or combinations of such agents in such region and that these emission 

requirements be monitored and enforceable.” Sen. Cmte. on Pub. Works Rpt. at 12 (Sept. 

17, 1970) (emphasis added), attached hereto as Ex. 1. This was reaffirmed in the 

subsequent Senate Conference Report, which stated that: “In order to implement the 

national ambient air quality standards, these [state implementation] plans must provide 

for emission limitations on all services in the region covered by the plan, together with 

schedules and timetables of compliance, systems for monitoring both ambient air and 

emissions from individual sources, and adequate enforcement authority.” Sen. Conf. 
5

Rpt., 116 Cong. Rec. 42,381, 42,384 (Dec. 18, 1970) (emphasis added), attached hereto 

as Ex. 2.4

2. EPA Regulations Implementing the Clean Air Act Require That 

Infrastructure SIPs Must Impose Emission Limits Adequate to 

Prohibit NAAQS Exceedances in Areas Not Designated 

Nonattainment. 

EPA regulations implementing section 110(a)(2) also require that ISIPs contain 

emission limits and other measures that ensure NAAQS attainment. Pursuant to these 

regulations, in order for EPA to approve an ISIP, it “must demonstrate that the measures, 

rules, and regulations contained in it are adequate to provide for the timely attainment 

and maintenance of the national standard that it implements.” 40 C.F.R. § 51.112(a).5

 

The regulation clearly states that all SIPs must contain emission limits that adequately 

ensure the NAAQS is achieved. See 40 C.F.R. § 51.112(a). Although these regulations 

were developed before the Clean Air Act separated Infrastructure SIPs from 

nonattainment SIPs—a process that began with the 1977 amendments and was completed 

by the 1990 amendments—the regulations nonetheless apply to ISIPs. EPA has not 

changed the regulation since 1990, and in the preamble to the final rule promulgating 40 

C.F.R. § 51.112, EPA expressly identifies that its new regulations were not implementing 

Subpart D, the new nonattainment provisions of the Act. See Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; Restructuring SIP Preparation Regulations, 51 Fed. Reg. 40,656, 40,656 (Nov. 7, 

1986) (“It is beyond the scope of th[is] rulemaking to address the provisions of Part D of 

the Act . . . .”). Consequently, 40 C.F.R. § 51.112 was intended to apply to ISIPs. Thus, 

it is clear that ISIPs must contain “measures, rules, and regulations” sufficient to ensure 

maintenance of the NAAQS. 

3. Prior EPA Interpretations of the Act Require That Infrastructure 

SIPs Must Impose Emission Limits Adequate to Prohibit NAAQS 

Exceedances in Areas Not Designated Nonattainment. 

 

4 Although the language of current section 110(a)(2)(A) was originally found in section 110(a)(2)(B), the 

substance has remained true to the statements found in the Senate Committee Reports. There were only 

two substantive changes between 1970 and the present. First, the addition of former section 172(c)‟s 

requirement that SIPs‟ emission limitations, schedules, and timetables be “enforceable.” See Rpt. of the 

Senate Cmte. on Envt. and Pub. Works accompanying the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1989 at 20 (Dec. 

20, 1989) (explaining that “Paragraph (1) of rewritten section 110(c) combines and streamlines existing 

section 110(a)(2)(b) and the enforceability requirements of section 172(c) of current law”), attached hereto 

as Ex. 16; see also 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c) (section 172(c)) (requiring that a SIP revision submitted before July 

1, 1982 pursuant to a demonstration under subsection (a)(2) “shall contain enforceable measures to assure 

attainment of the applicable standard not later than December 1, 1987”). Second, the clarification in the 

1990 Clean Air Act Amendments that the “means[] or techniques” for meeting the requirements of the Act 

included “economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights.” 42 

U.S.C § 7410(a)(2)(A).

5

 40 C.F.R. § 51.112(a)(1) further specifies that “[t]he adequacy of a control strategy shall be demonstrated 

by means of applicable air quality models, data bases, and other requirements specified in appendix W of 

this part (Guideline on Air Quality Models).” (emphasis added). Consequently, of relevance to our 

discussion of the SO2 NAAQS in these comments, 40 C.F.R. § 51.112(a)(1) supports the use of sulfur 

dioxide air dispersion modeling to evaluate the adequacy of sulfur dioxide ISIPs for maintaining the onehour sulfur dioxide NAAQS.
6

EPA has relied on section 110(a)(2)(A) and 40 C.F.R. § 51.112 on multiple 

occasions to reject Infrastructure SIPs that did not contain specific emissions limits 

sufficient to demonstrate attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. For example, in 

March 2006, EPA disapproved Missouri‟s attempt to revise the SO2 emission limits in its 

ISIP for two power plants because the new emission limits would not ensure maintenance 

of the three-hour sulfur dioxide NAAQS then in effect. See Approval and Promulgation 

of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri, 71 Fed. Reg. 12,623, 12,624 (Mar. 13, 2006). 

In so doing, EPA explained that “Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the [Act] requires, in part, that 

the [state implementation] plan include emission limitations to meet the requirements of 

the Act, including the requirement in section 110(a)(1) that the plan must be adequate to 

attain and maintain ambient air quality standards.” Id. EPA further explained that “40 

C.F.R. 51.112 requires that the plan demonstrate that rules contained in the SIP are 

adequate to attain the ambient air quality standards.” Id. In the case of Missouri‟s 

proposed ISIP, EPA expressed concern that the sulfur dioxide emission rates for two 

power plants in question were “not protective of the short-term sulfur dioxide NAAQS” 

because, while Missouri had lowered the emission rates for the facilities, it had 

dramatically increased the averaging times (from a 3-hour average to an annual average) 

without providing “a demonstration, as required by the [Clean Air Act] and EPA 

regulations, that the [sulfur dioxide national ambient air quality] standards, and 

particularly the three-hour and the twenty-four hour standards, can be protected by an 

annual emission limit.” Id. 

More recently, in December 2013, EPA rejected a revision to Indiana‟s sulfur 

dioxide ISIP pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 51.112, because Indiana failed to demonstrate that 

the ISIP, as revised, was sufficient to ensure maintenance of the sulfur dioxide NAAQS. 

See Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; Disapproval of State 

Implementation Plan Revision for ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor; Final Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. 

78,720, 78,721 (Dec. 27, 2013). Indiana had submitted a request to EPA to revise its 

sulfur dioxide SIP for the ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor facility to remove the SO2

emission limit for the blast furnace flare at the facility. Id. In the proposed disapproval, 

EPA explained that “[u]nder 40 C.F.R. 51.112(a), each SIP must demonstrate that the 

measures, rules, and regulations it contains are adequate to provide for the timely 

attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.” See Approval of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Indiana; Disapproval of State Implementation Plan Revision for 

ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor; Proposed Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. 17,157, 17,158 (Mar. 20, 

2013). Because Indiana did not demonstrate that the ArcelorMittal blast furnace gas 

flare‟s existing emission limit was “redundant, unnecessary, or that its removal would not 

result in or allow an increase in actual SO2 emissions,” and, consequently, that removal 

of the limit would not “affect the validity of the emission rates used in the existing 

attainment demonstration, thus undermining the SIP‟s ability to ensure protection of the 

SO2 NAAQS,” EPA rejected the proposed amendment. Id. at 17,159; see also 78 Fed. 

Reg. at 78,721. 

4. Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions Hold That Infrastructure 

SIPs Must Impose Emission Limits Adequate to Prohibit NAAQS 

Exceedances in Areas Not Designated Nonattainment. 
7

Since the inception of the modern Clean Air Act in 1970, courts have interpreted 

the language presently found in section 110(a)(2)(A) to require that SIPs contain 

enforceable emission limits sufficient to prevent exceedances of the NAAQS. In Train v. 

NRDC, a seminal case on SIP approval requirements, the Supreme Court explained that: 

In complying with this requirement [that a SIP provide for attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS] a State‟s plan must include „emission 

limitations,‟ which are regulations of the composition of substances 

emitted into the ambient air from such sources as power plants, service 

stations, and the like. They are the specific rules to which operators of 

pollution sources are subject, and which if enforced should result in 

ambient air which meets the national standards. 

421 U.S. 60, 78 (1975); see also id. at 67 (citing language from then-current section 

110(a)(2)(B) now found in section 110(a)(2)(A)). 

Courts of appeals have echoed the same conclusion. For example, in 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources v. EPA, the Third Circuit stated 

that the Clean Air Act “directs the EPA to withhold approval from a state implementation 

plan if the „maintenance of [the] standard‟ cannot be assured.” 932 F.2d 269, 272 (3rd 

Cir. 1991).6

 The court observed that the “need to maintain the Clean Air Act standards 

once they are reached is well-recognized by the Courts.” Id. Other courts have provided 

similar analyses. In Mision Industrial, Inc. v. EPA, for example, the First Circuit 

explained that, “[b]efore approving an air quality implementation plan or revision, the 

Administrator must determine that it „includes emission limitations . . . and such other 

measures as may be necessary to insure attainment and maintenance of (the) primary or 

secondary standard . . . .‟” 547 F.2d 123, 129 (1st Cir. 1976) (quoting former section 

110(a)(2)(B)).

 The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments do not alter this picture. Court decisions 

since the 1990 amendments have continued to hold that ISIPs must have emission limits 

that maintain the NAAQS. In Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. 

EPA, the Supreme Court explained that an Infrastructure SIP under CAA section 

110(a)(1) must be a “plan which provides for implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of [NAAQS].” 540 U.S. 461, 470 (2004) (quoting section 110(a)(1)). 

“While States have wide discretion in formulating their plans . . . SIPs must include 

certain measures Congress specified to assure that national ambient air quality standards 

are achieved.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). Thus, in order for EPA to 

approve a SIP, it “must „include enforceable emission limitations and other control 

measures, means, or techniques . . . as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable [CAA] requirements.‟” Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(A)). 

 The circuit courts have also been clear that section 110(a)(2)(A) from the post1990 Clean Air Act requires enforceable emission limits in ISIPs. For example, the 

 

6

 The court was interpreting the 1977 version of the statute in which Subpart 1 of Part D had been added, 

id. at 271 n.1, but relied on the language of then-current section 110(a)(2)(B) (now found in section 

110(a)(2)(A)). Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, 32 F.2d at 272. 
8

Ninth Circuit affirmed that “[t]he Clean Air Act directs states to develop implementation 

plans—SIPs—that „assure‟ attainment and maintenance of national ambient air quality 

standards („NAAQS‟) through enforceable emission limitations.” Mont. Sulphur &

Chem. Co., 666 F.3d at 1180 (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 7407(a), 7410(a)(2)(A)) (emphasis 

added). And the Sixth Circuit has explained that “EPA‟s deference to a state is 

conditioned on the state‟s submission of a plan „which satisfies the standards of § 

110(a)(2)‟ and which includes emission limitations that result in compliance with the 

NAAQS.” Mich. Dept. of Envtl Quality, 230 F.3d at 185 (quoting Train, 421 U.S. at 79). 

 Additionally, in Hall v. EPA, the Ninth Circuit held that EPA had not fulfilled its 

responsibility under another provision—section 110(l)7—to evaluate whether a revised 

air quality plan will achieve the pollution reductions required under the Act. 273 F.3d at 

1152. In Hall, EPA incorrectly approved a revision to an air quality plan solely on the 

basis that the revisions did not relax the existing SIP, rather than “measur[ing] the 

existing level of pollution, compar[ing] it with the national standards, and determin[ing] 

the effect on this comparison of specified emission modifications.” Id. at 1157-58 

(quoting Train, 421 U.S. at 93). EPA claimed a statutory equivalence between nonrelaxation of rules approved in 1981 and non-interference with current attainment 

requirements. Id. at 1155. The court rejected EPA‟s application of the “no relaxation” 

rule, finding it inconsistent with the Act because it set an improper baseline that failed to 

take into consideration the 1990 amendments, which set new deadlines for attainment and 

established other new requirements for incremental progress towards attainment. Id. at 

1160-61. Those current attainment requirements were the baseline from which EPA 

should have measured “non-interference.” Id. EPA‟s analysis was required to reflect 

consideration of the prospects of meeting current attainment requirements under a revised 

air quality plan. Id. Just as a plan revision must not interfere with attainment of the 

NAAQS under section 110(l), an ISIP must likewise include enforceable limits sufficient 

to ensure the initial plan provides for maintenance of the NAAQS under 110(a)(2)(A). 

II. THE DRAFT ISIP FAILS TO INCLUDE ENFORCEABLE ONE-HOUR 

SO2 EMISSION LIMITATIONS TO ENSURE ATTAINMENT AND 

MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIMARY SO2 NAAQS. 

Oklahoma‟s Draft ISIP fails to include restrictions on major SO2 sources to ensure 

that areas not currently designated will attain and maintain the new one-hour SO2 

NAAQS, and so Oklahoma must revise the ISIP to incorporate enforceable emission 

limits. 

A. Oklahoma must revise the Draft ISIP to include enforceable one-hour 

SO2 emission limits for sources currently allowed to cause 

exceedances of the NAAQS. 

The Draft ISIP fails to include adequate enforceable emission limitations or other 

required measures for sources of SO2 sufficient to ensure attainment and maintenance of 

 

7

 Section 110(l) provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he Administrator shall not approve a revision of a [state 

implementation] plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment 

and reasonable further progress . . . or any other applicable requirement of this chapter.” 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7410(l). 
9

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. As discussed, under section 110(a)(2)(A), the ISIP must “include 

enforceable emission limitations . . . as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, 

as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements” of the Clean Air 

Act, which include the requirement to maintain compliance with the NAAQS. 

Emission limits are especially important for meeting the one-hour SO2 NAAQS 

given the “strong source-oriented nature of SO2 ambient impacts.” Final SO2 NAAQS 

Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. at 35,570. Nationally, large point sources account for 95 percent of 

SO2 emissions, 66 percent of which come from fossil fuel combustion at electric 

facilities. Id. at 35,524. Specifically, in Oklahoma, 72.8 percent (or 95,553 out of 

131,187 tons) of all SO2 emissions in the state come from coal-fired electric generating 

units (“EGUs”). See 2011 NEI SO2 28, April 2014.xlsx (based on 2011 National 

Emissions Inventory, Excel Worksheet “CHARTS (SC),” Ex. 3; see also EPA, The 

National Emissions Inventory, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011inventory.html. 

Despite the large contribution from coal-fired EGUs, ODEQ has not even 

attempted to demonstrate that emissions allowed by the Draft ISIP will ensure 

compliance with the one-hour SO2 standard. In fact, the Draft ISIP would simply allow 

the major air pollution sources in the state to continue operating under their present 

emissions limits. As determined by expert air dispersion modeling conducted at Sierra 

Club‟s request, and in one instance by a utility‟s own modeling, however, those limits are 

insufficient to attain and maintain the NAAQS. See Steven Klafka, Sooner Generating 

Station, Red Rock, Oklahoma: Evaluation of Compliance with the 1-hour NAAQS for SO2

(June 3, 2014), [hereinafter, “Sooner Report”], attached hereto as Ex. 4; Steven Klafka, 

GRDA Chouteau Coal-Fired Complex, Chouteau, Oklahoma: Evaluation of Compliance 

with the 1-hour NAAQS for SO2 (May 29, 2014) [hereinafter, “GRDA Report”], attached 

hereto as Ex. 5; Lindsey Sears, Air Dispersion Modeling Analysis for Verifying 

Compliance with the One-Hour SO2 NAAQS and Oklahoma SIP Limits: Muskogee 

Generating Station (June 3, 2014) [hereinafter, “Muskogee Report”], attached hereto as 

Ex. 6; Excerpt of Black & Veatch, Plan for Emission Control Upgrades: GRDA CoalFired Complex (July 2012) [hereinafter, “Black & Veatch Report”], attached hereto as 

Ex. 7. 

The Sooner Report, Muskogee Report and GRDA Report present the results of an 

air dispersion modeling analysis for each plant that compares the modeled ambient air 

concentrations of each plant‟s SO2 emissions with the 2010 one-hour primary SO2

NAAQS. The modeling analyses employed EPA‟s AERMOD program to model the 

plants‟ “allowable” emissions (based on the current Title V permit) and, in some 

instances, “actual” emissions (based on maximum plant-wide hourly emissions obtained 

from annual emission inventory reports) to determine whether each plant‟s emissions 

could cause exceedances of the one-hour SO2 NAAQS. See Muskogee Report at 4-5; 

GRDA Report at 2-3; Sooner Report at 2-3. In particular, the modeling based on the 

allowable emissions is crucial to a determination of whether the Oklahoma Draft ISIP is 

adequate to attain and maintain the SO2 NAAQS, because this is what is allowed in each 

plant‟s permit. 

The modeling protocol employed in these analyses is consistent with all available 

technical guidance, including Appendix W and EPA‟s March 2011 guidance for 
10

implementing the one-hour SO2 NAAQS. Additionally, the modeler used the most recent 

version of AERMOD, AERMET, and AERMINUTE available at the time of the studies. 

See Muskogee Report at 5; GRDA Report at 2; Sooner Report at 2. Where any 

assumptions were made when running the models, the modeler generally employed 

conservative inputs, which favor the prediction of lower impacts from the plants, so that 

the results may understate the plants‟ SO2 emission impacts. See GRDA Report at 4; 

Sooner Report at 4. 

The modeling reports demonstrate that the Draft ISIP improperly authorizes these 

plants to continue to cause exceedances of the one-hour SO2 NAAQS based on their 

allowable and in some instances actual or maximum emission rates. See Muskogee 

Report at 15; GRDA Report at 3, Table 1; Sooner Report at 3, Table 1. The modeling 

results are above the NAAQS, even without consideration of background concentrations, 

and allow exceedences in Mayes, Noble, Pawnee, Osage, Wagoner, Cherokee, Sequoyah, 

Muskogee, and McIntosh counties. See Muskogee Report at 14; GRDA Report at 3, 

Table 1; Sooner Report at 3, Table 1. In addition, the GRDA Report shows authorization 

of exceedences in Cherokee Nation tribal jurisdictions, while the Sooner Report shows 

authorization of exceedences in Ponca Nation and Otoe Missouria Nation jurisdictions. 

Similarly, the Muskogee power plant is authorized to cause exceedances in the Muskogee 

Nation and Cherokee Nation tribal jurisdictions. No area in Oklahoma has been 

designated nonattainment under the one-hour SO2 NAAQS. See generally Air Quality 

Designations for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Primary National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard, 78 Fed. Reg. 47,191 (Aug. 5, 2013), [hereinafter “Final 2010 SO2

Designations”].8 Because these power plants are in areas that are not currently 

designated nonattainment, ODEQ must submit an ISIP that “provides for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of” the NAAQS within those areas. 42 U.S.C. § 

7410(a)(1). 

The findings from each modeling report are summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Summary of Modeled Allowable and Maximum Emissions

 

8

 EPA has yet to issue designations for areas aside from those containing monitors that recorded 

exceedances of the NAAQS. See Final 2010 SO2 Designations at 47,191 (designating areas with monitor 

violations from 2009-2011 as nonattainment). 

9

 The 75 ppb to μg/m3 calculation is 75/0.3823 = 196.2 μg/m3. 

Power Plant Emission 

Rates

Facility 

Impact

(μg/m3)

SO2

NAAQS

(μg/m3)

9

Impacted Counties/Tribal 

Jurisdictions

(Not Designated Nonattainment)

Sooner Power 

Plant

Allowable 315.2

196.2

Noble, Pawnee, and Osage counties; 

Ponca and Otoe Missouria Nation tribal 

Maximum jurisdictions 212.8

Muskogee 

Power Plant

Allowable 1,249.1

196.2

Wagoner, Cherokee, 

Sequoyah, Muskogee, 

McIntosh counties; Cherokee Nation 

and Muskogee Creek Nation tribal 

jurisdictions

Maximum 597.9
11

See Sooner Report at 3, Table 1; GRDA Report at 3; Muskogee Report at 15. 

Based on the modeling results summarized above, ODEQ must promulgate enforceable 

emission limits with one-hour averaging times into its Draft ISIP that are no less stringent 

than the limits listed in Table 2, below, to achieve and maintain the one-hour SO2

NAAQS. These limits represent the maximum rate that each facility can emit without 

causing NAAQS exceedances, thus reducing each total plant‟s allowable emissions by 

the corresponding percentage. These emission limits must apply at all times including 

during periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction to ensure Oklahoma attains and 

maintains the SO2 NAAQS.10

Table 2: Limits Necessary to Achieve and Maintain the One-Hour SO2 NAAQS 

See Sooner Report at 4, Table 3; GRDA Report at 4, Table 3; Muskogee Report at 15. 

As demonstrated by the modeling reports, the Sooner, Muskogee and GRDA power 

plants are currently authorized to cause exceedances of the one-hour SO2 NAAQS based 

on their allowable, actual, or maximum emission rates, and so must reduce those 

emissions rates. Moreover, GRDA‟s own modeling shows that even greater emissions 

reductions are required at its plant. GRDA contracted with Black and Veatch to conduct 

an analysis of the SO2 emissions reductions required to ensure attainment of the NAAQS

at the GRDA power plant. See Ex. 7. The Black & Veatch Report found that the GRDA 

power plant must reduce its emissions by 75 percent, or down to a rate of 3,128 lbs/hr or 

0.3 lbs/mmbtu. Id. The Black & Veatch Report also stated that, when air impacts from 

other nearby sources are considered, even greater reductions from GRDA—down to 0.03 

or even 0.01 lbs/mmbtu—may be required if those other sources cannot be controlled.

Id. If the other sources of SO2 emissions could not be appropriately controlled, the state 

may have to consider retirement of GRDA as the only option to prevent S02 exceedances, 

as emissions reductions of this magnitude go beyond what a flue gas desulfurization 

control system can accomplish. Id.

 

10 Modeling-based emissions limits are well-documented. For example, Minnesota has used SO2 modeling 

to establish emission limits on several plants in order to avoid nonattainment designations. See Black Dog 

Plant Permit No. 03700003-11, Technical Support Document, at 5 & 10 (permit emission limits based on 

modeling analyses), attached hereto as Ex.8; see also Allen S. King Title V Technical Support Document, 

at 6, 14, 16 & 39 (permit emission limits based on modeling analyses), attached hereto as Ex.9.

GRDA Power 

Plant Allowable 318.4 196.2 Mayes County; Cherokee Nation tribal 

jurisdiction

Plant

Required Total 

Facility Reduction 

Based on Allowable 

Emissions (%)

Required Total 

Facility Emission 

Rate (lbs/hr)

Required Total 

Facility 1-hour 

Average Emission 

Rate (lbs/mmbtu)

Sooner Power Plant 41.9% 7,132.5 0.70

Muskogee Power 

Plant 90% 1,976.2 0.12

GRDA Power Plant 43% 7,195.4 0.69
12

As shown by the modeling reports, ODEQ must impose additional emission limits on the 

Muskogee, Sooner, and GRDA plants that will ensure attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS at all times. As the ISIP submission does not incorporate emission limitations 

that are necessary to meet the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act (or indeed, 

any new emission limits for these or other SO2-emitting facilities), including the 

requirement to maintain compliance with the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, the Draft ISIP fails to 

comply with CAA section 110(a)(2)(A); therefore, Oklahoma must revise its Draft ISIP 

to address these deficiencies. 

B. Modeling is the appropriate tool for evaluating the adequacy of 

Infrastructure SIPs and ensuring attainment and maintenance of the 

SO2 NAAQS. 

As outlined by EPA in the Final SO2 NAAQS Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. at 35,551, air 

dispersion modeling is the best method for evaluating the short-term impacts of large SO2 

sources. This is consistent with EPA‟s historic use of air dispersion modeling for 

attainment designations and SIP revisions. Furthermore, an agency may not ignore 

information put in front of it, such as Sierra Club‟s modeling submitted with these 

comments. See generally Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 

463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (holding that it was arbitrary and capricious for the agency to 

ignore an important aspect of an issue placed before it); see also NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 

1245, 1254 (D.C. Cir.2009) (restating EPA‟s own statement that additional information 

presented in a notice-and-comment rulemaking must be considered during the rulemaking 

by the corresponding state and EPA) (citing 70 Fed. Reg. 71,612, 71,655). 

ODEQ has long been on notice that modeling data is an important resource in the 

SO2 NAAQS attainment and maintenance process. EPA has historically used modeling 

in determining attainment for the SO2 standard. See e.g., U.S. EPA, Implementation of 

the 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Draft White Paper for Discussion at 3, fn. 1, [hereinafter “EPA 

White Paper”], available at 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/pdfs/20120522whitepaper.pdf; see also

Respondent‟s Opposition to Motion of the State of North Dakota for a Stay of EPA‟s 1-

Hour Sulfur Dioxide Ambient Standard Rule at 3, National Environmental Development 

Association’s Clean Air Project v. EPA (D.C. Cir. 2010) (No. 10-1252), attached hereto 

as Ex. 10 (“the Agency has historically relied on modeling to make designations for 

sulfur dioxide”). In fact, in EPA‟s 1994 SO2 Guideline Document, EPA noted that “for 

SO2 attainment demonstrations, monitoring data alone will generally not be adequate,” 

U.S. EPA, 1994 SO2 Guideline Document, [hereinafter “1994 SO2 Guideline 

Document”], available at

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/so2_guide_092109.pdf, at 2-5, and that 

“[a]ttainment determinations for SO2 will generally not rely on ambient monitoring data 

alone, but instead will be supported by an acceptable modeling analysis which quantifies 

that the SIP strategy is sound and that enforceable emission limits are responsible for 

attainment.” Id. at 2-1. The 1994 SO2 Guideline Document goes on to note that 

monitoring alone is likely to be inadequate: “[f]or SO2, dispersion modeling will 

generally be necessary to evaluate comprehensively a source's impacts and to determine 
13

the areas of expected high concentrations based upon current conditions.” Id. at 2-3. 

EPA‟s approval and acceptance of modeling for making attainment designations 

stretches back decades and demonstrates that modeling is equally applicable to 

determining the adequacy of an Infrastructure SIP. In 1983, the Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards (“OAQPS”) issued a Section 107 Designation Policy Summary. 

See Sheldon Meyers Memorandum re Section 107 Designation Policy Summary (April 

21, 1983), attached hereto as Ex. 11. OAQPS explained that “air quality modeling 

emissions data, etc., should be used to determine if the monitoring data accurately 

characterize the worst case air quality in the area.” Id. at 1. Without modeling data, the 

worst-case air quality may not be accurately characterized. In certain instances, EPA 

relied solely on modeling data to determine nonattainment designations; demonstrating 

modeling is accepted and trustworthy. Id. at 2. In fact, reliance on modeling for 

nonattainment designations stretches back to the Carter Administration. In 1978, EPA 

designated Laurel, Montana as nonattainment “due to measured and modeled violations 

of the primary SO2 standard.” Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co., 666 F.3d at 1181 (citing 43 

Fed. Reg. 8,962 (Mar. 3, 1978)). 

EPA‟s final 2010 SO2 NAAQS rule simply built upon EPA‟s historical practice of 

using modeling to determine attainment and nonattainment status for SO2 NAAQS. In 

doing so, EPA properly recognized the “strong source-oriented nature of SO2 ambient 

impacts,” Final SO2 NAAQS Rule at 35,370, and concluded that the appropriate 

methodology for purposes of determining compliance, attainment, and nonattainment 

with the new NAAQS is modeling. See id. at 35,551 (describing dispersion modeling as 

“the most technically appropriate, efficient and readily available method for assessing 

short-term ambient SO2 concentrations in areas with large point sources.”). Accordingly, 

in promulgating the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, EPA explained that, for the one-hour standard, 

“it is more appropriate and efficient to principally use modeling to assess compliance for 

medium to larger sources . . . .” Id at 35,570. Similarly, EPA then explained in the EPA 

White Paper that using modeling to determine attainment for the SO2 standard “could 

better address several potentially problematic issues than would the narrower monitoringfocused approach discussed in the proposal for the SO2 NAAQS, including the unique 

source-specific impacts of SO2 emissions and the special challenges SO2 emissions have 

historically presented in terms of monitoring short-term SO2 levels for comparison with 

the NAAQS in many situations (75 FR 35550).” EPA White Paper at 3-4. 

Moreover, the courts have upheld EPA‟s use of modeling. For example, in 

Montana Sulphur, the company challenged a SIP call, a SIP disapproval, and a Federal 

Implementation Plan (“FIP”) promulgation, because they were premised on a modeling 

analysis that showed the Billings/Laurel, Montana area was in nonattainment for SO2. 

666 F.3d at 1184. The court rejected Montana Sulphur‟s argument that EPA‟s reliance 

on modeling was arbitrary and capricious or otherwise unlawful. Id. at 1185; see also

Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 332 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“Realistically, computer 

modeling is a useful and often essential tool for performing the Herculean labors 

Congress imposed on EPA in the Clean Air Act”); Republic Steel Corp. v. Costle, 621 

F.2d 797, 805 (6th Cir. 1980) (approving use of modeling to predict future violations and 

incorporating “worst-case” assumptions regarding weather and full-capacity operations of 
14

pollutant sources). Further demonstrating the superiority of modeling, the D.C. Circuit 

has acknowledged the inherent problem of using monitored data for criteria pollutants, 

namely that “a monitor only measures air quality in its immediate vicinity.” Catawba 

County v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20, 30 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 

Indeed, EPA employs and relies on modeling to inform its designations because 

the agency is well aware that modeling produces reliable results. For example, as John C. 

Vimont, EPA Region 9‟s Regional Meteorologist, has stated under oath: 

EPA does recognize the usefulness of ambient measurements for 

information on background concentrations, provided reliable monitoring 

techniques are available. EPA does not recommend, however, that ambient 

measurements be used as the sole basis of setting emission limitations or 

determining the ambient concentrations resulting from emissions from an 

industrial source. These should be based on an appropriate modeling 

analysis. 

Declaration of John C. Vimont at 1, 11 (emphasis added), attached hereto as Ex. 12. 

Testimony as to the accuracy and appropriateness of modeling has also been presented by 

Roger Brode, a physical scientist in EPA‟s Air Quality Modeling Group who co-chairs 

the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model Improvement Committee (AERMIC) and the 

AERMOD Implementation Workgroup. See Declaration of Roger W. Brode at 1, 2, 

attached hereto as Ex. 13. Mr. Brode has stated under oath that AERMOD is “readily 

capable of accurately predicting whether the revised primary SO2 NAAQS is attained and 

whether individual sources cause or contribute to a violation of the SO2 NAAQS.” Id. at 

2. Mr. Brode has explained: 

As part of the basis for EPA adopting the AERMOD model as the 

preferred model for nearfield applications in the Guideline on Air Quality 

Models, Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51, the performance of the 

AERMOD model was extensively evaluated based on a total of 17 field 

study data bases (AERMOD: Latest Features and Evaluation Results. 

EPA-454/R-03-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 

Triangle Park (2003), portions of which are attached to this affidavit) 

(“EPA 2003”). The scope of the model evaluations conducted for 

AERMOD far exceeds the scope of evaluations conducted on any other 

model that has been adopted in Appendix W to Part 51. These evaluations 

demonstrate the overall good performance of the AERMOD model based 

on technically sound model evaluation procedures, and also illustrate the 

significant advancement in the science of dispersion modeling represented 

by the AERMOD model as compared to other models that have been used 

in the past. In particular, adoption of the AERMOD model has 

significantly reduced the potential for overestimation of ambient impacts 

from elevated sources in complex terrain compared to other-models. 

Id. at 3-4 (emphasis added). The Muskogee, Sooner, and GRDA power plants are clear 

examples of elevated sources. 
15

EPA‟s practice in a number of other contexts also demonstrates that modeling is a 

technically superior approach for ascertaining impacts on NAAQS, as well as the 

extensive history of EPA‟s preference for modeling over monitoring to evaluate 

compliance. For example, all NO2, PM2.5, SO2 NAAQS, and Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (“PSD”) increment compliance verification analyses are performed with air 

dispersion modeling, such as running AERMOD in a manner consistent with the 

Guideline on Air Quality Models. 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(l)(1). Indeed, in order to ensure 

consistency in how air impacts are determined, both existing sources and newly permitted 

sources should be assessed using the same methods. AERMOD modeling performs 

particularly well in evaluating emission sources with one or a handful of large emission 

points. The stacks are well characterized in terms of location, dimensions, and exhaust 

parameters, and have high release heights. AERMOD accurately models medium-tolarge SO2 sources—even with conditions of low wind speed, the use of off-site 

meteorological data, and variable weather conditions. Indeed, AERMOD has been tested 

and performs very well during conditions of low wind speeds: 

AERMOD‟s evaluation analyses included a number of site-specific 

meteorological data sets that incorporate low wind speed conditions. For 

example, the Tracy evaluation included meteorological data with wind 

speeds as low as 0.39 meter/second (m/s); the Westvaco evaluation 

included wind speeds as low as 0.31 m/s; the Kincaid SO2 evaluation 

included wind speeds as low as 0.37 m/s; and the Lovett evaluation 

included wind speeds as low as 0.30 m/s. Concerns . . . regarding 

AERMOD‟s ability to model low wind speed conditions seem to neglect 

the data used in actual AERMOD evaluations. 

Comments of Camille Sears 1, at 10, attached hereto as Ex. 14 (citing AERMOD 

evaluations and modeled meteorological data, available at

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/dispersion_prefrec.htm). 

Finally, EPA‟s use of air dispersion modeling and AERMOD in particular was 

upheld in the context of a recent Clean Air Act § 126 petition for resolution of cross-state 

impacts. See Genon Rema, LLC v. U.S. EPA, 722 F.3d 513, 526 (3rd Cir. 2013). In this 

case, the EPA granted the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection‟s 126 

petition, finding that trans-boundary sulfur dioxide emissions from the Portland coal-fired 

power plant in Pennsylvania were significantly contributing to nonattainment and 

interference with the maintenance of the one-hour SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey. Id. at 

518. EPA based its finding on a review of the AERMOD dispersion modeling submitted 

by New Jersey, its independent assessment of AERMOD, and other highly technical 

analyses. Id. The court upheld the EPA‟s decision after examining the record, which 

showed that EPA had thoroughly examined the relevant scientific data and clearly 

articulated a satisfactory explanation of the action that established a rational connection 

between the facts found and the choice made. Id. at 525-28. 

EPA has acknowledged that, for the one-hour SO2 NAAQS, modeling is the most 

accurate means of determining attainment with the NAAQS, Final SO2 NAAQS Rule at 

35,551, 35,570, yet the Oklahoma Draft ISIP lacks SO2 emissions limitations informed by 

air dispersion modeling. As a result, the proposed amendment fails to ensure that 
16

Oklahoma will achieve and maintain the 2010 one-hour SO2 NAAQS. To comply with 

the Act‟s obligations, Oklahoma must include adequate emissions limits in the ISIP―that 

is, source-specific one-hour SO2 emission limits that show no exceedances of the 

NAAQS when modeled. 

C. The Draft ISIP must include enforceable SO2 emission limits with a 

one-hour averaging period that apply at all times. 

As discussed, an emission limitation necessary to comply with section 

110(a)(2)(A) means “a requirement established by the State or the Administrator which 

limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous 

basis, including any requirement relating to the operation or maintenance of a source to 

assure continuous emission reduction, and any design, equipment, work practice or 

operational standard promulgated under this chapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 7602(k). Therefore, 

emission limitations must also contain proper averaging times; otherwise, the emission 

limits would allow for peaks that cause exceedances of the NAAQS but which, when 

averaged with lower emissions over time, would not register as exceedances. In this 

instance, the one-hour SO2 NAAQS requires a one-hour averaging period. 

In various contexts, EPA has stated that one-hour averaging times are necessary 

to comply with the one-hour SO2 NAAQS. For instance, in 2011, EPA disagreed with 

the Kansas Department of Health and Environment‟s issuance of a PSD permit that 

contained a 30-day averaging time rather than a one-hour averaging period. See Letter 

from Karl Brooks, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 7 to Dr. Robert Moser, 

Secretary, Kansas Department of Health and Environment (Feb. 3, 2011), attached hereto 

as Ex. 15. EPA explained: 

[i]t is well known that there can be considerable variability in actual 1-

hour emission rates. Therefore, to ensure protection of the 1-hour . . . SO2

NAAQS . . . the permit needs to contain . . . SO2 1-hour average emission 

limits for both new and existing steam generating units. To ensure the 

source does not cause or contribute to air pollution in violation of the 

NAAQS, the emission limits should be consistent with the modeling rates 

and have the same averaging period, i.e. in this case maximum hourly 

emission limits consistent with the 1-hour NAAQS. 

Id. at 2. Similarly, in its disapproval of Missouri‟s SIP in 2006, EPA determined that the 

emission rates in the SIP were “not protective of the short-term sulfur dioxide NAAQS” 

because they were based on an annual average. See Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of Missouri, 71 Fed. Reg. 12,623, 12,624 (Mar. 13, 2006). 

In 2011, the Environmental Appeals Board confirmed that emission limits for SO2 should 

be based on hourly averaging times, and rejected an agency‟s attempt to use a 3-hour 

averaging time instead. In re: Mississippi Lime Co., PSDAPLPEAL11-01, 2011 WL 

3557194, at *26-27 (E.P.A. Aug. 9, 2011) (“Emission limits should be based on 

concentration estimates for the averaging time that results in the most stringent control 

requirements. 40 C.F.R. pt. 51, app. W, § 10.2.3.1.a.”). 
17

Oklahoma‟s ISIP is required to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS 

and therefore must include “enforceable emission limitations” to ensure its effectiveness. 

42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(A). Only one-hour averaging periods can ensure compliance with 

the one-hour SO2 NAAQS. Therefore, to ensure that all areas in Oklahoma attain and 

maintain the one-hour SO2 NAAQS, ODEQ must revise its ISIP to include enforceable 

emission limits with one-hour averaging times for coal-fired power plants and other large 

sources of SO2.

11

 These emission limits must apply at all times, including periods of 

start-up, shutdown, and malfunction. 

D. The Draft ISIP fails to include measures that ensure compliance with 

section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act regarding the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

Oklahoma‟s Infrastructure SIP submission fails to include measures that 

sufficiently demonstrate that it will comply with section 110(a)(2)(A), and therefore it 

cannot ensure the proper implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS 

as required. As discussed, under section 110(a)(2)(A), the ISIP must “include 

enforceable emission limitations . . . as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, 

as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements” of the Clean Air 

Act (which include the requirement to maintain compliance with the NAAQS). Yet 

Oklahoma‟s submission neither includes nor references emission limitations or other 

required measures that ensure compliance with the one-hour primary SO2 NAAQS. See

generally Draft ISIP. 

The statutory and regulatory sections that ODEQ incorporated into its Draft ISIP 

are insufficient to ensure compliance with the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. For instance, ODEQ‟s 

Draft ISIP does not provide sufficient emission limits on large SO2 sources to guarantee 

the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The SO2 emissions standard contained 

in OAC 252:100-31, Control of Emission of Sulfur Compounds, see Draft ISIP at 3, is far 

too weak to attain and maintain the 2010 one-hour primary SO2 NAAQS based on 

measured and predicted air quality. The emission limit in OAC 252:100-31, subpart 25, 

for sulfur compounds from fuel-burning equipment constructed after 1972, may not 

exceed 1.2 pounds per MMBTU heat input of SO2 averaged over a period of three or 

twenty-four hours. When compared to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, which limits ambient SO2

to 75 ppb (or 0.075 ppm) averaged over one hour, it is apparent that this standard is 

grossly inadequate to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Not only is the emission limit 

provided extremely weak, the regulation allows certain types of sources to avoid the limit 

entirely. See OAC 252:100-31-16 (providing no emissions limits for coal plants built 

prior to 1972). As discussed above, refined air dispersion modeling shows that more 

stringent levels are required for at least the Muskogee, Sooner, and GRDA power plants, 

and that the existing limits maintained in the Draft ISIP are insufficient to meet the 2010 

SO2 standard. See Sooner Report at 4, Table 3; GRDA Report at 4, Table 3; Muskogee 

Report at 15. From the modeling reports, it is clear that the standards contained within 

the Draft ISIP were created for the less stringent, outdated NAAQS and Oklahoma must 

revise the ISIP to reflect the applicable one-hour standard. 

 

11 Though no averaging time longer than one hour can ensure compliance with the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, if 

a state nonetheless uses a longer averaging time, the emission limits at minimum would need to be 

ratcheted down accordingly to ensure that no short-term exceedances of the standard occur.
18

Further, the Draft ISIP impermissibly allows for ambient air incremental 

increases, variances, exceptions, or exclusions with regard to limits placed on sources of 

SO2, and so further fails to assure attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The Draft ISIP 

incorporates existing regulatory provisions that allow exemptions from enforcement that 

undermine the programs meant to ensure attainment and maintenance with the NAAQS. 

See Draft ISIP at 2. For instance, in the Oklahoma Clean Air Act, the Council may grant 

a variance for any provision of the Oklahoma Clean Air Act under certain circumstances. 

See 27A O.S. § 2-5-109. Moreover, OAC 252:100-9-8 allows owners and operators of 

any size sources to be relieved of a civil or administrative penalty, thus evading 

enforcement actions for excess emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction. These provisions and others not discussed in these comments undermine 

the efficacy of the ISIP by permitting sources to evade enforcement and emit excess 

emissions, preventing Oklahoma from attaining and maintaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

As a result of all of these inadequacies, exemptions, variances, and other 

shortfalls not listed in these comments, the Draft ISIP cannot ensure that Oklahoma will 

attain and maintain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. In particular, the Draft ISIP fails to address 

large sources of SO2 pollution, including the Muskogee, Sooner, and GRDA fossil plants 

that lack emission limits necessary to ensure attainment and maintenance of the standard. 

See generally Sooner Report, Muskogee Report, and GRDA Report. Oklahoma must 

revise its ISIP to include enforceable emission limits that address the exceedances 

demonstrated by expert modeling analyses submitted with these comments and that 

otherwise address the short-term, one-hour SO2 NAAQS. It must also update its emission 

regulations to ensure that proper mass limitations and one-hour averaging periods are 

imposed on large SO2 sources, including coal-fired power plants. 

E. Enforceable emission limits are necessary to avoid future 

nonattainment designations. 

In addition to being a required component of the ISIP, enforceable emission 

limits—either in permits or source-specific SIP provisions—are necessary to avoid future 

nonattainment designations in areas where modeling or monitoring shows that SO2 levels 

exceed the one-hour NAAQS. See EPA, Next Steps for Area Designations and 

Implementation of the Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard at 4 (Feb. 

6, 2013) (explaining that agencies should work “to avoid a nonattainment designation by 

establishing and submitting to EPA enforceable emission limitations ensuring that 

attainment with the SO2 NAAQS (in the form of permit limits, source‐specific SIP 

revisions, or other permanent and enforceable legal documents) occurs prior to the date 

that final designations based on modeling information are issued” (emphasis added)); 

Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide, 75 Fed. Reg. at 

35,553 (June 22, 2010) (areas will “be designated „nonattainment‟ if either available 

monitoring data or modeling shows that a violation exists, or „attainment‟ if both 

available monitoring data and modeling indicate the area is attaining” (emphasis added)). 

Oklahoma should use this opportunity to do exactly that—add enforceable emissions 

limits to prevent nonattainment designations later on and protect public health. In order 

to comply with section 110(a)(2)(A) and avoid nonattainment designations for areas 
19

impacted by high SO2 emissions, ODEQ must amend the Draft ISIP to ensure that large 

sources of SO2 cannot cause exceedances of the one-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

To date no county in Oklahoma has been designated as nonattainment, but that 

number will jump to nine counties as the designation process continues. Nonattainment 

designations create rigorous Clean Air Act requirements that states must comply with, 

including offsets, LAER, and nonattainment NSR. Oklahoma should use this opportunity 

to avoid having nine counties formally designated as nonattainment and protect public 

health by adding enforceable emissions limits to attain and maintain the SO2 NAAQS. 

Addressing the issue now is also a way to bring regulatory certainty to coal-fired 

power plants in Oklahoma, which could ultimately save these regulated entities money. 

This is because many of the coal-fired power plants that do not already have flue gas 

desulfurization equipment are currently evaluating which sulfur controls to install to 

comply with other rules, including MATS, CSAPR, and Regional Haze. As a result, 

moving forward now with emission limits and pollution control requirements will allow 

sources to plan for compliance with all potentially applicable rules, avoiding an outcome 

in which a source makes a significant investment in a suite of pollution controls for 

MATS, Regional Haze, or CSAPR only to conclude that that the suite of controls is 

inadequate to comply with the SO2 NAAQS and that a second suite of controls is 

necessary. Thus, complying with the SO2 NAAQS may add little or no additional capital 

cost to the costs of complying with other rules—provided that the sources can factor the 

SO2 NAAQS into their initial decision on which controls to install. 

Indeed, industry itself has made this same exact point to EPA, though in slightly 

different terms: 

Multiple recently-issued rules all focus on large combustion source-related 

emissions (e.g. boilers) and may require significant capital expenditures to 

achieve compliance. The compliance options and deadlines for these rules, 

however, vary widely. If the rules compliance deadlines and requirements 

are not coordinated, the sources subject to them will be forced to make 

investment decisions without a full understanding of what may required to 

comply with the rules having later compliance deadline. This may result in 

a series of sub-optimized decisions . . . [with a] suboptimal overall 

solution—both from a cost and environmental perspective. For example . . 

. a source could invest in Boiler MACT controls without a full 

understanding of the SO2 NAAQS issued because SO2 air dispersion 

modeling has not yet been completed . . . . 

See NAAQS Implementation Coalition Comments on the 10th Modeling Conference, 

March 6, 2012 Joseph C. Stanko, Hunton and Williams, at 10 (emphasis added). By 

regulating these facilities now, the state of Oklahoma can prevent a source from incurring 

additional expenses through piecemealed legislation. 

 To avoid inevitable nonattainment designations in nine counties and to bring 

regulatory certainty to sources in those counties, ODEQ should amend the Draft ISIP to 
20

establish enforceable emission limits to ensure that large sources of SO2 do not cause 

exceedances of the one-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

III. THE DRAFT ISIP MUST BE REVISED TO ADDRESS SOURCES 

SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTING TO NONATTAINMENT OR 

INTERFERENCE WITH MAINTENANCE OF THE NAAQS IN 

DOWNWIND STATES. 

Oklahoma must address interstate transport of Oklahoma‟s emissions that would 

contribute to exceedances or interfere with the maintenance of the NAAQS. Under 

section 110(a)(2)(D), a SIP must contain “adequate provisions (i) prohibiting . . . any 

source . . . from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will—(I) contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with 

respect to any such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard . . . .” 42 

U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I); see also EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, No. 12-1182, 

slip op. at 14 (U.S. Apr. 29, 2014) (reiterating that this is a mandatory duty) [hereinafter 

“Homer City”]. Oklahoma‟s ISIP, as proposed, fails to address any cross-state impacts 

that are due to sources within the state. This is inadequate and should result in EPA 

disapproving the submittal. 

The Clean Air Act sets a mandatory duty for states to submit ISIPs within three 

years of promulgation of a NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1). Under CAA section 110, 

there is no prerequisite action required, such as EPA issuing guidance, before states must 

fulfill their mandatory duty. See Homer City at 14 (“the CAA sets a series of precise 

deadlines to which the States and EPA must adhere”). ODEQ cannot rely on the fact that 

EPA‟s 2013 ISIP Guidance does not address interstate transport provisions. See Draft 

ISIP at 6-7.12 This guidance directly contradicts the language of the Clean Air Act. 

Therefore, Oklahoma must create a SIP to address Prongs 1 and 2 of the interstate 

provisions and provide the public with an opportunity to comment on it.13

Moreover, ODEQ cannot rely on its Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program and Air Quality Impact regulation, OAC 252:100-8-35. See Draft ISIP at 6. 

That program and regulation apply only to new sources and modifications. Thus, sources 

are only evaluated under those regulations when built or undergoing a major modification 

and only evaluated for contribution to the NAAQS at the time of that action. A plant 

 

12 The Supreme Court has resoundingly disapproved the belief that states cannot address the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), the Good Neighbor provision, until EPA first calculates the budget of emissions and gives 

upwind states the opportunity to propose SIPs allocating those budgets among in-state sources before 

issuing a FIP. See Homer City, 696 F.3d 7, 37 (D.C. Cir. 2012), rev‟d, No. 12-1182, slip op. at 27-28 (U.S. 

Apr. 29,2014) (stating “nothing in the statute places EPA under an obligation to provide specific metrics to 

States before they undertake to fulfill their good neighbor obligations” and finding the D.C. Circuit 

impermissibly altered the clear deadlines in the Act).

13 Just as EPA has historically used air dispersion modeling in attainment designations and SIP revisions, so 

has the agency relied on modeling to assess cross-state impacts under the Act‟s Good Neighbor provision—

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Under Clean Air Interstate Rule (“CAIR”) and the Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule (“CSAPR”), as well as the 2003 NOx SIP Call, EPA has used modeling to determine pollutants‟ crossstate impacts. Note that the D.C. Circuit court never questioned the agency‟s use of modeling to assess 

cross-state impacts. See generally North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 
21

built as recently as 2009, therefore would not have submitted to ODEQ an analysis of its 

compliance with the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Consequently, ODEQ must revise its ISIP to 

adequately address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

In light of the recent Homer City Supreme Court decision, ODEQ should act 

quickly to address pollution that may be contributing to another state‟s nonattainment or 

interfering with another state‟s maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The Court‟s 

decision means Oklahoma must address its exceedances under its own volition or EPA 

will be required to act instead. In particular, under its current emission limits, the GRDA, 

Sooner, and Muskogee power plants are impermissibly permitted to cause NAAQS 

exceedances in the following tribal jurisdictions: Cherokee Nation, the Ponca and Otoe 

Missouria Nation, and the Muskogee Creek Nation. As such, ODEQ must include proper 

emission limitations in its ISIP for this plant and others to ensure that they do not 

contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in 

any downwind state. 

IV. OKLAHOMA’S DRAFT I-SIP FAILS TO INCLUDE INFORMATION 

REGARDING THE EMERGENCY EPISODE PLAN.

Under section 110(a)(2)(G), Oklahoma must provide an emergency plan. Here, 

Oklahoma claims that this requirement has been satisfied by a plan submitted in 1972 and 

revised in 1988. See Draft ISIP at 11.14

 However, ODEQ does not provide the plan or a 

link to the plan for the public to evaluate whether it is sufficient to meet the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(G). In order for the public to adequately weigh whether the 

emergency episode plan is sufficient, Oklahoma must provide the plan. Thus, Oklahoma 

should revise its Draft ISIP to include the emergency plan. 

V. CONCLUSION 

The Draft ISIP fails to ensure that the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is attained and 

maintained, as described above. Oklahoma must revise the ISIP to adopt adequate 

emission limits and other standards to protect public health and comply with the Act‟s 

requirements. Sierra Club would be happy to provide any other information that might 

assist Oklahoma in evaluating the impacts of these sources and developing an ISIP in full 

compliance with the Clean Air Act. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Laurie Williams 

Laurie Williams

Associate Attorney 

 

14 Sierra Club disagrees that Oklahoma can ignore its duty to address visibility requirements under Clean 

Air Act section 110(a)(2)(J). See Draft ISIP at 14. The statute clearly states that each plan shall meet the 

requirements relating to visibility protection. See 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(J).
22

Sierra Club 

50 F Street, NW, Eighth Floor 

 Washington, DC 20001 

 (202) 548-4597 

 laurie.williams@sierraclub.org 

 On behalf of Sierra Club 
DEQ NOTE: A copy of the Exhibits & Supporting Modeling Files referenced in this email 

are included with electronic copies of other documents submitted to EPA on CD & 

available on DEQ's web site. 

Kirlin, Brooks

From: Kadie McShirley <kadie.mcshirley@sierraclub.org>

Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 10:51 AM

To: Bradley, Cheryl

Cc: Kirlin, Brooks

Subject: Sierra Club's Comments Concerning Oklahoma’s Compliance with Clean Air Act Section 

110 Infrastructure Certification for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide 1-hour NAAQS.

Attachments: OK I-SIP for SO2_Sierra Club Comments_Final.pdf

Dear Ms. Cheryl Bradley,

Attached, please find Sierra Club's Comments Concerning Oklahoma’s Compliance with Clean Air 

Act Section 110 Infrastructure Certification for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide 1-hour National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards. You can find and download the exhibits and supporting modeling files to Sierra 

Club's comments here. Please confirm receipt of this email and that you are able to download the 

exhibits from this link. A hard copy of Sierra Club's Comments will be sent via First Class USPS mail 

today. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. 

Sincerely, 

-- 

Kadie McShirley

Legal Assistant 

Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 

85 Second Street, Second Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105 

kadie.mcshirley@sierraclub.org

office: 415-977-5658

cell: 805-451-1301
1

Summary of Comments and Responses 

Oklahoma’s I-SIP Submittal for the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS 

CAA Requirements Under § 110(a)(1) & (2) 

DEQ received no request for a public hearing during the notice period, therefore, as stated in the 

public notice, a hearing was not held. One set of comments was received during the comment 

period, submitted on June 5, 2014 by Laurie Williams, Associate Attorney, on behalf of Sierra 

Club. 

Sierra Club

Sierra Club (SC) prefaced its specific comments with considerable background discussion of the 

SO2 NAAQS and I-SIPirequirements under the CAA and EPA rules and policies, which required 

no response. The following is a summary of specific comments and responses. 

Comments I.C.1 through 4 

I.C.1: “The plain language and legislative history of the Clean Air Act require that infrastructure 

SIPs must impose emission limits adequate to prevent NAAQS exceedances in areas not 

designated nonattainment.” (Page 4) 

I.C.2: “EPA regulations implementing the Clean Air Act require that infrastructure SIPs must 

impose emission limits adequate to prohibit NAAQS exceedances in areas not designated 

nonattainment.” (Page 5) 

I.C.3: “Prior EPA interpretations of the act require that infrastructure SIPs must impose 

emission limits adequate to prohibit NAAQS exceedances in areas not designated 

nonattainment.” (Page 5) 

I.C.4: “Supreme and Appellate Court opinions hold that infrastructure SIPs must impose 

emission limits adequate to prohibit NAAQS exceedances in areas not designated 

nonattainment.” (Page 6) 

Response to Comments I.C.1 through 4: These comments are substantially the same as the SC 

commentsii EPA addressed extensively on March 27, 2014 at 79 Fed.Reg. 17043. EPA’s 

response indicated that it does not view the purpose of the I-SIP submittal as an 

attainment/maintenance demonstration, but primarily as an opportunity for a review of the state’s 

air quality management program, particularly as it accommodates a new or revised NAAQS. 

Both the CAA and EPA’s programs include multiple provisions for SIP changes to meet new and 

evolving requirements, including the Designations process. Oklahoma’s draft I-SIP submittal 
2

describes how the state has integrated the requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(1) & (2) into its 

basic programs, including changes to date to accommodate the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

The EPA’s responses in the referenced Federal Register notice included a number of statements 

that summarize an appropriate response to SC’s comments, including: 

EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) is reasonably interpreted to require states 

to submit SIPs that reflect the first step in their planning for attaining and 

maintaining a new or revised NAAQS and that they contain enforceable control 

measures and a demonstration that the state has the available tools and authority 

to develop and implement plans to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Id., pg. 17045

In light of the structure of the CAA, EPA’s long-standing position regarding 

infrastructure SIPs is that they are general planning SIPs to ensure that the state 

has adequate resources and authority to implement a NAAQS in general 

throughout the state and not detailed attainment and maintenance plans for each 

individual area of the state. Id., pg. 17046 

Thus, the present-day [40 CFR Section] 51.112 contains consolidated provisions 

that are focused on control strategy SIPs and the infrastructure SIP is not such a 

plan. Id., pg. 17049 

Furthermore, EPA has explicitly addressed this issue in its September 2013 “Guidance on 

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

and 110(a)(2)” (“2013 I-SIP Guidance”) There, EPA states that I-SIPs merely “should identify 

existing EPA-approved SIP provisions or new SIP provisions” that “limit emissions of pollutants 

relevant to the subject NAAQS,” but “emissions limitations and other control measures needed” 

will be due on a later date for those areas designated nonattainment. 2013 I-SIP Guidance at 18. 

EPA has further confirmed this by stating that when evaluating I-SIPs, it has “long interpreted 

emission limits and control measures for attaining the standards as being due when 

nonattainment planning requirements are due” and that “EPA is not evaluating the existing SIP 

provisions for this purpose[;] instead, EPA is only evaluating whether the state’s SIP has basic 

structural provisions for the implementation of the NAAQS.” 79 Fed.Reg. 27241 at 27245 (May 

13, 2014). Thus, an air agency is not obligated to provide additional emissions limitations or 

control measures until a designation of nonattainment has been made. 

Comments II.A through C 

Comment II: “The draft ISIP fails to include enforceable one-hour SO2 emission limitations to 

ensure attainment and maintenance of the primary SO2 NAAQS.” (Page 8) 
3

Comment II.A: “Oklahoma must revise the Draft ISIP to include enforceable one-hour SO2

emission limits for sources currently allowed to cause exceedances of the NAAQS.” (Page 8) 

Comment II.B: “Modeling is the appropriate tool for evaluating the adequacy of Infrastructure 

SIPs and ensuring attainment and maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS.” (Page 12) 

Comment II.C: “The Draft ISIP must include enforceable SO2 emission limits with a one-hour 

averaging period that apply at all times.” (Page 16) 

Response to Comments II.A through C: 

As documented in the I-SIP Checklist, DEQ’s Air Quality program requires enforcement and 

compliance with all NAAQS, and the authority to require emission evaluations and limits in the 

appropriate form. However, the detailed comments provided are outside the scope of this I-SIP 

submittal. A demonstration that emissions allowed under the current Oklahoma SIP are adequate 

to attain a new SO2 standard would be appropriately performed for an attainment SIP. As 

discussed in the previous response, this is not an attainment SIP – it is intended to show that the 

State has the legal authority and resources that meet the requirements of CAA Sections 

110(a)(1)&(2) to implement 2010 SO2 NAAQS. DEQ will continue to evaluate the significant 

SO2 emission sources in Oklahoma that potentially impact attainment of the NAAQS, i.e., those 

identified in advance of the Designations process conducted under the proposed Data 

Requirements Rule for the 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS (79 Fed.Reg. 27446, May 13, 2014) and/or the 

related proposed Settlement Agreement (79 Fed.Reg. 31325, June 2, 2014). The evaluation 

would identify any necessary and appropriate actions and/or emissions limitations needed to 

assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, taking into account any SO2 reductions that 

will occur in the near term due to implementation of federal measures (e.g., MATs, BART, 

CSAPR) and/or other announced retirements or modifications. Modeling has and will be used as 

a tool in emissions evaluations, as appropriate. 

Comment II.D: “The Draft ISIP fails to include measures that ensure compliance with section 

110(a)(2)(A) of the Act regarding the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.” (Page 17) Specifically, the 

commenter stated that the requirements of Subchapter 31 Control of Emission of Sulfur 

Compounds of AQD’s rules, and in particular OAC 252:100-31-16 & -25, are inadequate to 

guarantee the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The commenter also expressed 

concern over certain variance provisions included in the Oklahoma Clean Air Act (27A O.S. § 2-

5-109) and excess emissions reporting requirements and enforcement provisions that may apply 

during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (252:100-9-8). 

Response: As previously stated, DEQ concurs with EPA’s position that this is an I-SIP 

submittal, not an Attainment or Maintenance SIP. Regarding the Subchapter 31 requirements, 

DEQ acknowledges that, as SC stated, 252:100-31-25 (Requirements for new fuel-burning) do 
4

not, and never have, applied to pre-July 1972 equipment, and that 252:100-31-16 (Requirements 

for existing fossil fuel-fired steam generators) does not include specific emission limits for preJuly 1972 coal-fired power plants. Many of the requirements of Subchapter 31 were developed 

long before the development and implementation of the Title V program, the bulk of NSPS & 

NESHAPs, and other federal measures. Although various facilities are still technically subject to 

the requirements of Subchapter 31, in many cases other, more stringent requirements take 

precedence. [Significant changes were made to Subchapter 31 effective July 2012, including 

removal of certain older standards which were redundant and/or not protective of the new SO2

NAAQS. The public comment period and hearings held on the rulemaking also served as an 

opportunity to receive related comments on Oklahoma’s SIP. DEQ notes that the Sierra Club 

raised none of their concerns during the nearly year-long formal rulemaking process for the 

Subchapter 31 changes.] Subchapter 31 is only one portion of the infrastructure on which 

Oklahoma relies for attainment and maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS. 

Several years ago, DEQ made significant modifications to Subchapter 9 (Excess Emission 

Reporting Requirements), in large measure to accommodate changes in EPA enforcement policy 

regarding excess emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), and 

other issues. As documented in the checklist, the Subchapter 9 changes were submitted to EPA 

as a SIP revision on July 16, 2010. In a letter dated March 14, 2014 and at EPA’s request, DEQ 

withdrew this SIP submittal to allow EPA to deal with the issues on a national basis. EPA 

included a discussion of the appropriate treatment of SSM and variance issues for the I-SIP 

submission in the 2013 I-SIP Guidance, page 19, Section III. 

Comment II.E: “Enforceable emission limits are necessary to avoid future nonattainment 

designations.” (Page 18) 

Response: As stated in a previous response, DEQ will continue to evaluate the significant SO2

emission sources in Oklahoma that potentially impact attainment of the NAAQS, and identify 

any appropriate additional actions and/or emissions limitations, in addition to any SO2 reductions

that will occur in the near term due to implementation of federal measures (e.g., MATs, BART, 

CSAPR) and/or other announced retirements or modifications. DEQ is pleased that the 

commenter recognizes the role of placing enforceable limits in permits. 

Comment III: “The draft ISIP must be revised to address sources significantly contributing to 

nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the NAAQS in downwind states.” (Page 20) 

Specifically, the commenter stated that DEQ cannot rely on its PSD rule under OAC 252:100-8-

35, since it would only require a NAAQS evaluation when a PSD was being built or undergoing 

a major modification. Sierra Club also expressed concerns over the potential impact of SO2

emissions of three facilities on tribal lands of the Cherokee Nation, the Ponca and Otoe 

Missouria Nation, and the Muskogee Creek Nation. 
5

Response: The checklist has been modified to more explicitly state that, per EPA’s 2013 I-SIP 

Guidance, DEQ is not asserting that Oklahoma meets all requirements of the interstate transport 

provisions of § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in this SIP submittal, and to update the status of transport 

requirements. As EPA has stated in its evaluation of several states’ I-SIPs (e.g., see 59 Fed.Reg. 

46708), EPA is continuing to evaluate the impact of the Supreme Court’s EME Homer City

decision on states’ § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations. Following this decision, the D.C. Circuit 

court lifted the stay on CSPAR on October 23, 2014. While this I-SIP submittal does not make 

an assertion regarding § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), Oklahoma’s SIP does not rely solely on OAC 

252:100-8-35 to provide protections against interstate transport of pollutants. DEQ fully expects 

to address transport issues in a future SIP submission under specific EPA guidance as to 

Oklahoma’s obligation for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS under § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

As stated in the proposed checklist, DEQ’s preliminary analyses of possibly significant emission 

sources in Oklahoma do not indicate that, for the revised SO2 NAAQS, Oklahoma contributes 

significantly to nonattainment in or interferes with maintenance by any other state. DEQ 

believes that the evaluations being conducted in advance of the Designations process will 

identify and address any interstate transport issues, particularly because the attainment and 

maintenance concerns for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS are primarily source-related. This 

would, of course, extend to protection of potentially affected tribal lands. 

Comment IV: “Oklahoma’s draft I-SIP fails to include information regarding the emergency 

episode plan.” (Page 21) The commenter asserted that the I-SIP must include a copy of the plan 

(or a link to the plan) so that the public could evaluate whether Oklahoma’s approved plan meets 

the requirements of CAA § 110(a)(2)(G). 

Response: 

The proposed I-SIP submittal documents Oklahoma’s EPA-approved Emergency Episode Plan 

(EEP) for all covered pollutants in Chapter 6 of the state’s SIP, which was submitted in 1972 and 

revised in 1988. [see 40 CFR §§ 52.1934 and 52.1960(c)(38)] DEQ acknowledges that the full 

original SIP document is not currently available online. DEQ would be happy to provide the 

best copy available of these historical documents upon request under the state Open Records Act. 

No request for a copy of the EEP was received from the public during the comment period. It is 

important to note that an EEP contingency plan would not be required under 40 C.F.R. § 51.152 

for SO2 for any region of Oklahoma. 

An EEP or contingency plan for a particular pollutant is required under 40 CFR § 51.152 for any 

region classified as Priority II or higher (i.e., Priority I or IA). The Priority II Region 

classification levels in 40 CFR § 51.150 for Sulfur Dioxides are currently set at 60–100 μg/m3

(0.02–0.04 ppm) annual arithmetic mean; 260–445 μg/m3 (0.10–0.17 ppm) 24-hour maximum; 
6

or any concentration above 1,300 μg/m3 (0.50 ppm) three-hour average. The highest monitored 

SO2 values for the previous 3 years (2011 to 2013) were 0.00496 ppm annual arithmetic mean; 

0.0278 ppm 24-hour maximum; and 0.105 ppm three-hour average – all well below the Priority 

II classification level. Therefore, Oklahoma’s regions are classified as Priority III according to 

40 C.F.R. § 51.150, and under 40 C.F.R. § 51.152(c), “Areas classified Priority III do not need to 

develop episode plans.” Thus, Oklahoma is not required to submit a new EEP for SO2 at this 

time. 

Nevertheless, the EEP approach is a 1948-vintage conceptiii. An Emergency Episode Action 

Plan, as it was sometimes referred to, was beneficial at a time when pollutants could be predicted 

to build-up over multiple days or weeks from a broad variety of sources to a level that would 

greatly exceed the health and safety standards, and a number of the sources (e.g., power plants) 

could be shut down without causing a shut-down of the electric grid. 

Oklahoma’s EEP will be updated as needed if and when EPA revises the classification levels in 

40 CFR § 51.150. However, the EEP as a functional concept in Oklahoma in 2014 has largely 

been replaced by air quality monitoring, prediction, & notification tools, including the Air 

Quality Index (AQI), Ozone Watches, and Air Quality Health Advisoriesiv. These tools have 

evolved along with other safeguards, and are more appropriate under today’s conditions. The 

exceedance levels covered under an EEP are more indicative of a catastrophic event, rather than 

even a significant NAAQS exceedance. It would be difficult and likely impractical to predict 

such an event a day or so in advance and quickly shut down larger sources of SO2 until the 

episode passes. [An exception could be when a malfunctioning large source is the cause of the 

episode, but then a shutdown or curtailment would likely result from an existing permit/rule 

requirement, physical limitation, or the State’s ordinary emergency powers.] The DEQ doubts 

that the commenter would prefer that limited resources be diverted from emergency prevention 

and response efforts that are working, in order to redevelop a plan that has never been and likely 

never will be used. 

Comment (Footnote 14): “Sierra Club disagrees that Oklahoma can ignore its duty to address 

visibility requirements under Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(J). See Draft ISIP at 14. The 

statute clearly states that each plan shall meet the requirements relating to visibility protection.” 

(Footnote 14, page 21) 

Response: 

The draft I-SIP submittal reviews DEQ’s existing infrastructure related to visibility obligations 

under CAA § 110(a)(2). However, EPA’s 2013 I-SIP Guidance states that there are no new 

visibility protection requirements under Part C of the CAA that would result from a revised 

NAAQS, and therefore the visibility sub-element of § 110(a)(2)(J) need not be addressed in an 
7

infrastructure SIP submissionv. DEQ notes the commenter’s disagreement with EPA’s stated 

policy. 

 

i

 Note that in its comments, Sierra Club uses the term Infrastructure SIP or ISIP to refer to the state’s full existing 

and EPA-approved program and SIP, as distinguished from the state’s “I-SIP submittal,” i.e., its review and 

certification of the adequacy of its program and SIP. 

ii Sierra Club comments on Virginia’s 2008 ozone I-SIP revision contended that EPA could not approve the section 

110(a)(2)(A) portion of the submittal because the plain language of 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, legislative history of 

the CAA, case law, EPA regulations such as 40 CFR 51.112(a), and EPA interpretations in rulemakings, require the 

inclusion of enforceable emission limits in an infrastructure SIP to prevent NAAQS violations in areas not 

designated nonattainment. 79 Fed.Reg. 17045, 3-27-14. DEQ will not repeat or attempt to expand on EPA’s full 

legal analysis of these Sierra Club comments. 

iii The concept of an emergency episode plan, including a warning system based on combined air pollution and 

weather conditions, was recommended by public health agencies at least in part as a result of the 1948 Donora 

(PA) Smog incident http://www.donorasmog.com/

iv Starting in 1991, for the Tulsa metropolitan area, and 1992 for the Oklahoma City metropolitan area, the ODEQ 

has called ozone alerts. These alerts are called by 4:00 pm the day before, and advertised in many ways to 

encourage the public to do what they can to reduce their emissions and exposure. Additionally, for the last five 

years, the Oklahoma DEQ has issued health alerts when it has determined that the ozone, SO2 or PM 

concentrations are projected to approach the primary NAAQS. 

v

 page 55, Section III. Guidance on Individual Infrastructure SIP Elements, Element J – Section 110(a)(2)(J): 

Consultation with Government Officials, Public Notification, and PSD and Visibility Protection, 2013 I-SIP Guidance
Public Notice 

OK 2010 SO2 NAAQS I-SIP Certification Posted 4/30/2014 

OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Notice of Opportunity for Public Hearing and Comment 

Oklahoma’s Section 110 Infrastructure SIP Certification 

2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS

The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) hereby announces an opportunity to 

comment on and request a public hearing on the proposed certification that Oklahoma has adequate 

resources and authority to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The hearing, if one is requested, will be held on 

Thursday, June 5, 2014 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon in the 1st Floor Multipurpose Room of the DEQ, 

707 North Robinson Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK 73102. NOTE: If no request for a public hearing is 

received by 10:00 a.m., Monday, June 2, 2014 (the close of the minimum 30-day notice period), the 

hearing will be cancelled, and a notice announcing that the hearing has been cancelled will be posted on 

the DEQ web site (http://www.deq.state.ok.us/aqdnew/RulesAndPlanning/index.htm) at least 24 hours

prior to the scheduled time for the hearing. You may call (405) 702-4100 to find out if the hearing has 

been cancelled. 

Under the Oklahoma Clean Air Act (27A O.S. §§ 2-5-101 thru -117), DEQ is given the primary 

responsibility and authority to prepare and implement Oklahoma’s air quality management plan, 

compiled in 40 CFR Part 52, Subpart LL. The DEQ prepared the proposed certification to comply with 

the requirements contained in Section 110 of the federal Clean Air Act and 40 CFR Part 51, 

Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans. This certification was 

prepared for submittal to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under EPA’s Guidance on 

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

110(a)(2), issued Sept. 13, 2013. 

All persons interested in these matters are invited to submit written comments prior to the scheduled 

close of the public hearing (i.e., 12:00 noon on Thursday, June 5, 2014) and/or provide oral comments at 

the public hearing (if a hearing is requested and held). Persons planning to comment at the hearing may 

submit a written statement and/or additional information relevant to this matter for inclusion in the 

record of proceedings of the public hearing. The hearing officer may limit the length of oral 

presentations to allow all those who wish to provide oral comments an opportunity to do so. 

The proposed certification is available on the DEQ web site at 

http://www.deq.state.ok.us/aqdnew/RulesAndPlanning/index.htm. Copies may also be obtained from 

the Department by contacting Cheryl E. Bradley, Environmental Programs Manager, at (405) 702-4100 

or Cheryl.Bradley@deq.ok.gov.

Written comments and/or a public hearing request regarding the proposed 2010 Primary SO2 NAAQS §

110 Infrastructure SIP Certification should be emailed to Ms. Bradley at Cheryl.Bradley@deq.ok.gov or 

mailed to: 

Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division 

P.O. Box 1677 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101-1677 

ATTN: Cheryl E. Bradley 

Comments may be submitted by fax to the Air Quality Division, ATTN: Cheryl E. Bradley, at (405) 

702-4101. 

Should you desire to attend the public hearing but have a disability and need an accommodation, please 

notify the Air Quality Division three (3) days in advance at (405) 702-4172. For the hearing impaired, 

the TDD relay number is 1-800-522-8506 or 1-800-722-0353, for TDD machine use only. 
1

Kirlin, Brooks

From: DEQ Air Quality Division <air-council@deq.ok.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 3:12 PM

To: Kirlin, Brooks

Subject: Public Comment & Hearing Set for SO2 NAAQS Infrastructure SIP

The Air Quality Division is taking comments and hearing requests on the proposed certification of Oklahoma's Section 

110 Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). 

If a hearing request is received by 10:00 a.m. June 2, 2014, a public hearing will be held on Thursday, June 5, 2014, from 

10:00 am to noon in the Multipurpose Room at the DEQ Central office in Oklahoma City. The hearing notice and 

additional information can be found on the Department's website at: 

http://m1e.net/c?118762547-S0PVxfH7sUAI2%40102067551-IoWXYeTPccIc2

-- 

To unsubscribe/change profile: 

http://www.mailermailer.com/u/update/118762547y-f5ae05f8 

To subscribe: 

http://www.mailermailer.com/u/signup/20551e

Our address: 

707 N. Robinson | P.O. Box 1677 | Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101 

Email Marketing by MailerMailer 
Notice of Cancellation – Public Hearing 

2010 SO2 NAAQS I-SIP Certification Posted 6/2/2014 

OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Notice of Cancellation of Public Hearing 

Oklahoma’s Section 110 Infrastructure SIP Certification 

2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS

The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) hereby announces that no request for 

a public hearing was received by the close of the 30-day notice period (5/1/2014 – 6/1/2014) on the 

proposed certification that Oklahoma has adequate resources and authority to implement, 

maintain, and enforce the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). Therefore, the hearing scheduled for Thursday, June 5, 2014 has been 

cancelled, as provided for in the notice announcing the opportunity to request a public hearing and 

comment on the proposal. This announcement is in accordance with the public notice requirements 

of 40 CFR § 51.102. 

Written comments on the proposal will be accepted through noon on Thursday, June 5, 2014. The 

public notice and proposed certification are available on the DEQ website at 

http://www.deq.state.ok.us/aqdnew/RulesAndPlanning/index.htm. Copies may also be obtained 

from the Department by contacting Cheryl E. Bradley, Environmental Programs Manager, at (405) 

702-4100 or Cheryl.Bradley@deq.ok.gov.
1

Kirlin, Brooks

From: DEQ Air Quality Division <air-council@deq.ok.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 10:11 AM

To: Kirlin, Brooks

Subject: Public hearing cancelled for SO2 NAAQS Infrastructure SIP

Notice of Cancellation of Public Hearing: No request for a public hearing was received by the close of the 30-day notice 

period (5/1/2014 - 6/1/2014) on the proposed certification of Oklahoma's SO2 NAAQS Infrastructure SIP. 

Therefore, the hearing scheduled for Thursday, June 5, 2014 has been cancelled. The Air Quality Division will continue to 

accept comments on the proposal until noon, Thursday, June 5. 

-- 

To unsubscribe/change profile: 

http://www.mailermailer.com/u/update/118762547y-f5ae05f8 

To subscribe: 

http://www.mailermailer.com/u/signup/20551e

Our address: 

707 N. Robinson | P.O. Box 1677 | Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101 

Email Marketing by MailerMailer 
Proposed Certification Letter Language 

OK 2010 SO2 NAAQS I-SIP Certification Posted 4-30-2014

Draft Section 110 Infrastructure SIP Certification

2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS

Given below is draft language for the body of the I-SIP certification letter. The language would 

be provided to the Governor’s office to assist in preparing the certification letter for the 

Governor’s signature or her designee (e.g., the Secretary of Energy and Environment).

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act require that each state review and revise as necessary its

State Implementation Plan (SIP) following promulgation of a new or revised National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS). [See 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(1) and (2)] On June 2, 2010, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the level and form of the Primary NAAQS for Sulfur 

Dioxide (SO2) [75 Fed.Reg. 35520, June 22, 2010]. EPA issued the “Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)” in 

September 2013 (“EPA’s 2013 I-SIP guidance”). Under this guidance, states may certify that their 

existing SIPs meet the “infrastructure” elements of § 110(a)(2), rather than submitting a SIP for a 

revised NAAQS such as the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

Oklahoma's SIP is codified in 40 CFR Part 52, Subpart LL. On behalf of the State of Oklahoma, I 

hereby certify that, as indicated in the enclosed table titled “Oklahoma’s State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) Submittal ‘Infrastructure’ Checklist,” Oklahoma’s SIP meets the infrastructure obligations for the 

2010 Primary SO2 NAAQS. To date, the only Program changes required to meet the revised SO2

NAAQS were revisions to Appendix E of OAC 252:100, to change the level and form of the Primary 

SO2 standard [CAA § 110(a)(2)(H)]. 

State public participation procedures for such SIP submittals were submitted to EPA for review under 40 

CFR § 51.102. In a letter dated August 23, 2012, EPA concurred that Oklahoma’s procedures are 

consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR § 51.102 and associated guidance. Public notice for this 

submittal was posted on DEQ’s web site on April 30, 2014, to allow the opportunity to provide 

comments and to request a public hearing preliminarily scheduled for June 5, 2014 at DEQ’s offices. 

{Option: No hearing requests were received during the minimum 30-day comment period (5/1/14 – 

6/1/14). Therefore, a notice of hearing cancellation was posted on June 2, 2014.} Attached is 

documentation of this public notice and submittal process. Attached are copies of comments received 

during the comment period and the public hearing, and a Response to Comments document. It is our 

understanding that the final results of EPA’s review of this submittal will be determined through 

rulemaking and will be published in the Federal Register.

Note that this letter and its supporting documentation do not address § 110(a)(2)(I), which pertains to the 

nonattainment planning requirements of Title I, Part D of the Clean Air Act. These requirements are not 

governed by the three-year SIP submission deadline under § 110(a)(1). In addition, Oklahoma currently 

has no SO2 nonattainment areas, and no nonattainment plans are due. 

Note also that this submittal is not intended to assert that Oklahoma meets all requirements of § 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which relate to interstate pollutant transport affecting attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS. It is our understanding that EPA expects to address § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) separately through 

issuance of further guidance. However, the checklist does describe certain related aspects of DEQ’s 

infrastructure. 
4/30/2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 1 

Oklahoma’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist 

CAA § 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements in the Current SIP or Pending SIP Revisions 

Updated for the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard

On June 2, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a new 1-hour primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO2)

1

. Section 110(a)(1) of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each state to submit a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each newly promulgated or revised NAAQS. A SIP identifies how that 

state will attain and/or maintain the primary and secondary NAAQS. The SIP contains state regulations, source-specific requirements, and nonregulatory items such as plans and inventories. The initial SIPs for states were approved by the EPA on May 31, 1972 (46 Fed.Reg. 40005). The 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is given the primary responsibility and authority to prepare and implement Oklahoma’s air 

quality management plan under the Oklahoma Environmental Quality Act and the Oklahoma Clean Air Act (see generally Title 27A Oklahoma 

Statutes (O.S.) §§ 2-1-101 et seq.). The federally enforceable SIP for Oklahoma is compiled in 40 CFR Part 52, Subpart LL. Approval of additional 

SIP submittals is pending. 

SIPs are reviewed and revised by the state from time to time as necessary to accommodate changes in State and Federal statutes, rules, policies, and 

program requirements. In addition to SIP revisions to address specific program requirements (e.g., PSD/NSR Program), including those changes that 

directly result from a new or revised NAAQS, EPA has interpreted § 110(a)(1) of the federal CAA to require the state to demonstrate that the SIP 

meets the “infrastructure” requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) each time a NAAQS is issued or revised2

. The resulting submittal is now 

commonly referred to as an “infrastructure SIP” or “I-SIP.” Under its September 2013 Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)3(“2013 I-SIP Guidance”), EPA allows for certification that “... the already-approved 

SIP contains or references provisions that satisfy all or some of the requirements of section 110(a)(2), as applicable, for purposes of implementing the 

new or revised NAAQS.” The following table summarizes how and where the applicable infrastructure requirements are addressed in Oklahoma’s 

current SIP or pending SIP revisions. In addition to a summary of infrastructure elements as they relate to the various existing NAAQS, the table 

lists any changes or pertinent information specific to the subject NAAQS change. 

This Submittal: 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS 

In this I-SIP submittal, Oklahoma is demonstrating that it has adequate resources and authority to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2010 Primary 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS. This submittal was prepared under EPA’s 2013 I-SIP Guidance and 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V – Criteria for 

Determining the Completeness of Plan Submissions. 

 

1

 EPA established the new 1-hour SO2 standard at a level of 75 ppb [see 40 CFR §50.17]. This rule also provided for the automatic future revocation of the previous annual and 24-

hour SO2 NAAQS for most areas following 1 year after designation under the new NAAQS [see 40 CFR § 50.4(e)]. The previous 3-hour secondary standard remains in place 

indefinitely. [see 40 CFR §50.5; 75 Fed.Reg. 35520 (June 22, 2010)]. The EPA has also recently reviewed the air quality criteria and the secondary NAAQS for nitrogen oxides 

and sulfur oxides and retained the current NO2 and SO2 secondary standards [see 77 Fed.Reg. 20218 (April 3, 2012)].

2

 For Example, EPA approved Oklahoma’s Infrastructure SIP (or “I-SIP”) for the 1997 Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on January 26, 2012 (77 Fed.Reg. 3933). 

3

 Distributed under September 13, 2013 memo from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to EPA’s Regional Air Directors, Regions 1-10.
4/30/2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 2 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(A) –

Emission Limits 

and Other Control 

Measures

include enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means, or techniques 

(including economic incentives such as fees, 

marketable permits, and auctions of emissions 

rights), as well as schedules and timetables for 

compliance as may be necessary or 

appropriate to meet the applicable 

requirements of this Act.

Oklahoma Environmental Quality Act (27A O.S. §§ 1-1-101 thru 1-4-107), 

Oklahoma Environmental Quality Code (27A O.S. §§ 2-1-101 thru 2-16-107)

including the Oklahoma Clean Air Act (27A O.S. §§ 2-5-101 thru 2-5-117)

and other relevant portions, Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) 252:4, 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, and OAC 252:100, Oklahoma Air Pollution 

Control Rules.

Oklahoma has an EPA-approved air permitting program for both major/Part 

70 sources (OAC 252:100-8) and minor facilities (OAC 252:100-7). [See 

discussion under Element 110(a)(2)(C) – Program for Enforcement of 

Control Measures.]

EPA actions on several SIP revisions are pending. These include portions 

of the February 14, 2002 SIP submittal (“Big SIP”); portions of the June 24, 

2010 SIP submittal (SC-8 revision); the July 16, 2010 SIP submittal (excess 

emissions); portions of the July 23, 2010 SIP submittal (“Big SIP2”); the July 

23, 2010 SIP submittal (NSR Reform); and the March 26, 2012 SIP 

submittal (GHG and PM2.5); as well as the annual SIP revisions for 2010 

(December 28, 2010), 2011 (February 6, 2012), and 2012 (February 4, 

2013).

In a letter dated March 14, 2014 and at EPA’s request, DEQ withdrew its 

July 16, 2010 SIP submittal (excess emissions) due to the specific legal 

circumstances and uncertainty regarding EPA’s final Start-up, Shut-down, 

and Malfunction (SSM) policy4.

Oklahoma currently has no designated nonattainment areas or maintenance 

areas.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1960 (c)(48)

 

4

 Although the SC 9 changes documented in the July 16, 2010 SIP submittal followed EPA’s policy on excess emissions (e.g., SSM & variance/”director’s discretion” provisions) 

that was in place at the time, withdrawal will allow EPA to deal with the issues on a national basis. 
4/30/2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 3 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

This NAAQS Revision:

No specific enforceable emission limitations or other control measures, 

means, or techniques have been identified as necessary to attain or 

maintain the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS (“revised SO2

NAAQS”). OAC 252:100 includes Subchapter 31, Control of Emission of 

Sulfur Compounds (252:100-31). The annual SIP revisions for 2012 and 

2013 include several changes to Subchapter 31, the more recent of which 

took the revised SO2 NAAQS into consideration5. No additional changes to

Subchapter 31 have been identified as needed as a result of the revised 

SO2 NAAQS. Any particular issues or changes related to implementation of 

this NAAQS through Oklahoma’s permitting program would be addressed 

through a separate SIP submission.

§ 110(a)(2)(B) –

Ambient Air Quality 

Monitoring/Data 

System

provide for establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices, methods, systems, and 

procedures necessary to monitor, compile, and 

analyze data on ambient air quality, and upon 

request, make such data available to the 

Administrator; 

The Oklahoma Clean Air Act (27A O.S. §§ 2-5-101 thru 2-5-117) provides 

the authority to establish and operate ambient air quality monitors. OAC 

252:100-3, in conjunction with Appendices E and F, enumerates the 

NAAQS and PSD increments.

Oklahoma operates an air quality monitoring network consistent with EPA 

regulations (40 CFR Part 58), and regularly reports results to EPA under 

previously-approved SIP provisions. Each fiscal year, DEQ posts an 

Annual Network Review (ANR) on its website for public review. Following 

the 30-day public review period, DEQ evaluates and responds to any 

comments, and submits the review to EPA Region 6 monitoring staff for 

their review. The FY14 ANR was posted for public review from August 5, 

2013 to September 9, 2013. No public comments were received, and the 

final FY14 ANR was submitted to EPA. Monitoring results may also be 

accessed through DEQ’s web site at:

http://www.deq.state.ok.us/aqdnew/monitoring/index.htm

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1960(c)(22)

This NAAQS Revision:

Oklahoma’s program has monitored sulfur dioxide from the 1970’s to the 

present. Oklahoma is on schedule with updates its air quality monitoring 

network necessary to implement changes to EPA’s ambient air monitoring 

requirements of 40 CFR Part 58 related to the revised SO2 NAAQS (75 

Fed.Reg. 35520, June 22, 2010). Changes to reporting have been 

implemented as appropriate.

 

5

 A significant change to SC 31, effective 7/1/12, was affected by the 2010 SO2 NAAQS changes, and was included in the 2012 annual SIP submittal (February 4, 2013). 

Additional SC 31 changes effective 6/1/02 and 6/12/03 were included in the 2012 annual SIP submittal. The 2013 annual SIP submittal (expected July 2014) will include a change 

to SC31 effective 7/1/13 and, due to identified documentation issues, will withdraw and replace the SC 31 portion of the 2012 submittal. 
4/30/2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 4 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(C) –

Program for 

Enforcement of 

Control Measures

include a program to provide for the 

enforcement of the measures described in 

subparagraph (A) and regulation of the 

modification and construction of any stationary 

source within the areas covered by the plan as 

necessary to assure that national ambient air 

quality standards are achieved, including a 

permit program as required in parts C and D;

Oklahoma’s EPA-approved air permitting program includes appropriate 

enforcement authority and permitting for modification and construction of 

stationary sources. DEQ’s powers and duties to implement air quality 

programs (including implementing Oklahoma’s SIP) are described in 27A 

O.S. § 2-5-105, and include authority to “... [e]nforce rules of the Board and 

orders of the Department and the Council.” 27A O.S. § 2-5-105(4). More 

specific enforcement authorities are described throughout the Oklahoma 

Clean Air Act, 27A O.S. §§ 2-5-101 et seq., and in OAC 252:4-9, 

Administrative Proceedings.

Oklahoma’s requirements for construction and operating permits for minor 

facilities and (minor) modifications to minor facilities are in OAC 252:100-7, 

Permits for Minor Facilities. The construction permit requirements for PSD 

and other major sources, and requirements for both major and minor 

modifications to PSD and other major sources, as well as requirements for 

the Part 70 (Title V) operating permit program, are in OAC 252:100-8, 

Permits for Part 70 Sources and Major New Source Review. OAC 252:4-7, 

Environmental Permit Process, contains additional permit requirements.

Although Oklahoma does not currently have any designated nonattainment 

areas or maintenance areas, Oklahoma's SIP contains the provisions for the 

nonattainment area New Source Review (NSR) permitting program in OAC 

252:100-8, Part 9. Major Sources Affecting Nonattainment Areas. The EPA 

interprets the portion of § 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to a nonattainment NSR 

permitting program (CAA Title I part D) to be outside the scope of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements6, and does not otherwise address it in the 

2013 I-SIP Guidance.

Note that Oklahoma’s PSD and Title V/Part 70 permitting program applies 

to sources that emit greenhouse gases (GHGs) in accordance with EPA’s 

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

program. 

A number of changes to Oklahoma’s permitting program are included in the 

pending SIP revisions noted under Element § 110(a)(2)(A) – Emission 

Limits and Other Control Measures.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and

52.1929

 

6

Page 4, Section II. General Guidance on Infrastructure SIPs, 2013 I-SIP Guidance
4/30/2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 5 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

This NAAQS Revision:

No specific enforceable emission limitations or other control measures, 

means, or techniques have been identified as necessary to attain or 

maintain the revised SO2 NAAQS. Any particular issues or changes related 

to implementation of this NAAQS through Oklahoma’s permitting, 

compliance, and enforcement programs (e.g., PSD) would be addressed 

through a separate SIP submission.
4/30/2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 6 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) –

Interstate 

Transport 

Provisions

contain adequate provisions—

(i) prohibiting, consistent with the provisions 

of this title, any source or other type of 

emissions activity within the state from emitting 

any air pollutant in amounts which will--

(I) contribute significantly to nonattainment 

in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other 

state with respect to any such national primary 

or secondary ambient air quality standard, or

The 2013 I-SIP guidance states that EPA expects to issue guidance with 

respect to this Subelement,7but does not otherwise address interstate 

transport provisions which prohibit significant contribution to nonattainment 

in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to the 

NAAQS. If necessary, the requirements in § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) will be 

handled in a separate Transport SIP8

However, 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 are 

pending EPA action, contain modifications to OAC 252:100-8-35.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and

52.1930

This NAAQS Revision:

As stated, EPA’s 2013 I-SIP guidance does not address the requirements of 

this Subelement, but Oklahoma expects to accommodate any future related 

guidance and implement any finally adjudicated program changes. DEQ’s 

preliminary analyses of possibly significant emission sources in Oklahoma 

do not indicate that, for the revised SO2 NAAQS, Oklahoma contributes

significantly to nonattainment in nor interfere with maintenance by any other 

state. 

 

7

 Page 3, Section I. Introduction, 2013 I-SIP Guidance

8

 Oklahoma submitted its Interstate Transport SIP for an Assessment of Oklahoma’s Impact on Downwind Nonattainment for the National Ambient 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 Air 

Quality Standards (“Transport SIP”) to EPA in May 2007, with supplemental information submitted in November 2007. EPA approved portions of the Transport SIP relating to § 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (76 Fed.Reg. 81838, Dec. 29, 2011). In the same action, EPA approved the portions of the 

Transport SIP relating to the prohibition against significant contribution to nonattainment of the 8-hour 1997 Ozone NAAQS in any other state. EPA’s analyses performed in 

conjunction with issuance of the Transport Rule (aka Cross State Air Pollution Rule, 76 Fed.Reg. 48208, Aug. 8, 2011) concluded that emissions from Oklahoma significantly 

contribute to interference with maintenance of the 8-hour 1997 Ozone NAAQS in another state and issued a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in a supplemental rule (76 Fed.Reg. 

80760, Dec. 27, 2011) requiring Oklahoma to participate in the NOX Ozone Season trading program. A subsequent ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and 

remanded to EPA the Transport Rule and the Transport Rule FIPs. The Court allowed CAIR to remain in effect until the promulgation of a valid replacement. (Oklahoma is not 

covered under CAIR.) As of April 30, 2014, an appeal of the D.C. Circuit Court’s ruling was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. 
4/30/2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 7 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) –

Interstate 

Transport 

Provisions

contain adequate provisions—

(i) prohibiting, consistent with the provisions 

of this title, any source or other type of 

emissions activity within the state from emitting 

any air pollutant in amounts which will--

(II) interfere with measures required to be 

included in the applicable implementation plan 

for any other State under part C to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality or to 

protect visibility, 

New major stationary sources and major modifications are subject to 

Oklahoma’s EPA-approved comprehensive PSD permitting program under 

OAC 252:100-8, Part 7. DEQ’s air permitting program includes preconstruction review of PSD sources, including review for impacts of 

emissions of all “regulated NSR pollutants,” and requires demonstration that 

any increase in emissions would not cause or contribute to any increase in 

ambient concentrations that would exceed any NAAQS in any air quality 

control region. EPA approved the portion of Oklahoma’s Transport SIP 

relating to § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (PSD) for the 1997 Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 

on November 26, 2010 (75 Fed.Reg. 72695). 

Oklahoma’s Regional Haze Implementation Plan Revision, (“RH SIP”), 

submitted in February 2010, describes Oklahoma’s measures to protect 

visibility and assure that emissions do not interfere with any other state’s 

measures to protect visibility. These measures include provisions in OAC 

252:100-8, Part 11. EPA partially approved and partially disapproved 

Oklahoma’s Regional Haze SIP on December 28, 2011 (76 Fed.Reg. 

81728). EPA stated that Oklahoma’s RH SIP did not incorporate some 

emission reductions that were relied on to demonstrate non-interference 

with other states’ visibility protections. In the same Federal Register notice, 

EPA also partially approved and partially disapproved portions of the 

Interstate Transport SIP for an Assessment of Oklahoma’s Impact on 

Downwind Nonattainment for the National Ambient 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5

Air Quality Standards (“Transport SIP”), submitted May 10, 2007 and 

supplemented December 10, 2007, that address § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with 

respect to protection of visibility. EPA issued a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) requiring reduction of SO2 emissions for six units, and found that 

“the controls under this FIP, in combination with the controls required by the 

portion of the Oklahoma RH submittal that we are approving, will serve to 

prevent sources in Oklahoma from emitting pollutants in amounts that will 

interfere with efforts to protect visibility in other states.” Oklahoma 

submitted a revision to its RH SIP and Transport SIP on June 14, 2013 to 

replace the FIP as it relates to two of the six units concerned. EPA 

approved this revision effective April 7, 2014. (79 Fed.Reg. 12944 & 12954, 

March 7, 2014). 

40 CFR § 52.1920(c) and 

(e)

40 CFR §§ 52.1920(d) 

and (e), 52.1923, and 

52.1928
4/30/2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 8 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

This NAAQS Revision:

Any specific sulfur dioxide-related issues related to Oklahoma’s permitting 

program (e.g., increments or significant impact levels) would be addressed 

through a separate submission.

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 Regional Haze Implementation Plan Revision, as 

amended, and through EPA’s related actions (see above discussion). 

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

NAAQS change (see discussion under element § 110(a)(2)(J) – PSD and 

Visibility Protection (Part C)), 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.

40 CFR § 52.1920(e)
4/30/2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 9 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) –

Interstate and 

International 

Transport 

Provisions

contain adequate provisions—

(ii) insuring compliance with the applicable 

requirements of sections 126 and 115 (relating 

to interstate and international pollution 

abatement);

Oklahoma’s EPA-approved Title V Operating (and PSD) Program includes 

requirements for providing a notice of draft permit to affected states under 

OAC 252:100-8-8 (SIP revision approved November 26, 2010 at 75

Fed.Reg. 72695). This notice meets the requirements of § 126 of the CAA. 

Evaluation requirements under the PSD Program are adequate to assure 

compliance with international pollution abatement requirements. There are 

no final findings under § 115 of the CAA against this State with respect to 

any existing NAAQS.

40 CFR § 52.1920(c)

This NAAQS Revision:

No source or sources within Oklahoma are the subject of an active finding 

under § 126 of the CAA with respect to the revised SO2 NAAQS. 

There are no final findings under § 115 of the CAA against this State with 

respect to this NAAQS.

Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required to 

implement the revised SO2 NAAQS.

§ 110(a)(2)(E)(i) –

Adequate 

Resources

provide 

(i) necessary assurances that the state (or, 

except where the Administrator deems 

inappropriate, the general purpose local 

government or governments, or a regional 

agency designated by the state or general 

purpose local governments for such purpose) 

will have adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority under state (and, as appropriate, 

local) law to carry out such implementation plan 

(and is not prohibited by any provision of 

federal or state law from carrying out such 

implementation plan or portion thereof);

Oklahoma has previously demonstrated that it currently has and will 

continue to have adequate personnel and other resources to carry out its air 

quality programs. The powers and duties of the DEQ to implement air 

quality programs (including implementing Oklahoma’s SIP) are described in 

27A O.S. § 2-5-105, and include authority to accept and expend funds 

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

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

and federal grants under CAA §§ 103 & 105, among others. 

40 CFR §§ 52.1920(e) 

and 52.1960(c)(45)(i)

This NAAQS Revision:

Oklahoma will continue to provide the resources needed to carry out its air 

quality responsibilities. No significant additional personnel or other 

resources have been identified as required to implement the revised SO2

NAAQS, except as otherwise noted.

§ 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) –

Adequate 

Resources (State 

Boards)

provide 

(ii) requirements that the state comply with 

the requirements respecting state boards under 

section 128, and

The Oklahoma Environmental Quality Code lays out the composition and 

powers & duties of the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) (27A O.S. § 2-2-

101) and the Air Quality Advisory Council (27A O.S. §§ 2-2-201(H) and 2-5-

107). These powers & duties include their roles in promulgating DEQ rules, 

but do not include approving permits or 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.

40 CFR § 52.1920(e) and 

40 CFR § 52.1960(c)(17) 

and (45)(i)
4/30/2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 10

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

This NAAQS Revision:

Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required as 

a result of a change in a particular NAAQS, including the revised SO2

NAAQS.

§ 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) –

Adequate 

Resources (Local 

or Regional 

Implementation)

provide 

(iii) necessary assurances that, where the 

state has relied on a local or regional 

government, agency, or instrumentality for the 

implementation of any plan provision, the state 

has responsibility for ensuring adequate 

implementation of such plan provision;

Not Applicable.

§ 110(a)(2)(F) –

Stationary Source 

Monitoring System 

and Reporting

require, as may be prescribed by the 

Administrator—

(i) the installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary steps by 

owners or operators of stationary sources to 

monitor emissions from such sources, 

(ii) periodic reports on the nature and 

amounts of emissions and emissions-related 

data from such sources, and

(iii) correlation of such reports by the state 

agency with any emission limitations or 

standards established pursuant to this Act, 

which reports shall be available at reasonable 

times for public inspection; 

Source emissions monitoring requirements are addressed in OAC 252:100-

43, Testing, Monitoring and Recordkeeping.

Source emissions inventory requirements are addressed in OAC 252:100-5, 

Registration of Air Contaminant Sources.

Area, mobile, and non-road data are reported to EPA on a 3-year cycle.

OAC 252:100, Air Pollution Control; OAC 252:4-1-5, Availability of a 

Record; 51 O.S. §§ 24A.1 et seq., Oklahoma Open Records Act.

40 CFR § 52.1960(c) (48)

40 CFR § 52.1920(c)

40 CFR § 52.1920(c)

This NAAQS Revision:

Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required as 

a result of a change in a particular NAAQS, including the revised SO2

NAAQS.
4/30/2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 11

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(G) –

Emergency 

Episodes

provide for authority comparable to that in 

section 303 and adequate contingency plans to 

implement such authority;

Chapter 6 of Oklahoma’s SIP, as submitted in 1972 and revised in 1988,

sets forth the state’s Emergency Episode Plan (EEP), as required under § 

110(a)(2)(G) and 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart H – Prevention of Air Pollution 

Emergency Episodes and, along with provisions included in the February 

2002 SIP update, describes and implements State authority comparable to 

that in § 303. (For the purpose of EEPs, 40 CFR § 51.150 classifies regions 

separately with respect to the following pollutants: sulfur oxides, particulate 

matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone.)

As indicated in 40 CFR §§ 52.1934 and 52.1960(c)(38), EPA approved the 

plan as submitted in 1972 and revised in 1988. 

40 CFR §§ 52.1934 and 

52.1960(c)(38)

This NAAQS Revision:

The measures in place in Oklahoma’s approved EEP are adequate to 

address an emergency episode and do not need to be updated due to the 

revised SO2 NAAQS.
4/30/2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 12

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(H) –

Future SIP 

Revisions

provide for revision of such plan—

(i) from time to time as may be necessary to 

take account of revisions of such national 

primary or secondary ambient air quality 

standard or the availability of improved or more 

expeditious methods of attaining such standard, 

and 

(ii) except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), 

whenever the Administrator finds on the basis 

of information available to the Administrator that 

the plan is substantially inadequate to attain the 

national ambient air quality standard which it 

implements, or to otherwise comply with any 

additional requirements established under this 

Act; 

Under authority of OAC 252:100-3-2 and 252:100-3-3, Appendices E and F 

of OAC 252:100 enumerate the primary and secondary air quality standards 

(NAAQS), respectively. 

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

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

include authority to:

“3. Prepare and develop a general plan for proper air quality 

management in the state in accordance with the Oklahoma Clean Air 

Act;” 

and 

“20. Carry out all other duties, requirements and responsibilities 

necessary and proper for the implementation of the Oklahoma Clean Air 

Act and fulfilling the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act.” 

[27A O.S. § 2-5-105(3) and (20)] 

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

resulting program modifications, are initiated through the rulemaking 

process, which includes agency, public, gubernatorial, and legislative review 

processes. Public notice is provided (published/posted) for all steps in the 

rulemaking process, in accordance with the state Administrative Procedures 

Act (75 O.S. §§ 250.1 through 323), Open Records Act (51 O.S. §§ 24A.1 

through 24A.29), and Open Meetings Act (25 O.S. §§ 301 through 314), 

along with corresponding DEQ and state procedural rules. The notices 

include the opportunity to provide comments prior to and at the public 

hearing before the Air Quality Advisory Council and at the public hearing 

before the Environmental Quality Board. 

Documentation of these changes, along with documentation of any 

implementation or infrastructure changes, is then submitted by the Governor 

(or the Oklahoma Secretary of Energy and Environment, acting as the 

Governor’s designee) to EPA as a SIP revision. This process is followed 

regardless of whether it results from a NAAQS update or a finding by the 

Administrator. State public participation procedures for SIP submittals that 

do not include rulemaking were submitted to EPA on August 17, 2012 for 

review. In a letter dated August 23, 2012, EPA concurred that the

procedures are consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR § 51.102 and 

associated guidance.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1960
4/30/2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 13

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

This NAAQS Revision:

Appendix E of OAC 252:100 was updated to incorporate the 2010 Primary 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS effective July 1, 2011. The updated Appendix 

E was submitted to EPA as part of the annual SIP revision for 2011 

(February 6, 2012).

This SIP submittal fulfills the stated requirement.

§ 110(a)(2)(I) –

Nonattainment 

Area Plan 

Requirements

in the case of a plan or plan revision for an area 

designated as a nonattainment area, meet the 

applicable requirements of part D (relating to 

nonattainment areas);

Not applicable. EPA’s 2013 I-SIP Guidance interprets the requirements of §

110(a)(2)(I), which pertain to specific requirements for attainment plans for 

designated nonattainment areas, to be outside the scope of the I-SIP 

requirements.9

§ 110(a)(2)(J) –

Consultation with 

Government 

Officials (§ 121)

meet the applicable requirements of section 

121 ... (relating to consultation), ...

Oklahoma’s approved SIP includes established consultation with various 

entities. Section 2-5-105 of the Oklahoma Clean Air Act specifically gives 

the DEQ the authority to advise, consult, and cooperate with other agencies 

of the State, towns, cities and counties, industries, other states and the 

federal government, and with affected groups in the prevention and control 

of new and existing air contamination sources within the State. Oklahoma 

does not anticipate that significant changes would be required as a result of 

a change in a particular NAAQS.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1960

§ 110(a)(2)(J) –

Public Notification

(§ 127)

meet the applicable requirements of ... section 

127 ... 

Public notification procedures to meet the requirements of § 127 of the CAA 

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

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

forecasting reports, and health advisories.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1960

This NAAQS Revision:

The public notification requirements included in Oklahoma’s SIP apply to 

the revised SO2 NAAQS.. DEQ provides notification of SO2 concentration 

levels through its annual Air Data Reports, forecasting reports, and near 

real-time health advisories. Oklahoma does not anticipate that any 

significant public notification changes would be required to implement the 

revised SO2 NAAQS.

 

9

 page 52, Section III. Guidance on Individual Infrastructure SIP Elements, Element I – Section 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas, 2013 I-SIP Guidance
4/30/2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 14

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(J) –

PSD and Visibility 

Protection (Part C)

meet the applicable requirements of ... part C 

... (relating to prevention of significant 

deterioration of air quality and visibility 

protection);

Oklahoma’s EPA-approved PSD permitting program, which addresses all 

regulated NSR air pollutants, operates under OAC 252:100-8, Part 7 –

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Requirements for Attainment 

Areas; the existing PSD delegation agreement; and approved and pending 

portions of the SIP. [See discussion under Element § 110(a)(2)(C) –

Program for Enforcement of Control Measures.]

Oklahoma’s Regional Haze Implementation Plan Revision (“RH SIP”), 

submitted in February 2010 and amended in a revision submitted June 14, 

2013, describes Oklahoma’s measures to protect visibility, including 

provisions in OAC 252:100-8, Part 11. [See discussion under Element §

110(a)(2)(D)(i) – Interstate Transport Provisions, Subelement (II)].

In the 2013 I-SIP Guidance, EPA stated that there are no new visibility 

protection requirements under Part C of the CAA that would result from a 

revised NAAQS. Therefore, the visibility sub-element of Element J need not 

be addressed in an infrastructure SIP submission10.

40 CFR § 52.1920(c)

40 CFR §§ 52.1920(c), (d) 

& (e), 52.1923, and 

52.1928

This NAAQS Revision:

Specific issues or changes related to implementation of the revised SO2

NAAQS through Oklahoma’s PSD permitting program would be addressed 

through a separate SIP submission.

As noted, no visibility protection obligations under § 110(a)(2)(J) are 

anticipated as a result of this NAAQS change.

 

10 page 55, Section III. Guidance on Individual Infrastructure SIP Elements, Element J – Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public Notification, and 

PSD and Visibility Protection, 2013 I-SIP Guidance
4/30/2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 15

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(K) –

Air Quality 

Modeling/Data

provide for:

(i) the performance of such air quality 

modeling as the Administrator may prescribe 

for the purpose of predicting the effect on 

ambient air quality of any emissions of any air 

pollutant for which the Administrator has 

established a national ambient air quality 

standard, and 

(ii) the submission, upon request, of data 

related to such air quality modeling to the 

Administrator;

Under its general statutory authority (e.g., 27A O.S. §§ 2-3-202 and 2-5-

105), DEQ conducts air quality modeling to support its demonstrations of 

attainment, and reports results to EPA. Source modeling requirements are 

also authorized in 27A O.S. 2-5-112, and included in the PSD permitting 

program in OAC 252:100-8-35. Oklahoma currently has no designated 

nonattainment areas. Oklahoma will continue to update modeling protocols 

as appropriate to accommodate evolving program requirements and 

standards. 

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1960

This NAAQS Revision:

Oklahoma has had no designated nonattainment areas for the SO2 NAAQS, 

and no SO2 SIP modeling has been required. In a letter dated February 7, 

2013, EPA deferred designation action on the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for 

Oklahoma, while noting that its review of monitored air quality data from 

2009-2011 showed no violations of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any areas of 

Oklahoma. DEQ will continue to review and update modeling protocols as 

appropriate to implement the revised SO2 NAAQS. [See also 78 Fed.Reg. 

47191, Aug. 5, 2013]

§ 110(a)(2)(L) –

Permitting Fees

require the owner or operator of each major 

stationary source to pay to the permitting 

authority, as a condition of any permit required 

under this Act, a fee sufficient to cover—

(i) the reasonable costs of reviewing and 

acting upon any application for such a permit, 

and 

(ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit 

for such source, the reasonable costs of 

implementing and enforcing the terms and 

conditions of any such permit (not including any 

court costs or other costs associated with any 

enforcement action), until such fee requirement 

is superseded with respect to such sources by 

the Administrator's approval of a fee program 

under title V; 

27A O.S. § 2-5-106 authorizes the DEQ through the EQB to promulgate 

rules regarding permit fees and 27A O.S. § 2-5-113 establishes that the 

owner or operator of any source required to have a permit must pay a 

permit fee to cover 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).

40 CFR §§ 52.1920(c)

and 52.1960(c)(48)(ii)(A)

This NAAQS Revision:

Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required to 

implement the revised SO2 NAAQS.
4/30/2014 Proposed Oklahoma’s SIP Submittal “Infrastructure” Checklist – 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Update 16

Section 110(a)(2) 

Element

Summary of Element

(Statutory Language)

Provisions in State statutes and rules, and the Current SIP or 

Recent SIP Revision Submittals

Where Codified or 

Approved by EPA

§ 110(a)(2)(M) –

Consultation/ 

Participation by 

Affected Local 

Entities

provide for consultation and participation by 

local political subdivisions affected by the plan.

Oklahoma’s 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 recommendations to the [DEQ]

concerning the [SIP].”

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

resulting program modifications, are initiated through the rulemaking 

process, which includes public notice and hearing procedures. (See the 

Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act [75 O.S. §§ 250 – 323], DEQ 

procedural rules in OAC 252:4, and procedures approved under 40 CFR § 

51.102(g).) Documentation of these changes, along with documentation of 

any implementation or infrastructure changes, is then submitted to EPA as a 

SIP revision. 

Oklahoma does not anticipate that significant changes would be required as 

a result of a change in a particular NAAQS.

40 CFR §§ 52.1920 and 

52.1960