70940 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

consultation with the FLMs on Regional 

Haze issues throughout the 

implementation period of the SIP. 

D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

Consistent with the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(g), the District of 

Columbia has committed to submitting 

a report on reasonable progress (in the 

form of a SIP revision) to the EPA every 

five years following the initial submittal 

of its regional haze SIP. 

IV. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

revision to the District of Columbia SIP 

submitted by the District of Columbia 

through the DDOE on October 27, 2011 

that addresses regional haze for the first 

implementation period. EPA is 

proposing to make a determination that 

the District of Columbia Regional Haze 

SIP contains the emission reductions 

needed to achieve the District of 

Columbia’s share of emission reductions 

agreed upon through the regional 

planning process. Furthermore, the 

District of Columbia’s Regional Haze 

Plan ensures that emissions from the 

District of Columbia will not interfere 

with the reasonable progress goals for 

neighboring states’ Class I areas. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to find 

that this revision meets the applicable 

visibility related requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2) including but not 

limited to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 

110(a)(2)(J), relating to visibility 

protection for the 1997 8–Hour Ozone 

NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 p.m.2.5

NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to 

conclude that the Regional Haze Plan 

submitted by the District of Columbia 

also satisfies the BART requirements of 

section 169A of the CAA. EPA is 

soliciting public comments on the 

issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule 

approving the District of Columbia’s 

Regional Haze Plan does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP is not approved 

to apply in Indian country located in the 

state, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Visibility, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: November 8, 2011. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2011–29595 Filed 11–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2008–0637; FRL -9492–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Oklahoma; Infrastructure 

Requirements for 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

submittals from the State of Oklahoma 

pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

Act) that address the infrastructure 

elements specified in the CAA section 

110(a)(2), necessary to implement, 

maintain, and enforce the 1997 8-hour 

ozone and the 1997 and 2006 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS 

or standards). We are proposing to find 

that the current Oklahoma State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) meets the 

following infrastructure elements for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), 

(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). EPA is also 

proposing to find that emissions from 

sources in Oklahoma do not interfere 

with measures required in the SIP of 

any other state under part C of the Act 

to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality, with regard to the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. This action is being taken 

under section 110 and part C of the Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 16, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2008–0637, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• U.S. EPA Region 6 ‘‘Contact Us’’ 

Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/ 

r6comment.htm. Please click on ‘‘6PD 

(Multimedia)’’ and select ‘‘Air’’ before 

submitting comments. 

• Email: Mr. Guy Donaldson at 

donaldson.guy@epa.gov. Please also 

send a copy by email to the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section below. 

• Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air 

Planning Section (6PD–L), at fax 

number (214) 665–7263. 

• Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, 

Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 70941 

1Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are 

not governed by the 3-year submission deadline of 

section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating 

necessary local nonattainment area controls are not 

due within 3 years after promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, but rather are due at the time the 

nonattainment area plan requirements are due 

pursuant to section 172 of the CAA. These elements 

are: (1) Submissions required by section 

110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to 

a permit program as required in part D Title I of 

the CAA and (2) submissions required by section 

110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment 

planning requirements of part D Title I of the CAA. 

Therefore, this action does not cover these specific 

SIP elements. 

• Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy 

Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Such 

deliveries are accepted only between the 

hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, 

and not on legal holidays. Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2008– 

0637. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. The file will be made 

available by appointment for public 

inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review 

Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. 

and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal 

holidays. Contact the person listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 

(214) 665–7253 to make an 

appointment. If possible, please make 

the appointment at least two working 

days in advance of your visit. There will 

be a fee of 15 cents per page for making 

photocopies of documents. On the day 

of the visit, please check in at the EPA 

Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. 

The State submittal is also available 

for public inspection during official 

business hours, by appointment, at the 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental 

Quality (ODEQ), Air Quality Division, 

707 North Robinson, P.O. Box 1677, 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101–1677. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Terry Johnson, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone (214) 665–2154; fax number 

(214) 665–6762; email address 

johnson.terry@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ means EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. What are the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards? 

B. What is a SIP? 

C. What is the background for this 

rulemaking? 

D. What elements are required under 

Section 110(a)(2)? 

II. What action is EPA proposing? 

III. How has Oklahoma addressed the 

elements of Section 110(a)(2)? 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. What are the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards? 

Section 109 of the Act requires EPA 

to establish NAAQS for pollutants that 

‘‘may reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger public health and welfare,’’ 

and to develop a primary and secondary 

standard for each NAAQS. The primary 

standard is designed to protect human 

health with an adequate margin of 

safety, and the secondary standard is 

designed to protect public welfare and 

the environment. EPA has set NAAQS 

for six common air pollutants, referred 

to as criteria pollutants: carbon 

monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, 

ozone, particulate matter (PM), and 

sulfur dioxide. These standards present 

state and local governments with the 

minimum air quality levels they must 

meet to comply with the Act. Also, 

these standards provide information to 

residents of the United States about the 

air quality in their communities. 

B. What is a SIP? 

The SIP is a set of air pollution 

regulations, control strategies, other 

means or techniques, and technical 

analyses developed by the state, to 

ensure that the state meets the NAAQS. 

The SIP is required by section 110 and 

other provisions of the Act. These SIPs 

can be extensive, containing state 

regulations or other enforceable 

documents and supporting information 

such as emissions inventories, 

monitoring networks, and modeling 

demonstrations. Each state must submit 

these regulations and control strategies 

to EPA for approval and incorporation 

into the Federally-enforceable SIP. Each 

Federally-approved SIP protects air 

quality primarily by addressing air 

pollution at its point of origin. 

C. What is the background for this 

rulemaking? 

Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the 

Act, states are required to submit SIPs 

that provide for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement (the 

infrastructure) of a new or revised 

NAAQS within three years following 

the promulgation of the NAAQS, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists the 

specific infrastructure elements that 

must be incorporated into the SIPs, 

including for example, requirements for 

emission inventories, new source 

review (NSR), air pollution control 

measures, and monitoring that are 

designed to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. Table 1 in 

Section D of this rulemaking provides a 

list of all 14 infrastructure elements.1

On July 18, 1997, we published new 

and revised NAAQS for ozone (62 FR 

38856) and PM (62 FR 38652). For 

ozone, we set an 8-hour standard of 0.08 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
70942 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

2EPA issued a revised 8-hour ozone standard on 

March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436). On September 16, 

2009, the EPA Administrator announced that EPA 

would take rulemaking action to reconsider the 

2008 primary and secondary ozone NAAQS. On 

January 19, 2010, EPA proposed to set different 

primary and secondary ozone standards than those 

set in 2008 to provide requisite protection of public 

health and welfare, respectively (75 FR 2938). On 

September 22, 2011, EPA clarified that the current 

ozone standard is set at 75 ppb. This rulemaking 

does not address the 2008 ozone standard. 

3This and any other guidance documents 

referenced in this action are in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

4See, Comments of Midwest Environmental 

Defense Center, dated May 31, 2011. Docket # EPA– 

R05–OAR–2007–1179 (adverse comments on 

proposals for three states in Region 5). EPA notes 

that these public comments on another proposal are 

not relevant to this rulemaking and do not have to 

be directly addressed in this rulemaking. EPA will 

respond to these comments in the appropriate 

rulemaking action to which they apply. 

parts per million (ppm) to replace the 

1-hour standard of 0.12 ppm. For PM we 

set a new annual and a new 24-hour 

NAAQS for particles with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal 2.5 micrometers (denoted 

PM2.5). The annual PM2.5 standard was 

set at 15 micrograms per cubic meter 

(mg/m3). The 24-hour PM2.5 standard 

was set at 65 mg/m3. On October 17, 

2006, we published revised standards 

for PM (71 FR 61144). For PM2.5, the 

annual standard of 15 mg/m3 was 

retained, and the 24-hour standard was 

revised to 35 mg/m3. For PM10 the 

annual standard was revoked, and the 

24-hour standard (150 mg/m3) was 

retained. For more information on these 

standards, please see the 1997 and 2006 

Federal Register notices (62 FR 38856, 

62 FR 38652, and 71 FR 61144). 

Thus, states were required to submit 

such SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 

2000.2 However, intervening litigation 

over the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS created uncertainty about how 

to proceed, and many states did not 

provide the required ‘‘infrastructure’’ 

SIP submission for these newly 

promulgated NAAQS. 

On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice 

submitted a notice of intent to sue 

related to EPA’s failure to issue findings 

of failure to submit related to the 

infrastructure requirements for the 1997 

8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

entered into a consent decree with 

Earthjustice which required EPA, among 

other things, to complete a Federal 

Register notice announcing EPA’s 

determinations pursuant to section 

110(k)(1)(B) of the Act as to whether 

each state had made complete 

submissions to meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS by December 15, 2007. 

Subsequently, EPA received an 

extension of the date to complete this 

Federal Register notice until March 17, 

2008, based upon agreement to make the 

findings with respect to submissions 

made by January 7, 2008. In accordance 

with the consent decree, EPA made 

completeness findings for each state 

based upon what the Agency had 

received from each state as of January 7, 

2008. With regard to the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, EPA entered into a consent 

decree with Earthjustice, which 

required EPA, among other things, to 

complete a Federal Register notice 

announcing EPA’s determinations 

pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) of the 

Act as to whether each state had made 

complete submissions to meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by October 5, 2008. 

On March 27, 2008, and October 22, 

2008, we published findings concerning 

whether states had made the 110(a)(2) 

submissions for the 1997 ozone (73 FR 

16205) and PM2.5 standards (73 FR 

62902). In the March 27, 2008 action, 

we found that Oklahoma made 

submissions that addressed some, but 

not all of the requirements of section 

110(a)(2) of the Act necessary to 

implement the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. As required by section 

110(a)(2)(C) and (J), Oklahoma had 

failed to submit a SIP addressing 

changes to the part C Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit 

program required by the November 29, 

2005 (70 FR 71612, page 71699) final 

rule that made nitrogen oxides (NOX) a 

precursor for ozone in the part C 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and in 40 

CFR 52.21. In the October 22, 2008 

action, we found that Oklahoma failed 

to make a submittal to satisfy the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the 

Act necessary to implement the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On October 2, 2007 we issued 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ 

Memorandum from William T. Harnett, 

Director, Air Quality Policy Division 

(AQPD), Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards (OAQPS).3 On September 

25, 2009, we issued ‘‘Guidance on SIP 

Elements Required Under Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour 

Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),’’ 

Memorandum also from William T. 

Harnett, Director, AQPD, OAQPS. Each 

of these guidance memos addresses the 

SIP elements found in 110(a)(2). In each 

of these guidance memos, the guidance 

states that, to the extent that existing 

SIPs already meet the requirements, 

states need only certify that fact to us. 

On December 5, 2007 the ODEQ 

submitted a letter certifying that the 

Oklahoma SIP includes all the 

requirements in section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

of the Act for implementation of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The letter 

also stated that ODEQ would evaluate 

the particulate matter provisions of the 

Oklahoma SIP for consistency with 

Federal requirements. 

On June 24, 2010 the ODEQ submitted 

a letter certifying that the Oklahoma SIP 

includes all the requirements in section 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the Act for 

implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. Attached to the certification 

letter was supporting information that 

identified the Oklahoma SIP provisions, 

regulations and statutes that support the 

section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements 

for the NAAQS. At this time, ODEQ also 

submitted revisions to their PSD SIP 

that addressed NOX as a precursor to 

ozone. EPA approved the SIP revisions 

incorporating NOX as an ozone 

precursor (see 75 FR 72695, November 

26, 2010). 

On April 5, 2011 the ODEQ submitted 

a letter, including supporting 

information, certifying that the 

Oklahoma SIP includes all the 

requirements in section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

of the Act for implementation of the 

2006 revisions to the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Additional information: EPA is 

currently acting upon SIPs that address 

the infrastructure requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(1) and (2) for ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS for various states across 

the country. Commenters on EPA’s 

recent proposals for some states raised 

concerns about EPA statements that it 

was not addressing certain substantive 

issues in the context of acting on those 

infrastructure SIP submissions.4 Those 

commenters specifically raised concerns 

involving provisions in existing SIPs 

and with EPA’s statements in other 

proposals that it would address two 

issues separately and not as part of 

actions on the infrastructure SIP 

submissions: (i) Existing provisions 

related to excess emissions during 

periods of start-up, shutdown, or 

malfunction at sources, that may be 

contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies 

addressing such excess emissions 

(‘‘SSM’’); and (ii) existing provisions 

related to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or 

‘‘director’s discretion’’ that purport to 

permit revisions to SIP approved 

emissions limits with limited public 

process or without requiring further 

approval by EPA, that may be contrary 

to the CAA (‘‘director’s discretion’’). 

EPA notes that there are two other 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 70943 

5For example, section 110(a)(2)(E) provides that 

states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides 

that states must have a substantive program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of the 

CAA; section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must 

have both legal authority to address emergencies 

and substantive contingency plans in the event of 

such an emergency. 

6For example, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires 

EPA to be sure that each state’s SIP contains 

adequate provisions to prevent significant 

contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in 

other states. This provision contains numerous 

terms that require substantial rulemaking by EPA in 

order to determine such basic points as what 

constitutes significant contribution. See, e.g., ‘‘Rule 

To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); 

Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the 

NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 

2005) (defining, among other things, the phrase 

‘‘contribute significantly to nonattainment’’). 

7See, e.g., Id., 70 FR 25162, at 63–65 (May 12, 

2005) (explaining relationship between timing 

Continued 

substantive issues for which EPA 

likewise stated in other proposals that it 

would address the issues separately: (i) 

Existing provisions for minor source 

new source review programs that may 

be inconsistent with the requirements of 

the CAA and EPA’s regulations that 

pertain to such programs (‘‘minor source 

NSR’’); and (ii) existing provisions for 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

current requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final 

NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 

(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 

FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (‘‘NSR 

Reform’’). In light of the comments, EPA 

believes that its statements in various 

proposed actions on infrastructure SIPs 

with respect to these four individual 

issues should be explained in greater 

depth. It is important to emphasize that 

EPA is taking the same position with 

respect to these four substantive issues 

in this action on the infrastructure SIP 

submittals for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS submissions from Oklahoma. 

EPA intended the statements in the 

other proposals concerning these four 

issues merely to be informational, and 

to provide general notice of the 

potential existence of provisions within 

the existing SIPs of some states that 

might require future corrective action. 

EPA did not want states, regulated 

entities, or members of the public to be 

under the misconception that the 

Agency’s approval of the infrastructure 

SIP submission of a given state should 

be interpreted as a reapproval of certain 

types of provisions that might exist 

buried in the larger existing SIP for such 

state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly 

noted that the Agency believes that 

some states may have existing SIP 

approved SSM provisions that are 

contrary to the CAA and EPA policy, 

but that ‘‘in this rulemaking, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing State provisions with regard to 

excess emissions during SSM of 

operations at facilities.’’ EPA further 

explained, for informational purposes, 

that ‘‘EPA plans to address such State 

regulations in the future.’’ EPA made 

similar statements, for similar reasons, 

with respect to the director’s discretion, 

minor source NSR, and NSR Reform 

issues. EPA’s objective was to make 

clear that approval of an infrastructure 

SIP for these ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 

should not be construed as explicit or 

implicit reapproval of any existing 

provisions that relate to these four 

substantive issues. EPA is reiterating 

that position in this action on these 

infrastructure SIP submittals for 

Oklahoma. 

Unfortunately, the commenters and 

others evidently interpreted these 

statements to mean that EPA considered 

action upon the SSM provisions and the 

other three substantive issues to be 

integral parts of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, and 

therefore that EPA was merely 

postponing taking final action on the 

issues in the context of the 

infrastructure SIPs. This was not EPA’s 

intention. To the contrary, EPA only 

meant to convey its awareness of the 

potential for certain types of 

deficiencies in existing SIPs, and to 

prevent any misunderstanding that it 

was reapproving any such existing 

provisions. EPA’s intention was to 

convey its position that the statute does 

not require that infrastructure SIPs 

address these specific substantive issues 

in existing SIPs and that these issues 

may be dealt with separately, outside 

the context of acting on the 

infrastructure SIP submission of a state. 

To be clear, EPA did not mean to imply 

that it was not taking a full final agency 

action on the infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to any 

substantive issue that EPA considers to 

be a required part of acting on such 

submissions under section 110(k) or 

under section 110(c). Given the 

confusion evidently resulting from 

EPA’s statements in those other 

proposals, however, we want to explain 

more fully the Agency’s reasons for 

concluding that these four potential 

substantive issues in existing SIPs may 

be addressed separately from actions on 

infrastructure SIP submissions. 

The requirement for the SIP 

submissions at issue arises out of CAA 

section 110(a)(1). That provision 

requires that states must make a SIP 

submission ‘‘within 3 years (or such 

shorter period as the Administrator may 

prescribe) after the promulgation of a 

national primary ambient air quality 

standard (or any revision thereof)’’ and 

that these SIPS are to provide for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. Section 

110(a)(2) includes a list of specific 

elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan’’ 

submission must meet. EPA has 

historically referred to these particular 

submissions that states must make after 

the promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS as ‘‘infrastructure SIPs.’’ This 

specific term does not appear in the 

statute, but EPA uses the term to 

distinguish this particular type of SIP 

submission designed to address basic 

structural requirements of a SIP from 

other types of SIP submissions designed 

to address other different requirements, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ 

submissions required to address the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required to address the visibility 

protection requirements of CAA section 

169A, new source review permitting 

program submissions required to 

address the requirements of part D, and 

a host of other specific types of SIP 

submissions that address other specific 

matters. 

Although section 110(a)(1) addresses 

the timing and general requirements for 

these infrastructure SIPs, and section 

110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes 

that many of the specific statutory 

provisions are facially ambiguous. In 

particular, the list of required elements 

provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a 

wide variety of disparate provisions, 

some of which pertain to required legal 

authority, some of which pertain to 

required substantive provisions, and 

some of which pertain to requirements 

for both authority and substantive 

provisions.5 Some of the elements of 

section 110(a)(2) are relatively 

straightforward, but others clearly 

require interpretation by EPA through 

rulemaking, or recommendations 

through guidance, in order to give 

specific meaning for a particular 

NAAQS.6

Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) 

provides that ‘‘each’’ SIP submission 

must meet the list of requirements 

therein, EPA has long noted that this 

literal reading of the statute is internally 

inconsistent, insofar as section 

110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment 

SIP requirements that could not be met 

on the schedule provided for these SIP 

submissions in section 110(a)(1).7 This 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
70944 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 

110(a)(2)(I)). 

8EPA issued separate guidance to states with 

respect to SIP submissions to meet section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. See, ‘‘Guidance for State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current 

Outstanding Obligations Under Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ from 

William T. Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy 

Division OAQPS, to Regional Air Division Director, 

Regions I–X, dated August 15, 2006. 

9For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of 

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new 

indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

10See, ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ from William T. Harnett, Director Air 

Quality Policy Division, to Air Division Directors, 

Regions I–X, dated October 2, 2007 (the ‘‘2007 

Guidance’’). 

11 Id., at page 2. 

12 Id., at attachment A, page 1. 

13 Id., at page 4. In retrospect, the concerns raised 

by commenters with respect to EPA’s approach to 

some substantive issues indicates that the statute is 

not so ‘‘self explanatory,’’ and indeed is sufficiently 

ambiguous that EPA needs to interpret it in order 

to explain why these substantive issues do not need 

to be addressed in the context of infrastructure SIPs 

and may be addressed at other times and by other 

means. 

14See, ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24- 

Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS),’’ from William T, 

Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division, to 

Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I–X, dated 

September 25, 2009 (the ‘‘2009 Guidance’’). 

illustrates that EPA must determine 

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) 

may be applicable for a given 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

Similarly, EPA has previously decided 

that it could take action on different 

parts of the larger, general 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ for a given NAAQS 

without concurrent action on all 

subsections, such as section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), because the Agency 

bifurcated the action on these latter 

‘‘interstate transport’’ provisions within 

section 110(a)(2) and worked with states 

to address each of the four prongs of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with substantive 

administrative actions proceeding on 

different tracks with different 

schedules.8 This illustrates that EPA 

may conclude that subdividing the 

applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2) into separate SIP actions may 

sometimes be appropriate for a given 

NAAQS where a specific substantive 

action is necessitated, beyond a mere 

submission addressing basic structural 

aspects of the state’s SIP. Finally, EPA 

notes that not every element of section 

110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as 

relevant, or relevant in the same way, 

for each new or revised NAAQS and the 

attendant infrastructure SIP submission 

for that NAAQS. For example, the 

monitoring requirements that might be 

necessary for purposes of section 

110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS could be 

very different than what might be 

necessary for a different pollutant. Thus, 

the content of an infrastructure SIP 

submission to meet this element from a 

state might be very different for an 

entirely new NAAQS, versus a minor 

revision to an existing NAAQS.9

Similarly, EPA notes that other types 

of SIP submissions required under the 

statute also must meet the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2), and this also 

demonstrates the need to identify the 

applicable elements for other SIP 

submissions. For example, 

nonattainment SIPs required by part D 

likewise have to meet the relevant 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) such as 

section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast, 

it is clear that nonattainment SIPs 

would not need to meet the portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to part 

C, i.e., the PSD requirements applicable 

in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs 

required by part D also would not need 

to address the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(G) with respect to emergency 

episodes, as such requirements would 

not be limited to nonattainment areas. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) and not 

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity of 

the statutory language of section 

110(a)(1) and (2), EPA believes that it is 

appropriate for EPA to interpret that 

language in the context of acting on the 

infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. 

Because of the inherent ambiguity of the 

list of requirements in section 110(a)(2), 

EPA has adopted an approach in which 

it reviews infrastructure SIPs against 

this list of elements ‘‘as applicable.’’ In 

other words, EPA assumes that Congress 

could not have intended that each and 

every SIP submission, regardless of the 

purpose of the submission or the 

NAAQS in question, would meet each 

of the requirements, or meet each of 

them in the same way. EPA elected to 

use guidance to make recommendations 

for infrastructure SIPs for these ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On October 2, 2007, EPA issued 

guidance making recommendations for 

the infrastructure SIP submissions for 

both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.10 Within this 

guidance document, EPA described the 

duty of states to make these submissions 

to meet what the Agency characterized 

as the ‘‘infrastructure’’ elements for 

SIPs, which it further described as the 

‘‘basic SIP requirements, including 

emissions inventories, monitoring, and 

modeling to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the standards.’’ 11 As 

further identification of these basic 

structural SIP requirements, 

‘‘attachment A’’ to the guidance 

document included a short description 

of the various elements of section 

110(a)(2) and additional information 

about the types of issues that EPA 

considered germane in the context of 

such infrastructure SIPs. EPA 

emphasized that the description of the 

basic requirements listed on attachment 

A was not intended ‘‘to constitute an 

interpretation of’’ the requirements, and 

was merely a ‘‘brief description of the 

required elements.’’ 12 EPA also stated 

its belief that with one exception, these 

requirements were ‘‘relatively self 

explanatory, and past experience with 

SIPs for other NAAQS should enable 

States to meet these requirements with 

assistance from EPA Regions.’’ 13 For the 

one exception to that general 

assumption, however, i.e., how states 

should proceed with respect to the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA gave much 

more specific recommendations. But for 

other infrastructure SIP submittals, and 

for certain elements of the submittals for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA assumed 

that each State would work with its 

corresponding EPA regional office to 

refine the scope of a State’s submittal 

based on an assessment of how the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) should 

reasonably apply to the basic structure 

of the State’s SIP for the NAAQS in 

question. 

On September 25, 2009, EPA issued 

guidance to make recommendations to 

states with respect to the infrastructure 

SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.14 In the 

2009 Guidance, EPA addressed a 

number of additional issues that were 

not germane to the infrastructure SIPs 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, but were germane to 

these SIP submissions for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS, e.g., the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) that EPA had 

bifurcated from the other infrastructure 

elements for those specific 1997 ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Significantly, neither the 2007 

Guidance nor the 2009 Guidance 

explicitly referred to the SSM, director’s 

discretion, minor source NSR, or NSR 

Reform issues as among specific 

substantive issues EPA expected states 

to address in the context of the 

infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give 

any more specific recommendations 

with respect to how states might address 

such issues even if they elected to do so. 

The SSM and director’s discretion 

issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(A), 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 70945 

15EPA has recently issued a SIP call to rectify a 

specific SIP deficiency related to the SSM issue. 

See, ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revision,’’ 74 FR 21639 (April 

18, 2011). 

16EPA has recently utilized this authority to 

correct errors in past actions on SIP submissions 

related to PSD programs. See, ‘‘Limitation of 

Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas EmittingSources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 

75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has 

previously used its authority under CAA 110(k)(6) 

to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the 

Agency determined it had approved in error. See, 

e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 

(June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, 

Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 

FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to 

California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 

2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). 

17EPA has recently disapproved a SIP submission 

from Colorado on the grounds that it would have 

included a director’s discretion provision 

inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 

section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 

(July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director’s 

discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (January 26, 

2011) (final disapproval of such provisions). 

18Section 110(a)(2)(I) is omitted from the list. 

Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to the nonattainment 

planning requirements of part D, Title I of the Act. 

This section is not governed by the 3-year 

submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) because 

SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment 

area controls are not due within 3 years after 

promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but are 

due at the time the nonattainment area plan 

requirements are due pursuant to section 172. Thus 

this action does not cover section 110(a)(2)(I). 

and the minor source NSR and NSR 

Reform issues implicate section 

110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007 Guidance and 

the 2009 Guidance, however, EPA did 

not indicate to states that it intended to 

interpret these provisions as requiring a 

substantive submission to address these 

specific issues in existing SIP provisions 

in the context of the infrastructure SIPs 

for these NAAQS. Instead, EPA’s 2007 

Guidance merely indicated its belief 

that the states should make submissions 

in which they established that they have 

the basic SIP structure necessary to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

NAAQS. EPA believes that states can 

establish that they have the basic SIP 

structure, notwithstanding that there 

may be potential deficiencies within the 

existing SIP. Thus, EPA’s proposals for 

other states mentioned these issues not 

because the Agency considers them 

issues that must be addressed in the 

context of an infrastructure SIP as 

required by section 110(a)(1) and (2), 

but rather because EPA wanted to be 

clear that it considers these potential 

existing SIP problems as separate from 

the pending infrastructure SIP actions. 

The same holds true for this action on 

the infrastructure SIP submittals for 

Oklahoma. 

EPA believes that this approach to the 

infrastructure SIP requirement is 

reasonable, because it would not be 

feasible to read section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

to require a top to bottom, stem to stern, 

review of each and every provision of an 

existing SIP merely for purposes of 

assuring that the state in question has 

the basic structural elements for a 

functioning SIP for a new or revised 

NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by 

accretion over the decades as statutory 

and regulatory requirements under the 

CAA have evolved, they may include 

some outmoded provisions and 

historical artifacts that, while not fully 

up to date, nevertheless may not pose a 

significant problem for the purposes of 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of a new or revised 

NAAQS when EPA considers the overall 

effectiveness of the SIP. To the contrary, 

EPA believes that a better approach is 

for EPA to determine which specific SIP 

elements from section 110(a)(2) are 

applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a 

given NAAQS, and to focus attention on 

those elements that are most likely to 

need a specific SIP revision in light of 

the new or revised NAAQS. Thus, for 

example, EPA’s 2007 Guidance 

specifically directed states to focus on 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS because of 

the absence of underlying EPA 

regulations for emergency episodes for 

this NAAQS and an anticipated absence 

of relevant provisions in existing SIPs. 

Finally, EPA believes that its 

approach is a reasonable reading of 

section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the 

statute provides other avenues and 

mechanisms to address specific 

substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. 

These other statutory tools allow the 

Agency to take appropriate tailored 

action, depending upon the nature and 

severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. 

Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to 

issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the Agency 

determines that a state’s SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 

interstate transport, or otherwise to 

comply with the CAA.15 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.16

Significantly, EPA’s determination that 

an action on the infrastructure SIP 

submittal is not the appropriate time 

and place to address all potential 

existing SIP problems does not preclude 

the Agency’s subsequent reliance on 

provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of 

the basis for action at a later time. For 

example, although it may not be 

appropriate to require a state to 

eliminate all existing inappropriate 

director’s discretion provisions in the 

course of acting on the infrastructure 

SIP, EPA believes that section 

110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory 

bases that the Agency cites in the course 

of addressing the issue in a subsequent 

action.17

D. What elements are required under 

section 110(a)(2)? 

Pursuant to the October 2, 2007, EPA 

guidance for addressing the SIP 

infrastructure elements required under 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 

ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, there are 14 essential 

components that must be included in 

the SIP. These are listed in Table 1 

below. 

TABLE 1—SECTION 110(a)(2) ELEMENTS REQUIRED IN SIPS

Clean Air Act citation Brief description 

Section 110(a)(2)(A) ................................................................................. Emission limits and other control measures. 

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

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

Section 110(a)(2)(D) ................................................................................. Interstate transport. 

Section 110(a)(2)(E) ................................................................................. Adequate resources. 

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

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

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

Section 110(a)(2)(J) 18 .............................................................................. Consultation with government officials. 

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

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

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

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


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
70946 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

19Except for indoor air quality and asbestos as 

regulated for worker safety by the Federal 

Occupational Safety and Health Act and by Chapter 

11 of Title 40 of the Oklahoma statutes. 

20See 27A O.S.Supp.1995, § 1–1–101; 27A 

O.S.Supp.1995, § 2–1–101; Title 27A, §§ 2–5–101 to 

2–5–107. 

21NOX and VOCs are precursors to ozone. PM can 

be emitted directly and secondarily formed; the 

latter is the result of NOX and SO2 precursors 

combining with ammonia to form ammonium 

nitrate and ammonium sulfate. 

22 ‘‘State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy 

Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, 

Startup, and Shutdown,’’ Memorandum from 

Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and 

Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, dated September 20, 1999. 

23The section addressing exemptions and 

variances is found on p. 45109 of the 1987 

rulemaking. 

TABLE 1—SECTION 110(a)(2) ELEMENTS REQUIRED IN SIPS—Continued 

Clean Air Act citation Brief description 

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

II. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

Oklahoma SIP submittals of December 

5, 2007, June 24, 2010, and April 5, 

2011, that identify where and how the 

14 basic infrastructure elements are in 

the EPA-approved SIP as specified in 

section 110(a)(2) of the Act. The 

Oklahoma submittals do not include 

revisions to the SIP, but document how 

the current Oklahoma SIP already 

includes the required infrastructure 

elements. In today’s action, we are 

proposing to find that the following 

section 110(a)(2) elements are contained 

in the current Oklahoma SIP and 

provide the infrastructure for 

implementing the 1997 ozone and the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards: 

emission limits and other control 

measures (section 110(a)(2)(A)); ambient 

air quality monitoring/data system 

(section 110(a)(2)(B)); the program for 

enforcement of control measures 

(section 110(a)(2)(C)); international and 

interstate pollution abatement (section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii)); adequate resources 

(section 110(a)(2)(E)); stationary source 

monitoring system (section 110(a)(2)(F)); 

emergency power (section 110(a)(2)(G)); 

future SIP revisions (section 

110(a)(2)(H)); consultation with 

government officials (section 

110(a)(2)(J)); public notification (section 

110(a)(2)(J)); PSD and visibility 

protection (section 110(a)(2)(J)); air 

quality modeling/data (section 

110(a)(2)(K)); permitting fees (section 

110(a)(2)(L)); and consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities 

(section 110(a)(2)(M)). 

We are also proposing to approve the 

Oklahoma SIP provisions that address 

the requirement of section 

(110)(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act that 

emissions from sources in Oklahoma do 

not interfere with measures required in 

the SIP of any other state under part C 

of the Act to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

III. How has Oklahoma addressed the 

elements of section 110(a)(2)? 

The Oklahoma submittal addresses 

the elements of Section 110(a)(2) as 

described below. We provide a more 

detailed review and analysis of the 

Oklahoma infrastructure SIP elements 

in the Technical Support Document 

(TSD), located in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

Enforceable emission limits and other 

control measures, section 110(a)(2)(A): 

Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that all 

measures and other elements in the SIP 

be enforceable. This provision does not 

require the submittal of regulations or 

emission limits developed specifically 

for attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards. Those 

regulations are due later as part of 

attainment demonstrations. 

Additionally, as explained earlier (see 

footnote 1), EPA does not consider SIP 

requirements triggered by the 

nonattainment area mandates in part D 

of Title I of the CAA to be governed by 

the submission deadline of section 

110(a)(1). Nevertheless, Oklahoma has 

included some SIP provisions originally 

submitted in response to part D in its 

submission documenting its compliance 

with the infrastructure requirements of 

section 110(a)(1) and (2). Oklahoma has 

continually updated the elements of its 

SIP revisions submitted in response to 

the infrastructure requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) and the nonattainment 

requirements of part D. For the purposes 

of this action, EPA is reviewing any 

rules originally submitted in response to 

part D solely for the purposes of 

determining whether they support a 

finding that the state has met the basic 

infrastructure requirements under 

section 110(a)(2). 

The Oklahoma Environmental Quality 

Act and the Oklahoma Environmental 

Quality Code designate the Oklahoma 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ODEQ) as the state air pollution control 

agency having jurisdiction for air 

quality matters.19 The Oklahoma 

Environmental Quality Code establishes 

that ODEQ establish an air quality 

program for air quality. Further, the 

Oklahoma Clean Air Act designates 

ODEQ to establish and implement air 

quality programs and provides 

enforcement authority for regulations 

promulgated under the Act.20

The ODEQ has promulgated rules to 

limit and control emissions of, among 

other things, PM, sulfur compounds 

(including sulfur dioxide or SO2), 

nitrogen compounds (including NOX), 

and VOCs.21 These rules include 

emission limits, control measures, 

permits, fees, and compliance schedules 

and are found within Title 252, Chapter 

100 of the Oklahoma Administrative 

Code (denoted 252:100 OAC). 

In this action, EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any existing state 

provisions with regard to excess 

emissions during startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction (SSM) of operations at a 

facility. EPA believes that a number of 

states may have SSM SIP provisions 

which are contrary to the Act and 

inconsistent with existing EPA 

guidance,22 and the Agency plans to 

address such state regulations in the 

future. In the meantime, EPA 

encourages any state having a deficient 

SSM provision to take steps to correct 

it as soon as possible. Similarly, in this 

proposed action EPA does not include 

a review of, and also does not propose 

to take any action to approve or 

disapprove, any existing SIP rules with 

regard to director’s discretion or 

variance provisions. EPA believes that a 

number of states have such provisions 

that are contrary to the Act and not 

consistent with existing EPA guidance 

(52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987) 23

and the Agency plans to take action in 

the future to address such state 

regulations. In the meantime, EPA 

encourages any state having a director’s 

discretion or variance provision in its 

SIP that is contrary to the Act and 

inconsistent with EPA guidance to take 

steps to correct the deficiency as soon 

as possible. 

A detailed list of the applicable rules 

at 252:100 OAC, listed above, is 

provided in the TSD. The Oklahoma SIP 

contains enforceable emission limits 

and other control measures, which are 

in the federally enforceable SIP. EPA is 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 70947 

24The Air Quality System (AQS) is EPA’s 

repository of ambient air quality data. AQS stores 

data from over 10,000 monitors, 5,000 of which are 

currently active. State, Local and Tribal agencies 

collect the data and submit it to AQS on a periodic 

basis. 

25 During the ozone monitoring season, the ozone 

monitors are constantly running and recording onehour ozone averages. Oklahoma submits the hourly 

data into AQS, where the 8-hour averages are 

computed. Oklahoma also computes the 8-hour 

averages and posts the data at http:// 

www.deq.state.ok.us/AQDnew/monitoring/ 

index.htm. 

26The current design values reflect the 2008– 

2010 ozone season data. 

27A copy of our approval letter is in the docket 

for this rulemaking. At the time of this writing, the 

review of the 2011 AAMNP has not been 

completed. 

28See 59 FR 32365 EPA incorporation by 

reference, the Oklahoma Environmental Quality 

Act; Oklahoma Clean Air Act of 1992. 

29See 73 FR 79400. 

30To view Oklahoma’s letter, in which the State 

told EPA it had this authority, please see http:// 

www.epa.gov/nsr/2010letters/ok.pdf. 

proposing to determine that the 

Oklahoma SIP meets the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act with 

respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Ambient air quality monitoring/data 

system, section 110(a)(2)(B): Section 

110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to include 

provisions for establishment and 

operation of ambient air quality 

monitors, collecting and analyzing 

ambient air quality data, and making 

these data available to EPA upon 

request. The ODEQ operates and 

maintains a state-wide network of air 

quality monitors; data are collected, 

results are quality assured and the data 

are submitted to EPA’s Air Quality 

System 24 on a regular basis. The 

Oklahoma Statewide Air Quality 

Surveillance Network was approved by 

EPA at 37 FR 10842, 10887 and revised 

on March 28, 1979 (44 FR 18490) and 

January 12, 1981 (46 FR 2655). 

Oklahoma’s monitoring network 

includes the State and Local Air 

Monitoring Stations (SLAMS), which 

measure ambient concentrations of 

those pollutants for which standards 

have been established in 40 CFR part 50 

(46 FR 2655). Oklahoma’s air quality 

surveillance network consists of stations 

that measure ambient concentrations of 

the criteria pollutants, including 

ozone 25 and PM2.5. The ODEQ Web site 

provides the ozone and PM2.5 monitor 

locations and current and historical 

data, including ozone design values for 

current 26 and past trienniums. On June 

30, 2010, ODEQ submitted its 2010 

Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan 

(AAMNP) that addresses each of the 

criteria pollutants, including 8-hour 

ozone and PM2.5 and thus allows the 

state to measure its air quality for 

compliance with the 1997 ozone and 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

approved the 2010 AAMNP on January 

12, 2011.27

In summary, Oklahoma meets the 

requirements to establish, operate, and 

maintain an ambient air monitoring 

network, collect and analyze the 

monitoring data, and make the data 

available to EPA upon request. The EPA 

is proposing to find that the current 

Oklahoma SIP meets the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(B) of the Act for the 

1997 ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Program for enforcement of control 

measures and regulation of the 

modification and construction of 

stationary sources, including a permit 

program, pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(C): In its submittal for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the ODEQ 

did not specifically address this element 

of section 110(a)(2)(C). The ODEQ did, 

however, include a review of 

enforcement of control measures, 

including review of proposed new 

sources, contained in its SIP in its June 

24, 2010 and April 5, 2011 certifications 

regarding the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, respectively. 

The ODEQ has requisite enforcement 

authority as provided under the 

Oklahoma Environmental Quality Act, 

Oklahoma Environmental Quality Code 

and the Oklahoma Clean Air Act.28 The 

administrative proceedings for 

enforcement actions, including 

administrative compliance orders and 

determination of penalty, are provided 

under 252 OAC chapter 4, subchapter 9. 

Among the issues addressed in 252 OAC 

chapter 100, subchapters 3, 5, 8, 9, 13, 

17, 19, 23, 24, 25, 31, 33, 37, 39, 43, and 

Appendices A, C–G and L, are allowable 

emission rates, compliance, control plan 

requirements, control schedules, 

monitoring and testing requirements, 

and reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. These clarify the 

boundaries beyond which regulated 

entities in Oklahoma can expect 

enforcement action. 

To meet the requirement for having a 

program for the regulation of the 

modification and construction of any 

stationary source within the areas 

covered by the plan as necessary to 

assure that NAAQS are achieved, 

including a permit program as required 

by Parts C and D, generally, the State is 

required to have SIP-approved PSD, 

Nonattainment, and Minor NSR 

permitting programs adequate to 

implement the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As 

discussed previously, we are not 

evaluating nonattainment-related 

provisions, such as the nonattainment 

NSR program required by part D in 

110(a)(2)(C) and measures for 

attainment required by section 

110(a)(2)(I), as part of the infrastructure 

SIPs for these three NAAQS because 

these submittals are required beyond the 

date (3 years from NAAQS 

promulgation) that section 110 

infrastructure submittals are required. 

PSD programs apply in areas that are 

meeting the NAAQS or are 

unclassifiable, referred to as areas in 

attainment. PSD applies to new major 

sources and major modifications at 

existing sources. Oklahoma’s PSD 

program was initially approved into the 

SIP on August 25, 1983 (see 48 FR 

38635), giving the State authority to 

issue PSD permits and enforce them 

under its approved PSD SIP. Subsequent 

revisions to Oklahoma’s PSD program 

were found to be consistent with 

Federal regulations, and as such, were 

approved by EPA into the SIP on 

February 12, 1991 (see 56 FR 05653) and 

July 23, 1991 (see 56 FR 33715). 

To implement section 110(a)(2)(C) for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS, a state must 

have updated its PSD rules to address 

NOX as an ozone precursor (70 FR 

71612). To meet this requirement 

Oklahoma submitted updated PSD rules 

for ozone on June 24, 2010, and EPA 

approved them on November 26, 2010 

(75 FR 72695). 

To implement section 110(a)(2)(C) for 

the PM2.5 NAAQS, a state must provide 

revisions to implement the NAAQS, due 

May 16, 2011 (73 FR 28321 May 16, 

2008). On July 16, 2010, ODEQ 

submitted revisions to the Oklahoma 

SIP that amended their PSD program to 

meet these PM2.5 NAAQS 

implementation requirements. We will 

act on this submission in a separate 

rulemaking. Previously, on December 

29, 2008, EPA approved revisions to the 

values for PM significant deterioration 

increments in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.166.29 We determined these revisions 

to the PM PSD increments complied 

with EPA’s PSD regulations. 

In this action, EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any state rules 

with regard to the NSR Reform 

requirements. EPA will act on SIP 

submittals that were made for purposes 

of adopting NSR Reform through a 

separate rulemaking process. 

Oklahoma has the authority to issue 

permits under the SIP-approved PSD 

program to sources of GHG emissions 

(75 FR 82536, December 30, 2010; 75 FR 

77698, December 13, 2010).30 The 

Tailoring Rule established thresholds 

that phase in the applicability of PSD 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
70948 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

31See Regulation 1.4 at 48 FR 38635 (0825–1983); 

56 FR 33715 (07–23–1991). 

requirements to GHG sources, starting 

with the largest GHG emitters, and were 

designed to relieve the overwhelming 

administrative burdens and costs 

associated with the dramatic increase in 

permitting burden that would have 

resulted from applying PSD 

requirements to GHG emission increases 

at or above only the mass-based 

statutory thresholds of 100/250 tons per 

year generally applicable to all PSDregulated pollutants starting on January 

2, 2011. However, EPA recognized that 

even after it finalized the Tailoring Rule, 

many SIPs with approved PSD programs 

would, until they were revised, 

continue to apply PSD at the statutory 

thresholds, even though the States 

would not have sufficient resources to 

implement the PSD program at those 

levels. EPA consequently implemented 

its ‘‘PSD SIP Narrowing Rule’’ and 

narrowed its approval of those 

provisions of previously approved SIPs 

that apply PSD to GHG emissions 

increases from sources emitting GHGs 

below the Tailoring Rule thresholds (75 

FR 82536, December 30, 2010). Through 

the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, EPA 

withdrew its previous approvals of 

those programs to the extent the SIPs 

apply PSD to increases in GHG 

emissions from GHG-emitting sources 

below the Tailoring Rule thresholds. 

The portions of the PSD programs 

regulating GHGs from GHG-emitting 

sources with emission increases at or 

above the Tailoring Rule thresholds 

remained approved. The effect of EPA 

narrowing its approval in this manner is 

that the provisions of previously 

approved SIPs that apply PSD to GHG 

emissions increases from sources 

emitting GHGs below the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds have the status of having 

been submitted by the State but not yet 

acted upon by EPA (75 FR 82536, 

December 30, 2010). 

Oklahoma submitted to EPA a 

supplemental certification, dated 

October 24, 2011, certifying that the 

portion of the GHG PSD program in the 

State’s submittal under infrastructure 

SIP review is only the portion that 

remained approved after EPA’s 

promulgation of the PSD SIP Narrowing 

Rule, which is the portion that regulates 

GHG-emitting sources with GHG 

emissions at or above the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds. Therefore, we are proposing 

to find that the current Oklahoma PSD 

SIP meets section 110(a)(2)(C) with 

respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA has determined that Oklahoma’s 

minor NSR program adopted pursuant 

to section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act 

regulates emissions of ozone and PM2.5

and their precursors. EPA has also been 

made aware of concerns that certain 

provisions of some states’ minor NSR 

programs adopted pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(C) of the Act may not meet all 

the requirements found in EPA’s 

regulations implementing that 

provision. See 40 CFR 51.160–51.164. 

EPA has approved Oklahoma’s minor 

NSR program into the SIP and various 

revisions pertaining to the minor 

program.31 Oklahoma and EPA have 

relied upon Oklahoma’s existing minor 

NSR program to assure that new and 

modified sources not captured by the 

major NSR permitting programs do not 

interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. In this 

action, EPA is proposing to approve 

Oklahoma’s infrastructure SIP for the 

1997 ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

standards with respect to the general 

requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to 

include a program in the SIP that 

regulates the modification and 

construction of any stationary source as 

necessary to assure that the NAAQS are 

achieved. EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove Oklahoma’s 

existing minor NSR program itself to the 

extent that it is inconsistent with EPA’s 

regulations governing this program. EPA 

believes that a number of states may 

have minor NSR provisions that are 

contrary to the existing EPA regulations 

for this program. EPA intends to work 

with states to reconcile state minor NSR 

programs with EPA’s regulatory 

provisions for the program. The 

statutory requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable 

flexibility in designing minor NSR 

programs, and EPA believes it may be 

time to revisit the regulatory 

requirements for this program in order 

to give the states an appropriate level of 

flexibility to design programs that meet 

their particular air quality concerns, 

while assuring reasonable consistency 

across the country in protecting the 

NAAQS with respect to new and 

modified minor sources. 

Interstate transport, section 

110(a)(2)(D): Section 110(a)(2)(D) has 

two components, 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 

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

requires SIPs to include provisions 

prohibiting any source or other type of 

emissions activity in one state from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment, interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state, or from interfering with measures 

required to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality or to protect 

visibility in another state. Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include 

provisions insuring compliance with 

sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating 

to interstate and international pollution 

abatement. 

On April 25, 2005 (70 FR 21147), EPA 

published a finding that all States had 

failed to submit new SIPs addressing 

interstate transport for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, as 

required by section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the 

CAA. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) pertains to 

interstate transport of certain emissions. 

On August 15, 2006, EPA issued its 

‘‘Guidance for State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Submission to Meet Current 

Outstanding Obligations Under Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ (2006 Guidance). EPA 

developed the 2006 Guidance to make 

recommendations to states for making 

submissions to meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standards and the 1997 

PM2.5 standards. As identified in the 

2006 Guidance, the ‘‘good neighbor’’ 

provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

require each state to submit a SIP that 

prohibits emissions that adversely affect 

another state in the ways contemplated 

in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

contains four distinct requirements 

related to the impacts of interstate 

transport. The SIP must prevent sources 

in the state from emitting pollutants in 

amounts which will: (1) Contribute 

significantly to nonattainment of the 

NAAQS in other states; (2) interfere 

with maintenance of the NAAQS in 

other states; (3) interfere with provisions 

to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in other states; and (4) interfere 

with efforts to protect visibility in other 

states. 

On November 26, 2010, we found for 

the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 standards, 

that emissions from sources in 

Oklahoma do not interfere with 

measures required in the SIP of any 

other state under part C of the CAA to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality (75 FR 72695). On October 17, 

2011, we proposed that Oklahoma has 

sufficient measures to prevent 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment or significant 

interference with maintenance for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards (76 FR 

64065). In the same action, we proposed 

that emissions from Oklahoma do not 

contribute to nonattainment of the 1997 

ozone standard. We also proposed that 

emissions from Oklahoma do, or in the 

alternative, do not interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone standard 

and also took comment on whether 

emissions from Oklahoma do not 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 70949 

32 In the Federal Register notice we stated our 

intent to base our interference with maintenance 

decision on the final determination for our July 11, 

2011, supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking 

to include Oklahoma in the Cross State Air 

Pollution Rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (76 FR 

40662). 

33OAC 252:100–8–8(e): Transmission of notice of 

draft permit to affected states. 

34See 37 FR 10887. 

35See 59 FR 32365 (June 23, 1994) for 

incorporation by reference of the Oklahoma Clean 

Air Act of 1992 and the Oklahoma Environmental 

Quality Act. 

interfere with maintenance.32 In this 

rulemaking, we are addressing only the 

requirement that pertains to preventing 

sources in Oklahoma from emitting 

pollutants that will interfere with 

measures required to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in other 

states for the 2006 PM2.5 standard. In its 

April 5, 2011, submission, Oklahoma 

indicated that its current NSR SIP is 

adequate to prevent such interference. 

The 2006 Guidance states that the 

PSD permitting program is the primary 

measure that each state must include to 

prevent interference with other State’s 

programs to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in 

accordance with section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). EPA believes that 

Oklahoma’s April 5, 2011, submission is 

consistent with the 2006 Guidance, 

when considered in conjunction with 

the State’s PSD program. As discussed 

previously in this rulemaking with 

regards to section 110(a)(2)(C) and in the 

TSD, the State’s PSD program is in the 

SIP and meets the basic requirements 

for implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS . 

Therefore, EPA is proposing that 

Oklahoma has sufficient measures in 

place to prevent interference with other 

State’s programs to prevent significant 

deterioration of the 2006 PM2.5 standard. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act 

requires compliance with sections 115 

and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate 

and international pollution abatement. 

Section 115(a) addresses endangerment 

of public health or welfare in foreign 

countries from pollution emitted in the 

United States. Pursuant to section 115, 

the Administrator has neither received 

nor issued a formal notification that 

emissions from Oklahoma are 

endangering public health or welfare in 

a foreign country. Section 126(a) of the 

Act requires new or modified sources to 

notify neighboring states of potential 

impacts from such sources. Oklahoma 

PSD permitting regulations at 252 OAC 

chapter 100 require that affected states 

be notified of permitting actions and be 

provided with a copy of the draft permit 

no later than the commencement of the 

public comment period.33 (75 FR 

72695). The state also has no pending 

obligations under section 126 of the Act. 

EPA is proposing to find that the 

Oklahoma SIP meets the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act for 

the 1997 ozone and 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Adequate resources, section 

110(a)(2)(E): Chapter 9, titled 

‘‘Resources,’’ of the Oklahoma SIP was 

originally approved on May 31, 1972, 

and provides assurances that the State 

has the adequate resources, i.e., 

personnel and funding, to carry out 

their SIP.34 The Oklahoma 

Environmental Quality Act, the 

Oklahoma Environmental Code and the 

Oklahoma Clean Air Act are codified at 

Title 27A of the Oklahoma Statutes, 

titled Environment and Natural 

Resources.35 Together, these laws name 

the ODEQ as the state air control 

agency, with principal authority in the 

state on matters relating to the quality 

of air resources, and charge the ODEQ 

with preparing and implementing the 

SIP. The Oklahoma Clean Air Act also 

authorizes the ODEQ to establish fees to 

review and act on permit applications; 

amend and review permits; conduct 

inspections of facilities; and enforce the 

rules and orders of permits. 

Additionally, there are Federal 

sources of funding for the 

implementation of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

through, for example, the CAA sections 

103 and 105 grant funds. The ODEQ 

receives Federal funds on an annual 

basis, under section 105 of the Act, to 

support its air quality programs. Fees 

collected for the Title V and non-Title 

V permit programs also provide 

necessary funds to help implement the 

State’s air programs. EPA fully approved 

Oklahoma’s Title V program at 66 FR 

63170 (12/05/01). EPA approved 

Oklahoma’s Title 1 program at 48 FR 

38635 and 64 FR 59629. More specific 

information on permitting fees is 

provided in the discussion for 

110(a)(2)(L) below and in the TSD. 

Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that 

the state comply with section 128. 

Section 128 requires: (1) That the 

majority of members of the state body 

which approves permits or enforcement 

orders do not derive any significant 

portion of their income from entities 

subject to permitting or enforcement 

orders under the CAA; and (2) any 

potential conflicts of interest by such 

body be adequately disclosed. In 1982, 

the EPA approved into the SIP the 

Oklahoma Code of Ethics for State 

Officials and Employees (47 FR 20771), 

and in 1994 EPA incorporated by 

reference the Oklahoma Clean Air Act of 

1992 and Oklahoma Environmental 

Quality Act that contain, among other 

things, financial disclosures, conflicts of 

interest and ethical conduct for the 

Executive Director of the ODEQ and 

classified employees of the agency (See 

59 FR 32365 for reference to the Acts). 

EPA is proposing to find that the 

Oklahoma SIP meets the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(E) of the Act for the 

1997 8-hour ozone and the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Stationary source monitoring system, 

section 110(a)(2)(F): The Oklahoma 

rules at 252 OAC chapter 100, 

subchapters 5, 8, 9, 17, 23, 24, 25, and 

43 require that stationary sources 

monitor for compliance, provide 

recordkeeping and reporting, and 

provide for enforcement of ozone, PM2.5, 

and precursors to these pollutants (SO2, 

ammonia, volatile organic compounds 

and NOX). The ODEQ uses this data to 

track progress towards maintaining the 

NAAQS, develop control and 

maintenance strategies, identify sources 

and general emission levels, and 

determine compliance with Oklahoma 

and EPA requirements. These rules have 

been approved by EPA for incorporation 

into the SIP. 

Under the Oklahoma Clean Air Act at 

Section 27A–2–5–105, the ODEQ is 

required to analyze the emissions data 

from point, area, mobile, and biogenic 

(natural) sources. The ODEQ uses this 

data to track progress towards 

maintaining the NAAQS, develop 

control and maintenance strategies, 

identify sources and general emission 

levels, and determine compliance with 

Oklahoma and EPA requirements. 

Emissions data are available 

electronically: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

chief/eiinformation.html. Oklahoma’s 

point source emission inventory (EI) is 

available at http://www.deq.state.ok.us/ 

AQDnew/Emissions/Data.htm. 

EPA is proposing to find that the 

Oklahoma SIP meets the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 

1997 8-hour ozone and the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Emergency power, section 

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

requires states to provide for authority 

to address activities causing imminent 

and substantial endangerment to public 

health, including contingency plans to 

implement the emergency episode 

provisions in their SIPs. The Executive 

Director of the ODEQ is empowered by 

the Oklahoma Environmental Quality 

Code to respond to air pollution 

episodes and other air quality 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
70950 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

36See Oklahoma Environmental Quality Code at 

OS27A–2–3–502E. 

37The ozone and PM data are available through 

AQS and the state Web site (http:// 

www.deq.state.ok.us/AQDnew/monitoring/ 

index.htm). The AQS data for PM are provided in 

the docket for this rulemaking. 

38The Attainment Demonstration for the Central 

Oklahoma EAC Area was approved by EPA on 

August 16, 2005 (70 FR 48078). 39The Attainment Demonstration for the Tulsa 

EAC Area was approved by EPA on August 19, 2005 

(70 FR 48645). 

40Section 110(a)(2)(J) is divided into three 

segments: consultation with government officials; 

public notification; and PSD and visibility 

protection. 41There are three forecast areas in Oklahoma: 

Lawton, Oklahoma City, and Tulsa. For more 

information, please see http://www.deq.state.ok.us/ 

aqdnew/AQIndex/AQI.htm. 

42The Annual Air Data Report is available online 

at the ODEQ Web site at: http:// 

www.deq.state.ok.us/mainlinks/reports.htm 

emergencies,36 and the ODEQ has 

contingency plans to implement 

emergency episode provisions in the 

SIP. Oklahoma’s Emergency Episode 

Plan was approved into the SIP by EPA 

on February 12, 1991 (56 FR 05653). 

Oklahoma’s Emergency Episode Plan 

includes alert, warning, and emergency 

levels for emergency episodes involving 

PM10 and ozone concentrations. The 

episode criteria and contingency 

measures are found in the Emergency 

Episode Plan. The criteria for ozone are 

based on a 1-hour average ozone level. 

These episode criteria and contingency 

measures are adequate to address ozone 

emergency episodes and are in the 

federally approved SIP. We propose that 

the Oklahoma Emergency Episode Plan 

provides for the pollutants specified 

under 40 CFR 51.150 and is consistent 

with the provisions of 40 CFR 51.151 

and 152, and Appendix L to Part 51. 

The 2009 Infrastructure SIP Guidance 

for PM2.5 recommends that a state with 

at least one monitored 24-hour PM2.5

value exceeding 140.4 mg/m3 since 2006 

establish an emergency episode plan 

and contingency measures to be 

implemented should such level be 

exceeded again. The 2006–2010 ambient 

air quality monitoring data 37 for 

Oklahoma do not exceed 140.4 mg/m3. 

The PM2.5 levels have consistently 

remained below this level (140.4 mg/m3), 

and furthermore, the state has 

appropriate general emergency powers 

to address PM2.5 related episodes to 

protect the environment and public 

health. Given the state’s monitored 

PM2.5 levels, EPA is proposing that 

Oklahoma is not required to submit an 

emergency episode plan and 

contingency measures at this time, for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards. 

Additional detail is provided in the 

TSD. 

EPA is proposing to find that the 

Oklahoma SIP meets the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Future SIP revisions, section 

110(a)(2)(H): The Oklahoma 

Environmental Quality Code and the 

Oklahoma Clean Air Act direct the 

ODEQ to prepare and develop the SIP 

and provide ODEQ with the necessary 

authority to carry out other duties, 

requirements and responsibilities 

necessary for the implementation of the 

Oklahoma Clean Air Act and fulfilling 

the requirements of the Federal Clean 

Air Act (OS 27A 2–5–105). Thus, 

Oklahoma has the authority to revise its 

SIP from time to time as may be 

necessary to take into account revisions 

of primary or secondary NAAQS, or the 

availability of improved or more 

expeditious methods of attaining such 

standards. Furthermore, Oklahoma also 

has the authority under these Oklahoma 

Clean Air Act provisions to revise its 

SIP in the event the EPA, pursuant to 

the Federal Clean Air Act, finds the SIP 

to be substantially inadequate to attain 

the NAAQS. 

EPA is proposing to find that the 

Oklahoma SIP meets the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(H) for the 1997 

8-hour ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Consultation with government 

officials, section 110(a)(2)(J): Section 2– 

5–105 of the 1992 Oklahoma Clean Air 

Act gives the ODEQ 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. 

Chapter 10 of the original Oklahoma SIP 

approved on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 

10887), provides for intergovernmental 

cooperation. Oklahoma’s 

Intergovernmental Consultation Plan 

was revised and approved by EPA on 

May 14, 1982 (47 FR 20771). The 1990 

Oklahoma Visibility Plan was approved 

by EPA into the SIP on November 8, 

1999 (64 FR 60683), and requires the 

ODEQ to notify the FLM of the receipt 

of any analysis of the anticipated 

impacts on visibility in any Federal 

Class I area, and requires the ODEQ to 

consider any timely analysis performed 

by the FLM and to coordinate with the 

FLM in conducting any monitoring of 

visibility in the mandatory Federal Class 

I area. The Attainment Demonstration 

for the Central Oklahoma Early Action 

Compact (EAC) Area 38 incorporated a 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

between the ODEQ and the Association 

of Central Oklahoma Governments 

(ACOG) into the Oklahoma SIP, 

outlining the duties and responsibilities 

of each party for implementation of 

pollution control measures for the 

Central Oklahoma EAC area. The 

Attainment Demonstration for the Tulsa 

EAC Area 39 incorporated a MOA 

between the ODEQ and the Indian 

Nation Council of Governments 

(INCOG) into the Oklahoma SIP, 

outlining the duties and responsibilities 

of each party for implementation of 

pollution control measures for the Tulsa 

Metropolitan Area EAC area. 

EPA is proposing to find that the 

Oklahoma SIP meets this portion of the 

section 110(a)(2)(J) requirements for the 

1997 8-hour ozone and the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.40

Public notification if NAAQS are 

exceeded, pursuant to section 

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

with the air quality forecasts, which 

advise the public of conditions capable 

of exceeding the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS. The air quality forecasts can be 

found on the ODEQ Web site and 

consist of an Air Quality Index (AQI) 

forecast with specific information on 

individual pollutants of concern, such 

as ozone and fine particulate matter. 

The AQI forecast includes three areas in 

the State.41 AQI forecasts are made daily 

throughout the year, and ozone-specific 

forecasts are made daily during the 

ozone season for each of the three 

forecast areas. The ozone forecasts are 

made, in most cases, a day in advance 

by 2 p.m. local time and are valid for the 

next day. When the forecast indicates 

that ozone or fine particulate levels will 

be above their respective standards, the 

State notifies the National Weather 

Service, who then broadcasts the 

information across its weather wire. The 

AQI forecasts and pollutant-specific 

advisories are available through email 

and pager notification. Furthermore, the 

ODEQ publishes an annual Air Data 

Report, which summarizes observations 

made by the State’s ambient monitoring 

network.42 EPA is proposing to find that 

the Oklahoma SIP meets this portion of 

the section 110(a)(2)(J) requirements for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

PSD and visibility protection, section 

110(a)(2)(J): This portion of section 

110(a)(2)(J) in part requires that a state’s 

SIP meet the applicable requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) as relating to PSD 

programs. As discussed previously in 

this rulemaking with regards to section 

110(a)(2)(C) and in the TSD, Oklahoma 

operates its EPA-approved PSD program 

under Regulation 1.4.4 ‘‘Major 

Sources—Prevention of Significant 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 70951 

43Oklahoma has one mandatory Class I area. It is 

the Wichita Mountains National Wildlife Refuge in 

Comanche County near Fort Sill Military 

Reservation. 

44Except for indoor air quality and asbestos as 

regulated for worker safety by the Federal 

Occupational Safety and Health Act and by Chapter 

11 of Title 40 of the Oklahoma statutes. 

45The Oklahoma City and Tulsa areas were 

designated as attainment and participated in the 

EAC program. EPA approved the modeling for these 

areas on August 16, 2005 (70 FR 48078) and on 

August 19, 2005 (70 FR 48645), respectively. 

Deterioration (PSD) Requirements for 

Attainment Areas’’ (now OAC 252:100– 

8, Part 7 and elsewhere in OAC 

252:100). 

On November 8, 1999 (64 FR 60683), 

EPA approved Oklahoma’s Visibility 

Protection Plan for the Federal Class I 

area.43 In that rulemaking, EPA 

determined that Oklahoma’s Visibility 

Protection Plan meets the visibility 

monitoring and NSR provisions under 

40 CFR 51.305 and 51.307, as well as 

the visibility implementation control 

strategy and long-term strategy 

requirements under 40 CFR 51.302 and 

51.306. The State’s most recent SIP 

revision of its Regional Haze program 

was submitted to EPA on February 19, 

2010, and we proposed action on it on 

March 22, 2011 (76 FR 16168). We 

expect to take final action on the 

Regional Haze submittal by December 

16, 2011. With regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

EPA recognizes that states are subject to 

visibility and regional haze program 

requirements under part C of the Act 

(which includes sections 169A and 

169B). In the event of the establishment 

of a new NAAQS, however, the 

visibility and regional haze program 

requirements under part C do not 

change. Thus, we find that there is no 

new visibility obligation ‘‘triggered’’ 

under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new 

NAAQS becomes effective. This would 

be the case even in the event a 

secondary PM2.5 NAAQS for visibility is 

established, because this NAAQS would 

not affect visibility requirements under 

part C. EPA is therefore proposing to 

find that the Oklahoma SIP meets the 

visibility protection requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Air quality and modeling/data, 

section 110(a)(2)(K): The Oklahoma 

Environmental Quality Act, Oklahoma 

Environmental Quality Code and the 

Oklahoma Clean Air Act provide ODEQ 

with principal authority in the state on 

matters relating to the quality of air 

resources, and charges the ODEQ with 

preparing and implementing the SIP, 

which includes modeling to inform 

decisions on nonattainment area 

boundaries and demonstrate 

effectiveness of SIP control strategies.44

The ODEQ has demonstrated its 

capacity to perform modeling in past 

submitted SIP revisions. For example, 

Oklahoma submitted modeling in SIP 

revisions for the Oklahoma City and 

Tulsa Early Action Compact (EAC) 

Areas to demonstrate attainment of the 

1997 ozone standard. The modeling in 

these SIPs was approved by EPA and 

adopted into the SIP.45

EPA is proposing to find that the 

Oklahoma SIP meets the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Permitting fees, section 110(a)(2)(L): 

The Oklahoma Environmental Quality 

Code authorizes the ODEQ, through the 

Board of Environmental Quality, to 

promulgate rules regarding permit fees. 

See 2–2–101. Whereas 2–5–113 of the 

Oklahoma Clean Air Act establishes that 

the owner or operator of any source 

required to have a permit must pay a 

permit fee to cover the cost of 

implementing and enforcing 

Oklahoma’s permit program. EPA 

originally approved Regulation 1.4.1(d) 

of the Oklahoma Air Pollution Control 

Regulations that provides for permit fees 

into the Oklahoma SIP on August 25, 

1983 (48 FR 38635). The Oklahoma 

regulations have since been reorganized, 

and the current fee provisions for 

annual operating fees for area and nonarea sources are found at OAC 252:100– 

5–2; fee provisions for PSD applications 

are found at OAC 252:100–7–3, and fee 

provisions for Part 70 sources are found 

at OAC 252:100–8–1. EPA is proposing 

to find that the Oklahoma SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone and the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Consultation/participation by affected 

local entities, section 110(a)(2)(M): 

Section 2–5–105 of the Oklahoma Clean 

Air Act authorizes the ODEQ 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’s 

Intergovernmental Consultation plan 

was approved by EPA on May 14, 1982 

(47 FR 20771), and consisted of a 

process for consultation and planning 

with relevant local governmental 

organizations having responsibility for 

any SIP revision process. As part of the 

plan, the State entered into formal 

agreements with designated 

metropolitan planning organizations for 

air quality planning in their respective 

areas of the State. EPA is proposing to 

find that the Oklahoma SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone and the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

VII. Proposed Action 

We are proposing to approve the SIP 

submittals provided by the State of 

Oklahoma to demonstrate that the 

Oklahoma SIP meets the requirements 

of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Act for 

the 1997 ozone and the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

We are proposing to find that the 

current Oklahoma SIP meets the 

infrastructure elements for the 1997 

ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS: 

Emission limits and other control 

measures (110(a)(2)(A) of the Act); 

Ambient air quality monitoring/data 

system (110(a)(2)(B) of the Act); 

Program for enforcement of control 

measures (110(a)(2)(C) of the Act); 

Interstate transport, pursuant to 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act; 

Adequate resources (110(a)(2)(E) of 

the Act); 

Stationary source monitoring system 

(110(a)(2)(F) of the Act); 

Emergency power (110(a)(2)(G) of the 

Act); 

Future SIP revisions (110(a)(2)(H) of 

the Act); 

Consultation with government 

officials (110(a)(2)(J) of the Act); 

Public notification (110(a)(2)(J) of the 

Act); 

Prevention of significant deterioration 

and visibility protection (110(a)(2)(J) of 

the Act); 

Air quality modeling data 

(110(a)(2)(K) of the Act); 

Permitting fees (110(a)(2)(L) of the 

Act); and 

Consultation/participation by affected 

local entities (110(a)(2)(M) of the Act). 

We are also proposing to approve the 

Oklahoma SIP provisions that address 

the requirement of section 

(110)(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act that 

emissions from sources in Oklahoma do 

not interfere with measures required in 

the SIP of any other state under part C 

of the Act to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

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

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

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
70952 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxides, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: November 7, 2011. 

Al Armendariz, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2011–29638 Filed 11–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2008–0727; FRL–9493–8] 

Extension of Public Comment Period 

for Proposed Action on Arkansas 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan and Interstate Transport State 

Implementation Plan To Address 

Pollution Affecting Visibility and 

Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: On October 17, 2011, EPA 

published in the Federal Register a 

proposed rule proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove the 

Arkansas Regional Haze (RH) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) and to 

partially approve and partially 

disapprove Arkansas’ Interstate 

Transport SIP to address pollution 

affecting visibility, and requested 

comment by November 16, 2011. EPA is 

extending the public comment period 

for the proposed rule until December 22, 

2011. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 22, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2008–0727, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• EPA Region 6 ‘‘Contact Us’’ Web 

site: http://epa.gov/region6/ 

r6comment.htm. Please click on ‘‘6PD 

(Multimedia)’’ and select ‘‘Air’’ before 

submitting comments. 

• Email: Mr. Guy Donaldson at 

donaldson.guy@epa.gov. Please also 

send a copy by email to the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section below. 

• Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air 

Planning Section (6PD–L), at fax 

number (214) 665–7263. 

• Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, 

Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. 

• Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air 

Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. Such deliveries are 

accepted only between the hours of 

8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, and not on 

legal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2008– 

0727. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Dayana Medina, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone (214) 665–7241; fax number 

(214) 665–7263; email address 

medina.dayana@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

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

the EPA. On October 17, 2011, we 

published in the Federal Register a 

proposed rule proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove the 

Arkansas RH SIP and to partially 

approve and partially disapprove 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1