Document ID: EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0637-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: OK009.01 Approvals and Promulgations of Air Quality Implementation Plans: Oklahoma; Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 8-Hour Ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 13 pages ryg
Posted Date: 2011-11-16T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 16, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70940-70952]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29638]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 70941]]

     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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Two 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 70942]]

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 ([mu]g/m\3\). The 24-hour 
PM2.5 standard was set at 65 [mu]g/m\3\. On October 17, 
2006, we published revised standards for PM (71 FR 61144). For 
PM2.5, the annual standard of 15 [mu]g/m\3\ was retained, 
and the 24-hour standard was revised to 35 [mu]g/m\3\. For 
PM10 the annual standard was revoked, and the 24-hour 
standard (150 [mu]g/m\3\) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This and any other guidance documents referenced in this 
action are in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 70943]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For 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.
    \6\ For 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 70944]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., Id., 70 FR 25162, at 63-65 (May 12, 2005) 
(explaining relationship between timing requirement of section 
110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \8\ EPA 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.
    \9\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure 
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, ``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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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),

[[Page 70945]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ EPA 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).
    \16\ EPA 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 Emitting-Sources 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).
    \17\ EPA 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Section 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).

          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.

[[Page 70946]]

 
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Except 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.
    \20\ See 27A O.S.Supp.1995, Sec.  1-1-101; 27A O.S.Supp.1995, 
Sec.  2-1-101; Title 27A, Sec. Sec.  2-5-101 to 2-5-107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ NOX 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \23\ The section addressing exemptions and variances is found on 
p. 45109 of the 1987 rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 70947]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The 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 one-hour 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.
    \26\ The current design values reflect the 2008-2010 ozone 
season data.
    \27\ A 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See 59 FR 32365 EPA incorporation by reference, the 
Oklahoma Environmental Quality Act; Oklahoma Clean Air Act of 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See 73 FR 79400.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 70948]]

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 PSD-regulated 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ To view Oklahoma's letter, in which the State told EPA it 
had this authority, please see http://www.epa.gov/nsr/2010letters/ok.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Regulation 1.4 at 48 FR 38635 (0825-1983); 56 FR 33715 
(07-23-1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 70949]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ OAC 252:100-8-8(e): Transmission of notice of draft permit 
to affected states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See 37 FR 10887.
    \35\ See 59 FR 32365 (June 23, 1994) for incorporation by 
reference of the Oklahoma Clean Air Act of 1992 and the Oklahoma 
Environmental Quality Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 70950]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Oklahoma Environmental Quality Code at OS27A-2-3-502E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 [micro]g/m\3\ 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 
[micro]g/m\3\. The PM2.5 levels have consistently remained 
below this level (140.4 [micro]g/m\3\), 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The Attainment Demonstration for the Central Oklahoma EAC 
Area was approved by EPA on August 16, 2005 (70 FR 48078).
    \39\ The Attainment Demonstration for the Tulsa EAC Area was 
approved by EPA on August 19, 2005 (70 FR 48645).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Section 110(a)(2)(J) is divided into three segments: 
consultation with government officials; public notification; and PSD 
and visibility protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ There are three forecast areas in Oklahoma: Lawton, 
Oklahoma City, and Tulsa. For more information, please see http://www.deq.state.ok.us/aqdnew/AQIndex/AQI.htm.
    \42\ The Annual Air Data Report is available online at the ODEQ 
Web site at: http://www.deq.state.ok.us/mainlinks/reports.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 70951]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Oklahoma has one mandatory Class I area. It is the Wichita 
Mountains National Wildlife Refuge in Comanche County near Fort Sill 
Military Reservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Except 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 non-area 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

[[Page 70952]]

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