Document ID: EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0652-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: OK014.01 Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Oklahoma; Revisions to Excess Emissions Requirements; Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and Call for Oklahoma State Implementation Plan Revision
Posted Date: 2013-09-06T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 173 (Friday, September 6, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54816-54828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21777]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0652; FRL-9900-73-Region6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oklahoma; 
Revisions to Excess Emissions Requirements; Finding of Substantial 
Inadequacy: and Call for Oklahoma State Implementation Plan Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing three actions concerning revisions to the 
Oklahoma State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of 
Oklahoma on July 16, 2010 (the July 16, 2010 SIP submittal). These 
actions address revisions to the Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC), 
Title 252, Chapter 100, Subchapter 9--Excess Emission Reporting 
Requirements (Subchapter 9). In the first action, we are proposing 
approval of certain provisions of the July 16, 2010 SIP submittal which 
are consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). In the second 
action, we are proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of 
certain other provisions of the July 16, 2010 SIP submittal which will 
have the overall effect of strengthening the Oklahoma SIP, but a 
portion of which are inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA. In 
the third action, we are proposing a finding of substantial inadequacy 
and proposing a SIP call with a proposed submittal date for certain 
provisions of the July 16, 2010 SIP submittal associated with the 
proposed limited approval and limited disapproval found to be 
inconsistent with CAA requirements, as set forth in the second action. 
If finalized, the SIP call associated with the proposed finding of 
substantial inadequacy will not, by itself, trigger a sanction clock 
for Oklahoma. This rulemaking is being taken in accordance with section 
110 of the Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 7, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2010-0652, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     U.S. EPA Region 6 ``Contact Us'' Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.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.
     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 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. weekdays 
except for legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for 
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2010-0652. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at www.regulations.gov, including any

[[Page 54817]]

personal information provided, unless the comment includes information 
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not 
submit information through www.regulations.gov or email that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected from disclosure. The 
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 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.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
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 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 to make an appointment. If possible, please 
make the appointment at least two working days in advance of your 
visit. There will be a 15 cent per page fee 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 75202-
2733.
    The State submittal is also available for public inspection at the 
State Air Agency listed below during official business hours by 
appointment:
    Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), Air Quality 
Division, 707 North Robinson Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Alan Shar, Air Planning Section 
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-6691, fax 
(214) 665-7263, email address Shar.Alan@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Outline

I. Summary and Background
    A. What actions are we proposing?
    B. What documents did we use in our evaluation of the July 16, 
2010 SIP submittal?
    C. What is the background for this proposed rulemaking?
II. Evaluation
    A. Introduction
    B. Why are we proposing approval of portions of the July 16, 
2010 SIP submittal?
    C. Why are we proposing a limited approval and limited 
disapproval of portions of the July 16, 2010 SIP submittal?
    D. Why are we proposing a finding of substantial inadequacy and 
a SIP call?
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary and Background

A. What actions are we proposing?

    We are proposing three related actions regarding the July 16, 2010 
SIP submittal from the State of Oklahoma. This SIP submittal contains 
revisions to Oklahoma's excess emission rules, found in OAC, Title 252, 
Chapter 100, Subchapter 9 (Subchapter 9). More specifically, the July 
16, 2010 SIP submittal: (1) Withdraws revisions to Subchapter 9 
submitted to EPA on February 14, 2002; and (2) requests EPA's approval 
of revisions to Subchapter 9 made by the State in 2010 (2010 Subchapter 
9 provisions). EPA approval of the 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions would 
replace the Subchapter 9 provisions promulgated by the State in 1994, 
and last approved in 1999 by EPA as part of the current Oklahoma SIP. 
The 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions were intended by the state to meet the 
requirements of the CAA with respect SIP provisions concerning excess 
emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Oklahoma developed 
the July 16, 2010 SIP submittal based on EPA's guidance recommendations 
in place at the time of submission. As a part of the July 16, 2010 SIP 
submittal, the State took several important steps to revise the 
existing SIP to make it consistent with CAA requirements, including: 
(1) Improvements to SIP provisions pertaining to excess emissions 
reporting requirements; (2) elimination of prior SIP provisions that 
created an exemption, exercised through director discretion, for excess 
emission events which was not consistent with CAA requirements; and (3) 
creation of affirmative defense provisions for excess emissions for 
qualifying sources in lieu of previously impermissible exemptions for 
violations of SIP emission limitations during such events. The EPA 
appreciates the efforts of ODEQ to improve the enforceability of their 
rules with respect to excess emissions. The EPA's proposed actions on 
ODEQ's 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions do not extend to sources of air 
emissions or activities located in Indian country, as defined at 18 
U.S.C. Sec.  1151.\1\ We are proposing three related actions in this 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Oklahoma's July 16, 2010 SIP submittal does not include an 
express demonstration of authority over emission sources or 
activities in Indian country. Therefore, our proposed approval and 
limited approval/disapproval of the 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions 
does not extend to emission sources or activities located in Indian 
country. This is consistent with the CAA requirement that we approve 
state and tribal programs only where there is a demonstration of 
adequate authority. See CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E) and 110(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First Action:
    In the first action, we are proposing approval of the following 
sections of the 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions as a revision to the 
Oklahoma SIP: (1) Section 252:100-9-1.1 Applicability; (2) section 
252:100-9-2 Definitions; and (3) sections 252:100-9-7(a) through 
252:100-9-7(e).\2\ As discussed more fully below, these provisions 
generally concern excess emission reporting requirements which improve 
the State's ability to review, analyze, and act in response to excess 
emission reports so that the air quality impacts associated with such 
emissions are minimized. These revised provisions thus allow better 
assessment of compliance with applicable SIP emission limitations and 
enforcement in the event that is necessary. EPA notes that these 
sections operate independently from the affirmative defense 
requirements of section 252:100-9-8, the subject of today's second 
proposed action. Table 1 below identifies sections of the 2010

[[Page 54818]]

Subchapter 9 provisions which EPA is proposing for approval into the 
Oklahoma SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Throughout this proposed rulemaking, reference to sections 
of the 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions will be those sections of the 
Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC), Title 252, Chapter 100, 
Subchapter 9, as submitted to EPA on July 16, 2010, for approval as 
a revision to the Oklahoma SIP.

   Table 1--Sections of the 2010 Subchapter 9 Provisions Proposed for
                                Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section of the 2010 Subchapter
         9  provisions                  Title             Information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
252:100-9-1.1.................  Applicability........  Propose approval.
252:100-9-2...................  Definitions..........  Propose approval.
252:100-9-7(a)................  Immediate notice.....  Propose approval.
252:100-9-7(b)................  Excess emission event  Propose approval.
                                 report.
252:100-9-7(c)................  Ongoing events.......  Propose approval.
252:100-9-7(d)................  Alternative reporting  Propose approval.
252:100-9-7(e)................  Certificate of truth,  Propose approval.
                                 accuracy and
                                 completeness
                                 required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second Action:
    In the second action, we are proposing a limited approval and 
limited disapproval of the 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions which are not 
the subject of EPA's first action discussed above. Specifically, we are 
proposing a concurrent limited approval and limited disapproval of 
section 252:100-9-1. Purpose, and the entire section 252:100-9-8. 
Affirmative defenses, as a revision to the Oklahoma SIP. Table 2 below 
identifies sections of the 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions proposed for 
concurrent limited approval and limited disapproval.

   Table 2--Sections of the 2010 Subchapter 9 Provisions Proposed for
                Limited Approval and Limited Disapproval
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section of the 2010 Subchapter
         9  provisions                  Title             Information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
252:100-9-1...................  Purpose..............  Propose limited
                                                        approval and
                                                        limited
                                                        disapproval.
252:100-9-8(a)................  Affirmative defenses-- Propose limited
                                 General.               approval and
                                                        limited
                                                        disapproval.
252:100-9-8(b)................  Affirmative defenses   Propose limited
                                 for excess emissions   approval and
                                 during malfunctions.   limited
                                                        disapproval.
252:100-9-8(c)................  Affirmative defenses   Propose limited
                                 for excess emissions   approval and
                                 during startup and     limited
                                 shutdown.              disapproval.
252:100-9-8(d)................  Affirmative defenses   Propose limited
                                 prohibited.            approval and
                                                        limited
                                                        disapproval.
252:100-9-8(e)................  Affirmative defense    Propose limited
                                 determination.         approval and
                                                        limited
                                                        disapproval.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has utilized the limited approval approach numerous times 
in SIP actions across the nation over the last twenty years.\3\ As 
discussed in section II ``Evaluation'' below, EPA believes that 
approval of sections 252:100-9-1 and 252:100-9-8 of the 2010 Subchapter 
9 provisions will strengthen the Oklahoma SIP and represent an overall 
improvement in the regulation of excess emissions as compared to the 
excess emissions provisions found in the Subchapter 9 provisions in the 
currently EPA-approved Oklahoma SIP (last approved by EPA in 1999); 
however, there are certain portions in the 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions 
(e.g., the creation of an affirmative defense for excess emissions 
resulting from startup and shutdown activities) which are inconsistent 
with identified CAA requirements. Because these revisions are an 
improvement over the currently approved SIP, but are not fully 
consistent with the CAA, EPA's approval must be limited and we are 
concurrently proposing a limited disapproval. Finally, to ensure that 
the inconsistencies in these specific provisions with the CAA are 
corrected, EPA's third action below is a proposed finding of 
substantial inadequacy and a proposed SIP call to address those 
provisions of the proposed limited approval and limited disapproval 
action which are inconsistent with CAA requirements applicable to SIP 
revisions. If EPA finalizes the proposed limited approval and limited 
disapproval of sections 252:100-9-1 and 252:100-9-8 of the 2010 
Subchapter 9 provisions, then EPA will also finalize the proposed 
finding of substantial inadequacy and proposed SIP call with respect to 
these provisions, as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., Approval and Promulgation of Implementation 
Plans; State of Georgia; 77 FR 38503 (June 28, 2012); and Limited 
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; 70 FR 
50205 (August 26, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third Action:
    As stated above, EPA's third action is a proposed finding of 
substantial inadequacy and proposed SIP call which, if finalized 
together with EPA's second action concerning the limited approval and 
limited disapproval, would require Oklahoma to submit revisions to 
those 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions in the limited approval and limited 
disapproval found to be inconsistent with the identified CAA 
requirements, or otherwise submit revisions to its excess emission 
provisions that comport with the requirements of the CAA. For a 
discussion regarding the timeframe for the adoption and submission of 
proposed revisions to the Oklahoma SIP provisions concerning excess 
emissions found in the 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions, see section II(D) 
below.

[[Page 54819]]

    As all of the sections of the 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions listed 
in Table 2 above are interrelated and not separable from one another 
other, as discussed in Section II(C) below, they are the subject of the 
today's proposed finding of substantial inadequacy and proposed SIP 
call. However, Table 3 below identifies the specific sections of the 
2010 Subchapter 9 provisions which are inconsistent with the 
requirements of the CAA and form the basis for the proposed finding of 
substantial inadequacy and the proposed SIP call.

   Table 3--Sections of the 2010 Subchapter 9 Provisions That Form the
  Basis for the Proposed Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and Proposed
                                SIP Call
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section of the 2010 Subchapter
         9  provisions                  Title             Information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
252:100-9-1...................  Purpose..............  Provisions not
                                                        limited to
                                                        excess emissions
                                                        during unplanned
                                                        events.
252:100-9-8(a)................  Affirmative defenses-- Provisions also
                                 General.               create an
                                                        affirmative
                                                        defense for
                                                        planned events.
252:100-9-8(c)................  Affirmative defenses   Provisions
                                 for excess emissions   establish
                                 during startup and     criteria for
                                 shutdown.              affirmative
                                                        defense for
                                                        planned events.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If finalized, the overall effect of the three actions proposed by 
EPA today will be the replacement of the existing Subchapter 9 
provisions of the Oklahoma SIP (i.e., those provisions approved by EPA 
on November 3, 1999, (64 FR 59629 and codified at 40 CFR 
52.1920(c)(48)), with the revisions contained in the specific 2010 
Subchapter 9 provisions proposed for approval in today's first action 
and the specific 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions proposed for a limited 
approval and limited disapproval in today's second action. Thus, if 
today's proposed actions are finalized, the current Subchapter 9 
provisions approved in 1999 into the Oklahoma SIP will be replaced by 
the 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions, and the entire 2010 Subchapter 9 
provisions will become part of the Oklahoma SIP. It is important to 
note that if finalized, certain portions of the 2010 Subchapter 9 
provisions pertaining to affirmative defenses will also be the subject 
of a finding of substantial inadequacy and a SIP call, as reflected by 
EPA's third action proposed today, and discussed in Section II(D) 
below.
    Also, section 252:100-9-3 of the Subchapter 9 provisions in the 
current EPA-approved Oklahoma SIP is presently a subject of EPA's 
proposed Findings of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Calls, 78 FR 12460 
(February 22, 2013) (EPA's February 22, 2013 Proposed Startup, 
Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) SIP Calls). If today's actions are 
finalized, then the Subchapter 9 provisions in the currently EPA-
approved Oklahoma SIP (including section 252:100-9-3 of those 
Subchapter 9 provisions) will no longer be part of the Oklahoma SIP. 
Consequently, if EPA finalizes approval of the 2010 Subchapter 9 
provisions, any outstanding SIP call related to section 252:100:9-3 of 
the currently EPA-approved SIP, such as the one proposed under EPA's 
February 22, 2013. Proposed SSM SIP Calls, will be moot, because 
section 252:100-9-3 of currently EPA-approved Oklahoma SIP will no 
longer be part of the federally-approved Oklahoma SIP. Final approval 
of the 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions will resolve the specific SIP 
deficiencies that EPA identified in the EPA's February 22, 2013 
Proposed SSM SIP Calls.
    As discussed below, EPA's proposed finding of substantial 
inadequacy and proposed SIP call (with respect to today's second action 
concerning the limited approval and limited disapproval of certain 
provisions of the 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions) relates to specific 
inseparable sections (or inseparable words within a section) of the 
2010 Subchapter 9 provisions. More specifically, EPA is proposing to 
find that the inclusion of an affirmative defense for excess emissions 
during startup and shutdown, such as the one contained in sections 
252:100-9-8(a) and (c) of the 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions, is 
inconsistent with the requirements of CAA section 110. Further, it is 
contrary to the fundamental enforcement structure provided in CAA 
sections 113 and 304, thereby constituting a substantial inadequacy, 
which renders those SIP provisions impermissible. See Section II 
``Evaluation'' below and also EPA's February 22, 2013 Proposed SSM SIP 
Calls, a copy of which is included in the docket for this rulemaking, 
for a more detailed discussion of the affirmative defense for planned 
activities, such as startup and shutdown.

B. What documents did we use in our evaluation of the July 16, 2010 SIP 
submittal?

    EPA's interpretation of the Act as it applies to SIP provisions 
that address excess emissions occurring during periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction is set forth in a series of guidance 
documents. These guidance documents include: (1) A memorandum dated 
September 28, 1982, from Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Administrator 
for Air, Noise, and Radiation, entitled ``Policy on Excess Emissions 
During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions'' (1982 
Policy); (2) a memorandum, dated February 15, 1983, from Kathleen M. 
Bennett, Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise, and Radiation (1983 
Policy); (3) a memorandum dated September 20, 1999, from Steven A. 
Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation, entitled ``State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding 
Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown'' (1999 
Policy); and (4) a memorandum dated December 5, 2001 from Eric 
Schaeffer, Director, Office of Regulatory Enforcement, Office of 
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and John S. Seitz, Director, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and 
Radiation (2001 Policy).
    EPA's interpretation of the CAA with respect to SIP provisions that 
address excess emissions during SSM events has been applied in 
rulemaking, including, but not limited to: (1) EPA's final rule for 
Utah's sulfur dioxide control strategy (Kennecott Copper), April 27, 
1977 (42 FR 21472); (2) EPA's final rule for Idaho's sulfur dioxide 
control strategy, November 8, 1977 (42 FR 58171); (3) EPA's ``Finding 
of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan: Call for Utah State 
Implementation Plan Revision,'' April 18, 2011 (76 FR 21639).
    EPA has recently issued a proposal in response to a petition for 
rulemaking concerning CAA requirement for SIP provisions that address 
excess emissions, reiterating EPA's

[[Page 54820]]

interpretation of the CAA with respect to such provisions. See EPA's 
February 22, 2013 Proposed SSM SIP Calls--Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-
0322; and EPA's February 4, 2013, Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy 
Context Memorandum for the February 22, 2013 Proposed SSM SIP Calls. In 
this recent action, EPA has specifically addressed the requirements of 
the CAA with respect to SIP provisions that provide an affirmative 
defense for violations of emission limitations due to excess emissions 
during SSM events.
    In addition, EPA evaluation responsibilities associated with the 
review of the July 16, 2010 SIP submittal draw upon the concepts of 
``separability'' as expressed in Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Gorsuch, 742 
F. 2d 1028 (7th Cir. 1984) and the EPA memorandum, dated July 9, 1992, 
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, entitled 
``Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittals'' (1992 
Calcagni Memo). A copy of each relevant document is available in the 
docket for this rulemaking.

C. What is the background for this proposed rulemaking?

    On January 25, 1984 (49 FR 3084), EPA approved Regulation 1.5, 
Reports Required: Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown and 
Malfunction of Equipment, into the Oklahoma SIP. This revision became 
effective on February 24, 1984. Later, Regulation 1.5 was recodified 
and renumbered by ODEQ (as Subchapter 9 Excess Emission and Malfunction 
Reporting Requirements) and approved by EPA as an administrative 
revision to the Oklahoma SIP on November 3, 1999 (64 FR 59629) (1994 
Subchapter 9 provisions). As of today's proposed action, the 1994 
Subchapter 9 provisions remain part of the EPA-approved Oklahoma SIP. 
See part 1 of the Technical Support Document (TSD) prepared in 
conjunction with this proposed rulemaking.
    On February 14, 2002, ODEQ submitted to EPA a revised version of 
Subchapter 9 that was not acted upon in the approval action of the Air 
Quality Implementation Plans; Oklahoma; Recodification of Regulations, 
published on December 29, 2008 at 73 FR 79400 (also known as the 
Oklahoma's Big SIP). See part 2 of the TSD. The Subchapter 9 portion of 
the February 14, 2002 submittal was subsequently withdrawn and replaced 
by ODEQ with the new Subchapter 9 provisions, as part of the July 16, 
2010 SIP submittal which is the subject of today's proposed actions 
(2010 Subchapter 9 provisions). See part 3 of TSD.

II. Evaluation

A. Introduction

    Under the principle of cooperative federalism, both states and EPA 
have authorities and responsibilities under the CAA with respect to 
SIPs. Pursuant to section 109 of the CAA, 42 USC Sec.  7409, EPA 
promulgates National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria 
pollutants the attainment and maintenance of which are considered 
requisite to protect the public health and welfare. Under CAA section 
107(a), each state has the primary responsibility for assuring that the 
NAAQS are attained and maintained throughout the state. Under section 
110(a)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(1), each state is required to 
develop and submit to EPA for approval a plan which provides for the 
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS; such plans 
are called state implementation plans or SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) of the 
CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2), requires each SIP to meet the requirements 
listed in section 110(a)(2)(A) through (M). Under CAA section 
110(a)(2)(H)(ii), states have a specific duty to revise their SIPs 
whenever EPA finds that the SIP is substantially inadequate to comply 
with requirements established under the Act.
    In the development of its SIP, a state has broad authority to 
develop the mix of emission limitations it deems best suited for its 
particular situation, but the exercise of this discretion is not 
unbridled. The states have the primary responsibility to develop SIPs 
that meet applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for 
attaining, maintaining, and enforcing the NAAQS. Under section 110(k) 
of the CAA, however, EPA is required to determine whether or not a SIP 
submission in fact meets all applicable requirements of the Act. EPA is 
authorized to approve, disapprove, partially approve and partially 
disapprove, or conditionally approve a given SIP submission, as 
appropriate. When a SIP submission does not meet the applicable 
requirements of the CAA, EPA is obligated to disapprove it, in whole or 
in part, as appropriate. In addition, when EPA finds a state's existing 
SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain a NAAQS or 
otherwise to comply with any other CAA requirement, EPA is authorized 
under section 110(k)(5) to require the state to revise its SIP as 
necessary to correct such inadequacies.
    Sections 110(l) and 193 of the CAA impose additional requirements 
upon EPA when reviewing a state's proposed revision to its SIP. Section 
110(l) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(l), provides that EPA may not approve 
a SIP revision if ``the revision would interfere with any applicable 
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or 
any other applicable requirement of this chapter.'' In addition, 
section 193 of the CAA prohibits SIP revisions that would affect 
control measures in effect prior to the 1990 amendments to the CAA in 
any area that is designated nonattainment for any NAAQS, unless the 
modification insures equivalent to greater emission reductions of such 
air pollutant. A more detailed discussion of the SIP requirements that 
may be relevant to this rulemaking are included in the docket, 
including section VIII ``Legal Authority, Process, and Timing for SIP 
Calls'' of EPA's February 22, 2013 Proposed SSM SIP Calls (78 FR 
12483), and the associated legal memorandum in the docket for that 
rulemaking.
    The statutory framework summary presented above underlies EPA's 
evaluation of SIP submissions as they relate to excess emissions. The 
EPA has a longstanding interpretation of the CAA with respect to the 
treatment of excess emissions during periods of startup, shutdown or 
malfunctions in SIPs. See section I(B) above. Central to EPA's 
interpretation is the definition of ``emission limitation'' and 
``emission standard'' contained in CAA section 302(k), 42 U.S.C. 
7602(k), which are defined as limitations that must be met on a 
continuous basis. Under section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 
7410(a)(2)(A), each SIP must include enforceable emission limitations 
and other control measures as may be necessary or appropriate to meet 
the applicable requirements of the Act. In addition, under CAA section 
110(a)(2)(C), 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(C), each SIP must include a program 
to provide for the enforcement of the measures described in CAA section 
110(a)(2)(A) and provide for the regulation of sources as necessary to 
ensure the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and protection of 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) increments.
    While the CAA requires that emission limitations in a SIP must be 
met on a ``continuous'' basis, compliance with such limitations 100% of 
the time may be practically and technologically impossible. Case law 
holding that technology-based standards should account for the 
practical realities of technology support EPA's view that an 
enforcement program under a SIP that incorporates some level of 
flexibility is

[[Page 54821]]

reasonable and consistent with the overall intent of the CAA.\4\ While 
EPA views all excess emissions as violations of emission limitations or 
emission standards, we recognize that, in certain situations, 
imposition of a civil penalty for sudden and unavoidable malfunctions 
caused by circumstances entirely beyond the control of the owner or 
operator may not be appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., Essex Chemical v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 433 
(D.C. Cir. 1973); and Portland Cement Association v. Ruckelshaus, 
486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1973)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addressing excess emissions due to sudden and unavoidable 
malfunctions, the EPA has provided guidance on three approaches states 
may use: (1) Traditional enforcement discretion; (2) SIP provisions 
that address the exercise of enforcement discretion by state personnel; 
and (3) SIP provisions that provide a narrowly tailored affirmative 
defense to civil penalties. Under the first approach, the State (or 
another entity, such as EPA, seeking to enforce a violation of the SIP) 
may consider the facts and circumstances surrounding the event in 
determining whether to pursue enforcement. Under the second approach, 
states may elect to create SIP provisions that provide parameters for 
the exercise of enforcement discretion by state personnel, so long as 
they do not affect enforcement by EPA or citizens. Under the third 
approach, states may elect to create SIP provisions that establish an 
affirmative defense that may be raised by the defendant in the context 
of an enforcement proceeding for civil penalties (not injunctive 
relief), and for which the defendant has the burden to prove that 
certain criteria have been met. See page 2 of the Attachment to the 
1999 Policy; see also EPA's February 22, 2013 Proposed SSM SIP Calls, 
at 78 FR 12478.
    Most relevant to this action, EPA interprets the CAA to allow SIP 
provisions that provide an affirmative defense, so long as they are 
appropriately drawn. EPA guidance recommends criteria that it considers 
necessary to assure that the affirmative defense is consistent with CAA 
requirements for SIP provisions. The EPA believes that narrowly-
tailored affirmative defense provisions can supply flexibility both to 
ensure that emission limitations are ``continuous'' as required by CAA 
section 302(k) because any violations remain subject to a claim for 
injunctive relief, and to provide limited relief in actions for 
penalties for malfunctions that are beyond the control of the owner 
where the owner has taken necessary steps to minimize the likelihood 
and extent of any such violation. Several courts have agreed with this 
approach.\5\ Neither the enforcement discretion nor the affirmative 
defense approaches may waive reporting requirements for the violation. 
States are not required to employ an affirmative defense approach, but 
if they choose to do so, EPA will evaluate the state's SIP provisions 
for consistency with the Act as interpreted by our policy and guidance, 
including those documents listed in section I.B above. In the 2010 
Subchapter 9 provisions of its July 16, 2010 SIP submittal, ODEQ 
adopted the affirmative defense approach to address excess emissions 
events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, Luminant Generation Co. v. EPA, 714 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. 
2013), Cert. pending (upholding the EPA's approval of an affirmative 
defense applicable during malfunctions in a SIP submission as a 
permissible interpretation of the statute under Chevron step 2 
analysis); Mont. Sulphur & Chemical Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174 (9th 
Cir. 2012); and Ariz. Public Service Co. v. EPA, 562 F.3d 1116, 1130 
(9th Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA acknowledges that ODEQ developed these affirmative defenses in 
the July 16, 2010 SIP submittal, consistent with EPA guidance at that 
time. However, EPA has reexamined its interpretation of the CAA with 
respect to affirmative defenses and accordingly believes that such 
affirmative defenses are only appropriate in the case of unplanned 
events like malfunctions, not in the case of planned events such as 
startup and shutdown for which sources should be expected to comply 
with applicable SIP emission limitations. Under CAA section 110(k) and 
section 110(l), EPA is obligated to determine whether SIP submissions 
in fact meet CAA requirements and our interpretation of the Act at the 
time EPA takes action on the SIP submission.

B. Why are we proposing approval of portions of the July 16, 2010 SIP 
submittal?

    Consistent with provisions of section 110(k) and section 110(l) of 
the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k) and 7410(l), EPA believes that there are 
portions of the 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions which are consistent with 
the requirements of the CAA for SIPs and would not interfere with any 
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further 
progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. These 
provisions are identified in Table 1 above and include: (1) Section 
252:100-9-1.1 Applicability, which provides that owners and operators 
of air contaminant sources are subject to the requirements of this 
subchapter; (2) section 252:100-9-2, which defines terms that are 
frequently used in the Subchapter 9 provisions; and (3) sections 
252:100-9-7(a) through (e) which address the notification, reporting 
requirements, and certificate of accuracy of the information concerning 
excess emissions events. Together these provisions require owners and 
operators to notify and report excess emissions to ODEQ within 
specified timeframes.
    The proper notification and reporting of excess emission events and 
the relevant information corresponding to those events will enable ODEQ 
to review, evaluate, and utilize the information submitted as a tool in 
its air quality planning/management efforts and assist its efforts to 
provide for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and other 
applicable requirements of the Act. These applicability, definitions, 
and notification requirements in the 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions are 
independent from the affirmative defense requirements set forth in 
section 252:100-9-8 of the 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions. In other 
words, approval of these provisions (section 252:100-9-1.1, section 
252:100-9-2, and sections 252:100-9-7(a) through (e)) into the Oklahoma 
SIP is consistent with, and will not render other sections of the 2010 
Subchapter 9 provisions more stringent than what the State intended or 
anticipated when ODEQ adopted the 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions. 
Therefore, EPA believes that the proposed approval of these provisions 
are separable from the remainder of the 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions 
submitted as part of the July 16, 2010 SIP submittal. In particular, we 
believe that EPA's approval of these specific provisions will not 
result in sections 252:100-9-1.1, 252:100-9-2, and 252:100-9-7(a) 
through (e), as reflected in the first action, being more stringent 
than ODEQ anticipated or intended. See Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. 
Gorsuch, 742 F.2d 1028, 1036-37 (7th Cir. 1984); see also 1992 Calcagni 
Memo.
    Furthermore, proposed approval of the specific provisions covered 
by the first action would enhance the ability of the State, EPA, and 
citizens to address excess emissions-related activities consistent with 
CAA sections 110, 113, 302(k) and 304, while simultaneously eliminating 
the discretionary exemptions from compliance with otherwise applicable 
emission limitations under the Subchapter 9 provisions in the currently 
EPA-approved Oklahoma SIP. Removal of the existing provisions that 
allow exemptions for excess emissions during SSM events via the 
exercise of director's discretion brings the Oklahoma SIP into

[[Page 54822]]

compliance with CAA requirements with respect to this issue.
    As explained in more detail in EPA's February 22, 2013 Proposed SSM 
SIP Calls (78 FR 12460), such director's discretion provisions are 
inconsistent with fundamental CAA requirements for SIP provisions. 
Therefore, our proposed approval of those sections of the 2010 
Subchapter 9 provisions covered by this first proposed action improves 
the SIP for Oklahoma and comports with the standards governing SIP 
revisions as set forth in section 110(k) and section 110(l) of the Act. 
EPA believes that the specific sections of the 2010 Subchapter 9 
provisions, identified in the first action of this document, meet the 
statutory requirements of the Act for SIP provisions and assist in 
providing for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and protection of 
PSD increments. We are therefore proposing the approval of sections 
252:100-9-1.1, 252:100-9-2, and 252:100-9-7(a) through (e) of the 2010 
Subchapter 9 provisions as a revision to the SIP for Oklahoma.

C. Why are we proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of 
portions of the July 16, 2010 SIP submittal?

    In some cases, a SIP submittal may contain certain provisions that 
meet the applicable requirements of the Act along with other provisions 
that do not meet CAA requirements, and the provisions are not 
separable. Although the submittal may not meet all of the applicable 
requirements, EPA may consider whether the submittal as a whole has a 
strengthening effect on the SIP. If that is the case, a limited 
approval may be used to approve a rule that strengthens the existing 
SIP, because it constitutes an improvement over what is currently in 
the SIP and meets some of the applicable requirements of the Act. If 
the rule does not meet all of the applicable requirements, EPA may 
elect to use a limited disapproval in conjunction with the limited 
approval. The Act does not expressly provide for limited approvals and 
limited disapprovals; rather, EPA is using its ``gap-filling'' 
authority under section 301(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7601(a), in 
conjunction with the authority under CAA section 110(k)(3), to 
interpret the Act to provide for this type of approval action.
    The primary advantage to using the limited approval approach is to 
make the state's SIP submittal federally enforceable and to increase 
the SIP's potential to achieve additional emission reductions. The 
utility of the limited disapproval approach is to identify the specific 
aspects of the SIP submittal that are not fully consistent with CAA 
requirements so that the state may then take appropriate action to make 
necessary SIP revisions. EPA's evaluation of the 2010 Subchapter 9 
provisions submitted by Oklahoma indicates that certain portions of the 
SIP submittal present a situation where a limited approval and limited 
disapproval is the correct approach.
    EPA is proposing limited approval and limited disapproval of the 
following portions of the 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions submitted as 
part of the July 16, 2010 SIP submittal: (1) Section 252:100-9-1 
Purpose, which sets forth the purpose of the 2010 Subchapter 9 
provisions and includes a reference to the affirmative defense 
provisions; and (2) section 252:100-9-8, Affirmative defenses. As 
discussed below, these provisions as a whole strengthen the SIP, even 
though there are portions of these provisions which are inconsistent 
with CAA requirements for SIP provisions as they relate to affirmative 
defenses for violations due to excess emissions during certain types of 
events. Furthermore, EPA finds that those portions which are 
inconsistent with the requirements of the Act are not separable from 
the remainder of the provisions that are consistent with the CAA 
requirements. Therefore, EPA is proposing a limited approval and 
limited disapproval of these provisions as a whole. The following 
paragraphs discuss each of these provisions in detail and describe why 
EPA believes that they do not meet applicable CAA requirements.
    Section 252:100-9-1. Purpose of the 2010 Subchapter 9 provision is 
inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA because it contains an 
overly broad reference to the affirmative defense provisions for excess 
emissions. The term ``excess emissions,'' defined in section 252:100-9-
2, is not limited to excess emissions occurring during unplanned events 
such as malfunctions. As explained in detail below, EPA believes that 
the creation of an affirmative defense for violations due to excess 
emissions from planned events--such as startup, shutdown, and 
maintenance--is inconsistent with the requirements of CAA section 
110(a) and is inconsistent with the fundamental enforcement structure 
provided in CAA sections 113 and 304.\6\ Should Oklahoma elect to 
incorporate an affirmative defense provision for excess emissions 
during unavoidable violations into the Oklahoma SIP, then section 
252:100-9-1 should be revised to limit the affirmative defense 
reference only to those excess emissions during malfunctions, as 
discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Luminant Generation Co. v. EPA, 714 F.3d 841,856 (5th 
Cir. 2013) Cert. pending, acknowledging EPA's belief that ``an 
effective enforcement program must be able to collect penalties to 
deter avoidable violations.'' See also, EPA's February 22, 2013. 
Proposed SIP Calls (78 FR 12460, 12480).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's evaluation of the affirmative defense provisions established 
in section 252:100-9-8 of the 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions begins with 
section 252:100-9-8(a). The first sentence of that section states that 
all excess emissions regardless of cause are violations; however, the 
second sentence in that section provides an affirmative defense 
applicable to violations due to excess emissions during startup, 
shutdown and malfunction (all three categorical events). Section 
252:100-9-8(a) as submitted is an improvement to the current EPA-
approved SIP for excess emissions (i.e., the 1994 Subchapter 9 
provisions). For example, as discussed in the TSD included in the 
docket for this rulemaking, section 252:100-9-3 of the current EPA-
approved Oklahoma SIP creates an exemption via director discretion, 
such that excess emissions during startup, shutdown, malfunction, or 
maintenance are not violations of the applicable emission limitations.
    In accordance with CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 302(k), SIPs must 
contain ``emission limitations'' and those limitations must be 
continuous. Thus, any excess emissions above the level of the 
applicable SIP emission limitations must be considered a violation of 
such limitations. In addition, SIP provisions that operate to create 
exemptions from SIP requirements through the exercise of director's 
discretion are also inconsistent with CAA requirements for SIP 
revisions. For these reasons, as discussed in EPA's February 22, 2013 
Proposed SSM SIP Calls (78 FR 12524), EPA has already proposed a 
finding of substantial inadequacy and proposed a SIP call with respect 
to OAC 252:110-9-3 of the currently EPA-approved Oklahoma SIP. Section 
252:100-9-8(a) of the 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions is an improvement to 
the current EPA-approved Oklahoma SIP because it eliminates the 
exemption via director discretion provision, so that all excess 
emissions regardless of cause are considered violations.
    However, section 252:100-9-8(a) is also inconsistent with the 
requirements provided in CAA sections 110(a)(2) and conflicts with the 
fundamental enforcement structure provided in CAA sections 113 and 304, 
because it creates an affirmative defense for violations due

[[Page 54823]]

to excess emissions during startups and shutdowns. As explained in 
Section VII(C), ``Affirmative Defense Provisions During Periods of 
Startup and Shutdown,'' of EPA's February 22, 2013 Proposed SIP Calls, 
EPA's approval of a SIP provision which provides a limited affirmative 
defense to a source for excess emissions during periods of malfunction 
may be permissible, but EPA's approval of such a defense would not be 
permissible for excess emissions during periods of startup and 
shutdown. See 78 FR 12480. EPA believes that providing affirmative 
defenses for avoidable violations, such as those resulting from excess 
emissions during planned events such as startups and shutdowns, that 
are within the control of the owner or operator of the source, is 
inconsistent with the requirements provided in CAA section 110(a) and 
the fundamental enforcement structure provided in CAA sections 113 and 
304, which provide for potential civil penalties for violations of SIP 
requirements.
    SIP provisions providing affirmative defenses can be appropriate 
for malfunctions because, by definition and unlike planned startups and 
shutdowns, malfunctions are unforeseen and could not have been avoided 
by the owner or operator of the source, and the owner or operator of 
the source will have taken steps to prevent the violation and to 
minimize the effects of the violation after it occurs. In such 
circumstances, EPA interprets the Act to allow narrowly drawn 
affirmative defense provisions that may provide relief from civil 
penalties (but not injunctive relief) to owners or operators of 
sources, when their conduct justifies this relief. Such is not the case 
with planned and predictable events, such as startups and shutdowns, 
during which the owners or operators of sources should be expected to 
comply with applicable SIP emission limitations and should not be 
accorded relief from civil penalties if they fail to do so.\7\ 
Providing an affirmative defense for monetary penalties for violations 
that result from planned events is inconsistent with the basic premise 
that the excess emissions were beyond the control of the owner or 
operator of the source, and thus is diametrically opposed to the 
intended purpose of such an affirmative defense to encourage better 
compliance even by sources for which 100 percent compliance is not 
possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA notes that a state can elect to adopt alternative 
emission limitations that apply to normal modes of source operation, 
such as startup and shutdown, so long as these provisions are 
consistent with CAA requirements. EPA's February 22, 2013 Proposed 
SSM SIP Calls also provides guidance on how such SIP provisions may 
be developed to meet CAA requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained above, EPA interprets the CAA to allow a SIP revision 
which provides a narrowly tailored affirmative defense for excess 
emissions due to malfunctions; however, it cannot approve such a 
defense for excess emissions during planned events such as startups and 
shutdown activities. Separating the words ``startup'' and ``shutdown'' 
from the remainder of the second sentence in section 252:100-9-8(a) 
could make the approval of the remainder of that section more stringent 
than Oklahoma anticipated or intended. For example, had Oklahoma known 
at the time of the rule adoption it would be impermissible for EPA to 
approve a SIP revision which creates an affirmative defense for excess 
emissions due to startups and shutdowns, ODEQ may have elected to 
establish alternative emission limitations or other control measures or 
techniques designed to minimize emissions during startup and shutdown 
activities in lieu of the affirmative defense. Applying the principles 
established in Bethlehem Steel and as expressed in the 1992 Calcagni 
Memo, we believe that in this particular factual scenario with the 
wording of these specific provisions, EPA cannot merely excise the 
words ``startup'' and ``shutdown'' from the second sentence in section 
252:100-9-8(a), and approve the remainder of the section into the 
Oklahoma SIP.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Gorsuch, 742 F.2d 1028, 1036-37 
(7th Cir. 1984); see also 1992 Calcagni Memo at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in looking at the other provisions of section 252:100-9-
8, we believe that they are not separable from section 252:100-9-8(a), 
which is the general provision that establishes the affirmative 
defenses for startup, shutdown, and malfunction events in the first 
instance. That is, the general provisions of section 252:100-9-8(a) 
which create the affirmative defenses are inextricably intertwined with 
the remainder of the other provisions in section 252:100-9-8 (that is, 
sections 252:100-9-8(b) through 252:100-9-8(e)), and those latter 
provisions cannot stand by themselves. Given that EPA cannot propose a 
full approval of section 252:100-9-8, it follows that EPA cannot 
propose full approval of section 252:100-9-1 which states that part of 
the purpose of the Subchapter 9 provisions is to establish affirmative 
defenses for excess emissions for all three categories of events, as 
discussed above.
    Although EPA cannot propose full approval of section 252:100-9-
8(a), we have evaluated section 252:100-9-8(b) with respect to the 
affirmative defense for excess emissions during malfunctions for 
consistency with CAA requirements. This provision requires that in 
asserting an affirmative defense for excess emissions during 
malfunctions, the owner or operator of a facility must demonstrate 
certain criteria by a preponderance of evidence in order to qualify for 
the affirmative defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding. EPA 
has guidance making recommendations for criteria appropriate for 
affirmative defense provisions that would be consistent with the 
requirements of the CAA. EPA's 1999 Policy and the February 22, 2013 
Proposed SSM SIP Calls lay out these criteria. These are guidance 
recommendations and states do not need to track EPA's recommended 
wording verbatim, but states should have SIP provisions that are 
consistent with these recommendations in order to assure that the 
affirmative defense meets CAA requirements. Our evaluation indicates 
that the affirmative defense criteria set forth in 252:100-9-8(b) 
combined with the requisites set forth in sections 252:100-9-8(d) and 
(e) are sufficiently consistent with these recommended criteria for 
affirmative defense provisions in SIPs for malfunctions. For a detailed 
comparison of the affirmative defense criteria for malfunctions in the 
2010 Subchapter 9 provisions with those recommended in EPA's guidance, 
see the TSD.
    Therefore, as part of the limited approval, we propose that these 
sections constitute a sufficiently narrow affirmative defense provision 
for malfunctions that would not interfere with the CAA requirements 
discussed above. As such, section 252:100-9-8(b) of the 2010 Subchapter 
9 provisions is not itself substantially inadequate and is not the 
basis for the proposed SIP call that is part of the third action 
proposed today. However, because the affirmative defense for 
malfunction events is not separable from the affirmative defense 
provision applicable to startup and shutdown events, it will 
nevertheless be included in the proposed finding of substantial 
inadequacy and proposed SIP call in the third action. Should Oklahoma 
elect to establish an affirmative defense restricted to malfunctions, 
then section 252:100-9-8(b) could be resubmitted at ODEQ's discretion.
    As part of the limited disapproval, we propose that the affirmative 
defense provisions applicable to startup and shutdown are not 
consistent with CAA requirements for SIP provisions. Section 252:100-9-
8(c) provides that in

[[Page 54824]]

asserting an affirmative defense for excess emissions during startup 
and shutdown, the owner or operator of a facility must demonstrate 
certain criteria by a preponderance of evidence in a judicial or 
administrative proceeding. As discussed above, however, an affirmative 
defense for planned events, such as startup and shutdown, is 
inconsistent with and would interfere with the requirements of CAA 
section 110(a) and the fundamental enforcement structure provided in 
CAA sections 113 and 304 which provide for potential civil penalties 
for violations of SIP emission limits. Accordingly, these deficiencies 
in section 252:100-9-8(c) form part of the basis for the proposed 
finding of substantial inadequacy and proposed SIP call, as discussed 
in the third action proposed today.
    Section 252:100-9-8(d) identifies situations where assertion of the 
affirmative defense is not allowed and Section 252:100-9-8(e) states 
that the Director will consider the notification requirements, in 
addition to other relevant information in the determination process,\9\ 
but such determinations should not be construed as limiting EPA or 
citizens' authority to enforce the emission limits of the SIP under the 
Act. Taken together, these sections provide for enforcement and 
compliance determination of a source during excess emission events. If 
limited to affirmative defenses for violations due to excess emissions 
during malfunctions, these two provisions would not interfere with the 
requirements set forth in CAA sections 110(a) and 302(k), nor would 
such sections be inconsistent with the fundamental enforcement 
structure provided in CAA sections 113 and 304. Accordingly, sections 
252:100-9-8(d) and 252:00-9-8(e) are not substantially inadequate with 
CAA requirements and do not form the basis for the proposed finding of 
substantial inadequacy and proposed SIP call, as discussed in the third 
action proposed today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ We note that 252:100-9-8(a) of the 2010 Subchapter 9 
provisions provides an affirmative defense to owners and operators 
for civil or administrative penalty actions for excess emissions 
during emission events. We interpret the ``determination'' language 
in 252:100-9-8(e) to mean how the Director determines whether or not 
to pursue enforcement against an owner and operator for excess 
emissions violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, EPA believes that the affirmative defense provisions of 
section 252:100-9-8, taken as a whole, when compared against the 
currently EPA-approved SIP provisions for excess emissions, would 
strengthen the SIP for Oklahoma, if approved. However, there are 
specific provisions, namely those that would provide for affirmative 
defenses for violations due to excess emission during planned events 
such as startups and shutdowns, which are inconsistent with applicable 
requirements of the CAA for SIP purposes. Therefore, we are proposing a 
limited approval and limited disapproval of sections 252:100-9-1 and 
252:100-9-8 of the 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions into the SIP for 
Oklahoma. If EPA finalizes the limited approval and limited 
disapproval, these sections (sections 252:100-9-1 and 252:100-9-8) will 
become part of the SIP and federally enforceable until EPA approves a 
revised submission from Oklahoma that is fully approvable. To ensure 
Oklahoma addresses the three sections that form the basis of EPA's 
limited approval and limited disapproval (sections 252:100-9-1, 
252:100-9-8(a), and 252:100-9-8(c)) we are simultaneously proposing a 
finding of substantial inadequacy and SIP call to address these three 
sections, if EPA finalizes that limited approval and limited 
disapproval in the final action. The next section discusses the 
proposed finding of substantial inadequacy and proposed SIP call in 
more detail.

D. Why are we proposing a finding of substantial inadequacy and a SIP 
call?

    As stated in Section II(C) above, today's action proposes the 
limited approval and limited disapproval of those portions of the 2010 
Subchapter 9 provisions identified in Table 2 above. Should today's 
second action be finalized as proposed, all of those provisions will 
become part of the Oklahoma SIP. However, as noted above, we recognize 
that certain portions of those provisions (pertaining in various ways 
to the affirmative defense provisions applicable to startup and 
shutdown events) do not meet all CAA requirements for SIP purposes. In 
order to ensure that Oklahoma takes action to correct those specific 
deficiencies, we are also proposing a finding of substantial inadequacy 
and a SIP call with respect to the provisions for which EPA is 
proposing the limited approval and limited disapproval, which will be 
finalized when EPA finalizes the second action as proposed today. The 
legal basis for the finding of substantial inadequacy and the SIP call 
and a discussion of the specific provisions subject to the proposed SIP 
call are discussed below.
    The CAA provides a mechanism for the correction of flawed SIPs, 
under CAA section 110(k)(5), which provides:
    (5) Calls for plan revisions

    Whenever the Administrator finds that the applicable 
implementation plan for any area is substantially inadequate to 
attain or maintain the relevant national ambient air quality 
standards, to mitigate adequately the interstate pollutant transport 
described in section [176A] of this title or section [184] of this 
title, or to otherwise comply with any requirement of [the Act], the 
Administrator shall require the State to revise the plan as 
necessary to correct such inadequacies. The Administrator shall 
notify the State of the inadequacies and may establish reasonable 
deadlines (not to exceed 18 months after the date of such notice) 
for the submission of such plan revisions.

    By its explicit terms, this provision authorizes the EPA to find 
that a state's SIP is ``substantially inadequate'' to meet CAA 
requirements and, based on that finding, to ``require the State to 
revise the [SIP] as necessary to correct such inadequacies.'' This type 
of action is commonly referred to as a ``SIP call.'' CAA section 
110(k)(5) expressly directs EPA to take action if the SIP provision is 
substantially inadequate not just for purposes of attainment or 
maintenance of the NAAQS, but also for purposes of meeting ``any 
requirement'' of the CAA. In particular, EPA notes that section 
110(k)(5) authorizes the agency to make such a finding and issue a SIP 
call ``whenever'' it determines a state's SIP to be substantially 
inadequate, and thus EPA has authority to propose such a finding and 
issue in SIP call prospectively in the event that it finalizes the 
limited approval and limited disapproval contemplated in this proposal. 
If our limited approval and limited disapproval is finalized, at that 
time the state's SIP will be substantially inadequate due to the SIP 
provisions concerning affirmative defenses for startup and shutdown 
events.
    As stated in Section II(C) above, the EPA interprets the CAA to 
allow only narrowly drawn affirmative defense provisions that are 
available for events that are entirely beyond the control of the owner 
or operator of the source. Thus, an affirmative defense may be 
appropriate for events like malfunctions, which are sudden and 
unavoidable events that cannot be foreseen or planned for. The 
underlying premise for an affirmative defense provision is that the 
source is properly designed, operated, and maintained, and could not 
have taken action to prevent the exceedance. Because the qualifying 
source could not have foreseen or prevented the event, the affirmative 
defense is available to provide relief from monetary penalties that 
could result from an event beyond the control of the source.

[[Page 54825]]

    The legal and factual basis supporting the concept of an 
affirmative defense for malfunctions does not support providing an 
affirmative defense for normal modes of operation like startup and 
shutdown. Such events are planned and predictable. The source should be 
designed, operated, and maintained to comply with applicable emission 
limitations during normal and predictable source operation. Because 
startup and shutdown periods are part of a source's normal operations, 
the same approach to compliance with, and enforcement of, applicable 
emission limitations during those periods should apply as otherwise 
applies during a source's normal operations. If justified, the state 
can develop and submit to EPA for approval as part of the SIP, 
alternative emission limitations or control measures that apply during 
startup and shutdown, if the source cannot meet the otherwise 
applicable emission limitations in the SIP.
    Even if a source is a suitable candidate for alternative SIP 
emission limitations during startup and shutdown, however, that does 
not justify the creation of an affirmative defense in the case of 
excess emissions during such events. Because these events are planned, 
the EPA believes that sources should be able to comply with applicable 
emission limitations during these periods of time. To provide an 
affirmative defense for violations that occur during planned and 
predictable events for which the source should have been expected to 
comply is tantamount to providing relief from civil penalties for a 
planned violation.
    EPA believes that adoption of affirmative defense provisions that 
include periods of normal source operation that are within the control 
of the owner or operator of the source, such as planned startup and 
shutdown, would be inconsistent with the requirements of CAA section 
110(a) and the enforcement structure provided in CAA sections 113 and 
304. Therefore, the affirmative defense provision for excess emissions 
during startup and shutdown created in section 252:100-9-8(a) of the 
2010 Subchapter 9 provisions and the associated affirmative defense 
criteria for excess emissions during startup and shutdown as set forth 
in section 252:100-9-8(c) of the 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions are 
substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements for the reasons 
stated above. In addition, section 252:100-9-1 of the 2010 Subchapter 9 
provisions includes as a purpose of the 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions 
the establishment of affirmative defense provisions for excess 
emissions, without limiting the reference to affirmative defenses to 
excess emissions during malfunctions.
    Accordingly, EPA is also proposing to find that section 252:100-9-1 
of the 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions is substantially inadequate to meet 
the CAA requirements for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, all 
three provisions identified in Table 3 (sections 252:100-9-1, 252:100-
9-8(a), and 252:100-9-8(c)) are the basis for the proposed finding of 
substantial inadequacy and the proposed SIP call. Because those 
subsections are intertwined with the remainder of the section 252:100-
9-8, the proposed limited approval and limited disapproval as well as 
the proposed finding of substantial inadequacy and proposed SIP call 
encompass all of 252:100-9-8 and 252:100-9-1, as discussed above.
    In addition to providing general authority for a SIP call, CAA 
section 110(k)(5) sets forth the process and timing for such an action. 
First, the statute requires the EPA to notify the state of the final 
finding of substantial inadequacy. Second, the statute requires the EPA 
to establish ``reasonable deadlines (not to exceed 18 months after the 
date of such notice)'' for the state to submit a corrective SIP 
submission to eliminate the inadequacy in response to the SIP call. 42 
U.S.C. 7410(k)(5). Third, the statute requires that any finding of 
substantial inadequacy and notice to the state be made public.
    If EPA finalizes the proposed finding of substantial inadequacy and 
proposed SIP call for the 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions identified in 
Table 3 above, CAA section 110(k)(5) requires EPA to establish a SIP 
submission deadline by which Oklahoma must make a SIP submission to 
rectify the identified deficiencies. EPA is proposing that if it 
promulgates a final finding of substantial inadequacy and a SIP call 
for those 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions identified in Table 3 above, 
then EPA will establish a date no more than 18 months from the date of 
promulgation of the final finding for Oklahoma to respond to the SIP 
call. For consistency with EPA's February 22, 2013 Proposed SSM SIP 
Calls, under which section 252:100-9-3 of the currently EPA-approved 
Oklahoma SIP is already subject to a proposed SIP call (78 FR 12523), 
we are here proposing that Oklahoma revise the identified sections of 
the 2010 Subchapter 9 provisions (section 252:100-9-1 and sections 
252:100-9-8(a) and (c)) and submit a revision of those provisions 
consistent with CAA requirements along with the remainder of section 
252:100-9-8, addressing the deficiencies identified in this proposal to 
EPA. This submittal date will be due no later than the earlier of the 
statutory maximum of eighteen months, or the due date by which areas 
subject EPA's February 22, 2013 Proposed SSM SIP Calls are required to 
revise and submit their SIPs to EPA.\10\ Given that affirmative 
defenses for excess emissions are not required elements under the Act, 
today's proposed SIP call will not, by itself, trigger a sanction clock 
for Oklahoma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Nothing in today's rulemaking action for Oklahoma should be 
construed or interpreted as a re-opening of the public comment 
period for EPA's February 22, 2013 (78 FR 12460) Proposed Findings 
of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Calls, or any issues associated 
with that separate rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the state fails to submit the corrective SIP revision by the 
deadline that the EPA finalizes as part of the SIP call proposed in 
this action, then CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) authorizes EPA to find that 
the State has failed to make a complete submission, in whole or in 
part. Once EPA makes such a finding of failure to submit for a required 
SIP submission, CAA section 110(c)(1) requires EPA to ``promulgate a 
Federal implementation plan at any time within 2 years after the 
[finding] . . . unless the State corrects the deficiency, and [the EPA] 
approves the plan or plan revision, before [the EPA] promulgates such 
[FIP].'' Thus, if the EPA finalizes the proposed SIP call in this 
action and then finds that Oklahoma failed to submit a complete SIP 
revision that responds to the SIP call, or if EPA disapproves such SIP 
revision, then the EPA will have an obligation under CAA section 
110(c)(1) to promulgate a FIP to address the identified SIP deficiency, 
no later than two years from the date of the finding or the 
disapproval, if the deficiency has not been corrected before that time.

III. Proposed Action

    Today, we are proposing full approval of the following provisions 
of Title 252, Chapter 100, Subchapter 9, Excess Emission Reporting 
Requirements as submitted on July 16, 2010, into the Oklahoma SIP:

Section 252:100-9-1.1 Applicability,
Section 252:100-9-2 Definitions,
Section 252:100-9-7(a) Immediate notice,
Section 252:100-9-7(b) Excess emission event report,
Section 252:100-9-7(c) Ongoing events,
Section 252:100-9-7(d) Alternative reporting, and
Section 252:100-9-7(e) Certificate of truth, accuracy and completeness 
required.

[[Page 54826]]

    We are proposing to delete the following provisions of Title 252, 
Chapter 100, Subchapter 9 from the currently EPA-approved Oklahoma SIP:

Section 252:100-9-1 Purpose,
Section 252:100-9-2 Definitions,
Section 252:100-9-3 General reporting requirements,
Section 252:100-9-4 Maintenance procedures,
Section 252:100-9-5 Malfunctions and releases, and
Section 252:100-9-6 Excesses resulting from engineering limitations.
    We are proposing a concurrent limited approval and limited 
disapproval of the following provisions of Title 252, Chapter 100, 
Subchapter 9 Excess Emission Reporting Requirements as submitted on 
July 16, 2010, into the Oklahoma SIP:

Section 252:100-9-1 Purpose, and
Section 252:100-9-8 Affirmative defenses.
    We are also proposing a finding of substantial inadequacy and a SIP 
call of the provisions listed above for the proposed concurrent limited 
approval and limited disapproval, and note the following provisions of 
Title 252, Chapter 100, Subchapter 9, Excess Emission Reporting 
Requirements as submitted on July 16, 2010, as the basis for the 
proposed finding of substantial inadequacy and proposed SIP call:

Section 252:100-9-1 Purpose,
Section 252:100-9-8(a) General, and
Section 252:100-9-8(c) Affirmative defenses for excess emissions during 
startup and shutdown.

IV. 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 act on state law 
and ensure that it meets Federal requirements; such review does not 
impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Additionally, under the Clean Air Act, a finding of substantial 
inadequacy and the subsequent obligation for a state to revise its SIP 
arise out of CAA sections 110(a) and 110(k)(5). The finding and state 
obligation do not directly impose any new regulatory requirements. In 
addition, the state obligation is not legally enforceable by a court of 
law. EPA will review its intended action on any SIP submittal in 
response to the finding in light of applicable statutory and Executive 
Order requirements, in any subsequent rulemaking acting on such SIP 
submittal.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under 
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore 
not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 
3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection 
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.) because this proposed action under section 110 of the CAA 
will not in-and-of itself create any new information collection burdens 
but simply approves or disapproves certain State requirements for 
inclusion into the SIP. The proposal to issue the SIP call only 
proposes an action that requires the state to revise its SIP to comply 
with existing requirements of the CAA. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 
1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.\11\ This proposed action will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because 
SIP approvals and limited approvals/limited disapprovals under section 
110 of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply 
approve requirements that the State is already imposing. The proposed 
SIP call is only an action that requires the state to revise its SIP to 
comply with existing requirements of the CAA. The EPA's action, 
therefore, would leave to the state the choice of how to revise the SIP 
provision in question to make it consistent with CAA requirements. 
Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Moreover, due to the 
nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, 
preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry 
into the economic reasonableness of State action. The Clean Air Act 
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union 
Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 
7410(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Small entities include small businesses, small 
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of 
assessing the impacts of this notice on small entities, small entity 
is defined as: (1) A small business that is a small industrial 
entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) 
size standards (see 13 CFR 121.201); (2) a small governmental 
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 
district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; 
or (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise 
that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its 
field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of 
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 
1531- 1538, for State, local, or tribal governments or the private 
sector. The EPA has determined that the limited approval/limited 
disapproval proposal action does not include a Federal mandate that may 
result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, 
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private 
sector. This action proposes to approve or disapprove pre-existing 
requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. 
The proposed SIP Call may impose a duty on the state to meet its 
existing obligations to revise its SIP to comply with CAA requirements. 
The direct costs of this action, if finalized, would be those 
associated with preparation and submission of a SIP revision. Examples 
of such costs could include development of a state rule, conducting 
notice and public hearing, and other costs incurred in connection with 
a SIP submission. These aggregate costs would be far less than the 
$100-million threshold in any one year for the state. Thus, this 
proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 
of UMRA.
    In addition since the only regulatory requirements of this proposed 
action would apply solely to the State of Oklahoma, this action is not 
subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains 
no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism

[[Page 54827]]

implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' is 
defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have 
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This 
proposed action does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves or 
disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP and 
does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the CAA. The proposed SIP call is 
required by the CAA because the EPA is proposing to find that the 
current SIP of the State is substantially inadequate to meet 
fundamental CAA requirements. In addition, the effects on the State 
will not be substantial because the SIP call will require the State to 
submit only those revisions necessary to address the SIP deficiencies 
and applicable CAA requirements. While this action may impose direct 
effects on the State, the expenditures would not be substantial because 
they would be far less than $25 million in the aggregate in any one 
year. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

E. Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). In this action, 
the EPA is not addressing any tribal implementation plans. This action 
is limited to the State of Oklahoma, and the SIP provisions which are 
the subject of the proposed actions do not apply to sources of 
emissions located in Indian country. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does 
not apply to this action. However, the EPA invites comment on this 
proposed rule from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health 
or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of 
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 
proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or 
safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997). This proposed action under section 110 of the CAA will not in 
and of itself create any new regulations but simply approves or 
disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP. The 
proposed SIP Call is not subject to EO 13045 because it would not 
establish an environmental standard, but instead would require Oklahoma 
to revise a state rule to address requirements of the CAA. Therefore 
the proposed action is not an economically significant regulatory 
action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).

H. Executive Order 13211--Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. This action merely prescribes the EPA's 
action for the State regarding its obligations for SIP under the CAA.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the 
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency 
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    The EPA believes that this proposed action 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. This 
proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, 
the EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus 
standards.

J. Executive Order 12898--Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) 
establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main 
provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable 
and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their 
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority 
populations and low-income populations in the United States.
    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental 
justice in this proposed action. In reviewing SIP submissions, the 
EPA's role is to approve or disapprove state choices, based on the 
criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to 
approve or disapprove certain State requirements for inclusion into the 
SIP under section 110 of the CAA and will not in and of itself create 
any new requirements. The proposed action increases the level of 
environmental protection for all affected populations without having 
any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income 
population. The proposed action is intended to ensure that all 
communities and populations across the State, including minority, low-
income and indigenous populations overburdened by pollution, receive 
the full human health and environmental protection provided by the CAA. 
This proposed action concerns the State's obligations regarding the 
treatment they give, in rules included in its SIP under the CAA, to 
excess emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunctions. This 
proposed action would require Oklahoma to bring its treatment of these 
emissions into line with CAA requirements, which would lead to sources 
having greater incentives to control emissions during such events.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, State implementation plan, Volatile organic 
compounds.

[[Page 54828]]

    Dated: August 28, 2013.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2013-21777 Filed 9-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P