Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 45949 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and 

therefore subject to the requirements of 

the Executive Order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive order. 

This final regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this final 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing these final priorities 

and definitions only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits justify 

their costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that 

maximize net benefits. Based on the 

analysis that follows, the Department 

believes that this regulatory action is 

consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

We have also determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and Tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) by 

contacting the Grants and Contracts 

Services Team, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 

20202–2550. Telephone: (202) 245– 

7363. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call 

the FRS, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: July 30, 2012. 

Alexa Posny, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2012–18907 Filed 8–1–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0866; FRL–9705–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Preconstruction 

Requirements-Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration and 

Nonattainment New Source Review 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving several 

revisions to the Maryland State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the Maryland Department of the 

Environment (MDE). These revisions 

pertain to preconstruction requirements 

under the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) and non-attainment 

New Source Review (NSR) programs. 

The SIP revisions satisfy the following 

required SIP elements: NSR Reform, 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) as a precursor 

to ozone, PM2.5, and Greenhouse Gases 

(GHGs). Additionally, EPA is approving, 

as a separate action, Maryland’s 

submittals for purposes of meeting the 

infrastructure requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) which relate to 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
45950 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Maryland’s PSD permitting program and 

are necessary to implement, maintain, 

and enforce the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) and the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. This action is being taken 

under the CAA. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on September 4, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0866. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Maryland Department of 

the Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Talley, (215) 814–2117, or by 

email at talley.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. On March 19, 2012 (77 FR 15985), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the State of 

Maryland. The NPR proposed approval 

of three SIP revision requests submitted 

by MDE, as described below. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

A. SIP Revision #07–13 

On October 24, 2007 MDE submitted 

a SIP revision request to EPA which 

included amendments to Regulations 

.01–.03, repeal of existing Regulations 

.04 and .05, and the adoption of new 

Regulations .04–.09 under COMAR 

26.11.17, Nonattainment Provisions for 

Major New Sources and Major 

Modifications. This SIP submittal 

revises the previously-approved 

versions of these rules as approved into 

the Maryland SIP on February 12, 2001 

for COMAR 26.11.17 Regulations .02, 

.04, and .05 (66 FR 9766) and September 

20, 2004 for COMAR 26.11.17 

Regulations .01 and .03 (69 FR 56170). 

These amendments were adopted by 

Maryland on September 18, 2007 and 

became effective on October 22, 2007. 

The State adopted these regulations in 

order to meet the relevant plan 

requirements of Title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.165 and 

the CAA. EPA is approving these 

amendments. 

B. SIP Revision #09–03 

On July 31, 2009, MDE submitted a 

SIP revision request to EPA that 

consisted of the incorporation by 

reference of the Federal PSD 

requirements at 40 CFR 52.21 as 

codified in the July 1, 2008 edition of 

the CFR. The SIP revision request 

included amendments to the MDE 

Regulation .01 under COMAR 26.11.01 

(General Administrative Provisions) and 

Regulation .14 under COMAR 26.11.06 

(General Emission Standards, 

Prohibitions, and Restrictions). On June 

23, 2011, MDE submitted a letter, 

retracting the part of submission #09–03 

which updated the incorporation by 

reference date. Since originally 

submitting #09–03, Maryland has 

adopted the federal regulations as they 

appear in the July 1, 2009 version of the 

CFR (See State Submission #11–02, 

below). Today’s action approves only 

that part of the submission which 

clarifies the definitions of 

‘‘Administrator’’ and ‘‘reviewing 

authority’’. 

This SIP submittal revises the 

previously-approved versions of these 

rules as approved into the Maryland SIP 

on May 28, 2002 (67 FR 36810). These 

amendments were adopted by Maryland 

on June 11, 2009 and became effective 

on July 16, 2009. The State adopted 

these regulations in order to meet the 

relevant plan requirements of 40 CFR 

51.166 and the CAA. EPA is approving 

these amendments. 

C. SIP Revision #11–02 

On June 23, 2011, MDE submitted a 

SIP revision request to EPA that 

consisted of the incorporation by 

reference of the federal PSD 

requirements at 40 CFR 52.21 as 

codified in the July 1, 2009 edition of 

the CFR, as well as the incorporation of 

the revisions to 40 CFR 52.21 

promulgated on May 13, 2010 in the 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule (75 FR 

31514). The SIP revision request 

included amendments to the MDE 

Regulation .01 under COMAR 26.11.01 

(General Administrative Provisions), 

Regulations .01 and .12 under COMAR 

26.11.02 (Permits, Approvals, and 

Registration), and Regulation .14 under 

COMAR 26.11.06 (General Emission 

Standards, Prohibitions, and 

Restrictions). 

This SIP submittal revises the 

previously-approved versions of these 

rules, approved as follows: COMAR 

26.11.01.01 and COMAR 26.11.06.14 

were adopted into the Maryland SIP on 

May 28, 2002 (67 FR 36810). COMAR 

26.11.02.01 and .12 were adopted into 

the Maryland SIP on February 27, 2003 

(68 FR 9012). These amendments were 

adopted by Maryland on April 14, 2011 

and became effective on May 16, 2009. 

The State adopted these regulations in 

order to meet the relevant plan 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.166 and the 

CAA. EPA is approving these 

amendments. 

As stated above, the SIP revisions 

submitted by MDE satisfy several 

required SIP elements: NSR Reform, 

NOX as a precursor to ozone, PM2.5, and 

Greenhouse Gases (GHGs). Additionally, 

EPA is approving, as a separate action, 

Maryland’s submittals for purposes of 

meeting the infrastructure requirements 

of the CAA which relate to Maryland’s 

PSD permitting program and are 

necessary to implement, maintain, and 

enforce the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) and the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. Other specific requirements of 

MDE’s SIP revisions and the rationale 

for EPA’s proposed action are explained 

in the NPR and will not be restated here. 

III. EPA’s Response to Comments 

Received on the Proposed Action 

EPA received a single set of relevant 

comments on its March 19, 2012 (77 FR 

15985) proposed action to approve 

revisions to the Maryland SIP. These 

comments, provided by Mr. Robert 

Ukeiley on behalf of the Sierra Club, 

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the 

Commenter’’), raised concerns about 

EPA’s March 19, 2012 proposed action. 

A full set of these comments is provided 

in the docket for today’s final action. A 

summary of the comments and EPA’s 

responses are provided below. 

Generally, the Commenter raises three 

areas of concern. First, the Commenter 

asserts that the proposed revisions to 

Maryland’s nonattainment program 

cannot be approved into the Maryland 

SIP because the ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ 

requirements are not included in the 

proposed regulations. Second, the 

Commenter asserts that ‘‘NSR Reform’’ 

cannot be approved into the Maryland 

SIP because EPA has failed to 

demonstrate that the new program 

‘‘ensures equivalent or greater emissions 

reductions * * *’’ in accordance with 

CAA section 193. Finally, the 

Commenter asserts that EPA cannot 

approve the 2006 PM2.5 Infrastructure 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 45951 

SIP because Maryland’s incorporation 

by reference of the Federal regulations 

is ambiguous with respect to the 

regulation of NOX and volatile organic 

compounds (VOC’s) as precursors to 

PM2.5, and because the proposed SIP 

revision does not include the PM2.5

increments that were promulgated by 

EPA on October 20, 2010 (75 FR 64864). 

EPA’s response to these comments is 

provided below. 

Comment 1: The commenter asserts 

that the proposed SIP revision cannot be 

approved because it does not 

specifically contain the ‘‘reasonable 

possibility’’ provisions of 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(6). 

Response 1: As we noted in the notice 

of proposed rulemaking, EPA 

promulgated the ‘‘reasonable 

possibility’’ provisions of 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(6) on December 21, 2007 (72 

FR 72607), after MDE submitted the 

revisions that are the subject of this 

action. However, we also noted that 

while the reasonable possibility 

provisions are a required program 

element, permitting authorities can meet 

the requirements with equivalent 

regulations (See 77 FR 15988). Contrary 

to the assertions of the commenter, we 

look for equivalence of a state’s 

provisions and do not impose a 

requirement that ‘‘ever[y] piece of 

information that is required by 

‘reasonable possibility’ requirements is 

required by [the State].’’ Maryland’s 

robust minor NSR program contains 

provisions which are equivalent to 40 

CFR 51.165(a)(6). The Code of Maryland 

Administrative Regulations (COMAR) 

lists the activities MDE deems to be 

‘‘insignificant’’ and thus exempt from 

permitting requirements (See, COMAR 

26.11.02.10). It is highly unlikely that 

any facility exceeding the 50 percent 

significant emissions rate threshold 

which triggers the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.165(a)(6) would escape some 

level (major or minor) of 

preconstruction review under 

Maryland’s regulations. Once a facility 

is subject to preconstruction review, 

Maryland’s record keeping and 

reporting regulations meet or exceed all 

of the reasonable possibility 

requirements. MDE uses the authority 

under the general administrative 

provisions of COMAR 26.11.01 to 

require testing and monitoring 

(26.11.01.04), and recordkeeping and 

reporting (26.11.01.05). Thus, sources in 

Maryland that escape major NSR are not 

required merely to calculate baseline 

and projected actual emissions and keep 

records of those calculations onsite. 

Rather, for all but the most insignificant 

sources, those calculations are reviewed 

by MDE under their minor NSR 

program, and the testing, monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements of COMAR 26.11.01 are 

incorporated into their preconstruction 

and operating permits. Additionally, the 

permit application requirements of 

26.11.02.11, as well as MDE’s general 

authority under 26.11.02.06 to deny an 

application that has failed to 

demonstrate compliance with 

Maryland’s nonattainment NSR 

provisions (.06B(4)) or protection of the 

NAAQS (.06B(5)) all support a finding 

that Maryland has met the statutory 

requirements with regard to the 

reasonable possibility provisions. 

Comment 2: The Commenter asserts 

that EPA cannot approve the 2002 NSR 

provisions into the Maryland SIP 

without demonstrating that the 

proposed revisions insure equivalent or 

greater emissions reductions than the 

previous program, in accordance with 

CAA section 193. Citing to the June 16, 

2011 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Seventh Circuit (Seventh Circuit) 

decision in NRDC v. Jackson, the 

Commenter further asserts that in order 

provide such a demonstration, EPA 

must analyze data from states which 

have already adopted the NSR Reform 

provisions: ‘‘EPA can start by reviewing 

minor source permits for major sources 

of pollution in Georgia, New York, and 

North Carolina. EPA would need to 

determine which of these minor source 

permits would have triggered NA NSR 

under the old rules, using the actual to 

potential test and the shorter look back 

period. If any sources would have 

triggered [nonattainment] NSR under 

the old rules but did not trigger it under 

the ‘Reform’ than (sic) the Reform did 

not provide equivalent or greater 

emission reductions’’ (See Comments at 

2). 

Response 2: The NSR Reform 

provisions at issue here have repeatedly 

withstood judicial review, and as we 

noted in our proposal, the revisions to 

the Maryland SIP largely mirror the 

Federal program. We disagree that the 

kind of analysis described by the 

Commenter is required in order to 

approve the revisions at issue into the 

SIP. We acknowledge the Seventh 

Circuit’s admonishment against 

perpetual reliance on predictions over 

available data, as cited by the 

Commenter. However, as discussed 

below, EPA did not rely on the 2002 

‘‘Supplemental Environmental 

Analysis’’ which contained the 

predictions that were at issue in NRDC 

v. Jackson as the basis for approving 

these revisions into the Maryland SIP. 

Moreover, the number of permits that 

would have been required under prereform regulations is not determinative 

of whether a permitting authority has 

met its obligation with regard to CAA 

section 193: ‘‘* * * the statutes concern 

the quantity of emissions, not the 

quantity of permits’’ (See NRDC v. 

Jackson at 6). Additionally, it should be 

noted that the type of analysis 

recommended by the commenter fails to 

take into consideration the emission 

avoidances that occur when a source 

obtains a federally enforceable limit on 

its potential to emit (PTE) in order to 

avoid major NSR. 

The primary Reform provision with 

which the Commenter takes issue is the 

actual-to-projected actual test. Our basis 

for approving these revisions rests upon 

the fact that this applicability test can 

only be utilized by a fraction of sources 

in the permitting universe. As we noted 

in our proposal, only modifications to 

existing emission units at major 

stationary sources can use the baselineto-projected actual test. The list of 

sources potentially affected by the 

revisions being proposed in this action 

is further shortened by the fact that 

electric generating units were already 

permitted to use this test because of the 

regulations arising from litigation in the 

Wisconsin Electric Power Company 

(WEPCO) case. This is commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘WEPCO rule’’ (See, 

57 FR 32314). Furthermore, any 

modification that did manage to avoid 

the requirement to obtain a major NSR 

permit using the test would still be 

subject to the preconstruction permit 

requirements of Maryland’s minor NSR 

program, including any of the attendant 

testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. Based on the 

limited number of potentially affected 

sources and the stringency of 

Maryland’s minor NSR program, we 

stand behind our determination that 

approving the NSR Reform provisions 

into the SIP will have, at worst, a 

neutral impact on emissions in 

Maryland. We disagree with the 

Commenter’s assertion that additional 

analysis is required. 

Comment 3: The third comment 

relates to EPA’s proposed approval of 

the portions of Maryland’s 2006 PM2.5

infrastructure SIP which relate to the 

PSD requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2). The Commenter asserts that 

EPA cannot approve the infrastructure 

SIP without: (A) clarifying the PM2.5

precursor requirements for NOX and 

VOC’s, and (B) including the PM2.5

increments which were promulgated by 

EPA on October 20, 2010. 

Response 3: EPA believes Maryland 

has a PSD permitting program that is 

sufficient to meet the requirements in 

section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) of 

the CAA. In this final action, EPA is 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
45952 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

approving COMAR 26.11.06.14 which 

incorporates by reference 40 CFR 

section 52.21 (2009) which includes the 

Federal regulations identified by the 

Commenter. This final action 

incorporates into the Maryland SIP 40 

CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)(c) (providing NOX is 

a precursor to PM2.5) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50)(i)(d) (providing VOC’s are 

presumed not to be precursors to PM2.5) 

(See also May 18, 2008 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5),’’ (73 FR 28321)). With respect to 

the PM2.5 increments, as the Commenter 

noted, states have until July 20, 2012 to 

submit SIP revisions which incorporate 

the October 20, 2011 PM2.5 increment 

requirements (See 75 FR 64864). 

Therefore, the Commenter’s assertion is 

not relevant to this SIP action. EPA 

believes that it is unreasonable not to 

approve the 2006 PM2.5 Infrastructure 

SIP because the State’s SIP lacks 

requirements that EPA has not even 

required the State to submit yet. Instead, 

the EPA believes that it is appropriate 

for the EPA to take into consideration 

the timing and sequence of related SIP 

submissions as part of determining what 

it is reasonable to expect a State to have 

addressed in an infrastructure SIP for a 

NAAQS at the time when the EPA acts 

on such submission. Such an approach 

is reasonable, and to adopt a different 

approach by which the EPA could not 

act on an infrastructure SIP, or at least 

could not approve an infrastructure SIP, 

whenever there was any impending or 

future revision to the SIP that will be 

required by another collateral 

rulemaking action would result in 

regulatory gridlock. The EPA believes 

that such an outcome would be an 

unreasonable reading of the statutory 

process for the SIP’s contemplated in 

section 110(a)(1) and (2). Based upon 

EPA’s review of Maryland’s PSD 

program, including the revisions subject 

to this action, Maryland has met its 

obligations pursuant to the portions of 

CAA section 110(a)(2) relating to PSD 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1997 

Ozone NAAQS, and the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving MDE’s July 31, 2009 

and June 23, 2011 SIP submittals as a 

revision to the Maryland SIP. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves 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 CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this 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. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by October 1, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action 

pertaining to preconstruction permitting 

requirements under Maryland’s PSD 

and nonattainment NSR programs may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: July 11, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. In § 52.1070: 

■ a. The table in paragraph (c) is 

amended by: 

■ 1. Adding an entry for COMAR 

26.11.01.01 after the existing entry for 

COMAR 26.11.01.01. 

■ 2. Adding an entry for COMAR 

26.11.02.01 after the existing entry for 

COMAR 26.11.02.01. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 45953 

■ 3. Revising the existing entries for 

COMAR 26.11.02.12, 26.11.06.14, and 

26.11.17.01 through 26.11.17.05. 

■ 4. Adding entries for COMAR 

26.11.17.06 through 26.11.17.09 in 

numerical order. 

■ b. The table in paragraph (e) is 

amended by revising the entries for 

section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS, section 110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, and section 110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS at the end of the table. 

The revised and added text reads as 

follows: 

§ 52.1070 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS, TECHNICAL MEMORANDA, AND STATUTES IN THE MARYLAND SIP 

Code of Maryland 

administrative regulations (COMAR) 

citation 

Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Additional explanation/ citation at 40 CFR 52.1100 

26.11.01 General Administrative Provisions 

*******

26.11.01.01 ............ Definitions .................................. 5/16/09 8/2/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Added .01 B(6–1), and (18–1); 

Revised .01B(37). 

*******

26.11.02 Permits, Approvals, and Registration 

*******

26.11.02.01 ............ Definitions .................................. 5/16/11 8/2/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Added .01B(44)(f), .01C(1)(d). 

*******

26.11.02.12 ............ Procedures for Obtaining Approvals of PSD Sources and 

NSR Sources, Permits to 

Construct, Permit to Construct MACT Determinations 

On a Case-by-Case Basis in 

Accordance with 40 CFR part 

63, subpart B, and Certain 

100-Ton Sources.

5/16/11 8/2/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Added .12A(2) 

*******

26.11.06 General Emission Standards, Prohibitions, and Restrictions 

*******

26.11.06.14 ............ Control of PSD Sources ............ 7/16/09; 5/16/11 8/2/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

*******

26.11.17 Nonattainment Provisions for Major New Sources and Major Modifications 

26.11.17.01 ............ Definitions .................................. 10/22/07 8/2/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

26.11.17.02 ............ Applicability ................................ 10/22/07 8/2/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

26.11.17.03 ............ General Conditions .................... 10/22/07 8/2/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

26.11.17.04 ............ Creating Emission Reduction 

Credits (ERCs).

10/22/07 8/2/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Revised; Former Regulation .04 

is repealed and replaced in 

its entirety. 

26.11.17.05 ............ Information on Emission Reductions and Certification.10/22/07 8/2/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Revised; Former Regulation .05 

is repealed and replaced in 

its entirety. 

26.11.17.06 ............ Transferring Emission Reduction Credits.10/22/07 8/2/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Added. 

26.11.17.07 ............ Plantwide Applicability Limit 

(PAL)—General.

10/22/07 8/2/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Added. 

26.11.17.08 ............ Plantwide Applicability Limit 

(PAL)—Permits.

10/22/07 8/2/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Added. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
45954 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS, TECHNICAL MEMORANDA, AND STATUTES IN THE MARYLAND SIP—Continued 

Code of Maryland 

administrative regulations (COMAR) 

citation 

Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Additional explanation/ citation at 40 CFR 52.1100 

26.11.17.09 ............ Plantwide Applicability Limit 

(PAL)—Monitoring, Record 

Keeping, and Reporting.

10/22/07 8/2/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Added. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * (e) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP 

revision 

Applicable 

geographic area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 8– 

Hour Ozone NAAQS.

Statewide .......... 7/27/07, 11/30/07, 11/25/11, 76 FR 72624 ............... This action addresses the following CAA elements or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), 

(C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), 

(J), (K), (L), and (M). 

7/31/09, 6/23/11 8/2/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

This action addresses the following CAA elements or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J). 

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide .......... 4/3/08, 4/16/10 11/25/11, 76 FR 72624 ............... This action addresses the following CAA elements or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), 

(C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), 

(J), (K), (L), and (M). 

7/31/09, 6/23/11 8/2/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

This action addresses the following CAA elements or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J). 

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide .......... 4/16/10, 7/21/10 11/25/11, 76 FR 72624 ............... This action addresses the following CAA elements or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), 

(C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), 

(J), (K), (L), and (M). 

7/31/09, 6/23/11 8/2/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

This action addresses the following CAA elements or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J). 

[FR Doc. 2012–18656 Filed 8–1–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0153; FRL–9708–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and 

Designations of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes; Tennessee: 

Knoxville; Determination of Attaining 

Data for the 1997 Annual and 2006 24– 

Hour Fine Particulate Matter Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is making two 

determinations, one regarding the 

Knoxville, Tennessee, 1997 annual fine 

particulate (PM2.5) nonattainment area 

and one regarding the KnoxvilleSevierville-La Follette, Tennessee, 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 nonattainment area (both 

areas have the same geographic 

boundary and will hereafter be 

collectively referred to as the ‘‘Knoxville 

Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’). First, EPA is 

determining that the Area has attained 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or 

‘‘standard’’). Second, EPA is 

determining that the Area has attained 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. These 

determinations of attaining data are 

based upon quality-assured and 

certified ambient air monitoring data for 

the 2009–2011 period, showing that the 

Area has monitored attainment of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The requirements 

for the Area to submit an attainment 

demonstration and associated 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM), reasonable further progress 

(RFP) plans, contingency measures, and 

other planning State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revisions related to 

attainment of the standards shall be 

suspended so long as the Area continues 

to attain the respective PM2.5 NAAQS. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on September 4, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0153. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the electronic 

docket, some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES