Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 183 / Friday, September 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 52993 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action 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, Best available retrofit 

technology, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Regional haze, Sulfur 

dioxide, Visibility, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: September 17, 2021. 

David Gray, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart T—Louisiana 

■ 2. In § 52.970(e), the second table 

titled ‘‘EPA Approved Louisiana 

Nonregulatory Provisions and QuasiRegulatory Measures’’ is amended by 

adding the entry ‘‘Louisiana Regional 

Haze Progress Report’’ at the end of the 

table to read as follows: 

§ 52.970 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA APPROVED LOUISIANA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES

Name of SIP 

provision 

Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State 

submittal 

date/ 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Louisiana Regional 

Haze Progress 

Report.

Statewide ........................................ 3/25/2021 9/24/2021, [Insert Federal Register citation].

[FR Doc. 2021–20617 Filed 9–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0528; FRL–8974–02– 

R3] 

Air Plan Approval; Maryland; Negative 

Declaration for the Oil and Gas 

Industry 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Maryland. 

This revision provides Maryland’s 

determination, via a negative 

declaration, that there are no sources 

within its borders subject to EPA’s 2016 

Oil and Natural Gas control techniques 

guidelines (2016 Oil and Gas CTG). EPA 

is approving these revisions to the 

Maryland SIP in accordance with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

October 25, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0528. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., 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 through https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Talley, Planning & 

Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & 

Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. The telephone number is (215) 

814–2117. Mr. Talley can also be 

reached via electronic mail at 

talley.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On February 9, 2021 (86 FR 8742), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of 

Maryland. In the NPRM, EPA proposed 

approval of Maryland’s negative 

declaration SIP submittal for the 2016 

Oil and Gas CTG. On June 18, 2020, the 

Maryland Department of the 

Environment (MDE) submitted the 

negative declaration for the 2016 Oil 

and Gas CTG as a revision to the 

Maryland SIP. 

The CAA regulates emissions of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) to prevent 

photochemical reactions that result in 

ozone formation. Reasonably available 

control technology (RACT) is a strategy 

for reducing NOX and VOC emissions 

from stationary sources within 

designated nonattainment areas 

classified as moderate or above that are 

not meeting the national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone. 

EPA has consistently defined ‘‘RACT’’ 

as the lowest emission limit that a 

particular source is capable of meeting 

by the application of the control 

technology that is reasonably available 

considering technological and economic 

feasibility. 

Control techniques guidelines (CTGs) 

and alternative control techniques 

(ACTs) form important components of 

the guidance that EPA provides to states 

for making RACT determinations. CTGs 

are used to presumptively define VOC 

RACT for applicable source categories. 

CAA section 182(b)(2)(A) requires that 

for ozone nonattainment areas classified 

as moderate or above, states must revise 

their SIPs to include provisions to 

implement RACT for each category of 

VOC sources covered by a CTG 

document. CAA section 184(b)(1)(B) 

extends the RACT obligation to all areas 

of states within the ozone transport 

region (OTR), including Maryland. 

52994 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 183 / Friday, September 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1The majority of the provisions for implementing 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS (including those related to 

negative declarations) were retained without 

revision for purposes of implementing the 2015 

ozone NAAQS. See ‘‘Implementation of the 2015 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: 

Nonattainment Area State Implementation Plan 

Requirements’’ (2015 Ozone Implementation Rule) 

83 FR 62998 (December 6, 2018); and 40 CFR 

51.1301. 

2See 2016 Oil and Gas CTG at 3–6. 

3See Id. at 3–7. 

States subject to RACT requirements 

are required to enact controls for 

sources subject to CTGs that are at least 

as stringent as those found within the 

CTG, either via the adoption of 

regulations or by issuance of single 

source permits that outline what the 

source is required to do to meet RACT. 

On March 6, 2016 (80 FR 12264), EPA 

issued a final rule entitled 

‘‘Implementation of the 2008 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Ozone: State Implementation Plan 

Requirements’’ (2008 Ozone 

Implementation Rule). In the preamble 

to the final rule, EPA makes clear that 

if there are no sources covered by a 

specific CTG source category located in 

an ozone nonattainment area or an area 

in the OTR, the state may submit a 

negative declaration for that CTG. See 

80 FR 12264, 12278. The same negative 

declaration is allowed by the 2015 

ozone NAAQS implementation rule.1

On October 27, 2016 (81 FR 74798), 

EPA published in the Federal Register 

the ‘‘Release of Final Control 

Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and 

Natural Gas Industry,’’ (2016 Oil and 

Gas CTG). This CTG provided 

information to state, local, and tribal air 

agencies to assist in determining RACT 

for VOC emissions from certain VOC 

emission sources within the oil and 

natural gas industry. The 2016 Oil and 

Gas CTG replaces an earlier 1983 CTG 

entitled ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic 

Compound Equipment Leaks from 

Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants. 

December 1983.’’ EPA–450/3–83–007 

(1983 CTG) 49 FR 4432; February 6, 

1984. See 2016 Oil and Gas CTG, p. 8– 

1. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA 

Analysis 

According to Maryland’s June 18, 

2020 submittal, MDE conducted a 

review of potential sources subject to 

the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG. This review 

consisted of a search of Maryland’s oil 

and gas well records, air permit records, 

EPA greenhouse gas reporting records, 

and the Standard Industrial 

Classification (SIC) system. MDE’s 

search identified a total of 13 facilities 

in Maryland operating in the 

production, processing, or transmission 

and storage segments of the oil and 

natural gas industry. However, none of 

these facilities had storage tanks or 

production wells that met or exceeded 

the applicability criteria of the CTG. 

MDE identified five facilities in the 

natural gas transmission sector, but 

determined that none of them had 

storage tanks with the potential to emit 

(PTE) more than 6 tons per year (tpy) of 

VOCs, which is the threshold for 

applicability of the CTG.2 Additionally, 

MDE identified eight active individual 

production wells, but determined that 

none of these exceeded the 15 barrel 

equivalents per day per well, which is 

the threshold for CTG applicability.3

Other specific requirements of the 2016 

Oil and Gas CTG and the rationale for 

EPA’s proposed action are explained in 

the NPRM and will not be restated here. 

III. EPA’s Response to Comments 

Received 

EPA received four sets of comments 

on our proposed approval of Maryland’s 

June 18, 2020 negative declaration SIP 

submittal. One comment was generally 

in favor of EPA’s proposed action and 

will not be addressed in this action. A 

summary of the other comments and 

EPA’s response is provided herein. All 

comments received are included in the 

docket for this action. 

Comment 1: The commenter asserts 

that the tanks and production wells 

identified by MDE as being potentially 

subject to the CTG, but determined by 

MDE to not meet the applicability 

thresholds and therefore not subject to 

the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG, should have 

mechanisms to limit their PTE to ensure 

that they remain below the thresholds. 

The commenter provides the example of 

synthetic minor permits. The 

commenter further asserts that relying 

on emission factors or other engineering 

estimates would be arbitrary given the 

‘‘many variables involved.’’ 

Response 1: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s assertions. First, AP42 

emissions factors and the engineering 

estimates (i.e. modelling) relied upon in 

Maryland’s submittal are generally 

accepted and are used regularly in place 

of direct emissions measurement. 

Therefore, MDE’s reliance upon them 

for the purposes of this negative 

declaration is not ‘‘arbitrary.’’ EPA 

further disagrees with the commenter’s 

assertion that the reported facilities 

should have synthetic minor permits or 

other enforceable limits on their PTE, 

and that it is ‘‘implausible’’ to claim that 

these facilities could have PTEs below 

the applicability thresholds absent such 

limits. In support of this claim, the 

commenter offers merely the ‘‘many 

variables involved,’’ such as varying 

composition of the gas over time. EPA’s 

review of Maryland’s submittal shows 

that the referenced sources all report 

emissions well below the thresholds. 

For the potentially affected storage 

vessels (tanks), Maryland provided 

extensive documentation, including 

calculations that considered ambient 

temperature variations, throughput, and 

chemical composition of the liquids 

stored in the tanks. All emissions 

reported were considerably under the 

applicability threshold for storage 

vessels. For example, of the six 

potentially affected tanks identified at 

the Dominion Cove Point facility, the 

highest emissions reported were 0.02 

tpy of VOC, which is significantly below 

the 6 tpy threshold. See Attachment A 

of MDE’s June 18, 2020 submittal. The 

overwhelming majority of the tanks 

analyzed reported emissions of only a 

fraction of a ton per year. The highest 

reported emissions were for the two 

condensate storage tanks at the Accident 

compressor station. Each of those had 

calculated emissions of 1.2 tpy, still 

well below the threshold. See 

Attachment B of MDE’s June 18, 2020 

submittal. 

Similarly, EPA disagrees that the 

identified production wells need 

enforceable limits on their production. 

First, the commenter has provided no 

evidence to contradict MDE’s evaluation 

of the wells’ outputs. Second, MDE 

certified in their submittal that their 

evaluation of the production wells was 

based on a search of their permit 

records. Each of the listed wells was 

constructed under a permit issued by 

Maryland. MDE is therefore well 

positioned to review the data associated 

with each of those permits and make an 

accurate determination of each well’s 

output. EPA finds no reason to 

determine that MDE’s determination 

with respect to the wells was 

unreasonable. 

EPA believes that there is a sufficient 

margin between the reported emissions 

and the applicability threshold to 

determine that the identified sources do 

not need enforceable PTE limits in order 

for EPA to approve Maryland’s negative 

declaration. Furthermore, Federal 

regulations are only necessary if a 

covered source exceeds the applicability 

thresholds established by the CTG. 

Maryland has certified that none of the 

sources within its jurisdiction exceed 

these thresholds. Should any of the 

reported sources exceed the thresholds 

in the future; or should a new source of 

the type covered by the existing CTG 

emitting more than either threshold be 

constructed in the state after approval of 

a negative declaration, EPA expects the 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 183 / Friday, September 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 52995 

4See section A.2(i) of Model Rule Language; 2016 

Oil and Gas CTG; Appendix A at A–8. 

5See 2016 Oil and Gas CTG at 4–3. 

6MDE’s submittal did not include documentation 

for the modelling runs at the TransCanada 

compressor station. Rather, an email from the 

company to MDE indicated that they performed 

TANKS modelling on four tanks, with a total 

emission estimate across all units of 0.66 tpy. See 

attachment D of MDE’s June 18, 2020 submittal. 

7 Data for the Cove Point area was not 

immediately available, but Baltimore is close 

enough to provide a representative example. 

8See https://www.weather.gov/media/lwx/ 

climate/bwitemps.pdf 

state to develop a regulation and submit 

it to EPA for approval into the SIP in 

accordance with the relevant timing 

provided for by the CAA. Additionally, 

it is likely that any significant change in 

the operation of the existing facilities 

which would impact their PTE would 

be subject to preconstruction review by 

MDE. The same is true for the 

construction of new sources. At this 

time, because Maryland does not have 

any sources subject to the 2016 Oil and 

Gas CTG, no regulation is required to be 

developed and submitted for EPA 

approval. Therefore, we disagree with 

the commenter and are finalizing our 

approval of Maryland’s negative 

declaration. 

Comment 2: The commenter asserts 

that EPA should disapprove MDE’s June 

18, 2020 submittal because it relies on 

TANKS modelling, which utilizes 

outdated information, including 

temperature/climate data which is ‘‘all 

over 10 years old.’’ The commenter 

further takes issue with the use in the 

model of 70 degrees Fahrenheit (F) as an 

average temperature, asserting that 

summer temperatures routinely exceed 

that mark, and that it is ‘‘settled 

science’’ that as temperatures rise, so do 

VOC emissions. The commenter asserts 

that EPA ‘‘cannot assume with a straight 

face’’ that these tanks will only operate 

at 70 degrees F, that the 70 degrees F 

assumption is only valid for indoor, 

climate-controlled situations, and that 

MDE’s negative declaration should be 

disapproved because the model was 

improperly performed and did not 

consider ‘‘current and realistic 

temperature and climatic data.’’ Finally, 

the commenter asserts that the model 

should be run using ‘‘average climatic 

data for each month.’’ 

Response 2: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s assertions. First, the CTG 

provides flexibility and does not require 

a specific method for calculating VOC 

emissions. The model rule language 

provided in the CTG requires only that 

‘‘emissions must be calculated using a 

generally accepted model or calculation 

methodology.’’ 4 The new source 

performance standards of title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

60, subpart OOOOa, (also applying to 

the oil and natural gas sector) include 

similar language. See 40 CFR 

60.5395a(a)(3). E&P TANKS is a 

‘‘generally accepted’’ model, and 

therefore an appropriate tool for 

calculating VOC emissions for the 

purpose of this negative declaration. In 

fact, the model was one of the resources 

utilized by EPA in the development of 

the CTG.5 Second, while EPA 

acknowledges that ambient 

temperatures impact VOC emissions 

from storage vessels, we do not agree 

that the assumption of 70 degrees F as 

an average temperature within the 

model is inappropriate. Furthermore, 

contrary to the commenter’s assertion, 

the use of 70 degrees as an average is 

not an assumption that the tank will 

never operate above that temperature. 

MDE identified six facilities that had 

tanks potentially subject to the CTG: the 

Dominion Cove Point LNG facility, the 

Dominion Myersville compressor 

station, the Enbridge Eastern Accident 

compressor station, the Enbridge 

Accident underground storage facility, 

the Williams Transco Ellicott City 

compressor station, and the 

TransCanada compressor station. The 

documentation provided by MDE 

included submittals from the potentially 

impacted sources, including the results 

of TANKS modelling to evaluate their 

particular storage vessels. Of the six 

facilities identified, only the Dominion 

facilities appear to have run the model 

with an ‘‘across the board’’ assumption 

of 70 degrees as the ambient 

temperature.6 See attachments A–D of 

MDE’s June 18, 2020 submittal. 

Temperature data from the National 

Weather Service for the Baltimore 7 area 

for 2020 show that only three months— 

June, July and August—exceeded an 

average monthly temperature of 70 

degrees (75.1, 82.6, and 78.7 degrees, 

respectively).8 The other nine months 

were below 70. Using 70 degrees as an 

average for all twelve months is 

therefore a conservative approach, as 

the over-estimating for nine months 

offsets the potential under-estimating 

for the other three. Furthermore, 

Dominion reported emissions for six 

tanks, five at the Cove Point facility, and 

one at the Myersville compressor 

station. Of those tanks, only one 

reported any emissions at all. That tank, 

a 38,152 gallon tank, containing 

‘‘hydrocarbons,’’ reported emissions of 

only 0.02 tpy AND is equipped with a 

control device (emissions are piped via 

a closed loop to a flare). See Attachment 

A of MDE’s June 18, 2020 submittal. The 

modelling for the Enbridge tanks, as 

well as the Williams Transco tanks, 

appears to have taken into account daily 

temperature variations and other 

variables to calculate actual monthly 

averages. See Attachments B and C of 

MDE’s June 18, 2020 submittal. This 

approach, which is in line with the 

commenter’s assertion, also results in 

emissions that, in all cases, are well 

below the 6 tpy threshold. We find these 

analyses (and MDE’s reliance upon 

them) to be reasonable. Therefore, we 

disagree with the commenter and are 

finalizing our approval of Maryland’s 

negative declaration. 

Comment 3: The commenter asserts 

that EPA must disapprove MDE’s 

negative declaration because ‘‘the 

standards are not scientific or related to 

scientific procedures and are not 

consistent with the state’s development 

priorities for air, water, and noise.’’ 

Further, the commenter asserts that the 

SIP is not consistent with EPA’s ‘‘study 

on methane emissions from drilling 

operations,’’ that the guidelines ‘‘cannot 

be promulgated under the state’s 

authority’’ because they were ‘‘derived 

from an out-of-date methodology used 

in 2012,’’ and that MDE’s own review of 

‘‘EPA’s 2012 study of hydraulic 

fracturing fluid emissions’’ identified a 

number of concerns about the findings. 

Response 3: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s assertion that we must 

disapprove MDE’s June 18, 2020 

submittal. First, the commenter makes 

several references to ‘‘hydraulic 

fracturing’’ (fracking), but none of the 

wells addressed by MDE’s submittal 

employ fracking as a means of 

extraction. Indeed, Maryland has 

imposed a ‘‘fracking ban,’’ and does not 

allow the practice within the State. See 

Md. Code Ann. Environment section 

14–107.1. Therefore, fracking plays no 

role in MDE’s negative declaration or 

EPA’s approval. Second, it is not 

entirely clear to which allegedly out of 

date ‘‘methodology’’ and allegedly 

unscientific ‘‘standards’’ the commenter 

is referring. If the commenter is referring 

to the CTG itself, the validity of the CTG 

is not at issue in this action and will not 

be addressed here. This action relates 

only to MDE’s certification that there are 

no sources within the State subject to 

the CTG. The commenter has not 

identified any flaws specific to MDE’s 

methodology for making that 

determination, nor with EPA’s proposed 

approval. Therefore, we disagree with 

the commenter and are finalizing our 

approval of Maryland’s negative 

declaration. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving Maryland’s negative 

declaration as a revision to Maryland’s 

52996 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 183 / Friday, September 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

SIP, to address the CAA requirements of 

section 182(b)(2)(A) and 184(b)(1)(B) 

under the 2008 and 2015 ozone 

NAAQS, as they pertain to the 2016 Oil 

and Gas CTG. 

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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• 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 November 23, 2021. 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 Maryland’s 

negative declaration for the 2016 Oil 

and Gas CTG 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Ozone,Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: September 15, 2021. 

Diana Esher, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 

52 as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart V—Maryland 

■ 2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding the entry 

‘‘Negative Declaration for the 2016 Oil 

and Gas CTG’’ at the end of the table to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.1070 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Name of 

non-regulatory 

SIP revision 

Applicable 

geographic area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Negative Declaration for the 2016 

Oil and Gas 

CTG.

Statewide ........................................ 6/18/20 9/24/21, [insert Federal Register 

citation].

Negative declaration submitted for the 2008 and 

2015 ozone national ambient air quality standards. 

[FR Doc. 2021–20494 Filed 9–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P