9522 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Appendix A—USPS Approved

Independent Test Laboratories

(1) ACTS Test Labs, Contact: Dennis

Maclaughlin, Phone: 716–505–3547 Fax:

716–505–3301, 100 Northpointe Parkway,

Buffalo, NY 14228–1884.

(2) The Coatings Lab, Contact: Tom

Schwerdt, Phone: 713–981–9368 Fax: 713–

776–9634, 10175 Harwin Drive, Suite 110,

Houston, TX 77036.

(3) Ithaca Materials Research & Testing,

Inc. (IMR), Contact: Jeff Zerilli, Vice

President, Phone: 607–533–7000, Lansing

Business and Technology Park, 31

Woodsedge Drive, Lansing, NY 14882.

(4) Independent Test Laboratories, Inc.,

Contact: Robet Bouvier, Phone: 800–962-Test

Fax: 714–641–3836, 1127B Baker Street,

Costa Mesa, CA 92626.

(5) Environ Labs L.L.C., Contact: Chuck

Mapes, Phone: 1–800–826–3710, Fax: 612–

888–6345, 9725 Girard Ave S., Minneapolis,

MN 55431.

(6) Midwest Testing Laboratories, Inc.,

Contact: Cherie Ulatowski, Phone: 248–689–

9262, Fax: 248–689–7637, 1072 Wheaton,

Troy, MI 48083.

Note: Additional test laboratories may be

added provided they satisfy USPS

certification criteria. Interested laboratories

should contact: USPS, Engineering, Test

Evaluation & Quality, 8403 Lee Highway,

Merrifield, VA 22082–8101.

Stanley F. Mires,

Chief Counsel, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 01–2232 Filed 2–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MD106–3063; FRL–6922–7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Maryland; Reasonably Available

Control Technology for Oxides of

Nitrogen

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the State of Maryland.

This revision requires major sources of

nitrogen oxides (NOX) in the State of

Maryland to implement reasonably

available control technology (RACT).

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 9523

This action is being taken in accordance

with the Clean Air Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is

effective on March 12, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available 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; the

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460; and the

Maryland Department of the

Environment, 2500 Broening Highway,

Baltimore, Maryland, 21224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kelly L. Bunker, (215) 814–2177 or by

e-mail at bunker.kelly@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Pursuant to sections 182(b)(2) and

182(f) of the Clean Air Act (CAA),

Maryland is required to implement

RACT for all major NOX sources by no

later than May 31, 1995. The definition

of a major source is determined by its

size, location, the classification of that

area and whether it is located in the

ozone transport region (OTR), which is

established by the CAA. The entire State

of Maryland is included in the OTR.

The Baltimore nonattainment area and

Cecil County are classified as severe

nonattainment areas. Calvert, Charles,

Frederick, Montgomery and Prince

George’s Counties are classified as

serious ozone nonattainment areas. The

remaining counties in Maryland are

classified as marginal or in attainment.

However, under section 184 of the CAA,

at a minimum, moderate area

requirements for stationary sources,

including RACT as specified in sections

182(b)(2) and 182(f), apply throughout

the OTR. Therefore, RACT is applicable

statewide in Maryland. Section 182 of

the Act defines a major NOX source as

one that emits or has the potential to

emit 25 or more tons of NOX per year

(TPY) in any ozone nonattainment area

classified as severe, or 50 or more TPY

located in any ozone nonattainment area

classified as serious. For any area in the

OTR classified as attainment or

marginal nonattainment, sections 182

and 184 of the Act define a major

stationary source of NOX as one that

emits or has the potential to emit 100 or

more TPY.

On July 11, 1995, the Maryland

Department of the Environment (MDE)

submitted a revision to its State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the

control of NOX emissions from major

sources. This submittal included

revisions to regulation COMAR

26.11.09.01 and 26.11.09.08 which

pertained to definitions and a ‘‘generic’’

NOX RACT rule. This generic rule

required affected sources to either meet

a presumptive NOX emissions standard

or to submit a ‘‘case-by-case’’ RACT

proposal for approval by MDE. In all

cases, under this regulation, RACT

requirements were to have been met by

no later than May 31, 1995. On June 22,

1999 (64 FR 33197), EPA granted

conditional limited approval of this SIP

revision. Under EPA’s conditional

limited approval, each case-by-case

RACT determination was to have been

submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.

Many sources in Maryland invoked the

provisions of the generic rule, submitted

case-by-case RACT determinations and

complied with them by May 31, 1995.

However, the State of Maryland found

that to meet EPA’s condition by

processing these numerous case-by-case

RACT determinations as SIP revisions to

be unduly burdensome. Therefore, on

September 8, 2000, Maryland submitted

a SIP revision. It consisted of a revised

version of COMAR 26.11.09.08 which

removed the ‘‘generic’’ RACT provisions

and replaced them with source category

specific RACT emission limitations. The

submittal of the September 8, 2000, SIP

revision satisfies the conditions of

EPA’s June 22, 1999 conditional limited

approval. Maryland first revised

COMAR 26.11.09.08 on September 22,

1999 and further revised it on August

30, 2000. These revisions to COMAR

26.11.09.08 became effective in the State

of Maryland on October 18, 1999, and

September 18, 2000, respectively. Its

provisions are to be complied with at all

times and it provides no extension of

the CAA mandated RACT compliance

date of May 31, 1995.

The September 8, 2000, SIP revision

is the subject of this action. The

September 8, 2000, submittal included

the new version of regulation, COMAR

26.11.09.08, which requires major

sources of NOX throughout the entire

State of Maryland to comply with RACT

requirements, and which adds the

definition for the term ‘‘high heat

release unit’’ to COMAR 26.11.09.01.

On October 19, 2000 (65 FR 62668),

EPA published a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPR) for the Maryland NOX

RACT regulations proposing to approve

the September 8, 2000 SIP revision.

That NPR provided for a public

comment period ending on November 9,

2000. On November 9, 2000 (65 FR

67319), EPA published a notice

extending the comment period to

November 20, 2000. Other specific

requirements of Maryland’s NOX RACT

regulation and the rationale for EPA’s

action are explained in the NPR and

will not be restated here.

II. Public Comments and Response

Pursuant to its October 19, 2000 NPR,

EPA received one letter of comment

from the EarthJustice Legal Defense

Fund. A summary of EarthJustice’s

comments and EPA’s responses are

provided below.

Comment: The commenter asserts that

the State’s and EPA’s technical support

documents (TSDs) fail to justify the

RACT determinations made for each

source category because the TSDs lack

an analysis which examines available

NOX controls used in Maryland and

elsewhere and selects one or more

technologies that provide the lowest

emission limitation reasonably available

considering technological and economic

feasibility.

Response: EPA disagrees with the

commenter. The State of Maryland’s

submittal includes two TSDs, one dated

June 30, 1999 and a revised TSD dated

August 3, 2000. These TSDs explain the

background of the former case-by-case

generic rule and the rationale for its

evolution to a regulation that imposes

source category specific RACT

requirements for major sources of NOX.

They also contain an explanation for the

RACT requirements selected for each

source category. Moreover, the preamble

of Notice of Proposed Action published

in the Maryland Register (Vol. 26, Issue

15, Friday, July 16, 1999) states that the

source category specific RACT

standards are, in many cases, based

upon the information developed by the

subject sources as part of the earlier

case-by-case process. Many of these

source-specific RACT determinations

submitted to the Maryland Department

of the Environment contain detailed

analyses for their RACT determinations.

Those submittals were reviewed and

commented upon by both the Maryland

Department of the Environment (MDE)

and EPA. They are referenced in

Maryland’s rulemaking notices

amending COMAR 26.11.09.08, which

were made available for public

inspection during the State’s public

comment periods on the revisions to

COMAR 26.11.09.08 at MDE’s offices in

Baltimore, Maryland. With regard to the

comments made about EPA’s TSD in

support of its rulemaking, EPA believes

it has fulfilled its obligations. EPA did

not attempt to complete a new and

independent RACT analysis for the

sources to which this rulemaking

pertains. However, EPA did review the

RACT provisions of Maryland’s revised

regulation to determine if the RACT

requirements appeared to be reasonable

9524 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

and consistent with RACT requirements

for similar sources and sourcecategories.

Comment: The commenter asserts that

the State’s RACT emission limits for

electric generating units is much higher

than the OTC Phase II emission limits,

which is the less stringent of 0.2 lb/

MMBtu or a 65% reduction. EPA

estimates that the Phase II reductions

will be achieved at a cost of $1,600 per

ton—well below the $2,500 benchmark

used by the State. The commenter

contends that EPA cannot approve the

State’s emission limits as RACT when

lower limits are achievable at costs

consistent with RACT.

Response: EPA disagrees with the

commenter that Maryland must, in

effect, declare that the Phase II emission

limits of the OTC’s Memorandum of

Agreement (MOU) are needed to comply

with RACT requirements for controlling

NOX from electric generating units in

Maryland. The compliance date for

RACT is and remains May 31, 1995. The

model rule developed by the OTC to

implement Phase II of its MOU calls for

compliance by May 1, 1999. Simply

because Maryland has revised its

previously SIP-approved NOX RACT

rule to include category specific RACT

limits to avoid the need to process caseby-case RACT determinations as SIP

revisions in no way provides for the

State to grant a compliance date

extension or requires that it redefine

RACT as it may otherwise be

determined were the compliance date

May 1, 1999 instead of May 31, 1995.

Moreover, on October 19, 2000, the

very same day as EPA proposed

approval of Maryland’s September 8,

2000 SIP revision to amend its NOX

RACT rule, EPA also proposed approval

of Maryland’s regulation to implement

Phase II of the OTC’s MOU (65 FR

62671). On August 28, 1998, Maryland

submitted a revision to its SIP to

implement Phase II of the OTC’s NOX

MOU. The revision consists of

amendments to COMAR 26.11.27, Post

RACT Requirements for NOX Sources

(NOX Budget Program) and COMAR

26.11.28, Polices and Procedures

Relating to Maryland’s NOX Budget

Program. Post RACT Requirements for

NOX Sources, COMAR 26.11.27, is

divided in fourteen sections: (.01)

Definitions; (.02) Incorporation by

Reference; (.03) Applicability; (.04)

General Requirements; (.05) Allowance

Allocations; (.06) Identification of

Authorized Account Representatives;

(.07) Allowance Banking; (.08) Emission

Monitoring; (.09) Reporting; (.10) Record

Keeping; (.11) End-of-Season

Reconciliation; (.12) Compliance

Certification; (.13) Penalties; (.14) Audit.

Polices and Procedures Relating to

Maryland’s NOX Budget Program,

COMAR 26.11.28, is divided in thirteen

sections: (.01) Scope; (.02) Definitions;

(.03) Procedures Relating to Compliance

Accounts; (.04) Procedures Relating to

General Accounts; (.05) Allowance

Banking, (.06) Allowance Transfer; (.07)

Emissions Monitoring; (.08) Early

Reduction Allowances; (.09) Opt-in

Procedures; (.10) Audit Provisions; (.11)

Allocations to Units in Operation in

1990; (.12) Allocations to Budget

Sources Beginning Operation or for

Which a Permit Was Issued After 1990

and Before January 1, 1998; (.13) Percent

Contribution of Budget by Company. On

November 16, 1999, MDE submitted

amendments to its August 28, 1998 SIP

revision request. The purpose of these

amendments is to change the

compliance date of the Maryland NOX

Budget Program from May 1, 1999 to

May 1, 2000. The revisions to the

August 28, 1998 submittal include

amendments to Regulations (.04)

General Requirements, (.07) Allowance

Banking, and (.11) End-of-Season

Reconciliation under COMAR 26.11.27

and the repeal of Regulation (.08) Early

Reduction Allowances under COMAR

26.11.28. On March 20, 2000, MDE

submitted amendments to its August 28,

1998 SIP revision request consisting of

two enforceable consent agreements

between MDE and the Baltimore Gas

and Electric Company and the Potomac

Electric Power Company. These consent

agreements impose special conditions

and time lines for both companies

regarding the implementation of

Maryland’s NOX Budget Trading

Program requirements.

A more detailed description of

Maryland’s NOX Budget Trading

Program requirements, the two consent

agreements and EPA’s rationale for

approving them as a SIP revision are

provided in the October 19, 2000 NPR

(65 FR 62671) and its accompanying

Technical Support Document (TSD)

prepared for that rule. EPA received no

comments on its October 19, 2000 NPR

to approve Maryland’s SIP revision to

implement Phase II of the OTC NOX

MOU. The final rule approving that SIP

revision was signed on December 1,

2000 and was published in the Federal

Register on December 15, 2000.

Therefore, as of this time, and in

substance, the commenter’s contention

that electric generating units in

Maryland be required to meet the Phase

II emission limits of the OTC’s NOX

MOU has been satisfied.

Comment: The commenter asserts that

for the source categories found in the

revised version of COMAR 26.11.09.08

at E, F, G, I (1) and (2) and J, RACT was

determined to be good management and

operating practices, combustion

analyses and operator training. The

commenter contends that to the extent

that the State is imposing these work

practice requirements in lieu of numeric

emission limits, the regulation

represents a weakening of the current

rule which sets presumptive numeric

emission limits for all of these

categories. The commenter cautions that

this may violate the Act’s

antibacksliding provision, 42 U.S C.

7515. The commenter goes on to say

that other states have set numeric NOX

RACT emission limits for the same or

similar source categories. The

commenter contends that the State and

EPA must show that they will assure the

same or better degree of emission

control as the State’s current

presumptive limits and numeric RACT

limits in other States, or demonstrate

why such limits do not represent RACT

for any sources in Maryland. Finally,

the commenter argues that the State and

EPA have failed to explain why the use

of emission control devices such as

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) or

selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR)

are not RACT for these sources.

According to data compiled by the

Institute of Clean Air Companies

(ICAC), SCR is used by sources

elsewhere to reduce NOX emissions

from industrial furnaces and small

boilers (See ICAC White Paper: SCR

Control of NOX Emissions (11/97)) and

SNCR is used at three glass furnaces in

California and one in Germany (See

ICAC White Paper: SNCR for

Controlling NOX Emissions (10/97)).

Response: EPA disagrees with the

assertions of the commenter. While the

current SIP-approved version of

COMAR 26.11.09.08 does contain

presumptive numerical limits, it

concurrently also contains generic

provisions for sources to submit and be

approved for case-by-case RACT

determinations. As Maryland’s SIPapproved NOX RACT regulation has

always provided for sources to seek and

be approved for case-by-case RACT

determinations versus meeting the

regulation’s otherwise presumptive

emission limitation, Maryland’s revising

the regulation to simply include source

category specific RACT requirements

based upon case-by-case RACT

determinations it has made does not

weaken that current SIP-approved

regulation and certainly does not violate

the CAA’s antibacksliding provision.

Again, Maryland’s September 8, 2000

SIP revision explains that the sourcecategory RACT requirements are

derived, in part, from case-by-case

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 9525

RACT proposals submitted by sources,

including those subject under COMAR

26.11.09.08 E, F, G, I (1) and (2) and J.

The sources in Maryland covered under

COMAR 26.11.09.08 E, F, G, I (1) and (2)

and J all provided information to the

Maryland MDE justifying why the

presumptive limit of COMAR

26.11.09.08 did not constitute RACT in

accordance with the provisions for

doing so found in that same SIPapproved regulation. Maryland analyzed

that information submitted pursuant to

the case-by-case provisions and

determined RACT for these sources.

Therefore, when it amended COMAR

26.11.09.08 to include source category

RACT requirements to avoid the need to

process the case-by-case RACT

determinations as SIP revisions,

Maryland simply included its RACT

determinations for these sources by

their source categories in the revised

regulation at COMAR 26.11.09.08 E, F,

G, I (1) and (2) and J. EPA has approved

RACT SIP regulations for other States in

which NOX RACT for small combustion

units is defined as work practice

standards such proper operation and

maintenance or an annual evaluation

and adjustment of the combustion

process. For example, EPA has

approved provisions in Pennsylvania’s

RACT SIP regulations which define

RACT for combustion units with a rated

heat input equal to or greater than 20

MMBTU/hour and less than 50

MMBTU/hour as an annual adjustment

or tune-up on the combustion process,

and which define RACT for combustion

units with a rated heat input of less than

20 MMBTU/hour as proper operation

and maintenance. EPA approved these

provisions in Pennsylvania’s RACT SIP

regulations because Pennsylvania had

‘‘provided information stating that there

are no technically or economically

feasible controls.’’ With regard to the

comment that Maryland and EPA must

justify in their rulemakings amending

previously SIP-approved COMAR

26.11.09.08 as to why SCR and NSCR

are not RACT for these types of sources,

EPA disagrees. As explained previously,

on July 11, 1995, the Maryland

Department of the Environment (MDE)

submitted a revision to its State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the

control of NOX emissions from major

sources. This submittal included

revisions to regulation COMAR

26.11.09.01 and 26.11.09.08 which

pertained to definitions and a ‘‘generic’’

NOX RACT rule. This generic rule

required affected sources to either meet

a presumptive NOX emissions standard

or to submit a ‘‘case-by-case’’ RACT

determination for approval by MDE. In

all cases, under this regulation, RACT

requirements were to have been met by

no later than May 31, 1995. On June 22,

1999 (64 FR 33197), EPA granted

conditional limited approval of this SIP

revision. Under EPA’s conditional

limited approval, each case-by-case

RACT determination was to have been

submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.

Many sources in Maryland invoked the

provisions of the generic rule, submitted

case-by-case RACT determinations by

the date the rule required they do so,

and complied with them by May 31,

1995. However, the State of Maryland

found that processing these numerous

case-by-case RACT determinations as

SIP revisions to satisfy EPA’s condition

was unduly burdensome. Therefore, on

September 8, 2000, Maryland submitted

a SIP revision. It consisted of a revised

version of COMAR 26.11.09.08 which

removed the generic RACT provisions

and replaced them with source category

specific RACT emission limitations. Its

provisions are to be complied with at all

times and it provides no extension of

the CAA mandated RACT compliance

date of May 31, 1995. The revisions to

COMAR 26.11.09.08 submitted on

September 8, 2000, were made to satisfy

EPA’s June 22, 1999 (64 FR 33197)

conditional limited approval of COMAR

26.11.09.08 and to remove the burden of

processing RACT determinations as

case-by-case SIP revisions. EPA does not

believe that by making these

amendments to COMAR 26.11.09.08 to

satisfy the June 22, 1999 (64 FR 33197)

final conditional limited approval,

Maryland is required to re-evaluate and

redefine RACT. Moreover, the SCR and

SNCR related documents cited by the

commenter are dated 1997, well beyond

both the CAA’s mandated date for

determining RACT and its mandated

May 31, 1995 date for complying with

RACT.

As a point of information, EPA further

notes that the 1990 total NOX emission

inventory for the entire State of

Maryland is 1056.4 tons per day. The

1990 statewide point source NOX total

is 559.2 tons/day. The total emissions of

NOX from Maryland sources covered

under 26.11.09.08 E, F, G, I (1) and (2)

and J equal 2% of the point source NOX

inventory and 1% of the total NOX

inventory.

Comment: The commenter contends

that the State’s rationale for the cement

kiln RACT limits found in COMAR

26.11.09.08 H is very sparse. The

commenter argues that the State must

conduct a thorough review of available

control technologies, including SNCR,

to determine whether the controls

constitute RACT and if further emission

reductions are feasible at these sources.

Lastly the commenter expresses concern

over the State TSD’s indication that the

limits are ‘‘interim’’ and that the state is

deferring emission reductions until the

start of the Phase III NOX program in

2003. The commenter asserts that if the

State is deferring RACT controls, such

an approach is contrary to the Act’s

mandate for adoption of RACT in

Maryland’s nonattainment areas.

Response: EPA disagrees with the

commenter’s assertions regarding the

adequacy of the State’s determination of

RACT for cement kilns. It is based upon

an analysis of CEM data after

combustion optimization. The State’s

TSD explains that as of the date of

RACT compliance, the only combustion

control device (SNCR) installed on a

cement kiln operated for only a few

months due to excessive operating costs.

The fact that Maryland’s TSD includes

the statement that the RACT limits are

interim until the affected sources

comply with new NOX requirements in

2003 clearly alludes to post-RACT

requirements of Phase III of the OTC’s

MOU or those of the NOX SIP call. In

fact, Maryland’s regulation responding

to the NOX SIP call was proposed for

approval by EPA on October 19, 2000

(65 FR 62617), again the very same day

as EPA proposed approval of the

revisions to COMAR 26.11.09.08 for

NOX RACT. The final rule approving

that SIP revision has been signed and

has been or shortly will be published in

the rules portion of the Federal

Register.

Comment: The commenter contends

that the State offers no analysis to justify

why the proposed limits for municipal

waste combustors found in COMAR

26.11.09.08 H constitute RACT. Among

other things, the State must consider

whether required use of SNCR would

justify lower emission limits than those

proposed.

Response: EPA disagrees with the

commenter. On page 5 of its June 30,

1999 TSD and on page 4 of its August

3, 2000 revised TSD, Maryland explains

that its municipal waste combustors

(MWCs) are subject to prevention of

significant deterioration (PSD)

requirements as established under the

approved SIP and the provisions of its

approved section 111d/129 plan. EPA

agrees that simply being in compliance

with an applicable BACT determination

and/or section 11d/126 plan

requirement would not, in and of itself,

necessarily satisfy RACT requirements

to be met by May 31, 1995, particularly

if the BACT or 111d/126 emission

limitations had been imposed prior to

the time RACT was to be determined

and its compliance date met. However,

under MDE’s BACT determination, the

9526 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

new MWC in Montgomery County has

installed SNCR. The existing MWC in

Maryland that is subject to RACT

requirements to control NOX is now also

subject to Maryland’s 111d/126 plan for

the control of emissions from MWC’s

which was approved by EPA on April

23, 1999 (64 FR 19919). In fact, the

MWC in Baltimore City has installed

SNCR to meet those standards.

Therefore, as of this time, and in

substance, the commenter’s concern

related to SNCR have been satisfied.

Comment: The commenter asserts that

the State offers no analysis to justify

why the proposed limits for internal

combustion engines found in COMAR

26.11.09.08 I constitute RACT, and

must, among other things, consider

whether SCR constitutes RACT for these

sources.

Response: EPA disagrees with the

commenter. On page 5 of its revised

TSD dated August 3, 2000, Maryland

provides its RACT limits for internal

combustion engines and an explanation

that those limits were derived from

stack tests for the larger units and by

applying an emission factor for the

smaller units. The TSD then refers the

reader to section VI. of the TSD for

source-specific information. At

subsection K entitled Internal

Combustion Engines of section VI. of the

TSD, on pages 28–30, Maryland

provides specific information regarding

the rationale and justification for its

RACT determinations for companies

which operate internal combustion

engines. EPA has reviewed the State’s

rationale and believes it meets the

requirements of the CAA.

Comment: The State submittal does

not provide commitments of adequate

funding and personnel to implement

and enforce the NOX RACT rules and

does not detail a program for

enforcement of the rules.

Response: EPA disagrees with the

commenter’s assertion that states must

provide such information with each SIP

revision. Although 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2)(E) and 7410(a)(2)(C) do

contain these provisions cited by the

commenter, section 7410(a)(2)(H) is the

statutory provision which governs

requirements for individual plan

revisions which States may be required

to submit from time to time. There are

no cross-references in section

7410(a)(2)(H) to either 7410(a)(2)(E) or

7410(a)(2)(C). Therefore, EPA concludes

that Congress did not intend to require

States to submit an analysis of adequate

funding and enforcement with each

subsequent and individual SIP revision

submitted under the authority of section

7410(a)(2)(H). Similarly, 40 CFR part 51,

Appendix V contains the list of

information which States must submit

each plan revision in order for EPA to

conduct a review of completeness under

section 7410(k)(1). The list in part 51,

Appendix V contains no cross-reference

to or cite of the provisions 40 CFR

51.280 as a criterion for determining

completeness. Thus, in following

Congress’ intent, EPA has further

determined that the requirements of 40

CFR 51.280 do not apply to each

individually-submitted State plan

revision. Nevertheless, EPA notes that

Maryland had previously submitted

such commitments as part of the 1982

SIP for its ozone nonattainment areas. In

a final rulemaking action published on

March 8, 1984 (49 FR 8610), EPA

approved Maryland’s financial and

manpower resource commitments, after

having proposed approval of these

commitments on February 3, 1983 (48

FR 5124 at 5052). EPA is satisfied that

Maryland continues to have adequate

funding and personnel to implement

and enforce the current RACT rules.

However, EPA does have the authority

under the Act to make findings

regarding implementation failures or

other SIP deficiencies and take

appropriate action in such situations.

Should EPA find that Maryland lacks

adequate resources to pursue any

violation of the ozone SIP, or if

Maryland’s enforcement response is

inadequate, EPA will take appropriate

action under its Clean Air Act authority.

Comment: The commenter asserts that

the Act required compliance by all

sources with RACT by no later than May

31, 1995, that the RACT rules were not

even submitted to EPA until the year

2000, that EPA has not specified actual

compliance deadlines for the subject

sources and should not approve these

RACT rules without specific compliance

deadlines.

Response: EPA disagrees with the

commenter that there are no compliance

dates established for the RACT

requirements. As explained previously,

on July 11, 1995, the MDE submitted a

revision to its SIP for the control of NOX

emissions from major sources. This

submittal included revisions to

regulation COMAR 26.11.09.01 and

26.11.09.08 which pertained to

definitions and a generic NOX RACT

rule which required affected sources to

either meet a presumptive NOX

emissions standard or to submit a caseby-case RACT proposal for approval by

MDE. In all cases, under this regulation,

RACT requirements were to have been

met by no later than May 31, 1995. On

June 22, 1999 (64 FR 33197), EPA

granted conditional limited approval of

this SIP revision. The condition

imposed required that all case-by-case

RACT determination be submitted as

SIP revisions. On September 8, 2000,

Maryland submitted a SIP revision. It

consisted of a revised version of

COMAR 26.11.09.08 which removed the

generic RACT provisions and replaced

them with source category specific

RACT emission limitations. Maryland

chose to do this to avoid the undue

burden of submitting all the case-bycase RACT determinations as sourcespecific SIP revisions. The submittal of

the September 8, 2000, SIP revision

satisfies the conditions of EPA’s June

22, 1999 conditional limited approval.

Maryland first revised COMAR

26.11.09.08 on September 22, 1999 and

further revised it on August 30, 2000.

These revisions to COMAR 26.11.09.08

became effective in the State of

Maryland on October 18, 1999, and

September 18, 2000, respectively. Its

provisions are to be complied with at all

times and it provides no extension of

the CAA mandated RACT compliance

date of May 31, 1995.

While not directly responsive to a

specific comment, it should be noted

that the 1990 total NOX emission

inventory for the entire State of

Maryland is 1056.4 tons per day. The

1990 statewide point source NOX total

is 559.2 tons/day. From the 1990

baseline, Maryland’s SIP-approved NOX

OTC budget rule eliminates 413.6 tons/

day or reduces total NOX by 39% and

point source NOX by 74%. From the

1990 baseline, Maryland’s SIP-approved

NOX SIP call rule eliminates an

additional 49.3 tons/day for a total

reduction of 462.9 tons/day reducing

total NOX by a total of 44% and point

source NOX by a total of 83%.

III. Final Action

EPA is fully approving Maryland’s

revised NOX RACT regulations found at

COMAR 26.11.09.01 and 26.11.09.08

which were submitted as a SIP revision

by the MDE on September 8, 2000. The

submittal of the September 8, 2000, SIP

revision satisfies the conditions of

EPA’s June 22, 1999 conditional limited

approval. Maryland first revised

COMAR 26.11.09.08 on September 22,

1999 and further revised it on August

30, 2000. These revisions to COMAR

26.11.09.08 became effective in the State

of Maryland on October 18, 1999, and

September 18, 2000, respectively.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. General Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

therefore is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. This

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 9527

action merely approves state law as

meeting federal requirements and

imposes no additional requirements

beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

that this rule 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. Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law

and does not impose any additional

enforceable duty beyond that required

by state law, it does not contain any

unfunded mandate or significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, as

described in the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4).

For the same reason, this rule also does

not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

FR 27655, May 10, 1998).

This rule 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 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant. In reviewing

SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to

approve state choices, provided that

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air

Act. In this context, in the absence of a

prior existing requirement for the State

to use voluntary consensus standards

(VCS), EPA has no authority to

disapprove a SIP submission for failure

to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary

steps to eliminate drafting errors and

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,

and provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. EPA has complied

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the

takings implications of the rule in

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under

the executive order. This rule does not

impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

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 rule 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. This rule 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 Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by April 9, 2001.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule 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

approving the Maryland NOX RACT

regulations 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, Intergovernmental

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: December 15, 2000.

Thomas C. Voltaggio,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

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.

Subpart V—Maryland

2. Section 52.1070 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(155) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1070 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(155) Revisions to the Maryland

Regulations for NOX RACT regulations

submitted on September 8, 2000 by the

Maryland Department of the

Environment:

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letter of September 8, 2000 from

the Maryland Department of the

Environment transmitting the Maryland

NOX RACT regulations.

(B) The Maryland NOX RACT

regulations found at COMAR

26.11.09.08, effective October 18, 1999,

as revised effective September 18, 2000.

This rule replaces COMAR 26.11.09.08,

effective May 10, 1993, as revised

effective June 20, 1994 and May 8, 1995.

(C) Addition of COMAR

26.11.09.01B(3–1) (definition of the

term ‘‘high heat release unit’’), effective

September 18, 2000.

(ii) Additional Material.—Remainder

of September 8, 2000 submittal.

§ 52.1072 [Amended]

3. Section 52.1072(e) is removed and

reserved.

[FR Doc. 01–3161 Filed 2–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Parts 3100, 3106, 3108, 3130,

and 3160

[WO–310–1310–01–24 1A–PB]

RIN 1004–AC54

Oil and Gas Leasing: Onshore Oil and

Gas Operations: Delay of Effective

Date

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective

date.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

memorandum of January 20, 2001, from

the Assistant to the President and Chief

of Staff, entitled ‘‘Regulatory Review

Plan,’’ 66 FR 7701 (January 24, 2001),

this document temporarily delays for 60

days the effective date of the rule

entitled ‘‘Oil and Gas Leasing: Onshore

Oil and Gas Operations,’’ published in

the Federal Register on January 10,