Rule2026-20635
Air Plan Approval; Maryland; Reasonably Available Control Technology for Municipal Waste Combustors
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 8, 2026
Effective
November 9, 2026
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Maryland. The SIP revisions consist of a regulation that implements statewide reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements by limiting air emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NO<INF>X</INF>) from municipal waste combustors (MWCs) in Maryland. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 194 (Thursday, October 8, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 194 (Thursday, October 8, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64282-64286]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-20635]
[[Page 64282]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0295; EPA-R03-OAR-2025-0267; FRL-12837-02-R3]
Air Plan Approval; Maryland; Reasonably Available Control
Technology for Municipal Waste Combustors
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of
Maryland. The SIP revisions consist of a regulation that implements
statewide reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements
by limiting air emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NO<INF>X</INF>) from
municipal waste combustors (MWCs) in Maryland. This action is being
taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: This final rule is effective on November 9, 2026.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2025-0267. All documents in the docket are
listed on the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, or please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Schmitt, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1600 John F. Kennedy
Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is
(215) 814-5787. Ms. Schmitt can also be reached via electronic mail at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#daa9b9b2b7b3aeaef4bfb6b6bfb49abfaabbf4bdb5ac"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5c2f3f34313528287239303039321c392c3d723b332a">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the use of ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is intended to refer to the EPA. We use multiple
acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be
exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference
purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI confidential business information
CEMS continuous emissions monitoring system
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COMAR Code of Maryland Regulations
CTG control technique guidelines
CRA Congressional Review Act
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
lbs/hr pounds per hour
MCRRF Montgomery County Resource Recovery Facility
MDE Maryland Department of the Environment
MWC municipal waste combustor
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NO<INF>X</INF> oxides of nitrogen (nitrogen oxides)
NPRM notice of proposed rulemaking
OTC Ozone Transport Commission
OTR Ozone Transport Region
ppm parts per million
ppmv parts per million by volume
ppmvd parts per million by volume, dry basis
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PTE potential to emit
RACM reasonably available control measures
RACT reasonably available control technology
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
SCR selective catalytic reduction
SIP state implementation plan
U.S.C United States Code
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
Wheelabrator Wheelabrator Baltimore, Inc. facility
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Summary of Maryland's SIP Submittals
III. The EPA's Evaluation of Maryland's Submittals
IV. The EPA's Response to Comments Received
V. Final Action
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On April 29, 2026, the EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Maryland.\1\ In the NPRM, the EPA
proposed approval of a portion of Maryland's SIP submittal from July
27, 2018 and the State's full SIP submittal from July 17, 2020. The
EPA's action proposed that Maryland had met the CAA's major source
NO<INF>X</INF> RACT requirement for MWCs for both the 2008 ozone NAAQS
and the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 91 FR 23046 (April 29, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAA requires States to address emissions of NO<INF>X</INF> and
volatile organic compound(s) (VOC) from certain sources in certain
parts of the country to limit photochemical reactions that result in
ozone formation. RACT is an important strategy for reducing
NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emissions from major stationary sources. For
purposes of implementing the ozone NAAQS, a ``major source'' is defined
based on the source's potential to emit (PTE) NO<INF>X</INF>, VOC, or
both pollutants.\2\ The applicable thresholds differ based on the
classification of the nonattainment area in which the source is
located.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ CAA sections 182, 184, and 302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Areas designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS are subject to
the general nonattainment area planning requirements of CAA section
172.\3\ CAA section 172(c)(1) provides that SIPs for nonattainment
areas must include reasonably available control measures (RACM),
including emissions reductions from existing sources through adoption
of RACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Nonattainment areas are areas that do not meet (or that
contribute to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not
meet) the NAAQS. Ozone NAAQS nonattainment areas are initially
classified based on the design value (or level of ozone) at the time
the area was designated as nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RACT is defined as the lowest emission limitation that a particular
source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology
that is reasonably available considering technological and economic
feasibility.\4\ CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f)(1) require States
with Moderate or higher (Serious, Severe, or Extreme) ozone
nonattainment areas to implement RACT controls for any source covered
by a control technique guidelines (CTG) document issued by the EPA and
for all major sources of VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions located in
the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See December 9, 1976 memorandum from Roger Strelow,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management, to Regional
Administrators, ``Guidance for Determining Acceptability of SIP
Regulations in Non-Attainment Areas.'' See also 44 FR 53761, 53762
(September 17, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 184(a) established the Ozone Transport Region (OTR)
comprised of all or portions of 12 eastern states, including all of
Maryland. CAA section 184(b)(1)(B) requires RACT to be implemented on
all sources in the OTR that are covered by a CTG. Further, CAA section
184(b)(2) requires that any source in the OTR with a PTE of at least 50
tons per year (tpy) of VOC ``be considered a major stationary source
and subject to the requirements which would be applicable to major
stationary sources if the area were classified as a Moderate
nonattainment area.'' As such, RACT applies to all sources of VOC in
the OTR with a PTE of at least 50 tpy.
In accordance with both CAA sections 182 and 184, Maryland is
required to submit to the EPA revisions to its SIP that demonstrate how
it meets RACT
[[Page 64283]]
requirements under the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, including
requirements for major stationary sources of NO<INF>X</INF> located
within the State boundaries.
II. Summary of Maryland's SIP Submittals
On July 27, 2018, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)
submitted to the EPA a SIP revision (#18-04) which was intended to
satisfy certain statewide RACT requirements for sources of
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including those
related to MWCs.\5\ Following that submittal, MDE adopted updated
emission limits as RACT for MWCs for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS and
these updated emission limits were submitted to the EPA as a revision
to Maryland's SIP on July 17, 2020 (#20-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ MWC means an incinerator that burns only municipal solid
waste. A large MWC is an existing municipal waste combustor that has
a capacity greater than 250 tons per day. Code of Maryland
Regulations (COMAR) 26.11.08.01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through the MWC portion of SIP revision #18-04 and SIP revision
#20-10, MDE adopted new NO<INF>X</INF> RACT standards and requirements
for the two large MWCs in Maryland, including individual NO<INF>X</INF>
24-hour block average emission rates and 30-day rolling average
emission rates. Under MDE's regulations, the Montgomery County Resource
Recovery Facility (MCRRF) must meet a NO<INF>X</INF> 24-hour block
average emission rate of 140 parts per million volume (ppmv) and a 30-
day rolling average rate of 105 ppmv. The Wheelabrator Baltimore, Inc.
facility must meet a NO<INF>X</INF> 24-hour block average emission rate
of 150 ppmv and a 30-day rolling average rate of 145 ppmv. The 24-hour
block average and the 30-day rolling average emission rates are
mathematically adjusted so that the volumetric gas flow rate from the
stack is corrected to seven percent oxygen, dry basis. During periods
of startup and shutdown, MCRRF must meet a facility-wide NO<INF>X</INF>
emission limit of 202 pounds per hour (lbs/hr) timed average mass
loading over a 24-hour period and the Wheelabrator Baltimore, Inc.
facility must meet a facility-wide NO<INF>X</INF> emission limit of 252
lbs/hr timed average mass loading over a 24-hour period. The duration
of startup and shutdown procedures for a large MWC are not to exceed
three hours per occurrence, and the NO<INF>X</INF> 24-hour mass
emission limits apply during these times. Large MWCs must continuously
monitor NO<INF>X</INF> emissions with a continuous emissions monitoring
system (CEMS) and submit quarterly reports to MDE.
Additionally, under MDE's regulations, small MWCs that were
constructed on or before August 30, 1999, will not be in violation of
the provisions of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 62 subpart
JJJ.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Small MWCs in Maryland are defined as those with a capacity
of at least 35 tons and less than or equal to 250 tons per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. The EPA's Evaluation of Maryland's Submittals
The EPA reviewed Maryland's July 27, 2018 and July 17, 2020 SIP
submissions containing regulations establishing RACT for MWCs for the
2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, and proposed to approve the portions of the
submissions in our April 29, 2026 NPRM. A full discussion of the EPA's
rationale for proposing approval of the full July 17, 2020 SIP
submission and a portion of the July 27, 2018 SIP submission is
available in the NPRM, which is in the docket for the action.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2025-0267.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. The EPA's Response to Comments Received
The initial public comment period for this action was originally
scheduled to close on May 29, 2026.\8\ On May 28, 2026, the EPA
extended the comment period by two weeks to June 12, 2026.\9\ The EPA
received two sets of comments. All comments received have been placed
in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See 91 FR 23046 (April 29, 2026).
\9\ See 91 FR 31688 (May 28, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A summary of the relevant commentsand the EPA's responses thereto
are provided below.
Comment 1: One commenter was supportive of the proposed revisions.
They note the consistency of the Maryland regulation with other States'
MWC regulations as well as with CAA requirements.
Response 1: The EPA thanks the commenter for this supportive
comment.
Comment 2: One commenter believes that the EPA should issue a
limited approval to incorporate the proposed MWC limits into the
Maryland SIP, and simultaneously issue a limited disapproval that would
direct Maryland to establish for both large MWCs a 24-hour
NO<INF>X</INF> average emission limit of 110 parts per million by
volume, dry basis (ppmvd) and a 30-day NO<INF>X</INF> rolling emission
limit of 105 ppmvd, corrected to seven percent oxygen. The commenter
notes that the two large MWCs in Maryland are equipped with pollution
control technology that the EPA and the Ozone Transport Commission
(OTC) have recognized enable such facilities to meet a NO<INF>X</INF>
24-hour average of 110 ppm. The commenter states that each facility's
actual NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are well below what the EPA proposed
and that by ``definition . . . the proposed limits submitted by
Maryland cannot constitute RACT.'' The commenter asserts that, since in
``every case RACT should represent the toughest controls considering
technological and economic feasibility . . .'', Maryland's proposed
RACT for large MWCs fails to comply with CAA requirements.\10\
Additionally, the commenter states that since the time of MDE's SIP
submission, multiple states have adopted 24-hour 110 ppm and lower
limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 91 FR 11811 (March 10, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 2: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that we should
issue both a limited approval and a limited disapproval of the
submittals. We believe that what Maryland has provided in its SIP
submittals meets the major NO<INF>X</INF> RACT requirements for large
MWCs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the 2015 ozone NAAQS and therefore a
full approval is appropriate. The EPA does not agree with the
commenter's suggestion that we should, at this time, direct Maryland to
establish a 24-hour NO<INF>X</INF> average emission limit of 110 ppmvd
and a 30-day NO<INF>X</INF> rolling emission limit of 105 ppmvd for
both of its large MWCs. While the EPA agrees that the Wheelabrator
facility is currently operating technology that can meet these limits,
the facility upgraded its control technology after the State completed
its RACT analysis and adopted the regulations referred to in this SIP
action into State law, and submitted this SIP revision to the EPA. The
commenter acknowledged this as they stated in their comment letter that
Maryland ``submitted its proposed SIP revisions in 2018 and 2020 and
that [the submissions] predate technological advancements and upgrades
which now enable the two facilities at issue to meet lower
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions.'' \11\ As for MCRRF, which uses proprietary
Covanta ``Low NO<INF>X</INF>'' technology in addition to selective non-
catalytic reduction (SNCR) technology, 105 ppmvd is currently the
State's 30-day average RACT requirement for the facility. According to
the OTC's revised 2023 ``Stationary and Area Sources Committee's
Municipal Waste Combustor Workgroup Report,'' MCRRF has been able to
typically control its average 24-hour NO<INF>X</INF> rate to less than
100 ppm, however there are some periodic spikes in excess of those
values
[[Page 64284]]
caused by process variations that are outside operator control. The OTC
Report also refers to a previous publication that concluded that an
emissions limitation of 140 ppmvd at seven percent oxygen for a 24-hour
average emissions limit, MCRRF's current RACT 24-hour average RACT
limit, is reasonable and can be met with good ammonia slip control.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2025-0267. Comment submitted
by Earthjustice; 2026-0612 RACT Letter; page 1.
\12\ Trinity Consultants, ``Project Report Covanta Alexandria/
Arlington, Inc., Reasonably Available Control Technology
Determination for NO<INF>X</INF>,'' September 2017, and ``Project
Report Covanta Fairfax, Inc., Reasonably Available Control
Technology Determination for NO<INF>X</INF>,'' September 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter also indicates that since Maryland's SIP submission,
multiple States have adopted 24-hour 110 ppm and lower average limits
and the State's MWC RACT determination fails to comply with CAA
requirements since it does not represent the ``toughest controls.'' The
commenter points to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's
determination in 2019 that the 110 ppm 24-hour average emissions limit
is RACT for two Covanta facilities in the Commonwealth. However, these
facilities use proprietary technology to obtain this limit. As such,
this technology is unavailable to Wheelabrator. Also, the other States
that the commenter provides as examples do not yet have the limits the
commenter refers to adopted into a SIP as RACT for their large MWC's or
the limits at the facilities are not yet effective. Additionally, the
EPA expects States to consider recent information, including controls
that have been achieved in practice by other similar sources, at the
time they are making RACT determinations.\13\ Since the EPA evaluates
RACT SIPs based on the information available at the time they were
developed, it would be unreasonable for the EPA to expect that the
State should have known the information cited by the commenters when it
was developing its RACT SIP. However, the EPA's approach to RACT SIPs
is not only long-established but also makes sense: a State cannot
anticipate each new technological advancement, nor would it be
reasonable to expect that their RACT determinations could keep up when
technology is evolving so quickly. If the EPA adopted the commenter's
approach, then it could result in a situation where the State's SIP
submittal could never be approvable as RACT if technology continued to
advance. In the EPA's view, it is necessary to have a point in time by
which to judge the adequacy of a RACT SIP submittal, rather than
requiring States to meet a moving target in terms of technological
advancements. Further, RACT is an iterative process. Each time a State
is determining RACT under a different ozone standard, if required, the
public will have the opportunity to submit to States specific
information about controls that are alleged to be reasonably available
in light of technological and economic feasibility at that time. States
also have the discretion to adopt more stringent limits and controls
(i.e., beyond-RACT reductions) in addition to RACT when considering
what emissions reductions of NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC are necessary for
timely attainment of the ozone NAAQS. Overall, we disagree that
Maryland's RACT determination, at the time of its SIP submittal, is
insufficient for meeting RACT under the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the 2015
ozone NAAQS. Current regulatory proposals in other States are not
relevant to the sufficiency of Maryland's RACT determination, because
Maryland's determination was based on EPA guidance, regulations, and
other information that were available when the RACT SIP was being
developed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See RACT Qs & As--Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT): Questions and Answers, William Harnett, Director, Air
Quality Policy Division, EPA (May 2006). (``States are encouraged to
use the latest information available in making RACT determinations .
. . .''; ``The RACT analysis needs to be performed at the time the
RACT SIP is being developed and once the RACT SIP is approved there
is no additional duty to reconsider this control obligation for a
source.''); see also 80 FR at 12279 (March 6, 2015) (``The EPA is
finalizing the approach where states should refer to the existing
CTGs and ACTs for purposes of meeting their RACT requirements, as
well as all relevant information (including recent technical
information and information received during the public comment
period) that is available at the time that they are developing their
RACT SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We believe that there is
sufficient information available to States to inform their RACT
determinations.'') (emphasis added); Final Rule, Implementation of
the 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone:
Nonattainment Area State Implementation Plan Requirements, 83 FR
62998, 63007 (December 6, 2018) (in addition to considering
``existing'' CTGs and ACTs, state air agencies should ``consider all
other relevant information (including recent technical information
and information received during the state's public comment period)
that is available at the time they develop their RACT SIPs'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Final Action
In this final rule, regarding MDE's SIP revision #18-04, the EPA is
only approving statewide RACT control regulations and definitions that
relate to MWCs. SIP revision #18-04 contains additional elements,
including Maryland's certification that the State satisfied all
required statewide RACT elements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is
not acting on those other elements, including the certification, that
comprise the remainder of MDE's SIP revision #18-04. The EPA will take
separate action on those other portions of the July 27, 2018 SIP
submittal at another time. The EPA approves all portions of MDE's SIP
revision #20-10, submitted to the EPA on July 17, 2020. Overall, the
EPA is finalizing approval of the above Maryland SIP revisions as
meeting the CAA's major source NO<INF>X</INF> RACT requirement for
municipal waste combustors for both the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the 2015
ozone NAAQS. The EPA is finalizing this approval pursuant to CAA
sections 110, 172, 182, and 184.
VI. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of
1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
Maryland Code of Maryland Administrative Regulations (COMAR) described
in section II of this preamble and in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52
in this document. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> and at the
EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA
for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the
EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110
and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rule of the
EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next
update to the SIP compilation.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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, the 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:
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under
[[Page 64285]]
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
<bullet> Is not an Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6,
2025) regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866;
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> 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.);
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
<bullet> 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.
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
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 December 7, 2026. 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 approving NO<INF>X</INF> RACT for large MWCs 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, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Amy Van Blarcom-Lackey,
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
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart V--Maryland
0
2. Amend Sec. 52.1070, the table in paragraph (c) by:
0
a. Revising the entries for ``10.18.08/26.11.08.01'' and
``10.18.08.02'';
0
b. Adding in numerical order the entries for ``26.11.08.07'' and
``26.11.08.10'' immediately after the entry for ``10.18.08.06''; and
0
c. Revising the entry for ``26.11.09.08''.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.1070 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA-Approved Regulations, Technical Memoranda, and Statutes in the Maryland SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional
State effective explanation/
Citation Title/subject date EPA approval date citation at 40 CFR
52.1100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.18.08/26.11.08 Control of Incinerators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.18.08/26.11.08.01............ Definitions........ 05/04/2020 10/08/2026, 91 FR
[INSERT FEDERAL
REGISTER PAGE
WHERE THE DOCUMENT
BEGINS].
10.18.08.02..................... Applicability...... 12/06/2018 10/08/2026, 91 FR
[INSERT FEDERAL
REGISTER PAGE
WHERE THE DOCUMENT
BEGINS].
* * * * * * *
26.11.08.07..................... Requirements for 12/06/2018 10/08/2026, 91 FR Added section.
Small Municipal [INSERT FEDERAL
Waste Combustors. REGISTER PAGE
WHERE THE DOCUMENT
BEGINS].
26.11.08.10..................... NOX Requirements 05/04/2020 10/08/2026, 91 FR Added section.
for Large [INSERT FEDERAL
Municipal Waste REGISTER PAGE
Combustors. WHERE THE DOCUMENT
BEGINS].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26.11.09 Control of Fuel Burning Equipment, Stationary Internal Combustion Engines, and Certain Fuel-Burning
Installations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 64286]]
* * * * * * *
26.11.09.08..................... Control of NOX 12/06/2018 10/08/2026, 91 FR Remove H.
Emissions for [INSERT FEDERAL
Major Stationary REGISTER PAGE
Sources. WHERE THE DOCUMENT
BEGINS].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2026-20635 Filed 10-7-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 8, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.