### 26196 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules

the 2008 RFP target levels previously SIP approved by EPA, the 2011 and 2012 RFP targets levels, control measures used to meet RFP, and contingency measures for failure to meet the 2012 RFP target, and found them to be approvable. In addition, EPA determined that MDE used acceptable techniques and methodologies to update the 2002 base year and 2008 projected inventories, and to develop the 2011 and 2012 milestone year projected inventories and found them approvable. Furthermore, EPA has found the Baltimore Area’s 2012 MVEBs adequate for transportation conformity purposes and approvable. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the updates to the 2002 base year inventory, updates to the 2008 RFP plan and associated 2008 projected emissions inventory, the 2011 and 2012 RFP plan and associated projected emission inventories, the contingency measures for failure to meet 2012 RFP, and the 2012 MVEBs for the Baltimore Area submitted in MDE’s July 22, 2013 Serious Area Plan. The other parts of the Serious Area Plan were withdrawn by Maryland. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. IV. 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, 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 proposed 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 proposed rule, pertaining to the Baltimore Area serious RFP plan, inventories, RFP contingency measures, and MVEBs, 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. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: April 15, 2016. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2016–10222 Filed 4–29–16; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0127; FRL–9945–43– Region 3]** 

**Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;**  **Maryland; State Board Requirements**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland for the purpose of updating their state board requirements. The SIP revision removes the current SIP approved state board requirements and replaces them with an updated version of the requirements. The new provisions continue to address state board requirements for all the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The revision is being done because the Maryland legislature revised Maryland’s statutory requirements related to state boards and the state wants the most recent version in their SIP. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State’s SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

**DATES :**  Comments must be received in writing by June 1, 2016.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– OAR–2016–0127 at http:// www.regulations.gov, or via email to fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the ‘‘For Further Information Contact’’ section.


### 26197 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules

For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Ruth Knapp, (215) 814–2191, or by email at knapp.ruth@epa.gov. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this Federal Register publication. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

Dated: April 8, 2016. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2016–09448 Filed 4–29–16; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**