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withdrawn by Maryland.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. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

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

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 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS