26188 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1EPA revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

effective April 6, 2015. See 80 FR 12264 (March 06, 

2015). EPA revised the ozone NAAQS in both 2008 

and 2015. EPA lowered the level of the 8-hour 

NAAQS to 0.075 ppm and then 0.070 ppm. See 73 

FR 16483 (March 27, 2008) and 80 FR 65291 

(October 26, 2015). This SIP revision does not 

address the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It 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. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, because the SIP is not 

approved to apply on any Indian 

reservation land or in any other area 

where the EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction, and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. The EPA believes that this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

The EPA lacks the discretionary 

authority to address environmental 

justice in this rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: April 21, 2016. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2016–10219 Filed 4–29–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0788; FRL–9945–80– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Reasonable Further 

Progress Plan, Contingency Measures, 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 

the Baltimore 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Serious Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the serious nonattainment area 

reasonable further progress (RFP) plan 

for the Baltimore serious nonattainment 

area for the 1997 8-hour ozone national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). 

The SIP revision includes 2011 and 

2012 RFP milestones, contingency 

measures for failure to meet RFP, and 

updates to the 2002 base year inventory 

and the 2008 reasonable RFP plan 

previously approved by EPA. EPA is 

also proposing to approve the 

transportation conformity motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEBs) associated 

with this revision. This action is being 

taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 1, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2015–0788 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, 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. 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. 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: 

Maria A. Pino, (215) 814–2181, or by 

email at pino.maria@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. The Baltimore Area 

In 1997, EPA revised the health-based 

NAAQS for ozone, setting it at 0.08 

parts per million (ppm) averaged over 

an 8-hour time frame.1 EPA set the 8- 

hour ozone standard based on scientific 

evidence demonstrating that ozone 

causes adverse health effects at lower 

ozone concentrations and over longer 

periods of time than was understood 

when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone 

standard was set. EPA determined that 

the 8-hour standard would be more 

protective of human health, especially 

children and adults who are active 

outdoors, and individuals with a preexisting respiratory disease, such as 

asthma. 

On April 30, 2004, EPA finalized its 

attainment/nonattainment designations 

for areas across the country with respect 

to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 69 

FR 23858. These actions became 

effective on June 15, 2004. Among those 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 26189 

2Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.918, ‘‘[u]pon a 

determination by EPA that an area designated 

nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS has 

attained the standard, the requirements for such 

area to submit attainment demonstrations and 

associated reasonably available control measures, 

reasonable further progress plans, contingency 

measures, and other planning SIPs related to 

attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS shall be 

suspended until such time as: The area is 

redesignated to attainment, at which time the 

requirements no longer apply; or EPA determines 

that the area has violated the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS.’’ 

3The Preliminary 2013–2015 Baltimore 

Monitoring Ozone Data Report can be found online 

at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2015–0788. 

nonattainment areas was the Baltimore, 

Maryland moderate nonattainment area 

(the Baltimore Area). The Baltimore 

Area includes Baltimore City and Anne 

Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, 

and Howard Counties, which are all in 

Maryland. 

Pursuant to Phase 1 of the 8-hour 

ozone implementation rule for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS, an area was 

classified under Subpart 2 of the CAA 

based on its 8-hour design value if that 

area had a 1-hour design value at or 

above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour 

design value in Table 1 of Subpart 2). 

See 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004). Based 

on this criterion, the Baltimore Area was 

classified under Subpart 2 as a moderate 

nonattainment area. Moderate areas 

were required to attain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS within 6 years of 

designation, or by June 15, 2010. 

The Baltimore Area did not attain the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by June 

2010. However, the area was eligible for 

a one-year extension of its attainment 

date, from June 15, 2010 to June 15, 

2011. EPA granted that attainment date 

extension on March 11, 2011. 76 FR 

13289. The extension was based on the 

air quality data for the 4th highest daily 

8-hour monitored value during the 2009 

ozone season. 

The Baltimore Area also did not attain 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by June 

2011. The area did not qualify for a 

second one-year extension of its 

attainment date, based on air quality 

data monitored during the 2009 and 

2010 ozone seasons. Therefore, on 

February 1, 2012, EPA made a 

determination that the Baltimore Area 

did not attain the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS by its attainment date. 77 FR 

4901. As a result of this determination, 

the Baltimore Area was reclassified by 

operation of law as a serious 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard. See 40 CFR 

81.321. Consequently, the State of 

Maryland was required to submit SIP 

revisions for the Baltimore Area to meet 

the CAA requirements for serious ozone 

nonattainment areas. EPA set the due 

date for the serious area SIP revision as 

no later than September 30, 2012. The 

serious area attainment date for the 

Baltimore Area was as expeditiously as 

practicable, but not later than June 15, 

2013. MDE submitted its July 22, 2013 

SIP revision request, the Baltimore 8- 

hour Serious Area Plan, pursuant to this 

requirement. 

On May 26, 2015, EPA determined 

that the Baltimore Area attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based on 

monitored ambient air quality data for 

the 2012–2014 monitoring period. 80 FR 

29970. Under the provisions of EPA’s 

ozone implementation rule (40 CFR 

51.918), when EPA issues a 

determination that an area is attaining 

the relevant standard, that 

determination suspends the area’s 

obligations to submit an attainment 

demonstration, reasonably available 

control measures (RACM), RFP plan, 

contingency measures and other 

planning requirements under part D of 

title I of the CAA related to attainment 

of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for as 

long as the area continues to attain the 

standard.2 Preliminary (i.e., not yet 

quality assured or certified) monitoring 

data for the 2013–2015 monitoring 

period indicates that the Baltimore Area 

continues to attain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS.3 Although the 

requirement to submit these plan 

elements is suspended, EPA is not 

precluded from acting upon these 

elements at any time if a state still 

submits them to EPA for review and 

approval. Therefore, the requirement for 

Maryland to submit certain serious area 

SIP elements pursuant to sections 172 

and 182 of the CAA has been 

suspended. However, Maryland had 

already submitted its July 22, 2013 

serious area SIP revision, and MDE 

requested that EPA act on the RFP plan, 

RFP contingency measures, MVEBs and 

emission inventories contained in the 

SIP revision submittal. EPA is proposing 

to approve these elements as SIP 

strengthening measures pursuant to 

section 110 of the CAA. Considering the 

most recent ambient air quality 

monitoring data, the Baltimore Area 

continues to meet the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

B. Serious Area Requirements 

Section 182 of the CAA and EPA’s 

1997 8-hour ozone regulations (40 CFR 

51.910) require each moderate and 

above 8-hour ozone nonattainment area 

to submit an emissions inventory and 

RFP SIP revision that describes how the 

area will achieve actual emissions 

reductions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) from a baseline emissions 

inventory. An emissions inventory is an 

estimation of actual emissions of air 

pollutants in an area. The emissions 

inventory for an ozone nonattainment 

area contains VOC and NOX emissions, 

which are precursors to ozone 

formation. In this case, a ‘‘baseline’’ 

emissions inventory is required for the 

year 2002. See EPA’s Phase 2 Final Rule 

for Implementation of the 8-hour Ozone 

Standard (Phase 2 Rule), 70 FR 71612, 

71615 (November 29, 2005). 

EPA’s Phase 1 Final Rule for 

Implementation of the 8-hour Ozone 

Standard (Phase 1 Rule), published on 

April 30, 2004, set out criteria for 

classifying nonattainment areas under 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 69 FR 

23951. The Phase 1 Rule also addressed 

revocation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS; 

how anti-backsliding principles will 

ensure continued progress toward 

attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS; 

attainment dates; and the timing of 

emissions reductions needed for 

attainment. On November 29, 2005, EPA 

published the Phase 2 Rule. 70 FR 

71612. The Phase 2 Rule addressed the 

RFP control and planning obligations as 

they apply to areas designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. The Phase 2 Rule was 

revised on June 8, 2007. 72 FR 31727. 

Among other things, the Phase 1 and 2 

Rules outline the SIP requirements and 

deadlines for various requirements in 

areas designated as nonattainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 

rules set a due date of June 15, 2007 for 

the required base year emission 

inventory, RFP plan, modeling and 

attainment demonstration, RACM, 

MVEBs, and contingency measures (40 

CFR 51.908(a), (c)). 

C. The Moderate Area Plan 

On June 4, 2007, Maryland submitted 

a comprehensive SIP revision request to 

address moderate area ozone 

requirements for the Baltimore Area. 

That 2007 ‘‘Moderate Area Plan’’ SIP 

revision request included the 2002 base 

year emissions inventory, a 2008 RFP 

plan, including a 2008 ozone projected 

emission inventory, a RACM analysis, 

an attainment demonstration (including 

modeling and weight of evidence), a 

2009 attainment year inventory, 

contingency measures for RFP and 

attainment, and 2008 and 2009 MVEBs 

for the Baltimore Area. On June 4, 2010, 

EPA approved the 2002 base year 

inventory, RFP plan up to 2008, RFP 

contingency measures, RACM 

demonstration, and 2008 MVEBs 

associated with the 2007 moderate area 

SIP revision submittal. 75 FR 31709. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

26190 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

D. The Serious Area Plan 

On July 22, 2013, the Maryland 

Department of the Environment (MDE) 

submitted the SIP revision, ‘‘Baltimore 

Serious Nonattainment Area 0.08 ppm 

8-Hour Ozone State Implementation 

Plan Demonstrating Rate of Progress for 

2008, 2011 and 2012 Revision to 2002 

Base Year Emissions; and Serious Area 

Attainment Demonstration, SIP Number: 

13–07,’’ (the Serious Area Plan). That 

SIP revision submittal included updates 

to the 2002 base year emissions 

inventory and 2008 RFP plan that EPA 

previously approved into the Maryland 

SIP, RFP for 2011 and 2012, an 

attainment demonstration, including 

modeling and weight of evidence, RFP 

and attainment contingency measures, a 

RACM determination, and 2012 MVEBs. 

After EPA determined Baltimore had 

attained the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, Maryland, by letter dated 

October 20, 2015, withdrew the 

attainment demonstration, including 

modeling and weight of evidence, 

contingency measures for attainment, 

and the RACM analysis from 

consideration as a SIP revision. 

Therefore, those elements are not 

addressed in this rulemaking action. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA 

Evaluation 

EPA’s analysis and findings are 

discussed in this proposed rulemaking, 

and a more detailed discussion is 

contained in the Technical Support 

Documents (TSD) for this proposed 

rulemaking action, which is available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

Docket number EPA–R03–OAR–2015– 

0788. 

A. Base Year Emissions Inventory 

1. Requirement 

An emissions inventory is a 

comprehensive, accurate, and current 

inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources. The emissions inventory is 

required by section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA. For ozone nonattainment areas, 

the emissions inventory needs to 

contain VOC and NOX emissions 

because these pollutants are precursors 

of ozone. EPA recommended 2002 as 

the base year emissions inventory, 

which is therefore the starting point for 

calculating RFP. Maryland submitted its 

2002 base year emissions inventory for 

the Baltimore Area in its 2007 moderate 

area plan. EPA approved that inventory 

on June 4, 2010 (75 FR 31709). 

2. State Submittal and EPA Evaluation 

In its Serious Area Plan for the 

Baltimore area, Maryland updated the 

2002 base year inventory. The update 

was needed to reflect the change to 

EPA’s approved model for onroad 

mobile sector emissions, from the 

Mobile Source Emission Factor Model 

(MOBILE) to the Motor Vehicle 

Emission Simulator (MOVES) model, as 

well as updates to EPA’s NONROAD 

model. The updated 2002 base year 

inventory is discussed in Section 3 of 

Maryland’s Serious Area Plan. 

A summary of the approved and 

updated Baltimore Area 2002 base year 

VOC and NOX emissions inventories are 

included in Table 1. EPA notes that the 

updates to the onroad and nonroad 

emissions result in a lower total base 

year emissions inventory for VOCs, and 

a higher total for NOX. 

TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF SIP APPROVED VERSUS UPDATED BALTIMORE AREA 2002 BASE YEAR VOC AND NOX

EMISSIONS

[Ozone season tons per day (tpd)] 

Emission source category 

VOC NOX

SIP 

approved Updated SIP approved Updated 

Point ................................................................................................................................. 13.88 13.88 111.88 111.89 

Stationary Area ................................................................................................................ 116.81 116.81 8.18 8.18 

Nonroad Mobile ............................................................................................................... 70.22 59.61 40.96 49.18 

Onroad Mobile ................................................................................................................. 70.57 72.48 177.06 202.22 

Total (excluding Biogenic Emissions) ...................................................................... 271.48 * 262.77 338.08 371.47 

Biogenic Emissions .......................................................................................................... 223.20 223.20 0 0 

* Note: The 2002 updated data is pulled from Table 5–1 in the Serious Area Plan. With that table, MDE states, ‘‘Small discrepancies may result due to rounding.’’ 

EPA reviewed Maryland’s updates to 

its 2002 base year inventory for the 

Baltimore Area using the appropriate 

EPA policy and guidance, and found 

MDE’s procedures, methodologies, and 

results for the Baltimore Area 2002 base 

year inventory to be reasonable. A 

detailed evaluation of the emissions 

inventories contained in the Serious 

Area Plan is contained in a separate 

November 9, 2015 technical support 

document, entitled ‘‘Technical Support 

Document (TSD) for the Baltimore 

Nonattainment Area 8-Hour Ozone State 

Implementation Plan: Demonstrating 

Rate of Progress for 2008, 2011, and 

2012; Revision to 2002 Base Year 

Emissions; and Serious Area Attainment 

Demonstration,’’ (the Baltimore Serious 

Area Emissions Inventory TSD), which 

is available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, Docket number 

EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0788. EPA thus 

proposes to approve the revised 2002 

emissions inventory. 

B. Adjusted Base Year Inventory, 2008 

RFP Target Levels, and Determination of 

2008 RFP 

1. Requirement 

The Baltimore Area was originally 

classified as moderate for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. As such, the 

CAA requires a 15 percent (%) 

reduction in ozone precursor emissions 

over an initial 6-year period. In the 

Phase 2 Rule, EPA interpreted this 

requirement for areas that were also 

designated nonattainment and classified 

as moderate or higher for the 1-hour 

ozone standard. In the Phase 2 Rule, 

EPA provided that an area classified as 

moderate or higher that has the same 

boundaries as an area, or is entirely 

composed of several areas or portions of 

areas, for which EPA fully approved a 

15% plan for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, 

is considered to have met the 

requirements of section 182(b)(1) of the 

CAA for the 8-hour NAAQS for the 15% 

reduction in ozone precursor emissions. 

In this situation, a moderate 

nonattainment area is subject to RFP 

under section 172(c)(2) of the CAA and 

shall submit, no later than 3 years after 

designation for the 8-hour NAAQS, a 

SIP revision that meets the requirements 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 26191 

of 40 CFR 51.910(b)(2) for RFP. The RFP 

SIP revision must provide for a 15% 

emission reduction (either NOX and/or 

VOC) accounting for any growth that 

occurs during the 6-year period 

following the baseline emissions 

inventory year, that is, 2002–2008. 

The Baltimore Area was classified as 

severe under the 1-hour ozone standard, 

and had the same boundary as the 

Baltimore Area under the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. On July 12, 1995, 

Maryland submitted a 15% Plan SIP 

revision for the Baltimore Area. On 

February 2, 2000, EPA approved 

Maryland’s 15% plan for the Baltimore 

severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. 

65 FR 5252. Therefore, according to the 

Phase 2 Rule, the RFP plan for the 

Baltimore Area may use either NOX or 

VOC emissions reductions (or both) to 

achieve the 15% emission reduction 

requirement. 

2. State Submittal and EPA Evaluation 

On June 4, 2010, EPA approved 

Maryland’s moderate area RFP that 

provided for a 15% emissions reduction 

from 2002 to 2008, contained in the 

Moderate Area Plan. 75 FR 31709. 

Maryland, however, needed to update 

the 2008 target levels for its Serious 

Area Plan because they are the basis for 

the new 2011 and 2012 target level 

calculations for RFP. In the Serious Area 

Plan, MDE updated its 15% RFP plan to 

reflect EPA’s change from MOBILE to 

MOVES for onroad emission modeling 

and updates to EPA’s NONROAD 

model. 

a. Adjusted Base Year Inventory, 2008 

RFP Target Levels 

Maryland set out its calculations for 

the adjusted base year inventory and 

2008 RFP target levels in Section 5 of 

Maryland’s Serious Area Plan. EPA 

previously approved 2008 RFP for the 

Baltimore Area. See 75 FR 31709 (June 

4, 2010). EPA required MDE to update 

the 2008 target levels for RFP so that 

they could be used to calculate the 2011 

and 2012 target levels in the Serious 

Area Plan. In the TSD prepared for this 

rulemaking action, EPA reviewed the 

revised 2008 target levels calculations in 

the Serious Area Plan, summarized in 

Table 2, and determined that they were 

done correctly and are approvable. 

TABLE 2—BALTIMORE AREA 2008 RFP TARGET LEVEL CALCULATIONS

[Ozone season tpd] 

Description Formula VOC NOX

A. 2002 Adjusted Base Year Inventory Relative To 2008 ...................................................................... .................... 258.69 369.69 

B. RFP Ratio ............................................................................................................................................ .................... 0.0800 0.0700 

C. Emissions Reductions Required Between 2002 & 2008 .................................................................... A * B 20.70 25.88 

D. Target Level for 2008 ......................................................................................................................... A¥C 238.00 343.81 

b. Projected 2008 Inventories and 

Determination of RFP 

Maryland describes its methods used 

for developing its 2008 projected VOC 

and NOX inventories in Section 4 and 

Appendix A of the Serious Area Plan. 

Projected controlled 2008 emissions for 

the Baltimore Area are summarized in 

Tables 4–5 of the Serious Area Plan, and 

are presented in Table 3. EPA reviewed 

the procedures Maryland used to 

develop its projected inventories and 

found them to be reasonable. For more 

information on EPA’s analysis in 

proposing to approve the projected 

inventories, please see the Baltimore 

Serious Area Emissions Inventory TSD. 

TABLE 3—BALTIMORE AREA 2008 PROJECTED CONTROLLED VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS

[Ozone season tpd] 

Source category VOC 

emissions 

NOX

emissions 

Point ................................................................................................................................................................................. 15.63 122.64 

Area ................................................................................................................................................................................. 108.17 8.43 

Non-road .......................................................................................................................................................................... 44.04 42.85 

Mobile .............................................................................................................................................................................. 50.12 125.69 

Total .......................................................................................................................................................................... 217.96 299.62 

To determine if 2008 RFP is met in 

the Baltimore Area, the total projected 

controlled emissions must be compared 

to the 2008 target levels of emissions. As 

shown in Table 4, the Serious Area Plan 

demonstrates that sufficient emission 

reductions occurred between 2002 and 

2008 to meet the 2008 RFP target levels. 

Thus, EPA proposes to approve the 

Baltimore Area’s revised 2008 RFP. 

TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF THE 2008 RFP MEASURE TARGET LEVELS VERSUS PROJECTED CONTROLLED EMISSIONS IN

THE BALTIMORE AREA

[Ozone season tpd] 

Description VOC 

emissions 

NOX

emissions 

A. Total 2008 Projected Controlled Emissions ............................................................................................................... 217.96 ........ 299.62. 

B. Target Level for 2008 ................................................................................................................................................. 238.00 ........ 343.81. 

RFP is met if A < B ......................................................................................................................................................... Yes ............. Yes. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

26192 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

C. 2011 and 2012 RFP Target Levels and 

Determination of RFP 

1. Requirement 

Serious 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

areas are subject to RFP requirements in 

section 182(c)(2)(B) of the CAA that 

require an average of 3% per year of 

VOC and/or NOX emissions reductions 

for all remaining 3-year periods after the 

first 6-year period out to the area’s 

attainment date (2008–2011, and 2011– 

2012). For a serious area, such as the 

Baltimore Area, with an approved 15% 

rate of progress (ROP) plan under the 1- 

hour standard, states can use reductions 

from VOC or NOX or a combination of 

either. 

2011 and 2012 target levels are 

calculated in the same manner as the 

2008 targets, except that the baseline is 

the previous target level, not the 2002 

base year inventory. The 2008 target 

levels are thus used as the basis for 

calculating 2011 targets. Similarly, 2011 

target levels are used to calculate the 

2012 targets. 

2. State Submittal and EPA Evaluation 

a. Adjusted Base Year Inventories, 2011 

and 2012 RFP Target Levels 

2011 and 2012 RFP calculations can 

be found in Sections 6 and 7 of the 

Serious Area Plan, respectively. In the 

TSD prepared for this rulemaking 

action, EPA reviewed the 2011 and 2012 

target levels calculations in the Serious 

Area Plan, summarized in Table 5, and 

determined that they were done 

correctly and are approvable and 

therefore EPA proposes to approve 

them. 

TABLE 5—BALTIMORE AREA 2011 & 2012 RFP TARGET LEVEL CALCULATIONS

[Ozone season tpd] 

Description Formula VOC NOX

2011 Target 

A. 2008 Adjusted Base Year Inventory Relative To 2011 .......................................................... ........................ 237.71 343.81 

B. RFP Ratio ................................................................................................................................ ........................ 0.0600 0.0300 

C. Emissions Reductions Required Between 2008 & 2011 ........................................................ A * B 14.28 10.31 

D. Target Level for 2011 ............................................................................................................. A – C 223.72 333.49 

2012 Target 

A. 2011 Adjusted Base Year Inventory Relative To 2012 .......................................................... ........................ 223.73 333.32 

B. RFP Ratio ................................................................................................................................ ........................ 0.0150 0.0150 

C. Emissions Reductions Required Between 2011 & 2012 ........................................................ A * B 3.36 5.00 

D. Target Level for 2012 ............................................................................................................. A – C 220.38 328.49 

b. Projected 2011 and 2012 Inventories 

and Determination of RFP 

Maryland describes its methods used 

for developing its 2011 and 2012 

projected VOC and NOX inventories in 

Section 4.0 and Appendix A of the 

Serious Area Plan. Projected 2011 and 

2012 VOC and NOX emissions are found 

in Appendix A of the Baltimore Serious 

Area Plan. EPA reviewed the procedures 

Maryland used to develop its projected 

inventories and found them to be 

reasonable. For details on EPA’s 

analysis, see the Baltimore Serious Area 

Emissions Inventory TSD. 

Projected controlled 2011 and 2012 

emissions for the Baltimore Area are 

summarized in the Serious Area Plan, in 

Tables 4–6 and 4–7, respectively. That 

data is presented in Table 6. 

TABLE 6—BALTIMORE AREA 2011 AND 2012 PROJECTED CONTROLLED VOC & NOX EMISSIONS

[Ozone season tpd] 

Source category 

2011 2012 

VOC 

emissions 

NOX

emissions 

VOC 

emission 

NOX

emissions 

Point ................................................................................................................................. 16.79 95.21 17.19 94.79 

Area ................................................................................................................................. 106.07 8.54 106.79 8.56 

Non-road .......................................................................................................................... 38.26 38.12 35.69 36.05 

Mobile .............................................................................................................................. 44.54 104.62 40.23 93.47 

Total .......................................................................................................................... 205.65 246.48 199.90 232.88 

To determine if 2011 and 2012 RFP is 

met in the Baltimore Area, the total 

projected controlled emissions must be 

compared to the target levels calculated 

in the previous section of this 

rulemaking. As shown in Table 7, the 

Serious Area Plan demonstrates that 

sufficient emission reductions occurred 

between 2008 and 2011 and between 

2011 and 2012 to meet the 2011 and 

2012 RFP target levels. Therefore, the 

Serious Area Plan demonstrates 2011 

and 2012 RFP in the Baltimore Area, 

and EPA proposes to approve the 2011 

and 2012 RFP in the Serious Area Plan. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 26193 

TABLE 7—COMPARISON OF THE 2011 AND 2012 RFP MEASURE TARGET LEVELS VERSUS PROJECTED CONTROLLED

EMISSIONS IN THE BALTIMORE AREA

[Ozone season tpd] 

Description VOC 

emissions 

NOX

emissions 

2011 RFP 

A. Total 2011 Projected Controlled Emissions ................................................................................................................ 205.65 246.48 

B. Target Level for 2011 .................................................................................................................................................. 223.72 333.49 

RFP is met if A < B ......................................................................................................................................................... Yes Yes 

2012 RFP 

.

A. Total 2012 Projected Controlled Emissions ................................................................................................................ 199.90 232.88 

B. Target Level for 2012 .................................................................................................................................................. 220.38 328.49 

RFP is met if A < B ......................................................................................................................................................... Yes Yes 

D. Control Measures and Emission 

Reductions for RFP 

1. Requirement 

Emission reductions to meet RFP 

must be from permanent and 

enforceable emission control measures. 

2. State Submittal and EPA Evaluation 

The control measures for which 

Maryland took credit in order to meet 

the RFP requirement in the Baltimore 

Area are described in Section 8 of the 

Serious Area Plan. To meet the RFP 

requirement for the Baltimore Area, 

Maryland used a combination of point, 

onroad mobile, nonroad mobile, and 

area source control measures as 

described in this section of this 

rulemaking action. 

a. Onroad Mobile Measures 

The onroad mobile measures 

Maryland used to meet RFP in the 

Baltimore Area include enhanced 

vehicle inspection and maintenance 

(enhanced I/M), Tier I vehicle emission 

standards and new federal evaporative 

test procedures (Tier I), reformulated 

gasoline, the national low emission 

vehicle (NLEV) program, and the federal 

heavy-duty diesel engine (HDDE) rule. 

Maryland calculated the emission 

reductions for 2008, 2011, and 2012 RFP 

using the MOVES model for these 

onroad mobile measures. EPA reviewed 

the procedures that MDE used to 

develop its projected inventories, 

including the use of the MOBILE model, 

and found them to be reasonable. For 

details on EPA’s analysis, see the 

Baltimore Serious Area Emissions 

Inventory TSD. 

b. Area (Nonpoint) Source Measures 

The area source measures Maryland 

used to meet RFP in the Baltimore Area 

include four Ozone Transport 

Commission (OTC) rules, Commercial 

and Consumer Products (Phases 1 and 

2), Architectural and Industrial 

Maintenance Coatings (AIM), Portable 

Fuel Containers (PFC) (Phases 1 and 2), 

and Industrial Adhesives and Sealants. 

In the TSD for this action, EPA 

evaluated each of these measures and 

calculated the emission reductions for 

each measure, and finds the emission 

reductions Maryland claimed for these 

measures to be reasonable. 

c. Non-Road Measures—NONROAD 

Model 

The non-road mobile measures 

Maryland used to meet RFP in the 

Baltimore Area include Non-Road Small 

Gasoline Engines, Non-Road Diesel 

Engines (Tier I and Tier II), Marine 

Engine Standards, Emissions Standards 

for Large Spark Ignition Engines, and 

Reformulated Gasoline Use in Non-Road 

Motor Vehicles and Equipment. 

Maryland used the EPA NONROAD 

model to calculate 2008, 2011, and 2012 

RFP emission reductions for these 

measures. As discussed in the Baltimore 

Serious Area Emissions Inventory TSD, 

EPA reviewed the procedures that MDE 

used to develop its projected 

inventories, including the use of the 

NONROAD model, and found them to 

be reasonable. 

d. Point Source Measures 

Maryland took credit for one point 

source measure in its RFP plan, the 

Maryland Healthy Air Act (HAA). In the 

Baltimore Area, the sources covered by 

the HAA are Brandon Shores and H.A. 

Wagner in Anne Arundel County and 

C.P. Crane in Baltimore County. In the 

TSD for this action, EPA evaluated this 

measure and verified Maryland’s 

calculated emission reductions from the 

affected sources covered by the HAA 

and found the emission reductions 

reasonable. 

Table 8 summarizes the emission 

reductions achieved by each measure, as 

calculated by Maryland in the Serious 

Area Plan. 

TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF RFP EMISSION REDUCTIONS

[tpd] 

Control measure 

2008 2011 2012 

VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

Mobile Onroad 

MOVES model ................................................................. 52.86 158.43 62.23 181.35 66.59 192.33 

Area 

OTC–Consumer Products Phase 1 ................................. 3.70 0.00 3.77 0.00 3.79 0.00 

OTC–Consumer Products Phase 2 ................................. 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.46 0.00 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

26194 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF RFP EMISSION REDUCTIONS—Continued 

[tpd] 

Control measure 

2008 2011 2012 

VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

OTC–AIM ......................................................................... 6.03 0.00 6.19 0.00 6.19 0.00 

OTC–PFC Phase 1 .......................................................... 6.71 0.00 8.31 0.00 8.35 0.00 

OTC–PFC Phase 2 .......................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.60 0.00 

OTC–Industrial Adhesives ............................................... 0.00 0.00 2.63 0.00 2.64 0.00 

Total Area reductions ............................................... 16.44 0.00 21.96 0.00 22.03 0.00 

Nonroad 

Nonroad Model ................................................................ 17.85 8.12 26.33 14.55 29.83 17.30 

Railroads (Tier 2) ............................................................. 0.00 1.18 0.00 1.58 0.00 1.67 

Point 

Healthy Air Act (HAA) ...................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.86 0.00 37.18 

Total .......................................................................... 87.14 167.73 110.51 229.35 118.45 248.48 

Projected emissions for both VOC and 

NOX are well below the RFP target 

levels, as shown in Table 9. Therefore, 

EPA finds the Serious Area Plan 

demonstrated more than sufficient 

emission reductions to meet RFP for 

2008, 2011, and 2012 and thus finds the 

RFP plan approvable. 

TABLE 9—COMPARISON OF RFP TARGETS AND PROJECTED CONTROLLED EMISSIONS FOR THE BALTIMORE AREA

[tpd] 

Description 

2008 2011 2012 

VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

A. Projected Controlled Emissions ................................. 217.96 ........ 299.62 ........ 205.65 ........ 246.48 ........ 199.90 ........ 232.88. 

B. Target Level ............................................................... 238.00 ........ 343.81 ........ 223.72 ........ 333.49 ........ 220.38 ........ 328.49. 

RFP is met if A < B ........................................................ Yes ............. Yes ............. Yes ............. Yes ............. Yes ............. Yes. 

EPA notes that Maryland was not 

required to demonstrate 2008 RFP, 

because EPA previously approved 2008 

RFP for the Baltimore Area. See 75 FR 

31709 (June 4, 2010). EPA required MDE 

only to update the 2008 target levels, so 

that they could be used to calculate the 

2011 and 2012 target levels in the 

Serious Area Plan. 

E. Contingency Measures for Failure To 

Meet RFP 

1. Requirement 

Section 182(c) of the CAA requires a 

state with a moderate or above ozone 

nonattainment area to include in its SIP, 

among other things, sufficient 

additional contingency measures in its 

RFP plan in case the area fails to meet 

any applicable milestone. See CAA 

section 182(c)(9). These contingency 

measures must be fully adopted control 

measures or rules, so that upon failure 

to meet a RFP milestone requirement, 

the state must be able to implement the 

contingency measures without any 

further rulemaking activities. If 

triggered, these contingency measures 

must achieve additional emission 

reductions of at least 3% of the adjusted 

baseline emissions. For more 

information on contingency measures, 

see the General Preamble to Title I of the 

CAA (57 FR 13512 (April 16, 1992)) and 

the Phase 2 Rule. To meet the 

requirements for contingency measure 

emission reductions, EPA allows states 

to use NOX emission reductions to 

substitute for VOC emission reductions 

in their contingency plans. Maryland 

discusses its contingency measures for 

failure to meet RFP in Section 12.3 of 

the Serious Area Plan. 

EPA’s May 26, 2015 determination 

that the Baltimore Area attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS suspends 

certain planning requirements, 

including contingency measures, for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for as long 

as the area continues to meet that 

NAAQS. 80 FR 29970. Considering the 

most recent ambient air quality 

monitoring data, the Baltimore Area 

continues to meet the 1997 8-hour 

NAAQS. Therefore, no contingency 

measures are required to address 

requirements in sections 172 or 182 of 

the CAA. See 40 CFR 51.918. However, 

as discussed in this section of this 

rulemaking action, EPA is proposing to 

approve the RFP contingency measures 

along with the serious area RFP plan in 

the Serious Area Plan, as SIP 

strengthening measures pursuant to 

section 110 of the CAA, as requested by 

MDE. 

2. State Submittal and EPA Evaluation 

Maryland’s Serious Area Plan 

contains contingency measures for 

failure to meet the 2012 RFP milestone. 

The Serious Area Plan relies on the 

excess emission reductions from the 

same measures used to meet the RFP 

targets in order to meet the contingency 

measure target. This is acceptable under 

EPA’s early implementation policy, set 

out in the August 13, 1993 

memorandum from G.T. Helms, 

entitled, ‘‘Early Implementation of 

Contingency Measures for Ozone and 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment 

Areas.’’ Maryland chose to split the 3% 

contingency requirement equally 

between VOC and NOX. For details on 

the contingency target level 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 26195 

4See https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/

transconf/adequacy.htm. 

5EPA’s February 22, 2016 notification included 

an inadvertent error mentioning that the comment 

period on the Baltimore Area 2012 MVEBs closed 

November 23, 2015 instead of December 23, 2015. 

In fact, the comment period on EPA’s Web site for 

the public to comment on the adequacy of the 

Baltimore Area’s 2012 MVEBs was open for 30 days 

from November 23, 2015 through December 23, 

2015, and EPA’s Web site correctly includes the 

appropriate December 23, 2015 closing date. See 

https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/

transconf/adequacy.htm, Because the comment 

period was open for 30 days and because the public 

therefore had adequate time to comment on the 

2012 MVEBs, EPA’s incorrect reference in the 

February 22, 2016 Federal Register publication 

after the comment period closed was harmless and 

inadvertent error. Thus, the inadvertent error does 

not alter EPA’s finding that the 2012 RFP MVEBs 

are adequate. 

calculations, see Tables 10 and 11, and 

for EPA’s detailed analysis and 

evaluation of the 2012 RFP contingency 

measure requirement, see EPA’s TSD 

supporting this rulemaking action. 

TABLE 10—2012 RFP CONTINGENCY MEASURE TARGET LEVEL CALCULATIONS

Description Formula VOC NOX

A. 2011 Target Level ................................................................................................................................. .................. 223.73 333.49 

B. FMVCP/RVP Reductions Between 2011 and 2012 ............................................................................. .................. 0.00 0.18 

C. 2011 Adjusted Base Year Inventory Relative to 2012 ......................................................................... A– B ........ 223.73 333.32 

D. RFP Ratio ............................................................................................................................................. .................. 0.0150 0.0150 

E. Emissions Reductions Required Between 2011 & 2012 ...................................................................... C * D ........ 3.36 5.00 

F. RFP Target Level for 2012 ................................................................................................................... C – E ........ 220.38 328.49 

G. Contingency, 1.5% VOC & NOX .......................................................................................................... 0.015 * C 3.36 5.00 

H. 2012 Contingency Target Level ............................................................................................................ F – G ........ 217.02 323.49 

TABLE 11—COMPARISON OF THE 2012 RFP CONTINGENCY MEASURE TARGET LEVELS VERSUS PROJECTED CONTROLLED

EMISSIONS

[tpd] 

Description VOC NOX

A. Projected Controlled Emissions .................................................................................................................................. 199.90 ........ 232.88. 

B. Contingency Target Level ........................................................................................................................................... 217.02 ........ 323.49. 

Contingency Requirement is met if A < B ...................................................................................................................... Yes ............. Yes. 

As shown in Table 11, the Serious 

Area Plan achieved more than enough 

emission reductions to meet the 

contingency measure requirement for 

the 2012 milestone year for the 

Baltimore Area. Therefore, EPA 

proposes to approve Maryland’s 

contingency measures from the Serious 

Area Plan as SIP strengthening 

measures. 

F. Transportation Conformity Budgets 

1. Requirement 

Transportation conformity is required 

by section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA’s 

conformity rule requires that 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects conform to state air quality 

implementation plans and establishes 

the criteria and procedure for 

determining whether or not they do. 

Conformity to a SIP means that 

transportation activities will not 

produce new air quality violations, 

worsen existing violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the national 

ambient air quality standards. See 69 FR 

40004 (July 1, 2004). 

States must establish VOC and NOX

MVEBs for each of the milestone years 

up to the attainment year and submit 

the mobile budgets to EPA for approval. 

Upon adequacy determination or 

approval by EPA, states must conduct 

transportation conformity analysis for 

their Transportation Improvement 

Programs (TIPs) and long range 

transportation plans to ensure highway 

vehicle emissions will not exceed 

relevant MVEBs. For budgets to be 

approvable, they must meet, at a 

minimum, EPA’s adequacy criteria set 

out at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). 

2. State Submittal and EPA’s Evaluation 

MDE discusses transportation 

conformity in Section 10 of the 

Baltimore Serious Area Plan. MDE, in 

consultation with the Baltimore 

Regional Transportation Board (BRTB), 

established MVEBs for 2012. MDE 

calculated the 2012 mobile emissions 

inventory using EPA’s MOVES and the 

Highway Performance Monitoring 

System (HPMS) models. MDE describes 

its methods in Appendix E of the 

Baltimore Serious Area Plan. 

The MVEBs are the amount of 

emissions allowed in the SIP for onroad 

motor vehicles; it establishes an 

emissions ceiling for the regional 

transportation network. The 2012 

MVEBs for the Baltimore Area are 93.5 

tpd NOX and 40.2 tpd VOC. 

On November 23, 2015, as part of the 

adequacy process, EPA posted the 

availability of the 2012 MVEBs on EPA’s 

Web site for the purpose of soliciting 

public comments.4 The comment period 

for the Baltimore Area’s 2012 MVEBs 

closed on December 23, 2015, and EPA 

received no comments. In a February 22, 

2016 Federal Register notice, EPA 

notified the public that EPA found the 

2012 RFP MVEBs in the Baltimore 

Serious Area Plan adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes. 81 

FR 8711.5 As a result of EPA’s finding, 

the State of Maryland must use the 2012 

MVEBs from the Serious Area Plan for 

future transportation conformity 

determinations. 

The MVEBs which EPA has 

determined to be adequate are identical 

to the projected controlled 2012 onroad 

mobile source emissions for the 

Baltimore Area in the Serious Area Plan. 

In addition to the budgets being 

adequate for transportation conformity 

purposes, EPA found the procedures 

Maryland used to develop the MVEBs to 

be reasonable. For more information on 

EPA’s analysis, see EPA’s TSD available 

in the docket for this rulemaking. 

Because the 2012 RFP MVEBs are 

adequate for transportation conformity 

purposes and the methods MDE used to 

develop them are correct, the 2012 RFP 

MVEBs are approvable. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA has reviewed the RFP plan for 

the Baltimore Area, submitted in the 

Serious Area Plan, including updates to 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

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