57466 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See CAA 

section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Volatile organic compounds, 

Oxides of nitrogen. 

Dated: August 5, 2016. 

Robert A. Kaplan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

■ 2. Section 52.2585 is amended by 

adding paragraph (ee) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2585 Control strategy; ozone. 

* * * * * 

(ee) Approval—On January 16, 2015, 

the State of Wisconsin submitted a 

revision to its State Implementation 

Plan for Kenosha County, Wisconsin. 

The submittal established new Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEB) for 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and 

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) for the year 

2015. The MVEBs for Kenosha County 

nonattainment area are now: 1.994 tons 

per day of VOC emissions and 4.397 

tons per day of NOX emissions for the 

year 2015. 

[FR Doc. 2016–20002 Filed 8–22–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0418; FRL–9950–94– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Minor New Source Review—Nonroad 

Engines 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Commonwealth of Virginia state 

implementation plan (SIP). The 

revisions amend the definition of 

‘‘nonroad engine’’ under Virginia’s 

minor New Source Review (NSR) 

requirements to align with Federal 

requirements. EPA is approving these 

revisions to the Virginia SIP in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on October 

24, 2016 without further notice, unless 

EPA receives adverse written comment 

by September 22, 2016. If EPA receives 

such comments, it will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register and inform the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2016–0418 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

campbell.dave@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: 

David Talley, (215) 814–2117, or by 

email at talley.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On June 17, 2014, the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(VADEQ), on behalf of the 

Commonwealth of Virginia, submitted a 

formal revision to its SIP. The SIP 

revision consists of amendments to the 

definition of ‘‘nonroad engine’’ under 

VADEQ’s minor NSR regulations. 

Virginia has a SIP approved minor NSR 

program located in the Virginia 

Administrative Code (VAC) at 9VAC 5– 

80 which regulates certain 

modifications and construction of 

stationary sources within areas covered 

by its SIP as necessary to assure the 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) are achieved. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA 

Analysis 

VADEQ’s June 17, 2014 SIP submittal 

includes revisions to the definition of 

‘‘nonroad engine’’ under the VAC, 

specifically 9VAC5–80–1110. The 

definition of ‘‘nonroad engine’’ was 

expanded to include portable and 

temporary engines. The revision to 

9VAC5–80–1110 makes VADEQ’s 

definition more consistent with the 

Federal definition at 40 CFR 89.2. 

According to VADEQ, Federal design 

standards for internal combustion 

engines and Federal fuel standards for 

engines are already more restrictive than 

permit requirements for portable and 

temporary engines in Virginia’s minor 

NSR program. Virginia’s amended 

definition adopts the Federal definition 

of ‘‘nonroad engine,’’ grouping portable 

engines and temporary engines together 

with other non-mobile engines. The 

revised definition will streamline 

Virginia’s minor NSR program by no 

longer requiring VADEQ to issue minor 

NSR permits without meaningful 

additional emissions control 

requirements on those engines. Virginia 

asserted the amended definition does 

not increase emissions or otherwise 

affect air quality. 

EPA finds these revisions are 

appropriate and meet the Federal 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.160 and 

51.161, and CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for 

a minor NSR program. Additionally, the 

revision to 9VAC5–80–1110(and in 

particular the deletions in the revised 

regulation) are in accordance with 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 57467 

1 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). 

section 110(l) of the CAA because they 

will not interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress, or any other 

applicable CAA requirement. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving VADEQ’s June 17, 

2014 SIP submittal and incorporating 

the revised regulation into Virginia’s 

SIP. EPA is publishing this rule without 

prior proposal because EPA views this 

as a noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipates no adverse comment. 

However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ 

section of today’s Federal Register, EPA 

is publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

SIP revision if adverse comments are 

filed. This rule will be effective on 

October 24, 2016 without further notice 

unless EPA receives adverse comment 

by September 22, 2016. If EPA receives 

adverse comment, EPA will publish a 

timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

rule will not take effect. EPA will 

address all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so at this time. 

IV. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides 

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information 

that: (1) Are generated or developed 

before the commencement of a 

voluntary environmental assessment; (2) 

are prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) demonstrate a 

clear, imminent and substantial danger 

to the public health or environment; or 

(4) are required by law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

Law, Va. Code § 10.1–1198, precludes 

granting a privilege to documents and 

information ‘‘required by law,’’ 

including documents and information 

‘‘required by federal law to maintain 

program delegation, authorization or 

approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce 

federally authorized environmental 

programs in a manner that is no less 

stringent than their federal counterparts. 

. . .’’ The opinion concludes that 

‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, therefore, 

documents or other information needed 

for civil or criminal enforcement under 

one of these programs could not be 

privileged because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval.’’ 

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 

10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the extent 

consistent with requirements imposed 

by federal law,’’ any person making a 

voluntary disclosure of information to a 

state agency regarding a violation of an 

environmental statute, regulation, 

permit, or administrative order is 

granted immunity from administrative 

or civil penalty. The Attorney General’s 

January 12, 1998 opinion states that the 

quoted language renders this statute 

inapplicable to enforcement of any 

federally authorized programs, since 

‘‘no immunity could be afforded from 

administrative, civil, or criminal 

penalties because granting such 

immunity would not be consistent with 

federal law, which is one of the criteria 

for immunity.’’ 

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its NSR 

program consistent with the federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only state enforcement and cannot 

have any impact on federal enforcement 

authorities, EPA may at any time invoke 

its authority under the CAA, including, 

for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 

or 213, to enforce the requirements or 

prohibitions of the state plan, 

independently of any state enforcement 

effort. In addition, citizen enforcement 

under section 304 of the CAA is 

likewise unaffected by this, or any, state 

audit privilege or immunity law. 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation 

by reference of the VADEQ rules 

regarding definitions and permitting 

requirements discussed in section II of 

this preamble. Therefore, these 

materials have been approved by EPA 

for inclusion in the SIP, have been 

incorporated by reference by EPA into 

that plan, are fully federally enforceable 

under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA 

as of the effective date of the final 

rulemaking of EPA’s approval, and will 

be incorporated by reference by the 

Director of the Federal Register in the 

next update of the SIP compilation.1

EPA has made, and will continue to 

make, these materials generally 

available through www.regulations.gov 

and/or at the EPA Region III Office 

(please contact the person identified in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this preamble for more 

information). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

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 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); 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
57468 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

• 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). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land as defined 

in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area 

where EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by October 24, 2016. 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. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking action. 

This action pertaining to Virginia’s 

minor NSR program 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: August 8, 2016. 

Shawn M. Garvin, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart VV—Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by adding an entry for 

Article 6—Permits for New and 

Modified Stationary Sources after 

Article 5 in 9 VAC 5–80 and adding an 

entry for 5–80–1110 to read as follows: 

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED VIRGINIA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA Approval date 

Explanation 

[former SIP 

citation] 

*******

9 VAC 5, Chapter 80 Permits for Stationary Sources [Part VIII] 

*******

Article 6—Permits for New and Modified Stationary Sources 

5–80–1110 ........ Definitions ......... 3/27/14 8/23/16, [Insert Federal Register Citation]. .............................................. ........................

*******


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 57469 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–19888 Filed 8–22–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0523; FRL–9950–84– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; 

Shipbuilding Antifoulant Coatings 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving, as a revision 

to the Indiana State Implementation 

Plan (SIP), a submittal by the Indiana 

Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM) dated July 17, 

2015. The submittal contains a new 

volatile organic compound (VOC) limit 

for antifoulant coatings used in 

shipbuilding and ship repair facilities 

located in Clark, Floyd, Lake, and Porter 

counties. The submittal also includes a 

demonstration that this revision satisfies 

the anti-backsliding provisions of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). The submittal 

additionally removes obsolete dates and 

clarifies a citation. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective October 24, 2016, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by 

September 22, 2016. If adverse 

comments are received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2015–0523 at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

aburano.douglas@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: Eric 

Svingen, Environmental Engineer, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–4489, 

svingen.eric@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is the background of this SIP 

revision? 

II. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s 

submittal? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background of this SIP 

revision? 

On July 17, 2015, IDEM submitted to 

EPA a request to incorporate into 

Indiana’s SIP a revised version of 326 

Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 8– 

12–4, ‘‘Volatile organic compound 

emissions limiting requirements,’’ with 

an effective date of June 21, 2015. 

Indiana’s rulemaking adds, at 326 IAC 

8–12–4(a)(1)(D), a VOC limit of 3.33 lbs 

VOC per gallon for antifoulant coatings 

used in shipbuilding and ship repair 

facilities located in Clark, Floyd, Lake, 

and Porter counties. In 326 IAC 8–12– 

3(22)(C), an ‘‘antifoulant specialty 

coating’’ is defined as any coating that 

is applied to the underwater portion of 

a vessel to prevent or reduce the 

attachment of biological organisms and 

that is registered with the EPA as a 

pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The 

same definition is provided in EPA’s 

Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) 

for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

Operations (Surface Coating) (61 FR 

44050, August 27, 1996). Clark and 

Floyd counties are part of the Louisville, 

KY-IN maintenance area for the 1997 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS), and Lake and Porter 

counties are part of the ChicagoNaperville, IL-IN-WI nonattainment area 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the 

Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN 

maintenance area for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. 

Before IDEM added the revised VOC 

limit of 3.33 lbs VOC per gallon in 326 

IAC 8–12–4(a)(1)(D), antifoulant 

coatings were limited by the specialty 

coating limit of 2.83 lbs VOC per gallon 

at 326 IAC 8–12–4(a)(1)(E), which IDEM 

has moved to 326 IAC 8–12–4(a)(1)(F) in 

this revision. The revised limit of 3.33 

lbs VOC per gallon is consistent with 

the limit in Table 1–1 of EPA’s 

Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) 

Document: Surface Coating Operations 

at Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

Facilities (EPA–453/R–94–032, April 

1994). In addition, it is consistent with 

the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 

Coating) at 40 CFR part 63, subpart II. 

EPA’s CTG identifies the limit from the 

ACT as Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT), and states that the 

NESHAP can be used as a model rule for 

shipbuilding and ship repair facilities. 

In Indiana’s rulemaking, 326 IAC 8– 

12–4 is also revised to remove obsolete 

dates and clarify a reference to EPA’s 

NESHAP for Shipbuilding and Ship 

Repair (Surface Coating) at 40 CFR 63, 

subpart II. 

This SIP revision relies on offsets 

generated by the Architectural and 

Industrial Maintenance (AIM) coatings 

rule at 326 IAC 8–14 to compensate for 

the increase in allowable VOC 

emissions. 

II. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s 

submittal? 

Revisions to SIP-approved control 

measures must meet the requirements 

of, among other statutory provisions, 

section 110(l) of the CAA in order to be 

approved by EPA. Section 110(l), known 

as EPA’s anti-backsliding provision, 

states: 

‘‘The Administrator shall not approve 

a revision of a plan if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (as defined 

in section 171), or any other applicable 

requirement of this Act.’’ 

In the absence of an attainment 

demonstration, to demonstrate no 

interference with any applicable 

NAAQS or requirement of the CAA 

under section 110(l), states may 

substitute equivalent emissions 

reductions to compensate for any 

change to a SIP-approved program, as 

long as actual emissions are not 

increased. ‘‘Equivalent’’ emissions 

reductions mean reductions which are 

equal to or greater than those reductions 

achieved by the control measure 

approved in the SIP. To show that 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES