21852 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 75 / Friday, April 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

of Volatile Organic Emissions from 

Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires 

were submitted on July 11, 2007 and 

adopted on February 6, 2007. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–08742 Filed 4–17–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2014–0049; FRL–9909–08– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; South 

Dakota; Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas 

Tailoring Rule Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is partially approving and 

partially disapproving revisions to the 

South Dakota State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submitted by the South Dakota 

Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources (DENR) to EPA on June 20, 

2011. The SIP revisions address the 

permitting of sources of greenhouse 

gases (GHGs). Specifically, we are 

approving revisions to the State’s 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) program to incorporate the 

provisions of the federal PSD and Title 

V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule 

(Tailoring Rule). The SIP revisions 

incorporate by reference the federal 

Tailoring Rule’s emission thresholds for 

determining which new stationary 

sources and modifications to existing 

stationary sources become subject to 

South Dakota’s PSD permitting 

requirements for their GHG emissions. 

EPA is finalizing disapproval of a 

related provision that would rescind the 

State’s Tailoring Rule revision in certain 

circumstances. EPA will take separate 

action on an amendment to the chapter 

Construction Permits for New Sources 

or Modifications in the June 20, 2011 

submittal, regarding permits for minor 

sources. EPA is finalizing this action 

under section 110 and part C of the 

Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective May 

19, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R08–OAR– 

2014–0049. All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop St., Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody 

Ostendorf, Air Program, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop St., 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 

312–7814, ostendorf.jody@epa.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, the 

following definitions apply: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the federal Clean Air 

Act, unless the context indicates 

otherwise. 

(ii) The initials DENR mean or refer to 

the South Dakota Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources. 

(iii) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iv) The initials GHG mean or refer to 

Greenhouse Gas. 

(v) The initials PSD mean or refer to 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration. 

(vi) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(vii) The words State or SD mean the 

State of South Dakota, unless the 

context indicates otherwise. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background for Our Final Action 

II. Response to Comments 

III. What final action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review 

I. Background for Our Final Action 

The June 20, 2011 submittal 

incorporates by reference the provisions 

of the federal PSD and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule 

(Tailoring Rule), that establish (1) that 

GHG is a regulated pollutant under 

South Dakota’s PSD program, and (2) 

emission thresholds for determining 

which new stationary sources and 

modification projects become subject to 

South Dakota’s PSD permitting 

requirements for their GHG emissions. 

The background for today’s final rule, 

our rationale for disapproving the 

submitted rescission clause language, 

and EPA’s national actions pertaining to 

GHGs is discussed in detail in our 

proposal (see 79 FR 8130, February 11, 

2014). The comment period was open 

for 30 days and we received two adverse 

comment letters. 

II. Response to Comments 

We received adverse comments on 

our proposed action, specifically on our 

proposed disapproval of the rescission 

clause, from the South Dakota DENR. 

We received similar comments from 

Otter Tail Power Company. After 

considering the comments, EPA has 

decided to finalize our action as 

proposed. The comments and our 

responses follow. 

Comment: DENR states that EPA’s 

first proposed basis for disapproval was 

that the rescission clause would allow 

for revision of the SIP without the 

approval of the Administrator. EPA 

cited 40 CFR 51.105, which states that 

revisions of a plan, or portions thereof, 

will not be considered part of an 

applicable plan until such revisions 

have been approved by the 

Administrator in accordance with part 

51. 

DENR characterizes EPA as stating 

that the rescission clause will be a 

revision of the plan down the road that 

the Administrator has not had a chance 

to approve. DENR disagrees, stating that 

EPA has the chance to approve the 

rescission clause now. Otter Tail Power 

Company makes a similar argument, 

stating that 40 CFR 51.105 will not be 

violated in the event of a triggering 

action because the Administrator will 

have already approved the fact that the 

rules can be revised. 

Response: EPA disagrees with this 

comment. We did not say the rescission 

clause as submitted is not before EPA 

for approval. Instead, we said that we 

were considering whether any future 

change to the SIP that occurs as a result 

of the automatic rescission clause would 

be consistent with EPA’s interpretation 

of the effect of the triggering EPA or 

federal court action. In this case, even 

if EPA were to approve South Dakota’s 

rescission clause now, the SIP would be 

modified without any EPA 

interpretation of the triggering federal 

court action. This violates 40 CFR 

51.105. 

Comment: DENR states that EPA 

approval of the rescission clause would 

not violate any public notice 

requirements. DENR notes that the 

public had notice and opportunity to 

comment on both the State’s rulemaking 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 75 / Friday, April 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 21853 

1Even if this disapproval did create potential for 

sanctions—which it does not—that would not 

constitute coercion. See e.g., Virginia v. Browner, 80 

F.3d 869 (4th Cir. 1996). 

process and on EPA’s SIP approval 

process; Otter Tail Power Company 

likewise states that there has already 

been adequate notice and comment. 

DENR states that the public is thus 

aware that if a court issues an order 

vacating or otherwise invalidating EPA’s 

PSD GHG regulations, the South Dakota 

provisions will be rescinded. Otter Tail 

Power Company states that any further 

public notice is unnecessary. 

Response: EPA disagrees with this 

comment. EPA is not stating that there 

was insufficient notice that the 

rescission clause says what it says. EPA 

is stating that in the future there would 

be inadequate notice to the public as to 

the effects of a court decision. DENR 

does not dispute this, because DENR 

does not indicate that there is any 

notification mechanism that would take 

place after the court decision. Likewise, 

Otter Tail Power Company does not 

explain how the public would be 

adequately notified. 

Comment: DENR states that EPA’s 

disapproval of the rescission clause 

would place an undue burden on the 

regulated community. Businesses 

moving to South Dakota or trying to 

expand would be put on hold until 

South Dakota could go through the rule 

process of removing the vacated 

provisions and submitting the revisions 

to EPA for approval. DENR and Otter 

Tail Power Company note that EPA has 

taken nearly three years to act on this 

submittal. Otter Tail Power Company 

states that this shows it would take a 

similar amount of time to remove the 

provisions from South Dakota’s SIP if 

the PSD GHG provisions are stayed or 

vacated. DENR states a concern that 

without the rescission clause, there 

could be a scenario where South 

Dakota’s SIP would have a requirement 

the State could not enforce because the 

underlying rule or law was no longer 

valid but a third party or EPA could 

attempt to enforce. 

Response: EPA disagrees with this 

comment. First, a rescission clause that 

meets the requirements we described in 

our proposal notice can become 

effective relatively quickly. For 

example, we have approved a rescission 

clause that takes effect upon EPA’s 

publication of a direct final rule in the 

Federal Register that a court has 

vacated GHG PSD permitting 

requirements. 77 FR 12484 (Mar. 1, 

2012). This triggering event serves both 

the purpose of public notification and 

EPA interpretation of the court decision. 

In that direct final rule, EPA stated: 

In the event of a court decision * * * that 

triggers (or likely triggers) application of 

Tennessee’s automatic rescission provisions, 

EPA intends to promptly describe the impact 

of the court decision * * * on the 

enforceability of its GHG permitting 

regulations. 

77 FR 12486. Thus, a rescission clause 

can meet CAA requirements and still 

become effective relatively quickly after 

a court decision, without need for the 

full SIP revision process. 

Second, South Dakota provides no 

evidence that any businesses would 

have to be put on hold. Most sources 

that are subject to PSD GHG 

requirements are subject to PSD 

permitting anyway due to their 

emissions of other pollutants. 

Furthermore, both states and EPA have 

issued many PSD permits that address 

GHG requirements, without any 

apparent impact on the economy. 

Comment: DENR notes that during the 

state rulemaking process, EPA 

commented on South Dakota’s 

rescission clause and did not object to 

it, only asking that South Dakota remove 

the word ‘‘reconsider’’ from the 

provision. DENR states that this estops 

EPA from objecting to the provision 

now. 

Response: EPA disagrees with this 

comment. First, section 110(l) mandates 

that EPA cannot approve a SIP revision 

that interferes with any requirement of 

the CAA. Regardless of comments made 

during the state rulemaking, this 

requirement applies. As explained in 

our proposal notice and response to 

comments, EPA has determined in this 

action that the rescission clause does 

not comply with requirements in the 

CAA and in our regulations. 

Second, nothing in the CAA requires 

EPA to participate in a state rulemaking 

process or to reach a final determination 

during that process on whether a state 

rule meets the requirements of the CAA. 

In addition, nothing in EPA’s comment 

stated that the revised language would 

be approvable, that the comment was 

EPA’s final determination, or that the 

submittal would not be subject to 

further EPA review. And even if the 

comment had made such a statement, it 

would not give rise to estoppel, as 

regardless of any such statement CAA 

section 110(l) does not permit EPA to 

approve a SIP revision that interferes 

with requirements of the CAA. See, e.g. 

Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 

243 U.S. 389 (1917) (‘‘[T]he United 

States is neither bound nor estopped by 

acts of its officers or agents in entering 

into an arrangement or agreement to do 

or cause to be done what the law does 

not sanction or permit.’’). 

Comment: DENR states that South 

Dakota is in litigation with EPA 

regarding EPA’s Tailoring Rule. EPA’s 

disapproval of the rescission clause is 

tantamount to requiring the State to 

waive or compromise its claims in that 

litigation by taking a contrary position 

in its State rules, and is no less than 

coercion. 

Response: EPA strongly disagrees 

with this comment. It appears to EPA 

that our disapproval of the rescission 

clause has no legal consequences for the 

State, nor has DENR identified any. 

First, there are no legal consequences 

under the CAA. A rescission clause is 

not a required element of the plan, and 

disapproval of it does not obligate the 

State in any way to make a new SIP 

submittal and does not create any 

potential for sanctions.1 The State’s PSD 

program remains fully approved. 

Second, there are no consequences 

that are relevant to the litigation. EPA is 

not requiring DENR to change anything 

in state law. Nor is EPA requiring the 

State somehow to affirm EPA’s legal 

position in the cited litigation. The State 

is not required to make any response of 

any type to EPA’s disapproval. There is 

nothing in EPA’s disapproval of the 

State’s rescission clause that can be 

characterized as coercion. 

III. What final action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving in part, and 

disapproving in part, the June 20, 2011 

submittal that addresses the permitting 

of sources of GHGs for incorporation 

into the South Dakota SIP. Specifically, 

EPA is approving revisions to Chapter 

74:36:09 that incorporate the Tailoring 

Rule into the State’s definitions and 

requirements for PSD. EPA is 

disapproving the provision that would 

rescind the State’s Tailoring Rule 

revision in certain circumstances. EPA 

will take separate action on an 

amendment in the June 20, 2011 

submittal to Chapter 74:36:20, 

Construction Permits for New Sources 

or Modifications, regarding permits for 

minor sources. 

EPA is approving changes to 

Definitions, Section 74:36:01:08(2), 

which revises the major source 

definition so that it applies to any air 

pollutant ‘‘subject to regulation as 

required by EPA,’’ and Section 

74:36:01:15(6), which adds the six GHGs 

designated by EPA as regulated air 

pollutants to the definition of regulated 

air pollutant. EPA is not taking action 

on the addition of ‘‘(73) ‘‘Subject to 

regulation’’ as defined in 40 CFR 70.2 

(July 1, 2009), as revised in publication 

75 FR 31607 (June 3, 2010), in 

accordance with EPA requirements,’’ 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
21854 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 75 / Friday, April 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

because it applies to the title V 

permitting program which is not part of 

the SIP. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this final action merely 

approves state law that meets federal 

requirements and disapproves state law 

that does not meet federal requirements. 

This action will 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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 Clean Air Act; 

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 rule 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. 

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). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by June 17, 2014. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: March 24, 2014. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended to read 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 QQ—South Dakota 

■ 2. Section 52.2170 is amended in 

paragraph (c)(1): 

■ a. By adding table entries for 

74:36:01:08 and 74:36:01:15 in 

numerical order; and 

■ b. By revising table entry for 

74:36:09:02. 

The amendments read as follows: 

§ 52.2170 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date and citation 1 Explanations 

74:36:01 Definitions 

* * * * * * * 

74:36:01:08 ..................... Major source defined ............................... 4/4/1999 4/18/2014 [Insert Federal Register page 

number where the document begins.].

74:36:01:15 ..................... Regulated air pollutant defined ................ 1/5/1995 4/18/2014 [Insert Federal Register page 

number where the document begins.].

* * * * * * * 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 75 / Friday, April 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 21855 

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date and citation 1 Explanations 

74:36:09 Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

* * * * * * * 

74:36:09:02 ..................... Prevention of significant deterioration ..... 6/28/2010 4/18/2014 [Insert Federal Register page 

number where the document begins.].

* * * * * * * 

1 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–08615 Filed 4–17–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0191; FRL–9909–60– 

Region–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Revision for GP Big Island, LLC 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve a revision to the 

Virginia State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). The SIP revision consists of a 

revision to the operating permit for the 

control of visibility-impairing emissions 

from GP Big Island, LLC on a shutdown 

of an individual unit. EPA is approving 

this revision in accordance with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on June 17, 

2014 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse written comment by 

May 19, 2014. 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 Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2013–0191 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0191, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2013– 

0191. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main 

Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose 

Quinto, (215) 814–2182, or by email at 

quinto.rose@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On July 17, 2008, the Commonwealth 

of Virginia submitted a state operating 

permit for the control of visibilityimpairing emissions from GP Big Island 

LLC located in Bedford County, 

Virginia. This permit consists of two 

power boilers (numbers 4 and 5). This 

permit was issued pursuant to Article 

52 (9 VAC–5–40–7550 et seq.) of 9 VAC 

5–40 (Existing Stationary Sources), and 

Article 5 (VAC 5–80–800 et seq.) of 9 

VAC 5–80 (Permits for Stationary 

Sources) of the Commonwealth of 

Virginia Regulations for the Control and 

Abatement of Air Pollution. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

On December 21, 2012, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a 

SIP revision that consists of an 

amendment of the state operating permit 

for GP Big Island, LLC. The 

Commonwealth of Virginia and GP Big 

Island, LLC entered into a mutual 

determination of permanent shutdown 

of an individual unit consisting of the 

number 4 power boiler, in accordance 

with 9 VAC5–20–220 of Virginia’s 

Regulations for the Control and 

Abatement of Air Pollution, regarding 

the shutdown of a stationary source. 

This SIP revision amends the state 

operating permit reflecting control of 

visibility-impairing pollutants in order 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES