Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 75 / Friday, April 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 21849 

1See the FOM, CPL 02–00–150, Ch. 4, § V, pp. 4– 

28 to 4–29 (Apr. 22, 2011), available on OSHA’s 

Web page. 

ADDRESSES: In compliance with 28 

U.S.C. 2112(a), OSHA designates the 

Associate Solicitor of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health as the 

recipient of petitions for review of the 

final standard. Contact Joseph M. 

Woodward, Associate Solicitor, at the 

Office of the Solicitor, Room S–4004, 

U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693–5445; 

email: woodward.joseph@dol.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

General information and press inquiries: 

Contact Frank Meilinger, Director, 

OSHA Office of Communications, Room 

N–3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693–1999; 

email: meilinger.francis2@dol.gov. 

Technical information: Contact Todd 

Owen, Directorate of Standards and 

Guidance, Room N–3609, OSHA, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; 

telephone: (202) 693–2260; fax: (202) 

693–1663; email: owen.todd@dol.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of 

this Federal Register notice: Electronic 

copies of this Federal Register notice 

are available at http://

www.regulations.gov. This Federal 

Register notice, as well as news releases 

and other relevant information, also are 

available at OSHA’s Web page at 

http://www.osha.gov. 

Confirmation of the effective date: On 

November 20, 2014, OSHA published a 

direct final rule (DFR) in the Federal 

Register revising paragraphs (e)(1)(i) 

and (e)(1)(ii) of OSHA’s Mechanical 

Power Presses Standard at 29 CFR 

1910.217. The DFR revised paragraph 

(e)(1)(i) of OSHA’s Mechanical Power 

Presses Standard at 29 CFR 1910.217 to 

require that employers perform and 

complete necessary maintenance and 

repair on their mechanical power 

presses, and to develop and maintain 

certification records of these tasks. The 

DFR also removed requirements from 

paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this standard to 

develop and maintain certification 

records for weekly inspections and tests 

performed on mechanical power 

presses. The revisions made in this final 

rule maintain the safety previously 

afforded to employees by these 

provisions, while substantially reducing 

paperwork burden hours and cost to 

employers. 

In the DFR, OSHA stated that it would 

confirm the effective date of the DFR as 

a final rule if it received no significant 

adverse comments on the direct final 

rule or the proposal. OSHA received 

two comments, neither of which was a 

significant adverse comment (see ID: 

OSHA–2013–0010–0003 and OSHA– 

2013–0010–004 in the docket for this 

rulemaking). Accordingly, OSHA is 

confirming the effective date of the final 

rule. 

The first commenter, Ms. Teresa 

Brown of University of Memphis, 

expressed concern that the proposed 

revisions would prevent employers from 

ascertaining whether employees who 

operate mechanical power presses 

received adequate training for these 

operations. In addition, Ms. Brown 

believed that the proposed revisions 

would require employers to use only 

computers to develop and maintain 

training records (ID: OSHA–2013–0010– 

0003). OSHA notes that the final rule 

does not revise the training 

requirements or the recordkeeping 

requirements for training specified in 

the Mechanical Power Presses Standard. 

In addition, the final rule does not 

revise the means that employers can use 

to meet the information-collection 

requirements specified by this standard. 

For recordkeeping purposes, the 

recordkeeping requirements specified 

by the final rule are still written in 

performance-oriented language, i.e., in 

terms of what information to collect 

rather than how to collect the 

information. 

Mr. Tim Hutchison submitted the 

second comment. Mr. Hutchison asked 

how would OSHA ‘‘know if [a] repair 

was not performed when noted’’ and 

‘‘[h]ow will [OSHA] determine a 

‘willful’ violation’’ (ID: OSHA–2013– 

0010–0004). In response to these 

questions, OSHA notes that paragraph 

(e)(1)(i) previously required employers 

to inspect all parts, auxiliary equipment, 

and safeguards of mechanical power 

presses on a periodic and regular basis, 

and to maintain certification records 

showing that they conducted the 

inspections; this provision did not 

require employers to perform any 

maintenance or repair tasks found 

necessary during the inspections, much 

less document such tasks. This final 

rule revises paragraph (e)(1)(i) to require 

that employers conduct periodic and 

regular inspections of each press and, 

before operating the press, perform and 

complete any maintenance or repair task 

found necessary during the inspections. 

In addition, employers must maintain 

certification records of inspections 

conducted and any maintenance and 

repairs performed during the 

inspections. These maintenance and 

repair records, supplemented by 

employee interviews, will permit OSHA 

to determine if an employer performed 

necessary maintenance and repairs on a 

press before operating it. The Agency 

will determine whether a violation of 

these requirements is willful based on 

OSHA’s Field Operations Manual 

(FOM).1

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Parts 1910 

Mechanical power presses, 

Occupational safety and health, Safety. 

Authority and Signature 

David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, 

authorized the preparation of this final 

rule. OSHA is issuing this final rule 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657, 

5 U.S.C. 553, Secretary of Labor’s Order 

1–2012 (77 FR 3912), and 29 CFR part 

1911. 

Signed at Washington, DC, on April 14, 

2014. 

David Michaels, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2014–08864 Filed 4–17–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0683; FRL–9909–66– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, El Dorado 

County Air Quality Management 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is finalizing approval of 

revisions to the El Dorado County Air 

Quality Management District 

(EDAQMD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

action was proposed in the Federal 

Register on October 25, 2013 and 

concerns negative declarations for 

volatile organic compound (VOC) 

source categories for EDAQMD. We are 

approving these negative declarations 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the 

Act). 

DATES: This rule will be effective on 

May 19, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0683 for 

this action. Generally, documents in the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
21850 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 75 / Friday, April 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California 94105–3901. 

While all documents in the docket are 

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

some information may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, 

multi-volume reports), and some may 

not be available in either location (e.g., 

confidential business information 

(CBI)). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4122, tong.stanley@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On October 25, 2013 (78 FR 63934), 

EPA proposed to approve the following 

document into the California SIP. 

Local agency Document Adopted Submitted 

EDAQMD ............. EDAQMD Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) Update Analysis Staff Report (‘‘2006 RACT SIP’’).

02/06/07 07/11/07 

On March 13, 2014 (79 FR 14176), we 

finalized approval of EDAQMD’s 2006 

RACT SIP. Included in EDAQMD’s 

submittal were a number of negative 

declarations. Ozone nonattainment 

areas classified at moderate and above 

are required to adopt VOC regulations 

for the published Control Technique 

Guidelines (CTG) categories and for 

major non-CTG sources of VOC or NOx. 

If an ozone nonattainment area does not 

have stationary sources covered by an 

EPA published CTG, then the area is 

required to submit a negative 

declaration. We proposed approval of 

EDAQMD’s negative declarations listed 

in Table 1 below because we 

determined that they complied with the 

relevant CAA requirements. This action 

finalizes our approval of EDAQMD’s 

negative declarations into the SIP. Our 

proposed action contains more 

information on the submitted document 

and our evaluation. 

TABLE 1—EDAQMD NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS

CTG Source category CTG Document title 

Aerospace ........................................................... EPA–453/R–97–004—Control of VOC Emissions from Coating Operations at Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework. 

Automobile Coating; Metal Coil Container, & 

Closure; Paper & Fabric.

EPA–450/2–77–008—Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary 

Sources—Volume II Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and LightDuty Trucks. 

Large Appliances ................................................ EPA–450/2–77–034—Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, 

Volume V: Surface Coating of Large Appliances. 

Magnet Wire ....................................................... EPA–450/2–77–033—Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, 

Volume IV: Surface Coating of Insulation of Magnet Wire. 

Metal Furniture .................................................... EPA–450/2–77–032—Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, 

Volume III: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture. 

Ships ................................................................... 61 FR 44050 Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Operations (Surface Coating). 

Wood Coating: Factory Surface Coating of Flat 

Wood Paneling.

EPA–450/2–78–032—Control of Volatile Organic emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, 

Volume VII: Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling. 

Wood Furniture ................................................... EPA–453/R–96–007—Control of VOC Emissions from Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations. 

Natural Gas/Gasoline ......................................... EPA–450/2–83–007—Control of VOC Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing 

Plants. 

Refineries ............................................................ EPA–450/2–77–025—Control of Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater Separators, and Process Unit Turnarounds. 

EPA–450/2–78–036—Control of VOC Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Equipment. 

Synthetic Organic Chemical ............................... EPA–450/3–84–015—Control of VOC Emissions from Air Oxidation Processes in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry. 

EPA–450/4–91–031—Control of VOC Emissions from Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations in SOCMI. 

Tanks .................................................................. EPA–450/2–77–036—Control of VOC Emissions from Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed 

Roof Tanks. 

EPA–450/2–78–047—Control of VOC Emissions from Petroleum Liquid Storage in External 

Floating Roof Tanks. 

Dry Cleaning ....................................................... EPA–450/3–82–009—Control of VOC Emissions from Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners. 

Pharmaceutical Products .................................... EPA–450/2–78–029—Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Synthesized 

Pharmaceutical Products. 

Polyester Resin ................................................... EPA–450/3–83–008—Control of VOC Emissions from Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins. 

EPA–450/3–83–006—Control of VOC Fugitive Emissions from Synthetic Organic Chemical 

Polymer and Resin Manufacturing Equipment. 

Rubber Tires ....................................................... EPA–450/2–78–030—Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Pneumatic 

Rubber Tires. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 75 / Friday, April 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 21851 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received no comments on the 

proposed approval of El Dorado 

County’s negative declarations. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted. 

Therefore, as authorized in section 

110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully 

approving these negative declarations 

into the California SIP. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

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 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 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 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, 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 section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: March 21, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52 [AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.222 is amended by 

adding paragraph (a)(7)(iii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.222 Negative declarations. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(7) * * * 

(iii) Control of VOC Emissions from 

Coating Operations at Aerospace 

Manufacturing and Rework; Control of 

Volatile Organic Emissions from 

Existing Stationary Sources—Volume II: 

Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, 

Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty 

Trucks; Control of Volatile Organic 

Emissions from Existing Stationary 

Sources, Volume V: Surface Coating of 

Large Appliances; Control of Volatile 

Organic Emissions from Existing 

Stationary Sources, Volume IV: Surface 

Coating of Insulation of Magnet Wire; 

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions 

from Existing Stationary Sources, 

Volume III: Surface Coating of Metal 

Furniture; 61 FR 44050 Shipbuilding 

and Ship Repair Operations (Surface 

Coating); Control of Volatile Organic 

emissions from Existing Stationary 

Sources, Volume VII: Factory Surface 

Coating of Flat Wood Paneling; Control 

of VOC Emissions from Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations; Control of 

VOC Equipment Leaks from Natural 

Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants; Control 

of Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, 

Wastewater Separators, and Process 

Unit Turnarounds; Control of VOC 

Leaks from Petroleum Refinery 

Equipment; Control of VOC Emissions 

from Air Oxidation Processes in 

Synthetic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing Industry; Control of VOC 

Emissions from Reactor Processes and 

Distillation Operations in SOCMI; 

Control of VOC Emissions from Storage 

of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed Roof 

Tanks; Control of VOC Emissions from 

Petroleum Liquid Storage in External 

Floating Roof Tanks; Control of VOC 

Emissions from Large Petroleum Dry 

Cleaners; Control of Volatile Organic 

Emissions from Manufacture of 

Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products; 

Control of VOC Emissions from 

Manufacture of High-Density 

Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and 

Polystyrene Resins; Control of VOC 

Fugitive Emissions from Synthetic 

Organic Chemical Polymer and Resin 

Manufacturing Equipment; and Control 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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