Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 124 / Friday, June 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 36419 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add a temporary § 165.T07–0471 to 

read as follows: 

§ 165.T07–0471 Safety Zone; Fourth of 

July Fireworks Displays Within Captain of 

the Port Charleston Zone, SC. 

(a) Regulated Area. The following 

regulated areas are safety zones. 

(1) Murrells Inlet, South Carolina. All 

waters within a 1,000 yard radius 

around Veterans Pier, from which the 

fireworks will be launched, located on 

the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. 

(2) North Myrtle Beach, South 

Carolina. All waters within a 500 yard 

radius around Cherry Grove Pier, from 

which the fireworks will be launched, 

located on the Atlantic Ocean. 

(b) Effective and enforcement periods. 

Paragraph (a)(1) of this section will be 

enforced from 9:00 p.m. until 10:15 p.m. 

on July 4, 2014. Paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section will be enforced from 9:00 p.m. 

until 10:25 p.m. on July 4, 2014. 

(c) Definition. The term ‘‘designated 

representative’’ means Coast Guard 

Patrol Commanders, including Coast 

Guard coxswains, petty officers, and 

other officers operating Coast Guard 

vessels, and Federal, state, and local 

officers designated by or assisting the 

Captain of the Port Charleston in the 

enforcement of the regulated area. 

(d) Regulations. (1) All persons and 

vessels are prohibited from entering, 

transiting through, anchoring in, or 

remaining within the regulated area 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port Charleston or a designated 

representative. 

(2) Persons and vessels desiring to 

enter, transit through, anchor in, or 

remain within the regulated area may 

contact the Captain of the Port 

Charleston by telephone at 843–740– 

7050, or a designated representative via 

VHF radio on channel 16, to request 

authorization. If authorization to enter, 

transit through, anchor in, or remain 

within the regulated area is granted by 

the Captain of the Port Charleston or a 

designated representative, all persons 

and vessels receiving such authorization 

must comply with the instructions of 

the Captain of the Port Charleston or a 

designated representative. 

(3) The Coast Guard will provide 

notice of the regulated area by Local 

Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners, and on-scene designated 

representatives. 

Dated: June 17, 2014. 

R. R. Rodriguez, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Charleston. 

[FR Doc. 2014–15137 Filed 6–26–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2014–0241; FRL–9912–24- 

Region 8] 

Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; South 

Dakota; Revisions to South Dakota 

Administrative Code; Permit: New and 

Modified Sources 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

partially approve and partially 

disapprove State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions submitted by the State of 

South Dakota on June 14, 2010, June 20, 

2011, and July 29, 2013. All three SIP 

submittals revise the portion of the 

Administrative Rules of South Dakota 

(ARSD) that pertain to the issuance of 

South Dakota air quality permits. In 

addition, the June 14, 2010 submittal 

revises certain definitions and dates of 

incorporation by reference. The June 14, 

2010 submittal contains new, amended 

and renumbered rules; the June 20, 2011 

submittal contains new rules; and the 

July 29, 2013 submittal contains 

amended rules. In this rulemaking, we 

are taking final action on all portions of 

the June 14, 2010 submittal, except for 

those portions of the submittal which do 

not belong in the SIP. We are also taking 

final action on portions of the June 20, 

2011 submittal that were not acted on in 

our April 18, 2014 rulemaking regarding 

greenhouse gases and the State’s 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) program. We are taking final 

action on portions of the July 29, 2013 

submittal that supersede portions of the 

two previous submittals; the remainder 

of the July 29, 2013 submittal will be 

acted on at a later date. This action is 

being taken under section 110 of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective July 

28, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2014–0241. 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 Street Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests 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: 

Kevin Leone, Air Program, Mailcode 

8P–AR, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop 

Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, 

(303) 312–6227, or leone.kevin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Basis for our Final Action 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The initials ARSD mean or refer to 

the Administrative Rules of South 

Dakota. 

(iii) The initials DENR mean the 

Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources. 

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

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(v) The words minor NSR mean NSR 

established under section 110(a)(2)(C) of 

the Act and 40 CFR 51.160 through 

51.164. 

(vi) The initials NAAQS mean or refer 

to National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. 

(vii) The initials NSR mean new 

source review, a phrase intended to 

encompass the stationary source 

regulatory programs that regulate the 

construction and modification of 

stationary sources as provided under 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), CAA Title I, 

parts C and D, and 40 CFR 51.160 

through 51.166. 

(viii) The initials PSD mean or refer 

to Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration. 

(ix) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(x) The words State or South Dakota 

mean the State of South Dakota, unless 

the context indicates otherwise. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
36420 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 124 / Friday, June 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1For major sources and major modifications, the 

State already has two SIP-approved construction 

permit programs (PSD and nonattainment NSR) 

and, separately for major sources, a title V operating 

permit program that has been approved through the 

title V (not the SIP) process. 

2On February 11, 2014 (79 FR 8130) EPA 

proposed action on these provisions. EPA finalized 

its action on April 18, 2014 (79 FR 21852). 

3Under a consent decree, by May 30, 2014, EPA 

is required to sign a notice of final action to 

approve, disapprove, approve in part and 

disapprove in part, or conditionally approve this 

June 20, 2011 SIP submittal. WildEarth Guardians 

v. EPA, Civil Action No. 1:12–cv–03307 (D. Colo.). 

I. Background 

The CAA (section 110(a)(2)(C)), 40 

CFR 51.160, and the other statutory and 

regulatory provisions discussed in this 

final notice, require states to have 

legally enforceable procedures in their 

SIPs to prevent construction or 

modification of a source if it would 

violate any SIP control strategies or 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS). Such minor 

new source review (NSR) programs are 

for pollutants from stationary sources 

that do not require PSD or 

nonattainment NSR permits. A state 

may customize the requirements of its 

minor NSR program as long as the 

program meets the minimum statutory 

and regulatory requirements. 

On June 14, 2010, South Dakota 

submitted revisions to its minor source 

NSR program. The June 14, 2010 

submittal included: (1) Revisions to the 

definitions associated with the Air 

Pollution Control Program to ensure the 

definitions are current and consistent 

with other chapters in the regulations. 

These revisions include: grammatical 

changes, renumbering, modified 

definitions, new definitions and deleted 

definitions; (2) Revisions to the date of 

federal regulations referenced 

throughout ARSD Article 74:36; (3) 

Addition of a construction permit 

program for new minor sources and 

minor modifications to existing sources, 

created by adding new Chapter 74:36:20 

(Construction Permits for New Sources 

or Modifications); and (4) Revisions to 

the minor source operating permit 

programs to incorporate the changes 

associated with the new proposed 

construction permit program. 

In South Dakota’s regulations in 

ARSD Article 74:36 that are currently 

approved into the SIP, the minor source 

construction permit and operating 

permit programs are combined so, in 

practice, a source receives one permit 

from the State which serves as both a 

construction and operating permit.1 The 

revisions in the June 14, 2010 submittal 

separate the two programs into a new 

minor source construction permit 

program and a minor source operating 

permit program. Under the new 

revisions, a source would first apply for 

a construction permit before applying 

for an operating permit. A cross-walk 

table, which discusses the rule revisions 

in Article 74:36 individually, and the 

action we are proposing, is included in 

the docket for this rulemaking. 

South Dakota’s June 14, 2010 

submittal also contains rule revisions 

that are not included in SIPs. These 

rules, which we are not taking action on 

here (i.e., New Source Performance 

Standards, operating permits for part 70 

sources, etc.), are outlined in the crosswalk table located in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

South Dakota’s June 20, 2011, 

submittal includes the following rule 

revisions: (1) Revises Sections 

74:36:01:01, 74:36:01:08, 74:36:01:15 

and 74:36:09:02 related to regulation of 

greenhouse gases (revisions to Sections 

74:36:01:08, 74:36:01:15 and 74:36:09:02 

to comply with EPA’s Greenhouse Gas 

Tailoring Rule were previously acted 

on); 2 EPA is taking final action on 

74:36:01:01 in this rulemaking); (2) 

Revises Chapter 74:36:20 by revising 

Section 74:36:20:02 (Construction 

Permits Required); and (3) Adds new 

Section 74:36:20:02.01 (Initiating 

Construction Prior to Permit Issuance). 

Section 74:36:20:02.01 allows sources 

who meet certain conditions to start 

construction prior to receiving a permit 

provided they meet the requirements in 

that section. EPA is taking final action 

on 74:36:20:02 and 74:36:20:02.01 in 

this rulemaking.3

With respect to South Dakota’s July 

29, 2013 submittal, we are only taking 

final action on the following revisions: 

(1) The removal of section 

74:36:04:03.01 (Minor Source Operating 

Permit Variance); and (2) Revisions to 

section 74:36:10 (New Source Review). 

In our April 16, 2014 proposed action 

(79 FR 21424), we proposed to: (1) 

Approve 74:36:01:01 (Definitions); 

74:36:02 (Ambient Air Quality); 

74:36:03 (Air Quality Episodes); 

74:36:04 (Operating Permits for Minor 

Sources); 74:36:10 (New Source Review); 

74:36:11 (Performance Testing); 

74:36:12 (Control of Visible Emissions); 

74:36:13 (Continuous Emissions 

Monitoring); 74:36:18 (Regulations for 

State Facilities in the Rapid City Area); 

and 74:36:20 (Construction Permits for 

New Sources or Modifications); 

74:36:01:01(73) (Subject to Regulation); 

the deletion of 74:36:04:03.01 (Minor 

Source Operating Permit Variance); (2) 

Disapprove 74:36:20:02.01 (Initiating 

Construction Prior to Permit Issuance); 

the phrase: ‘‘unless it meets the 

requirements in 74:36:20:02.01’’ in 

74:36:04:20:02 (Construction Permit 

Required); (3) Not take action on 

74:36:05 (Operating Permits for Part 70 

Sources); 74:36:07 (New Source 

Performance Standards); 74:36:08 

(National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants); 74:36:09 

(Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration); 74:36:16 (Acid Rain 

Program); and 74:36:19 (Mercury Budget 

Trading Program). 

We provided a detailed explanation of 

the bases for our proposal. See 79 FR 

21426–21429. We invited comment on 

all aspects of our proposal and provided 

a 30-day comment period. The comment 

period ended on May 16, 2014. 

In this action, we are responding to 

the comments we received and taking 

final rulemaking action on the rules 

from the State’s June 14, 2010, June 20, 

2011, and July 29, 2013 submittals. 

II. Response to Comments 

In response to our April 16, 2014 

proposed rulemaking, we received 

comments from Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources 

(DENR) Secretary Steven M. Pirner on 

behalf of the State of South Dakota. In 

this section, we summarize these 

comments and provide our responses. 

Comment: The comments explain that 

DENR submitted a draft copy of ARSD 

74:36:20:02.01 in December 2010 to EPA 

for informal comments prior to 

beginning the State’s formal rule making 

process; and that EPA provided 

preliminary comments back to DENR 

via email on January 11, 2011. DENR’s 

comments on our proposal suggest that 

DENR notified EPA that those 

preliminary concerns were addressed in 

ARSD 74:36:20:02.01(1), 

74:36:20:02.01(2) and 74:36:20:02.01(6). 

DENR’s comments further explain that it 

believed EPA’s concerns were addressed 

at that time, since EPA did not provide 

the same comment during the public 

notice phase of the rule making. 

Response: EPA disagrees with this 

comment. While we aim to provide 

comments before and during a state’s 

rule making process, the CAA neither 

requires that EPA comment on proposed 

SIP rules, nor does it preclude EPA from 

carrying out its statutory duty to 

disapprove an inadequate SIP if EPA 

does not provide comments to a state. 

The notion that EPA’s silence suggests 

a SIP is approvable—simply because 

EPA did not comment during the State’s 

formal rule making process—has no 

support in the Act, it is contrary to the 

purposes of the Act and EPA’s express 

obligation to approve only SIP 

submittals that meet the requirements of 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 124 / Friday, June 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 36421 

4Email from Laurel Dygowski, South Dakota SIP 

Program Manager, EPA Region 8 Air Program, to 

Brian Gustafson, South Dakota (January 11, 2011). 

5Email from Kyrk Rombough, Natural Resource 

Engineering Director DENR Air Quality Program, to 

Kevin Leone, Environmental Scientist, EPA Region 

8 Air Program (January 18, 2011). 

6 40 CFR 51.160(a). 

7 Id. 

8For example, EPA approved 74:36:04:12 (Public 

Participation in Permitting Process) on April 7, 

2003. [68 FR 16726.] 

9Normally, a state should generally not be 

implementing a SIP revision prior to EPA approval, 

when the revision is a relaxation of the existing SIP. 

General Motors Corp. v. United States, 496 U.S. 

530, at 540 (‘‘There can be little or no doubt that 

the existing SIP remains the ‘applicable 

implementation plan’ even after the State has 

submitted a proposed revision’’). EPA reviews SIP 

revisions for compliance with the Act and 

regulations. 

the Act, as explained elsewhere in this 

final action. Moreover, nothing in EPA’s 

preliminary comments suggested that 

the State’s draft rules would be 

approvable if the State were to make the 

suggested changes.4

DENR comments indicate that it 

provided notification to us that our 

preliminary concerns were addressed by 

provisions in ARSD 74:36:20:02.01(1), 

74:36:20:02.01(2) and 74:36:20:02.01(6). 

The comment does not cite to a 

particular communication from the 

State. Therefore, we are unclear what 

notification DENR is referring to. We are 

aware of one email from the State 

regarding this topic; 5 however, that 

email summarizes other provisions in 

the State rules. 

Comment: DENR provided an analysis 

of the public comments received on the 

State’s proposed rule, and disagreed 

with ‘‘EPA’s implication that all public 

commenters were concerned about 

allowing construction prior to receiving 

a construction permit.’’ 

Response: We disagree with the 

assertions in this comment. The 

comment does not cite to specific 

language in the proposed notice; 

however, we assume the commenter is 

referring to Footnote 5 in our proposed 

rulemaking where we stated: ‘‘[t]he 

State also received public comments 

from 13 individuals on this issue and 

related concerns.’’ 79 FR 21428. EPA 

did not intend to interpret the meaning 

or intent of the public comments on the 

State’s proposed rule, but simply 

included this footnote to point out that 

the State received adverse comments 

during its rulemaking process that 

expressed concerns regarding the State’s 

proposed rules. 

Comment: DENR suggests that EPA is 

being arbitrary and capricious in 

enforcing the language in 40 CFR 51.161 

for public participation in minor NSR 

permitting programs. DENR indicates 

that there are ‘‘EPA approved state 

implementation plans that have been in 

place for many years which do not 

require a 30-day public notice for any 

non-PSD construction permits,’’ and 

provides as an example ‘‘Iowa’s state 

implementation plan which is South 

Dakota’s neighbor and competitor for 

economic development projects.’’ The 

comment states that ‘‘EPA cannot give 

one state an advantage over another in 

economic development by requiring 

inconsistent mandates to SIPs.’’ DENR’s 

comment suggests that even if EPA’s 

argument had validity, DENR is 

required by its regulations to notice the 

construction permit ‘‘before the 

applicant can operate any equipment 

which emits air pollutants into the air.’’ 

Response: EPA disagrees with this 

comment. We apply applicable CAA 

provisions and EPA regulations to 

determine the approvability of the SIP. 

As we explained in our proposed notice, 

EPA regulations ‘‘require a minimum 

30-day period for public comment on 

the information submitted by the owner 

or operator prior to construction.’’ 79 FR 

21428. These regulations explicitly 

mandate that state SIP minor permitting 

regulations ‘‘include the opportunity for 

public comment on information 

submitted by owners and operators.’’ 40 

CFR 51.160, 51.161(a). The regulations 

further require that the information 

available to the public ‘‘must include 

the agency’s analysis of the effect of 

construction or modification on ambient 

air quality, including the agency’s 

proposed approval or disapproval.’’ 

EPA’s regulations specify that state SIP 

permitting procedures ‘‘shall include, as 

a minimum . . . a 30-day period for 

submittal of public comment.’’ These 

public participation requirements apply 

to ‘‘construction or modification’’ 6 of a 

‘‘facility, building, structure or 

installation.’’ 7 Finally, the regulations 

require that public notice be sent to the 

EPA Regional Office and to all other 

state and local air pollution control 

agencies having jurisdiction in the 

region in which the new or modified 

source ‘‘will be located.’’ 40 CFR 

51.161(d). 

The State rule allows owners and 

operators to ‘‘initiate construction prior 

to issuance of the construction permit,’’ 

ARSD 74:36:20:02.01, and public notice 

is provided after construction. DENR’s 

comment notes that notice of the 

construction permit is provided ‘‘before 

the applicant can operate any 

equipment.’’ Providing an opportunity 

for public comment before the applicant 

can operate the equipment does not 

meet the requirements in 40 CFR 

51.161, as the State rules fail to provide 

the opportunity for comment prior to 

construction and therefore are 

inconsistent with EPA regulations. They 

also fail to provide either the public or 

EPA and local permitting authorities 

either notice or an opportunity to 

comment on where the facility ‘‘will be 

located.’’ Moreover, DENR’s comment 

lacks any analysis of how the State rule, 

which provides for public participation 

after construction, is consistent with the 

regulatory requirements. 

The comment suggests, but provides 

no evidence that, EPA’s disapproval of 

this rule would give another state an 

advantage over South Dakota’s 

economic development. Neither the 

CAA nor EPA’s implementing 

regulations contain any specific 

requirement that we take economic 

development into account in 

determining the approvability of SIP 

amendments. While we are not required 

to consider economic development 

impacts, the State’s comments provide 

no details regarding economic 

development impacts for us to consider. 

Additionally, DENR’s SIP rules have 

contained the 30-day public comment 

period minor source permits for many 

years.8 While the DENR’s comments 

indicate that it has been implementing 

new rule ARSD 74:36:20:01.01 for 

approximately three years,9 it provides 

no information regarding impacts to 

economic development in the State 

prior to implementation of the new 

program. 

Finally, the comments suggest there 

are other state SIPs where EPA has 

approved less than the 30-day public 

comment period, and mentions Iowa, 

without, however, providing either 

citations to any relevant Iowa 

regulations or references to prior EPA 

interpretations. Therefore, we do not 

know what the comment refers to. To 

the extent EPA may have approved 

provisions in other SIPs that allow for 

less than the 30-day public comment 

period, as we explained in the proposed 

notice and this final action, our current 

interpretation of 40 CFR 51.161 is that 

it requires that state SIPs include a 

minimum of a 30-day period for 

submittal of public comments on 

proposed minor source permits. 

Comment: DENR asserted that the 

CAA (Section 110(a)(2)(C)) and the 

federal regulations (40 CFR 51.160(a) 

and (b)) ‘‘do not state a construction 

permit must be issued prior to 

construction activities beginning.’’ For 

support of this assertion, DENR 

references EPA’s preliminary comments 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
36422 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 124 / Friday, June 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

10The comments reference the following from 

EPA’s preliminary comments, ‘‘[i]t should be noted 

that EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 51.160 do not 

require the issuance of a permit for the construction 

of modification of minor sources, but only that the 

SIP include a procedure to prevent the construction 

of a source or modification that would violate the 

SIP control strategy or interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS.’’ Email from Laurel 

Dygowski, South Dakota SIP Program Manager, EPA 

Region 8 Air Program, to Brian Gustafson, South 

Dakota (January 11, 2011). EPA’s regulations do not 

explicitly require that a state’s minor source 

program provide approval of construction through 

the specific mechanism of a permit, so long as there 

is some preconstruction approval process that 

meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.160–161. 

11The comments do not refer to a particular 

quotation from the proposed rule; however, we 

assume the commenter is referring to the following: 

‘‘[w]e acknowledge that EPA may have approved 

some state minor source programs with approaches/ 

requirements similar to those proposed by South 

Dakota, which may warrant EPA evaluation in the 

future.’’ 79 FR 21428. Our current interpretation of 

the CAA and regulatory requirements are as 

explained in this action. 

12The Act defines ‘‘construction’’ when used on 

connection with any source or facility, to include 

‘‘modification,’’ which ‘‘means any physical change 

in, or change in the method of operation of, a 

stationary source which increases the amount of 

any air pollutant emitted by such source or which 

results in the emission of any air pollutant not 

previously emitted. CAA sections 111(a)(4), 

169(2)(C). 

13The proposed SIP rule provides that: The 

owner or operator assume liability for construction 

(ARSD 74:36:20:02.01(5)); the owner or operator 

may not operate the equipment and emit air 

pollutants prior to receiving a construction permit 

(ARSD 74:36:20:02.01(5)); if the department 

demonstrates that the construction or modification 

will interfere with the attainment or maintenance 

of the NAAQS or increment, the owner or operator 

must cease construction (ARSD 74:36:20:02.01(6)); 

and (4) the owner or operator will be required to 

make any changes to the new source or 

modification of an existing source that may be 

imposed in the construction permit (ARSD 

74:36:20:02.01(7)). 

14We would note, however, to a substantial 

degree, it is the permit process itself, embodied in 

South Dakota’s current SIP regulations, that 

provides the vehicle to identify and make 

enforceable specific measures necessary to protect 

the NAAQS. As explained in the notice, it is the 

lack of such authority for the State to review and 

approve the modification or construction that is 

fatal to the proposed revisions. 

on the proposed rules,10 as well as 

EPA’s mention in the proposed notice of 

prior approval of such programs.11

Response: We disagree with this 

comment. The CAA contains provisions 

for the preconstruction review and 

approval of new and modified sources 

of air pollution, which are generally 

implemented by a state through a 

permitting program as part of an 

approved SIP, or in some cases by EPA. 

For minor sources, which are those 

sources that have the potential to emit 

below major source thresholds of the 

PSD and nonattainment NSR program, 

the CAA has specific requirements. 

Under CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), the 

state’s SIP must provide for ‘‘the 

regulation of the modification and 

construction of any stationary source 

. . . as necessary to ensure that national 

ambient air quality standards are 

achieved.’’ 12 Therefore, all SIPs must 

contain minor source preconstruction 

approval programs. The CAA contains 

separate and distinct requirements for 

operating permits, which we are not 

reviewing in this action. 

EPA’s implementing regulations 

specify the requirements for minor NSR 

programs, and the relevant provisions 

are discussed here. 40 CFR 51.160– 

51.164. Each state SIP must set forth 

legally enforceable procedures which 

will allow the state to determine 

whether the construction or 

modification of a minor source, or a 

‘‘minor modification’’ of an existing 

source, ‘‘will’’ (1) result in a violation of 

applicable portions of the State’s control 

strategy, or (2) interfere with attainment 

of maintenance of any NAAQS in the 

State or in a neighboring state. 40 CFR 

51.160(a). The SIP must also include the 

means by which a state can ‘‘prevent’’ 

construction that ‘‘will interfere with 

the attainment or maintenance of a 

national standard.’’ 40 CFR 51.160(b). 

Therefore, SIPs must require that 

owners or operators of source that are 

subject to minor NSR submit 

information to the state so the state can 

determine if the construction or 

modification of the source will result in 

a violation of the control strategy or 

interfere with attainment of 

maintenance of the NAAQS. 40 CFR 

51.160(b). SIPs must also contain, 

among other elements, a ‘‘control 

strategy,’’ which is a combination of 

measures (including emission 

limitations and measures that apply to 

stationary sources) designed to achieve 

the reduction of emission necessary for 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. 40 CFR 51.100(n). Therefore, 

there are minimum statutory and 

regulatory requirements that apply to 

minor source permit programs, 

adherence to which is determined under 

the CAA by EPA. CAA section 110. 

Under the current, federally-approved 

South Dakota SIP, minor sources are 

subject to the State’s permitting 

requirements and must receive 

authorization to proceed with the 

construction or modification in 

accordance with the SIP, [ARSD 

74:36:04:02], unless they meet 

exemption requirements in ARSD 

74:36:04:03. 

Under the State’s proposed program 

that allows for initiating construction 

prior to issuance, the owner or operator 

may begin construction or modification 

if they meet two basic requirements: (1) 

Submit a permit application to the 

department; and (2) notify the 

department that they intend to initiate 

construction. ARSD 74:36:20:01.01(1), 

(2). Once these two requirements are 

met, the owner or operator may begin 

and complete construction or 

modification of true minor sources. 

ARSD 74:36:20:01.01(3), (4). The 

proposed rules do not require State 

review of the proposed construction or 

modification before the construction of 

modification occurs. The State rules 

also do not provide for the State to 

affirmatively approve the proposed 

modification or construction before it 

commences or before completion of the 

construction or modification. While 

there are provisions in the rule that 

cover activities after construction and 

modification,13 there is no State 

administrative approval or review of 

any kind prior to construction activities. 

The State receives notice from the 

owner or operator before construction 

starts; however, there are no provisions 

in the rule that specify any action the 

State is to take regarding that notice or 

any mechanism to ensure 

preconstruction review and approval. 

Therefore, neither the State, public, nor 

EPA can determine whether the project 

will be in compliance with the CAA and 

implementing regulations before 

construction is initiated and completed. 

The State rules allow construction to 

proceed, and provide for review of the 

construction while it is underway (or 

after the construction is complete). As 

discussed above, we interpret the CAA 

and implementing regulations to require 

regulation and approval of construction 

of any stationary source before the 

construction occurs, not as proposed by 

the State, review and approval 

construction in process or after it has 

occurred. While we have not interpreted 

the CAA and regulations to require that 

states implement the SIP requirement 

for a minor source program through the 

mechanism of a permitting program, we 

have required that SIPs include some 

mechanism for preconstruction review 

and approval of proposed minor sources 

before the activities commence. Such 

review and approval is necessary to 

determine whether the proposed 

construction or modification will violate 

a control strategy or interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS and to ‘‘prevent such 

construction or modification’’ that will 

do so as required by 51.160(a) and (b).14

The proposed rules provide for State 

approval before the owner or operator 

begins operating the source and emitting 

pollutants but provide no mechanism to 

evaluate or prevent proposed 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 124 / Friday, June 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 36423 

construction. Therefore, the proposed 

changes to the SIP are incomplete as 

they lack the ‘‘legally enforceable 

procedures that enable’’ the State to 

make the necessary determination and 

ensure that the State ‘‘will prevent such 

construction’’ if the source ‘‘will’’ 

violate the control strategy or interfere 

with NAAQS attainment. Finally, the 

commenter appears to imply that our 

preliminary comments to the State are 

controlling or binding on our final 

action. As explained above, while we 

aim, and often do, provide comments 

early and throughout a state’s 

rulemaking process, those comments are 

not final agency actions. There is 

nothing in the Act that requires such 

comments, much less that makes them 

binding on EPA such as to require that 

EPA approve a SIP that does not meet 

regulatory requirements. To the 

contrary, Congress entrusted with EPA 

an oversight role to ensure the 

requirements of the Act are met. 

Moreover, nothing in EPA’s preliminary 

comments suggested that the State’s 

draft rules would be approvable if the 

State were to make the suggested 

changes. 

Comment: DENR also takes exception 

to EPA’s implication that DENR’s 

decision to approve or deny a permit 

would be influenced by a facility that 

has been built (the ‘‘equity in the 

ground’’ issue) and could potentially 

cause a violation of a NAAQS. The 

comments also note EPA’s concerns 

expressed in the proposal regarding 

fundamental design issues that cannot 

be overcome should the State seek 

modifications to protect the NAAQS. 

DENR explains that: (1) The State rules 

require the owner or operator to assume 

these risks and make required changes 

before operation; (2) the State ‘‘has 

taken enforcement action when 

necessary on facilities that have violated 

their permits and/or that began 

construction and operation prior to 

obtaining the appropriate permits;’’ (3) 

since the State established its initial SIP 

in the 1970’s ‘‘the construction and 

operation of a true minor source has not 

caused or interfered with attaining or 

maintaining a National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard;’’ and (4) if DENR 

believes a NAAQS would be violated, 

‘‘DENR would prevent a source from 

operating until appropriate changes 

were made to protect’’ the NAAQS. 

Response: EPA agrees in part with 

this comment. First, we acknowledge 

that there are some safeguards in the 

proposed rule; however, we remain 

concerned that there is no mechanism 

for either the public or local regulatory 

authorities with jurisdiction to comment 

on where ‘‘the source will be located.’’ 

And leaving aside the lack of regulatory 

and public input into siting decisions, 

after a source has been constructed there 

may remain fundamental design issues 

that cannot be overcome by the 

provisions in the proposed rules. 

Second, the comment indicates that the 

State has taken enforcement action 

where necessary; however, it provides 

no details regarding such actions. Third, 

the comment suggests that true minor 

sources have not caused or interfered 

with attaining or maintaining the 

NAAQS, but provides no evidence to 

support this statement and does not 

address the legal requirement for legally 

enforceable procedures to ‘‘prevent’’ 

construction of a source that ‘‘will’’ 

have such effects. Finally, the comments 

indicate that if DENR believes 

enforcement were necessary, it would 

prevent the source from ‘‘operating.’’ 

The comment does not include a 

reference to what authority the DENR 

would use for such enforcement. 

Moreover, the comment asserts that the 

State has authority to prevent source 

operation but does not attempt to assert 

that the program authorizes the state to 

‘‘prevent such construction’’ as may 

violate the control strategy or interfere 

with attainment. EPA acknowledges that 

74:36:20:02.01 (Initiating construction 

prior to permit issuance) has some 

safeguards in place; however, the rules 

fall short of meeting the requirements of 

the CAA and implementing regulations. 

Comment: DENR indicates it 

‘‘believes it has provided enough 

provisions in allowing construction 

prior to DENR completing its analysis 

(i.e., statement of basis) of the project 

and issuing a construction permit after 

a 30-day public comment period to 

protect’’ both the State’s control strategy 

and the NAAQS. DENR explains this is 

demonstrated by approximately three 

years of program implementation. DENR 

also explains that the State is in full 

attainment with all the NAAQS. 

Response: EPA disagrees with this 

comment because the final rule, as 

adopted by the State, allows no review 

or comment on siting decisions and 

does not require any type of 

administrative approval from the State 

prior to allowing unpermitted 

‘‘construction’’ activities. Therefore, 

neither the State, public, nor EPA can 

evaluate siting decisions or determine 

whether the project ‘‘will’’ be in 

compliance with the CAA and 

implementing regulations before 

construction occurs. Regardless of South 

Dakota’s current attainment status of the 

NAAQS, 74:36:20:02.01 does not meet 

the minimum requirements as outlined 

in the beginning of Section II of this 

rulemaking. 

The fact that South Dakota has 

implemented the proposed changes to 

the SIP before EPA’s final action, is not, 

as the comment appears to suggest, a 

basis for EPA approval. Under CAA 

section 116, a state may not implement 

any emission limitation or any control 

or abatement requirement that is less 

stringent than the applicable, approved 

SIP. The current SIP requires that 

sources obtain a permit from the State 

prior to construction. The proposed SIP 

revisions are less stringent than the 

existing SIP because they allow sources 

to construct without obtaining a permit 

prior to construction. Therefore, 

proposed SIP revisions violate CAA 

section 116 by exempting sources from 

the existing SIP requirement to obtain a 

permit before beginning construction. 

Furthermore, as we explained in our 

proposal, Section 110(i) of the CAA 

specifically precludes states from 

changing requirements of the SIP except 

through SIP revisions approved by EPA. 

SIP revisions will be approved by EPA 

only if they meet all requirements of the 

Act and the implementing regulations. 

The CAA gives EPA both the authority 

and the obligation to review a proposed 

program’s compliance with the Act and 

applicable regulations and to 

disapprove regulations that do not meet 

legal requirements. Therefore, a state’s 

implementation of proposed SIP 

amendments prior to EPA approval, 

does not limit EPA’s authority to take 

final rulemaking action to disapprove 

SIP provisions that the state has been 

implementing without SIP approval. 

Finally, the commenter suggests the 

permit rules preventing sources from 

operating protect the State’s control 

strategy and the NAAQS, and points to 

the State’s attainment status for all the 

NAAQS. However, the commenter 

provides nothing further in its 

comments in the way of rationale and 

data to show that allowing unpermitted 

construction will ensure the State’s 

continuing and future attainment status. 

CAA section 110(l) requires a 

demonstration that a SIP revision does 

not interfere with any requirement 

concerning attainment and maintenance 

of the NAAQs and that any relaxation is 

sufficiently protective of air quality and 

other CAA requirements in order for 

EPA to approve. The fact that the SIP 

submittal and the comments lack a 

demonstration (e.g., air quality 

monitoring data and trends, projected 

minor source participation and impacts, 

and emission inventory data and trends) 

to show that the minor source 

permitting rule revisions are not likely 

to interfere with NAAQS or the State’s 

SIP control strategy provides further 

evidence that the SIP is not approvable. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
36424 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 124 / Friday, June 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

15State of South Dakota SIP Submittal, at PDF 

pages 170–171 (June 14, 2011, part 1 of 2). 

16State of South Dakota SIP Submittal, at PDF 

page 105 (June 14, 2011, part 2 of 2) (Board of 

Minerals and Environment Minutes, February 17, 

2011). 

17One option for South Dakota is to amend its 

‘‘initiating construction prior to permit issuance’’ 

section to allow only certain limited, seasonal, prepermit construction activities and specify which 

activities are allowed, and exclude construction of 

any emitting unit. An example of this type of prepermit construction language can be found in the 

Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) 

17.8.743(2), which EPA approved on August 8, 

2011 (76 FR 40237). 

Without a demonstration from the State 

that shows the minor sources that are 

subject to this program will not impact 

attainment and maintenance, we have 

no information to determine the 

significance of the proposed rule and 

whether the sources will impact the 

NAAQS. Minor sources, either 

individually or collectively, may impact 

attainment. Finally, even if we assume 

the substitution of the new program for 

the prior minor source permit program 

were allowed under section 110(l), the 

State has provided no demonstration to 

show the new rules achieve the same 

results as the existing rules for these 

sources. Therefore, we lack information 

and a basis to approve these 

amendments to the SIP under section 

110(1). 

III. Basis for Our Final Action 

We have fully considered the 

comments we received, and have 

concluded that no changes from our 

proposed rule are warranted. As 

discussed in our proposal and this rule, 

our action is based on an evaluation of 

South Dakota’s rules against the 

requirements of CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(C), 110(i), 110(l), 116, our 

minor source NSR regulations at 40 CFR 

51.160–51.164, and other requirements 

discussed in section II of this action. 

Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act 

contains the requirements for 

preconstruction review programs for 

minor sources and requires that each 

SIP include a program to regulate the 

construction and modification of 

stationary sources as necessary to assure 

that the NAAQS are achieved. 

EPA’s minor source implementing 

regulations are in 40 CFR 51.160– 

51.164. The regulations require that a 

SIP include ‘‘legally enforceable 

procedures that enable’’ the permitting 

agency to determine whether 

construction ‘‘will result in’’ 

interference with the NAAQS, 40 CFR 

51.160(a). The SIP must also include the 

means by which a state or local agency 

can ‘‘prevent’’ construction that ‘‘will 

interfere with the attainment or 

maintenance of a national standard.’’ 40 

CFR 51.160(b). 40 CFR 51.161(a) 

requires that the legally enforceable 

procedures in 40 CFR 51.160 must also 

require the state or local agency to 

provide opportunity for public comment 

on information submitted by owners or 

operators. The public information must 

include the agency’s analysis of the 

effect of construction or modification on 

ambient air quality, including the 

agency’s proposed approval or 

disapproval. 40 CFR 51.161(b) requires 

a minimum 30-day public comment 

period. Finally, the regulations require 

that public notice be sent to the EPA 

Regional Office and to all other state 

and local air pollution control agencies 

having jurisdiction in the region in 

which the new or modified source ‘‘will 

be located.’’ 40 CFR 51.161(d). 

We are approving those rules that 

meet the relevant requirements and 

disapproving those rules that do not 

meet the relevant requirements, or are 

not appropriate for inclusion in the SIP. 

Specifically, we are disapproving 

74:36:04:20:01 (Initiating Construction 

Prior to Permit Issuance), and the 

related phrase: ‘‘unless it meets the 

requirements in 74:36:20:02.01’’ in 

74:36:04:20:02 (Construction Permit 

Required). We are disapproving the 

related phrase because it references the 

rule we are disapproving. 

For a detailed description of the bases 

for our actions on the individual rules, 

please refer to our notice of proposed 

rulemaking (79 FR 21424) and our 

response to comments in section II of 

this action. 

We are sensitive to the concerns 

expressed in the State’s comments. We 

also understand the State’s goals in 

promulgating rule 74:36:20:02.01, as 

expressed during the State’s rulemaking, 

were to ‘‘expedite the construction of 

specific facilities that will have minimal 

impact to the ambient air and for those 

projects that may be impacted by 

inclement weather (i.e. winter 

months),’’ 15 ‘‘and to ensure that new 

businesses and existing businesses 

looking to expand are permitted in an 

expedited manner.’’ 16 79 FR 21428. If 

requested by South Dakota, EPA will 

work with the State to develop revised 

rules that are consistent with the State 

goals and consistent with the CAA and 

implementing regulations.17

IV. Final Action 

In this rulemaking, we are taking final 

action to: (1) Approve revisions to 

74:36:01:01 (Definitions); 74:36:02 

(Ambient Air Quality); 74:36:03 (Air 

Quality Episodes); 74:36:04 (Operating 

Permits for Minor Sources); 74:36:10 

(New Source Review); 74:36:11 

(Performance Testing); 74:36:12 (Control 

of Visible Emissions); 74:36:13 

(Continuous Emissions Monitoring 

Systems); 74:36:18 (Regulations for 

State Facilities in the Rapid City Area); 

and 74:36:20 (Construction Permits for 

New Sources or Modifications); (2) 

Disapprove 74:36:20:02.01 (Initiating 

Construction Prior to Permit Issuance), 

and the phrase ‘‘, unless it meets the 

requirements in 74:36:20:02.01’’ in 

74:36:20:02 (Construction Permit 

Required); (3) Not take action on 

74:36:05 (Operating Permits for Part 70 

Sources); 74:36:07 (New Source 

Performance Standards); 74:36:08 

(National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants); 74:36:09 

(Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration); 74:36:16 (Acid Rain 

Program); and 74:36:19 (Mercury Budget 

Trading Program). 

V. 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 certain state law as meeting 

Federal requirements, disapproves other 

state law as not 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); 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 124 / Friday, June 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 36425 

• 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 August 26, 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: May 29, 2014. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

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 QQ—South Dakota 

■ 2. Section 52.2170 is amended in the 

table titled ‘‘State of South Dakota 

Regulations’’ in paragraph (c)(1): 

■ a. By revising the table entries for 

‘‘74:36:01:01’’ and ‘‘74:36:01:05’’; 

■ b. By adding the table entry for 

‘‘74:36:01:10’’ in numerical order; 

■ c. By revising the table entry for 

‘‘74:36:01:20’’; 

■ d. By adding the table entry for 

‘‘74:36:01:21’’ in numerical order; 

■ e. By revising the table entries for 

‘‘74:36:02:02’’ through ‘‘74:36:02:05’’, 

‘‘74:36:03:01’’, and ‘‘74:36:03:02’’; 

■ f. By adding the table entries for 

‘‘74:36:04:02’’, ‘‘74:36:04:02.01’’, and 

‘‘74:36:04:03’’ in numerical order; 

■ g. By revising the table entry for 

‘‘74:36:04:04’’; 

■ h. By adding the table entries for 

‘‘74:36:04:06’’, ‘‘74:36:04:07’’, 

‘‘74:36:04:09’’, ‘‘74:36:04:10’’, 

‘‘74:36:04:12’’, ‘‘74:36:04:12.01’’, 

‘‘74:36:04:13’’, ‘‘74:36:04:15’’ through 

‘‘74:36:04:18’’, ‘‘74:36:04:20’’, 

‘‘74:36:04:20.01’’, ‘‘74:36:04:20.04’’, 

‘‘74:36:04:23’’, ‘‘74:36:04:27’’, and 

‘‘74:36:04:32’’ in numerical order; 

■ i. By revising the table entries for 

‘‘74:36:10:02’’, ‘‘74:36:10:03.01’’, 

‘‘74:36:10:05’’, ‘‘74:36:10:07’’, and 

‘‘74:36:10:08’’; 

■ j. By removing the table entries for 

‘‘74:36:10:09’’ and ‘‘74:36:10:10’’ and 

the second entry for ‘‘74:36:13:07’’ ; 

■ k. By revising the table entries for 

‘‘74:36:11:01’’, ‘‘74:36:12:01’’, 

‘‘74:36:12:03’’, ‘‘74:36:13:02’’, 

‘‘74:36:13:03’’, ‘‘74:36:13:04’’, 

‘‘74:36:13:06’’, the first entry for 

‘‘74:36:13:07’’, and the entries for 

‘‘74:36:13:08’’, and ‘‘74:36:18:10’’; and 

■ l. By adding a new centered heading 

for ‘‘74:36:20 [Construction Permits For 

New Sources Or Modifications]’’ and 

the table entries ‘‘74:36:20:01 through 

74:36:20:24’’, in numerical order. 

The amendments read as follows: 

§ 52.2170 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date 

and citation 1 Explanations 

74:36:01 Definitions 

74:36:01:01 .............................. Definitions ............................... 4/20/2011 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:01:05 .............................. Applicable requirements of the 

Clean Air Act defined.

6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

74:36:01:10 .............................. Modification defined ................ 6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

74:36:01:20 .............................. Physical change in or change 

in the method of operation 

defined.

6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:01:21 .............................. Commence construction defined.6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
36426 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 124 / Friday, June 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date 

and citation 1 Explanations 

74:36:02 Ambient Air Quality 

74:36:02:02 .............................. Ambient air quality standards 6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:02:03 .............................. Methods of sampling and 

analysis.

6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:02:04 .............................. Air quality monitoring network 6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:02:05 .............................. Ambient air monitoring requirements.6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:03 Air Quality Episodes 

74:36:03:01 .............................. Air pollution emergency episode.6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:03:02 .............................. Episode emergency contingency plan.6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:04 Operating Permits for Minor Sources 

74:36:04:02 .............................. Minor source operating permit 

required.

6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:04:02.01 ......................... Minor source operating permit 

exemption.

6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:04:03 .............................. Emission unit exemptions ....... 6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:04:04 .............................. Standard for issuance of a 

minor source operating permit.

6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:04:06 .............................. Timely and complete application for operating permit required.6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:04:07 .............................. Required contents of complete 

application for operating 

permit.

6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:04:09 .............................. Permit application—Completeness review.6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:04:10 .............................. Time period for department’s 

recommendation.

6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:04:12 .............................. Public participation in permitting process.6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:04:12.01 ......................... Public review of department’s 

draft permit.

6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:04:13 .............................. Final permit decision—Notice 

to interested persons.

6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:04:15 .............................. Contents of operating permit .. 6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:04:16 .............................. Operating permit expiration .... 6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:04:17 .............................. Renewal of operating permit .. 6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:04:18 .............................. Operating permit revision ....... 6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:04:20 .............................. Procedures for administrative 

permit amendments.

6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:04:20.01 ......................... Minor permit amendment required.6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:04:20.04 ......................... Department deadline to approve minor permit amendment.6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:04:23 .............................. Reopening operating permit 

for cause.

6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:04:27 .............................. Operating permit termination, 

revision, and revocation.

6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:04:32 .............................. General permits ...................... 6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 124 / Friday, June 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 36427 

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date 

and citation 1 Explanations 

*******

74:36:10 New Source Review 

74:36:10:02 .............................. Definitions ............................... 6/25/2013 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:10:03.01 ......................... New source review 

preconstruction permit required.

6/25/2013 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:10:05 .............................. New source review 

preconstruction permit.

6/25/2013 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:10:07 .............................. Determining credit for emission offsets.6/25/2013 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:10:08 .............................. Projected actual emissions ..... 6/25/2013 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:11 Performance Testing 

74:36:11:01 .............................. Stack performance testing or 

other testing methods.

6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:12 Control of Visible Emissions 

74:36:12:01 .............................. Restrictions on visible emissions.6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:12:03 .............................. Exceptions granted to alfalfa 

pelletizers or dehydrators.

6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:13 Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems 

74:36:13:02 .............................. Minimum performance specifications for all continuous 

emission monitoring systems.

6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:13:03 .............................. Reporting requirements .......... 6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:13:04 .............................. Notice to department of exceedance.6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:13:06 .............................. Compliance certification ......... 6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:13:07 .............................. Credible evidence ................... 6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:13:08 .............................. Compliance assurance monitoring.6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

74:36:18 Regulations for State Facilities In the Rapid City Area 

*******

74:36:18:10 .............................. Visible emission limit for construction and continuous operation activities.6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

74:36:20 Construction Permits For New Sources Or Modifications 

74:36:20:01 .............................. Applicability ............................. 6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:20:02 .............................. Construction permit required .. 4/20/2011 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Except for ‘‘, unless it meets 

the requirements in section 

74:36:20:02.01’’. 

74:36:20:03 .............................. Construction permit exemption 6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:20:04 .............................. Emission unit exemptions ....... 6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:20:05 .............................. Standard for issuance of construction permit.6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:20:06 .............................. Timely and complete application for a construction permit required.6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
36428 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 124 / Friday, June 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date 

and citation 1 Explanations 

74:36:20:07 .............................. Required contents of complete 

application for a construction permit.

6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:20:08 .............................. Applicant required to supplement or correct application.6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:20:09 .............................. Permit application—Completeness review.6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:20:10 .............................. Time period for department’s 

recommendation.

6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:20:11 .............................. Public participation in permitting process.6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:20:12 .............................. Public review of department’s 

draft permit.

6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:20:13 .............................. Final permit decision—Notice 

to interested persons.

6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:20:14 .............................. Right to petition for contested 

case hearing.

6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:20:15 .............................. Contents of construction permit.6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:20:16 .............................. Administrative permit amendment.6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:20:17 .............................. Procedures for administrative 

permit amendments.

6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:20:18 .............................. Reopening construction permit 

for cause.

6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:20:19 .............................. Procedures to reopen construction permit.6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:20:20 .............................. Construction permit does not 

exempt from other requirements.

6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:20:21 .............................. Expiration of a construction 

permit.

6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:20:22 .............................. Notice of constructing or operating noncompliance—Contents.6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:20:23 .............................. Petition for contested case on 

alleged violation.

6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

74:36:20:24 .............................. Circumvention of emissions 

not allowed.

6/28/2010 6/27/2014, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

*******

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

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–14031 Filed 6–26–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 141 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2014–0408; FRL–9912–52– 

OW] 

Expedited Approval of Alternative Test 

Procedures for the Analysis of 

Contaminants Under the Safe Drinking 

Water Act; Analysis and Sampling 

Procedures 

Correction 

In rule document 2014–14369, 

appearing on pages 35081 through 

35096 in the issue of Thursday, June 19, 

2014, make the following correction: 

On page 35093, the table titled 

‘‘ALTERNATIVE TESTING METHODS 

FOR CONTAMINANTS LISTED AT 40 

CFR 141.852(a)(5)’’ should read as 

follows: 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES