Overview
Title
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Dakota; Revisions to Air Rules of South Dakota
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The EPA wants to update certain rules about clean air in South Dakota, adding definitions for things like "closed landfill". They're asking for people's thoughts on this by March 26, 2021.
Summary AI
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for South Dakota, as submitted on January 3, 2020. This revision involves updates to the Administrative Rules of South Dakota related to definitions in the Air Pollution Control Program. Specifically, it includes new definitions for "closed landfill" and "closed landfill subcategory." The EPA is taking this action under the Clean Air Act and is seeking public comments by March 26, 2021.
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of South Dakota on January 3, 2020 that revises the Administrative Rules of South Dakota (ARSD), Air Pollution Control Program, updating the chapter pertaining to definitions. The EPA is taking this action pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document in question is a proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to approve a revision to South Dakota's State Implementation Plan (SIP), specifically focusing on updates to the state's Air Pollution Control Program. This revision involves adding new definitions for terms like "closed landfill" and "closed landfill subcategory." The proposal is part of the EPA's efforts to align with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Public comments on these proposed changes are invited until March 26, 2021.
General Summary
This document represents an administrative step in South Dakota's ongoing regulatory process for managing air pollution. By revising the definitions in its rules, the state aims to update and clarify its Air Pollution Control Program. These changes are part of a larger framework that helps ensure air quality standards are maintained across various regions, aligning with federal requirements.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One notable issue is the lack of detailed financial implications or potential costs associated with these new definitions. This absence might make it challenging to determine if there could be unnecessary spending associated with implementing these changes. Furthermore, the document uses technical regulatory language and references to other legal documents and executive orders that might not be easily understood without specialized knowledge. For instance, terms like "EPA final rule," "1 CFR 51.5," and "Executive Order 13771" might be confusing for someone without a legal or regulatory background. Additionally, while the document introduces new definitions for "closed landfill" and "closed landfill subcategory," it doesn't elaborate on the significance or potential impacts of these changes.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, this document may seem distant from everyday life for most residents of South Dakota. However, it has indirect impacts that relate to the environment—the primary point being the management of landfills and reductions in pollution that contribute to health and environmental sustainability. Proper air pollution control measures can improve public health by reducing harmful pollutants in the air.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For stakeholders, specifically those in sectors dealing with waste management or landfill operations, these updates might present both opportunities and challenges. On the one hand, clarifying definitions could help streamline operations and reduce ambiguities in compliance requirements. On the other hand, these changes might necessitate adjustments or new strategies to align with updated legal standards.
In conclusion, while the document is part of a necessary regulatory process, its impacts, both positive and negative, will mainly depend on the interpretation and application of these new definitions. It's vital for stakeholders and the public alike to engage through the comment period to help shape regulations that best serve the community's interests. However, understanding the implications of these changes requires navigating complex legal language, which poses a hurdle for many.
Issues
• The document does not provide detailed financial implications or cost estimates, which might make it difficult to assess potential wasteful spending.
• The document uses regulatory and legislative references that might not be easily understood without background knowledge on these topics, such as Executive Orders and specific U.S.C. titles.
• There is mention of 'closed landfill' and 'closed landfill subcategory' without specific context or explanation on their significance or impact, which may lead to ambiguity.
• The document relies heavily on references to other documents and Federal Register notices, which might not be accessible or easily interpreted by all readers, making it challenging to fully understand the context.
• The explanation of how this proposed rule specifically impacts stakeholders or the environment is limited, lacking detailed examples or case studies that clarify its practical effects.
• Use of technical terms and regulatory codes like '74:36:01(74)' and '74:36:01(75)' without definitions or simplifications could render the text difficult to understand for a general audience.