The best bill dumped into the hopper yesterday is House Bill 1030, in which the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources asks that we finally fix SDCL 34A-2-98 and capitalize a statutory reference to Fahrenheit temperature!
…(4) “Regulated substance,” any substance defined in section 101(4) of the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended to January 1, 2011 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14) (January 1, 2024), but not including any substance regulated as a hazardous waste under subtitle (C), and petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof which is liquid at standard conditions of temperature and pressure, 60 degrees fahrenheit Fahrenheit and 14.7 pounds per square inch absolute; and… [2024 House Bill 1030, Section 2, excerpt, amending SDCL 34A-2-98, filed 2023.12.29].
That’s right: those skinny little degrees we Americans use are named for a Polish-German thermometer maker Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit. When we finally catch up with Canada and the rest of the world and adopt those fatter metric degrees, we’ll need to capitalize those, too, since they are named for Swedish astronomer Anders Celsius. Dudes’s names—capitalize ’em!
As you can see, HB 1030 also updates some references to federal law (what?! instead of nullifying federal law? Where’s my Freedom™?!?!). Other sections of HB 1030 respell biphenols as biphenyls (biphenol exists, but the amendment-targeted SDCL 34A-2-103 deals with regulating pollution by PCBs, which are polychlorinated biphenyls), replace insure with ensure, and strike some trivial word fluff.
In one error, Section 5 strikes “the following” and leaves a sentence introducing a list in SDCL 34A-2-101 to read, “The rules must provide: [list follows]”. Technically, by MLA and most other style guides I’ve encountered, a colon cannot interrupt a complete clause. The sentence introducing a list must constitute a grammatically independent clause before the colon. “The rules must provide:” lacks a direct object before the colon; “the following” is necessary to complete the clause before we colonize and list.
But that minor error is easily fixable and should not hinder our good legislators from doing right by Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit and capitalizing his name the way his German progenitors intended and his proper-nounhood warrant!
A competent government would have been able to keep its laws up to date. I mean, really, some of those citation of federal law in House Bill 1030 are over a decade old. Given that the state feels itself incompetent to actually do the science to update their own rules and regulations, they rely almost completely on federal law and regulation. And then they have the nerve to complain about it when the federal government updates their laws and regulations. I’ve always wondered if the state fails to update their laws and regulations, whether the federal government should strip the state of their authority over these areas, and take away the money from the state that funds this incompetence.
They should indeed, Mr. Pay, take away the money and thus eliminate the regulations.
That damned Council of the Legislatures Research is mostly inept but they are good grammar police.
Here is the verbatim wording of the cited 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14):
“(14)The term “hazardous substance” means (A) any substance designated pursuant to section 311(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act [33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(2)(A)], (B) any element, compound, mixture, solution, or substance designated pursuant to section 9602 of this title, (C) any hazardous waste having the characteristics identified under or listed pursuant to section 3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act [42 U.S.C. 6921] (but not including any waste the regulation of which under the Solid Waste Disposal Act [42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.] has been suspended by Act of Congress), (D) any toxic pollutant listed under section 307(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act [33 U.S.C. 1317(a)], (E) any hazardous air pollutant listed under section 112 of the Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7412], and (F) any imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture with respect to which the Administrator has taken action pursuant to section 7 of the Toxic Substances Control Act [15 U.S.C. 2606]. The term does not include petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof which is not otherwise specifically listed or designated as a hazardous substance under subparagraphs (A) through (F) of this paragraph, and the term does not include natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, or synthetic gas usable for fuel (or mixtures of natural gas and such synthetic gas).”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/9601
As far as STP, considering its multiple definitions, how did such find its way into HB1030 without specifying which definition is being used? And isn’t it gilding the lily to even mention it in the first place??
(1) Until 1982, STP was defined by IUPAC (the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) as 273.15 K (0 °C, 32 °F) and an absolute pressure of exactly 1 atm (101.325 kPa).
(2) Since 1982, STP has been defined as a temperature of 273.15 K (0 °C, 32 °F) and an absolute pressure of exactly 105 Pa (100 kPa, 1 bar).
(3) NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology) uses a temperature of 20 °C (293.15 K, 68 °F) and an absolute pressure of 1 atm (14.696 psi, 101.325 kPa). This standard is also called normal temperature and pressure (abbreviated as NTP).
(4) A common temperature and pressure in use by NIST for thermodynamic experiments, however, is 298.15 K (25°C, 77°F) and 1 bar (14.5038 psi, 100 kPa).
(5) NIST also uses “15 °C (59 °F)” for the temperature compensation of refined petroleum products, despite noting that these two values are not exactly consistent with each other.
(6) The ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) 13443 standard reference conditions for natural gas and similar fluids are 288.15 K (15.00 °C; 59.00 °F) and 101.325 kPa.
(7) The International Standard Metric Conditions for natural gas are 288.15 K (15.00 °C; 59.00 °F) and 101.325 kPa.
(8) The American Petroleum Institute adopts 60 °F (15.56 °C; 288.71 K).
So, HB1030 says STP is “60 Fahrenheit” which is—rounded off to the nearest hundredth— 288.71 Kelvin = 15.56 Celsius, consistent with only “8” above, the API.
The cited federal source, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14), makes no mention as far as I have found, so why does SD?
As far as SD doing its own science on such matters….Bite your tongue. God only knows what a mess would ensue.
Grudz, the egulations would still remain, but EPA would be enforcing them under federal statutes. For a number of years South Dakota refused to apply for state authority to enforce the federal standards. States have the option to have laws and regulations stricter than federal laws and regulations, but they must have laws and regulations at least as strict as the federal government.
Dave FN, you make an interesting point. Often what South Dakota does is to elevate some federal rule to place it in state statute, whereas the feds keep it at a regulation. I haven’t dipped into South Dakota or federal rules on for 20 years, and I have no great desire to do that now. Otherwise, I would suggest this has been lobbied into SD statute.
Really a slow news day.
Environmental protection and preservation are weak spots in the Republican agenda and if enough people believe guardianship is a bankable position the South Dakota Democratic Party needs to exploit it by fielding candidates who can convince voters to reject politicians like John Thune, Kristi Noem, Mike Rounds and Dusty Johnson who work for the grazing, mining and logging profiteers at the expense of public lands.
https://www.buffalosfire.com/lakota-tribes-grassroots-organizers-unite-against-modern-gold-rush-in-black-hills/
“In one error, Section 5 strikes “the following” and leaves a sentence introducing a list in SDCL 34A-2-101 to read, “The rules must provide: [list follows]”. Technically, by MLA and most other style guides I’ve encountered, a colon cannot interrupt a complete clause. The sentence introducing a list must constitute a grammatically independent clause before the colon. “The rules must provide:” lacks a direct object before the colon; “the following” is necessary to complete the clause before we colonize and list.”
That’s an LRC “fix” that they insist on making.