Environmental Protection Agency August 1, 2012 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) on August 25, 2011. These revisions pertaining to Virginia's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) programs incorporate preconstruction permitting regulations for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) into the Virginia SIP. A previous PSD program approval of Virginia's Chapter 80, Article 8 regulations was provided to the Commonwealth as a ``limited approval'' for reasons that will not deny this action as being fully approved. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve these revisions and portions of other related submissions for the purpose of determining that Virginia has met its statutory obligations with respect to the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) which relate to Virginia's PSD permitting program and are necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 lead NAAQS. EPA is proposing to approve these revisions in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces two public teleconferences of the SAB Environmental Economics Advisory Committee to discuss its draft review of EPA's White Paper ``Retrospective Study of the Costs of EPA Regulations: An Interim Report'' (March 2012 draft).

In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (``CAA'' or the ``Act''), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by Sierra Club in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia: Sierra Club v. Jackson, No. 1:11-cv-2000 (RMC) (D. DC). On January 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed a First Amended complaint alleging that EPA failed to take action on certain state implementation plan (``SIP'') submissions for the States of Georgia and Alabama by the statutory deadline established by CAA section 110(k)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(2). The proposed consent decree establishes deadlines for EPA to take action on the SIP submittals.

EPA is taking final action to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions, submitted by the State of South Carolina, through the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC), as demonstrating that the State meets the SIP requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA, which is commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure'' SIP. South Carolina certified that the South Carolina SIP contains provisions that ensure the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are implemented, enforced, and maintained in South Carolina (hereafter referred to as ``infrastructure submission''). South Carolina's infrastructure submissions, provided to EPA on March 14, 2008, and September 18, 2009, certification submissions (as clarified in a letter on November 9, 2009), and the State's April 3, 2012, SIP revision address all the required infrastructure elements for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol (CAS Reg. No. 2163-42-0) when used as an inert ingredient component of food contact sanitizing solutions applied to all food contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils. Lyondell Chemical Company submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol.