24844 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Guideline for Isolation Precautions: 

Preventing Transmission of Infectious Agents 

in Healthcare Settings. Page 46. (http:// 

www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/pdf/ 

isolation2007.pdf). 24 Gershon RR, et al. Compliance with 

universal precautions among health care at 

three regional hospitals. Am J Infect Control. 

1995. 23:225–236. 25 Gershon RR, et al. Compliance with 

universal precautions in correctional health 

care facilities. J Occup Environ Med. 1999. 

41:181–9. 26 Gershon RR, et al. Hospital safety 

climate and its relationship with safe work 

practices and workplace exposure incidents. 

Am J Infect Control. 2000. 28:211–221. 27 DeJoy DM, Murphy LR, Gershon RM. 

The influence of employee, job/task, and 

organizational factors on adherence to 

universal precautions among nurses. Int J Ind 

Ergonomics. 1995. 16:43–55. 28 Kretzer EK, Larson E. Behavioral 

intentions to improve infection control 

practices. Am J Infect Control. 1998. 26:245– 

253. 29McGovern PM, et al. Factors affecting 

universal precautions compliance. J Business 

Psychol. 2000. 15:149–161. 30Rivers D, et al. Predictors of nurses’ 

acceptance of an intravenous catheter safety 

device. Nurs Res. 2003. 52:249–255. 31Nichol K, et al. The individual, 

environmental, and organizational factors 

that influence nurses’ use of facial protection 

to prevent occupational transmission of 

communicable respiratory illness in acute 

care hospitals. Am J Infect Control. 2008. 

36:481–487. 32Ford J, Fisher S. The transfer of safety 

training in work organizations: a systems 

perspective to continuous learning. J Occup 

Med. 1994. 9:241–259. 33 Goldstein I. Training in work 

organizations. In: Dunnette M, Hough L, 

editors. Handbook of Industrial and 

Organizational Psychology. 1991. pp. 506– 

619. Consulting Psychologists Press. Palo 

Alto, CA. 34 IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2009. 

Respiratory protection for healthcare workers 

in the workplace against novel H1N1 

influenza A: A letter report. Page 19. 

Washington, DC: The National Academies 

Press. (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/ 

12748.html). 35 IOM (Institute of Medicine). 1999. To Err 

is Human: Building a Safer Health System. 

Washington, DC: The National Academies 

Press. (http://www.nap.edu/books/ 

0309068371/html). 36Siegel JD, Rhinehart E, Jackson M, 

Chiarello L, and the Healthcare Infection 

Control Practices Advisory Committee, 2007 

Guideline for Isolation Precautions: 

Preventing Transmission of Infectious Agents 

in Healthcare Settings. (http://www.cdc.gov/ 

ncidod/dhqp/pdf/isolation2007.pdf). 37Pittet D. Infection control and quality 

health care in the new millennium. Am J 

Infect Control. 2005. 33:258–267. 38Allegranzi B, Pittet D. Role of hand 

hygiene in healthcare-associated infection 

prevention. J Hosp Infect. 2009. 73:305–315. 39HHS Action Plan to prevent Healthcare 

Associated Infections. Background on 

Healthcare-Associated Infections (http:// 

www.hhs.gov/ophs/initiatives/hai/ 

exsummary.html). 40Siegel JD, Rhinehart E, Jackson M, 

Chiarello L, and the Healthcare Infection 

Control Practices Advisory Committee, 2007 

Guideline for Isolation Precautions: 

Preventing Transmission of Infectious Agents 

in Healthcare Settings. (http://www.cdc.gov/ 

ncidod/dhqp/pdf/isolation2007.pdf). 41Albrich W, Harbarth S. Health care 

worker: source, vector or victim of MRSA, 

The Lancet Infect Dis. 2008. 8:289–301. 42Lessa F, et al. Healthcare transmission of 

a newly emergent adenovirus serotype in 

health care personnel at a military hospital 

in Texas, 2007. J Infect Dis. 2009. 200:1759– 

1765. 43Henquell C, et al. Fatal adenovirus 

infection in a neonate and transmission to 

healthcare worker. J Clin Virol. 2009. 45:345– 

348. 44Lacy M, Horn K. Nosocomial 

transmission of invasive Group A 

Streptococcus from patient to health care 

worker. Clin Infect Dis. 2009. 49:354–357. 45Hell M et al. Clostridium difficle 

infection in a health care worker. Clin Infect 

Dis. 2009. 48:1329. 46 Johnston CP, et al. Outbreak 

management and implications of a 

nosocomial norovirus outbreak. Clin Infect 

Dis. 2007. 45:1585–1595. 47Pearson ML, Bridges CB, Harper SA; 

Healthcare Infection Control Practices 

Advisory Committee (HICPAC); Advisory 

Committee on Immunization Practices 

(ACIP). Influenza vaccination of health-care 

personnel: recommendations of the 

Healthcare Infection Control Practices 

Advisory Committee (HICPAC) and the 

Advisory Committee on Immunization 

Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep. 2006. 

55(RR–2):1–16. 48Ofner-Agostini M, et al. Investigation of 

the second wave (phase 2) of severe 

respiratory syndrome (SARS) in Toronto, 

Canada: What happened? Can Commun Dis 

Rep. 2008. 34:1–11. 49NIOSH Statement: Risk of Serious Illness 

among Healthcare Personnel Associated with 

2009 H1N1 Influenza: What is NIOSH 

Learning? NIOSH Safety and Health Topic: 

Occupational Health Issues Associated with 

H1N1 Influenza Virus (Swine Flu). October 

16, 2009. (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ 

H1N1flu/healthcare-risk.html). 50Mahoney FJ, et al. Progress toward the 

elimination of Hepatitis B virus transmission 

among health care workers in the United 

States. Arch Intern Med. 1997. 157:2601– 

2605. 51OSHA. Occupational Exposure to 

Tuberculosis; Proposed Rule; Termination of 

Rulemaking—(FR 68:75767–75775, December 

31, 2003). (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR2003-12-31/pdf/03-31845.pdf). 52OSHA. Directive CPL 02–00–106—CPL 

2.106—Enforcement Procedures and 

Scheduling for Occupational Exposure to 

Tuberculosis. (http://www.osha.gov/pls/ 

oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?

p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=18050). 53California Code of Regulations, Title 8, 

Section 5199. Aerosol Transmissible 

Diseases. (http://www.dir.ca.gov/Title8/ 

5199.html). 

54 Institute of Medicine (IOM). 2009. 

Respiratory Protection for Healthcare 

Workers in the Workplace Against Novel 

H1N1 Influenza A: A Letter Report. 

Washington, DC: The National Academies 

Press. (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/ 

12748.html). 55Oberg MS and Brosseau LM. Surgical 

mask filter and fit performance. Am J Infect 

Control. 2008. 36:276–282. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10694 Filed 5–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2008–0155; FRL–9144–8 ] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans: Oregon 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

approve State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions submitted by the State of 

Oregon, Department of Environmental 

Quality (ODEQ). These revisions pertain 

to the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 

110(a)(1) maintenance plans prepared 

by ODEQ to maintain the 8-hour 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) for ozone in the Portland 

portion of the Portland/Vancouver Air 

Quality Maintenance Area (Pdx/Van 

AQMA) and the Salem-Keizer Area 

Transportation Study (SKATS) air 

quality area. The 110(a)(1) maintenance 

plans for this area meet CAA 

requirements and demonstrate that each 

of the above mentioned areas will be 

able to remain in attainment for the 

1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

through 2015. As SKATS appears to be 

significantly impacted by emissions 

from the Portland area, an approved 

plan for the Pdx/Van AQMA is one of 

the control strategies for SKATS air 

quality area. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to approve the section 

110(a)(1) plans for the Portland portion 

of the Pdx/Van AQMA and the SKATS 

area at the same time. 

Additionally, the EPA is proposing to 

approve SIP revisions submitted by 

ODEQ that phase out the State’s Vehicle 

Inspection Program (VIP) enhanced 

BAR–31 test, and eliminate the Gas Cap 

Pressure Test and the Evaporative Purge 

Tests. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 7, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 24845 

OAR–2008–0155, by one of the 

following methods: 

A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Mail: Krishna Viswanathan, EPA, 

Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics (AWT– 

107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, Washington 98101. 

C. Hand Delivery: EPA, Region 10 

Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. 

Attention: Krishna Viswanathan, Office 

of Air Waste, and Toxics (AWT–107). 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2008– 

0155. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.govindex. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 

Washington 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Krishna Viswanathan, (206) 553–2684, 

or by e-mail at R10– 

Public_Comments@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean the 

EPA. Information is organized as 

follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Summary of SIP Revisions 

A. The Pdx/Van AQMA, SKATS, and 

Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plans for 

the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

B. Phasing Out of the State’s VIP Enhanced 

BAR–31 Test, the Elimination of the Gas 

Cap Pressure Test and the Evaporative 

Purge Test 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Oregon Notice Provision 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires, 

in part, that states submit to EPA plans 

to maintain any NAAQS promulgated 

by EPA. EPA interprets this provision to 

require that states with areas that were 

maintenance areas for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS but attainment for the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS must submit a plan to 

demonstrate the continued maintenance 

of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA 

established June 15, 2007, three years 

after the effective date of the initial 8- 

hour ozone designations, as the 

deadline for submission of plans for 

these areas. 

On May 20, 2005, EPA issued 

guidance for States in preparing 

maintenance plans under section 

110(a)(1) of the CAA for areas that are 

required to do so under 40 CFR 

51.905(c) and (d). At a minimum, the 

maintenance plan should include the 

five following components: 

1. An attainment inventory, which is 

based on actual typical summer day 

emissions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) and oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) for a 10-year period from 

a base year chosen by the State; 

2. A maintenance demonstration 

which shows how the area will remain 

in compliance with the 8-hour ozone 

standard for 10 years after the effective 

date of designations (June 15, 2004); 

3. A commitment to continue to 

operate air quality monitors; 

4. A contingency plan that will ensure 

that a violation of the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS is promptly addressed; and 

5. An explanation of how the State 

will track the progress of the 

maintenance plan. 

On May 22, 2007, EPA received a 

request from the ODEQ to approve a SIP 

revision pertaining to the maintenance 

plan for the Portland portion of the Pdx/ 

Van AQMA and SKATS, under section 

110 of the CAA. This plan was 

developed by the ODEQ, in 

collaboration with the Southwest Clean 

Air Agency in Vancouver, Washington, 

and the Washington State Department of 

Ecology (Ecology). 

In 1979, SKATS was defined by EPA 

as a ‘‘rural area’’ for ozone plan 

development that appeared to be 

significantly impacted by emissions 

from Portland, a major urban area 

located approximately 40 miles north of 

Salem (44 FR 20375). Oregon submitted 

an attainment Plan for SKATS which 

was approved by EPA on April 12, 1982 

(47 FR 15587). Based on EPA’s rural 

ozone policy (45 FR 42265), one of the 

controls strategies for ozone in the 

SKATS area, is an approved plan for the 

Portland portion of the Pdx/Van AQMA; 

therefore the two plans are considered 

concurrently in this action. 

On January 17, 2007, EPA received a 

request from Ecology to approve under 

section 110 of the CAA a SIP revision 

pertaining to the maintenance plan for 

the Vancouver portion of the Pdx/Van 

AQMA. As both these submissions from 

the States of Washington and Oregon 

pertain to the Pdx/Van AQMA, EPA 

intends to act on these submissions 

concurrently. This action addresses only 

the Portland portion of the Pdx/Van 

AQMA and SKATS. 

The EPA has also prepared a 

Technical Support Document (TSD) 

with more detailed information about 

the SIP revisions ODEQ has asked us to 

approve. The TSD is available for 

review as part of the docket for this 

action. 

II. Summary of SIP Revisions 

A. The Pdx/Van AQMA, SKATS, and 

Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plans for 

the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

ODEQ’s 8-hour ozone maintenance 

plan addresses the five components of 

the section 110(a)(1) 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan as outlined in EPA’s 

May 20, 2005 guidance. Oregon has 

submitted its 8-hour ozone maintenance 

plan for approval and also submitted 

rules that support the maintenance for 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
24846 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1EPA’s AirData Database—http://www.epa.gov/ 

oar/data/reports.html. 

approval and incorporation into the 

federally enforceable SIP. 

1. Attainment Inventory 

An emissions inventory is an itemized 

list of emission estimates for sources of 

air pollution in a given area for a 

specified time period. ODEQ provided a 

comprehensive and current emissions 

inventory for NOX and VOCs. ODEQ 

used 2002 as the base year from which 

it projected emissions. The maintenance 

plan includes an explanation of the 

methodology used to determine 

emissions from point, area, and mobile 

sources. The inventory is based on 

emissions from a ‘‘typical summer day.’’ 

The term ‘‘typical summer day’’ refers to 

a weekday during the months when 

ozone concentrations are typically the 

highest. 

2. Maintenance Demonstration 

With regard to demonstrating 

continued maintenance of the 8-hour 

ozone standard, ODEQ projects that the 

total emissions from the Portland and 

Salem areas will decrease overall during 

the 10-year maintenance period. EPA 

has reviewed ODEQ’s emissions 

projections and maintenance 

demonstration and finds it to be 

adequate. ODEQ projected emissions for 

2015, which is more than 10 years from 

the effective date of initial designations, 

as suggested in the EPA guidance for 

section 110(a)(1) maintenance plans. In 

2002, the total emissions from the 

Portland portion of the Pdx/Van AQMA 

were 958,531 lbs/day for VOCs and 

377,794 lbs/day for NOX. The projected 

2015 emissions are 1,005,171 lbs/day for 

VOCs and 261,375 lbs/day for NOX. For 

the Portland area, this amounts to 2015 

VOCs increasing by about 5% from 2002 

actual emissions, and 2015 NOX

emissions decreasing by about 30% 

from 2002 levels. The greatest reduction 

in VOC and NOX emissions is from onroad and non-road mobile sources. 

For SKATS, the 2002 total emissions 

were 439,610 lbs/day of VOCs and 

106,967 lbs/day of NOX. The 2015 

projections for this area are 405,062 lbs/ 

day of VOCs and 52,103 lbs/day of NOX. 

For SKATS, this summarizes to 2015 

VOCs decreasing by about 8% from 

2002 actual emissions, and 2015 NOX

emissions decreasing by about 51% 

from the 2002 levels. As such, the plan 

demonstrates that emissions are 

projected to decrease overall in both the 

Portland portion of the Pdx/Van AQMA 

and SKATS. 

It is important to note that the 

formation of ozone is dependent on a 

number of variables which cannot be 

estimated solely through emissions 

growth and reduction calculations. A 

few of these variables include weather 

and the transport of ozone precursors 

from outside the maintenance area. In 

order to demonstrate continued 

maintenance of the standards, a State 

may utilize more sophisticated tools 

such as air quality modeling to support 

their analysis; Oregon used air quality 

modeling to assess the comprehensive 

impacts of growth through 2015 on 

ozone levels in both areas. Results of 

modeling conducted by ODEQ and 

submitted to EPA demonstrate that the 

highest predicted design value for this 

area is 0.072 parts per million, which is 

below the 1997 and the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS and is therefore in compliance 

with both the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

EPA’s Evaluation of CAA 110(l) 

Considerations 

The maintenance demonstration 

discussed in the preceding section also 

meets section 110(l) requirements of the 

CAA which states ‘‘Each revision to an 

implementation plan submitted by a 

State under this chapter shall be 

adopted by such State after reasonable 

notice and public hearing. The 

Administrator shall not approve a 

revision of a plan if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (as defined 

in section 7501 of this title), or any 

other applicable requirement of this 

chapter.’’ ODEQ has submitted evidence 

to EPA that the State provided 

reasonable notice and public comments 

prior to State adoption and submission 

of this plan to the EPA. 

EPA concludes that this plan 

demonstrates maintenance of all 

applicable ozone NAAQS, namely the 

2008 and 1997 8-hour standards. The 

Portland and SKATS areas are within 

the compliance levels for all criteria 

pollutants 1, based on historical 

monitoring. 

Based on the VOC, NOX, and carbon 

monoxide (CO) emissions information 

submitted with this plan, EPA 

concludes that approval of the changes 

in this proposed plan will not cause an 

increase of direct or precursor emissions 

that will interfere with the Portland 

area’s maintenance of any criteria 

pollutant NAAQS. 

SKATS is well within the compliance 

level for the remaining NAAQS 1 based 

on actual monitoring and actions in this 

proposed SIP will not cause or 

contribute to higher levels of other 

criteria pollutants. Therefore, an 

approval of this plan revision will not 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment or 

maintenance of any NAAQS. 

3. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring 

With regard to the ambient air 

monitoring component of the 

maintenance plan, ODEQ commits to 

continue operating air quality 

monitoring stations in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58 throughout the 

maintenance period to verify 

maintenance of the 8-hour ozone 

standard, and will submit qualityassured ozone data to EPA through the 

Air Quality System. 

4. Contingency Measures 

EPA interprets section 110(a)(1) of the 

CAA to require that the State develop a 

contingency plan that will ensure that 

any violation of a NAAQS is promptly 

corrected. The purposes of contingency 

measures, as outlined in ODEQ’s 

maintenance plan, is to accordingly 

select and adopt one or more measures 

outlined in the maintenance plan so as 

to assure continued attainment in the 

event that a violation of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS is measured. Violation of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard would 

trigger one or more of the control 

measures as outlined in the plan. 

5. Verification of Continued Attainment 

ODEQ will continue to monitor 

ambient air quality ozone levels in the 

Portland portion of the Pdx/Van AQMA 

and SKATS as described in the 

Contingency Plan. ODEQ will update 

countywide emissions inventories every 

three years as required by the 

Consolidated Emissions and Reporting 

Rule (CERR) to update the National 

Emissions Inventory. If ambient ozone 

levels increase, ODEQ will compare 

CERR updates with the 2002 and 2015 

emissions inventories and evaluate the 

assumptions used in the 2015 emissions 

projections to determine whether 

emissions are increasing at a rate not 

anticipated in the maintenance plan. 

EPA’s Evaluation of Supporting Rules 

ODEQ submitted several rules that 

would create controls programs to 

support the emissions reductions and 

the maintenance demonstration. ODEQ 

submitted the following modified 

sections of the Oregon Administrative 

Rules (OAR) to EPA for approval and 

incorporation into the Oregon SIP. 

These sections include: General Air 

Pollution Procedures and Definition: 

OAR 340–200; Ambient Air Quality 

Standards and PSD Increments: OAR 

340–202; Designation of Air Quality 

Areas: OAR 340–204; Major New Source 

Review: OAR 340–224; Air Quality 

Analysis Requirements: OAR 340–225; 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 24847 

Emission Standards for VOC Point 

Sources: OAR 340–232; Rules 

Applicable to the Portland Area: OAR 

340–242; Employee Commute Options 

Program (OAR 340–242–0010 through 

0290); and Industrial Emission 

Management Program (OAR 340–242– 

0400 through 0440). After a review of 

the submissions, EPA is proposing to 

approve these changes to Oregon’s rules 

and incorporate them into the federally 

approved SIP for Oregon. 

1-Hour Ozone NAAQS Requirements 

That No Longer Apply in This Area 

Approval of two amendments to 

ODEQ’s existing 1-hour maintenance 

plan has also been requested by the 

State of Oregon pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.905(e)(1). ODEQ has submitted a 

maintenance SIP for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for these areas that meets the 

requirements of sections 110 and 193 of 

the CAA. Therefore, EPA is 

concurrently proposing to approve these 

two amendments to the existing 1-hour 

ozone maintenance plan: 

(1) Removal of the obligation to 

submit a maintenance plan for the 1- 

hour NAAQS eight years after approval 

of the initial 1-hour maintenance plan; 

and 

(2) Removal of the State’s obligation 

to implement contingency measures 

upon a violation of the 1-hour NAAQS. 

Oregon’s SIP submittal meets the CAA 

requirements for SIP submittals with 

respect to these two changes. 

B. Phasing Out of the State’s VIP 

Enhanced BAR–31 Test, the Elimination 

of the Gas Cap Pressure Test and the 

Evaporative Purge Test 

On August 9, 2005, ODEQ submitted 

revisions to the Oregon State 

Implementation Plan: Volume 2— 

section 5.4.7—Test Procedures and 

Standards, pertaining to phasing out of 

the State’s VIP enhanced BAR–31 test, 

the elimination of the Gas Cap Pressure 

Test and the Evaporative Purge Test. 

The submitted revisions are 

supported by a demonstration that these 

changes will not affect the ability of the 

State of Oregon to meet all applicable 

NAAQS, especially CO and ozone. For 

CO, this requirement was addressed 

when the Portland CO Second 10-Year 

Maintenance Plan demonstrated 

continued maintenance of attainment of 

the CO standard through the year 2017, 

without the enhanced test. The CO 

maintenance plan was approved by the 

EPA on January 24, 2006 (71 FR 3768). 

For ozone, the submittal refers to the 

subsequently submitted section 

110(a)(1) maintenance plans for the 

Portland portion of the Pdx/Van AQMA 

and SKATS. Section 110(a)(1) 

maintenance plans for these areas 

demonstrate how the State of Oregon 

will maintain compliance with the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 110(a)(1) 

maintenance plans for both these areas 

meet the CAA requirements and 

demonstrate that the Portland portion of 

the Pdx/Van AQMA and the SKATS Air 

Quality Area will be able to remain in 

attainment for 1997 ozone NAAQS 

through 2015. The applicable NAAQS 

for ozone is the 2008 8-hour standard 

and the 110(a)(1) maintenance plan 

includes technical information that 

shows the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

will also not be violated with all the 

revisions and changes proposed. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan and 

supporting rules for Portland and 

Salem, OR submitted on May 22, 2007 

and described in this action and the 

TSD, as revisions to the Oregon SIP. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

maintenance plan and supporting rules 

for the Portland portion of the Pdx/Van 

AQMA and the SKATS Air Quality Area 

because they meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(1) and section 110(l) of 

the CAA. 

Further, based on our review, we are 

proposing recommending a full 

approval of the revisions to the Oregon 

State Implementation Plan: Volume 2— 

section 5.4.7—Test Procedures and 

Standards and supporting rules. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. 

IV. Oregon Notice Provision 

Oregon Revised Statute 468.126 

prohibits ODEQ from imposing a 

penalty for violation of an air, water or 

solid waste permit unless the source has 

been provided five days’ advanced 

written notice of the violation and has 

not come into compliance or submitted 

a compliance schedule within that fiveday period. By its terms, the statute does 

not apply to Oregon’s Title V program 

or to any program if application of the 

notice provision would disqualify the 

program from federal delegation. Oregon 

has previously confirmed that, because 

application of the notice provision 

would preclude EPA approval of the 

Oregon SIP, no advance notice is 

required for violation of SIP 

requirements. 

V. 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, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed 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, 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
24848 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: March 3, 2010. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10652 Filed 5–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 745 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0173; FRL–8823–6] 

RIN 2070–AJ56 

Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program for Public and Commercial 

Buildings 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: EPA is giving advance notice 

of the Agency’s intention to regulate the 

renovation, repair, and painting of 

public and commercial buildings under 

section 402(c)(3) of the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA). This 

notice announces the commencement of 

proceedings to propose lead-safe work 

practices and other requirements for 

renovations on the exteriors of public 

and commercial buildings and to 

determine whether lead-based paint 

hazards are created by interior 

renovation, repair, and painting projects 

in public and commercial buildings. For 

those renovations in the interiors of 

public and commercial buildings that 

create lead-based paint hazards, EPA 

will propose regulations to address 

these hazards. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 6, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0173, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Document Control Office 

(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– 

0001. 

• Hand Delivery: OPPT Document 

Control Office (DCO), EPA East Bldg., 

Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC; Attention: Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0173. 

The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

DCO is (202) 564–8930. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the DCO’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2010–0173. EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the docket and made available 

on the Internet. If you submit an 

electronic comment, EPA recommends 

that you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the docket index available 

at http://www.regulations.gov. 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 electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPPT 

Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in 

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 

3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room 

hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number of 

the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 

566–0280. Docket visitors are required 

to show photographic identification, 

pass through a metal detector, and sign 

the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are 

processed through an X-ray machine 

and subject to search. Visitors will be 

provided an EPA/DC badge that must be 

visible at all times in the building and 

returned upon departure. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

For technical information contact: 

Hans Scheifele, National Program 

Chemicals Division, Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– 

0001; telephone number: (202) 564– 

3122; e-mail address: 

scheifele.hans@epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI—Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; e-mail address: TSCAHotline@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This document is directed to the 

public in general. However, this 

document may be of particular interest 

to the following entities: 

• Building construction (North 

American Industrial Classification 

System (NAICS) code 236), e.g., 

commercial building construction, 

industrial building construction, 

commercial and institutional building 

construction, building finishing 

contractors, drywall and insulation 

contractors, painting and wall covering 

contractors, finish carpentry contractors, 

other building finishing contractors. 

• Specialty trade contractors (NAICS 

code 238), e.g., plumbing, heating, and 

air-conditioning contractors, painting 

and wall covering contractors, electrical 

contractors, finish carpentry contractors, 

drywall and insulation contractors, 

siding contractors, tile and terrazzo 

contractors, glass and glazing 

contractors. 

• Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g., 

lessors of non-residential buildings and 

dwellings, non-residential property 

managers. 

• Facilities support services (NAICS 

code 561210). 

• Other general government support 

(NAICS code 921) e.g., general services 

departments, government, public 

property management services, 

government. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS