A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	O	P	Q	R	S	T	U	V	W	X	Y	Z	AA	AB	AC
1
2			DEQ Rulemaking								Tuesday, September 30, 2025
3			Considerations
4				Update Oregon rules to address federal air quality regulations
5			Table of Content		Overview
6			Executive summary
7
8			This is an overview of the Considerations section of this planning document as of the date on the header to this section.
9			The proposed rules would adopt new and amended federal air quality regulations and related permit rules. This includes adopting new national standards for sources such as gold mine ore processing and production, boilers, and solid waste incinerators, as well as changes to the federal gasoline dispensing facility rules. The rulemaking proposal would also clarify when and if ACDP permits are required for sources subject to NSPS and NESHAP.
10			Schedule		The rule design team plans to START RULEMAKING in the first quarter of 2012. The planned EQC ACTION DATE is in the fourth quarter of 2012 and the estimated EFFECTIVE date is the first quarter of 2013.
11			Compliance		The proposed rules do not involve include new, expanded or reduced compliance requirements. See section 8 below.
12			Penalties		The proposed rules do not involve penalties. See section 8 below.
13			Requirements		The proposed rules include a new, expanded or reduced regulatory program. See section 8 below.
14			Permits, Certifications		The proposed rules INCLUDE new or expanded 'Air quality' permit, license, certification or registration requirements. See section 9 below.
15			Fees		The proposed rules do not affect fees. See section 10 below.
16			Regulated party		The proposed rules do not involve previously unregulated parties. See section 11.
17			Rule support		Risks associated with support for the proposed rules is medium within DEQ, medium for the private stakeholders and medium for public stakeholders. See section 12 below.								Risk rating low → high
18													1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
19
20			Considerations		The team has and will continue to identify issues that relate to the rule proposal in the following areas:								Risk rating low → high
21			1. Program										1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
22			2. Technology										1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
23			3. Timing										1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
24			4. Policy										1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
25			5. Environmental										1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
26			6. Fiscal										1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
27			7. Legal										1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
28			8. Political										1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
29			9. Implementation										1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
30
31			Brainstorming
32
33			Complete the idea that this rule proposal would…
34				Action		Object						Driver
35				align		existing regulatory program						federal regulations
36				carry out		a commitment in PPA						EPA direction
37				improve		existing regulatory program						program business decision
38				expand		existing regulatory program						federal regulations
39				implement		existing regulatory program						federal regulations
40
41
42
43				Topic discussion
44				This rulemaking will address several objectives as listed above.
45
46
47			Scope
48
49			1. Proposed rules basics
50

51			The proposed rules would adopt new and amended federal air quality regulations and related permit rules. This includes adopting new national standards for sources such as gold mine ore processing and production, boilers, and solid waste incinerators, as well as changes to the federal gasoline dispensing facility rules. The rulemaking proposal would also clarify when and if ACDP permits are required for sources subject to NSPS and NESHAP.
52			Rulemaking type		PERMANENT					Program		Air Quality Program Operations Section
53
54			Media		air
55
56								Chapter 340 divisions involved				200,216, 230,232,238,244
57
58			Schedule		Milestone		Year	Quarter
59					Start		2012	Q1				Y		Land use rules
60					EQC Action		2012	Q4
61					Effective		2013	Q1				Y		State Implementation Plan
62
63				The proposed rule
64								Risk option					Riskometer
65				...had prior public input				somewhat true					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
66				...is backed by science				somewhat true					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
67				...is backed by data				somewhat true					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
68				...will make DEQ's work easier				somewhat true					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
69				...would minimize DEQ costs				somewhat true					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
70				...furthers DEQ priorities				somewhat true					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
71				...supports strategic directions				somewhat true					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
72				...supports sustainability				somewhat true					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
73
74
75								Risk average					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
76
77
78			Topic discussion
79			December 2012 is the target date, but there is no set deadline for this rulemaking.
80
81			2. What problem is DEQ trying to solve?
82
83			3. How would the proposed rule solve the problem?
84
85
86			4. How will DEQ know the problem has been solved?
87
88			5. What alternatives did DEQ consider?
89
90
91			Topic discussion
92			No additional discussion
93
94
95			6. Out of the scope of this rulemaking.
96			Topic							Reasoning
97			None
98
99			Include description in:				Committee charter			Message Map			Proposal
100

101			7. If the EQC does not amend, adopt or repeal the proposed rules, DEQ risks:
102				Loss of delegation				Y		Delay in public health protection											Y
103				Failure to comply with CWA						Rules does not align with law											Y
104				Failure to comply with CAA				Y		Increased difficulty doing business
105				Failure to keep commitment				Y		Loss of program funding
106				Failure to respond to legislature						Noncompliance											Y
107				Science does not apply to Oregon						Unclear rules											Y
108				Loss of federal funding						Failure to address cost
109				Loss of reputation					Imposes undue administrative burden												Y
110			Topic discussion
111			No additional discussion
112
113
114			8. Compliance, regulatory programs and penalties
115			The proposed rules:
116			o	Include new, expanded or reduced compliance requirements.
117			o	Do not involve penalties.
118			o	Include a new, expanded or reduced regulatory program.
119													New				Expanded					Reduced
120				The proposed rules involve…							Involved		Requirements
121				Compliance							Y		Y
122				Penalties
123				Regulatory program							Y						Y
124			Topic discussion
125			No additional discussion
126
127
128			9. Permits, certifications, licenses, registrations
129			The proposed rules INCLUDE new or expanded 'Air quality' permit, license, certification or registration requirements.
130				Air quality									New				Expanded					Reduced
131											Involved		Requirements
132				Asbestos License
133				Air Contaminant Discharge Permit							Y						Y
134				Air Quality Registrations
135				Open Burning Letter Permit
136				Tanker Certification
137				Ttle V permit
138				Vehicle Emissions Certification
139				NESHAP							Y						Y
140				NSPS							Y						Y
141				Add new or missing title here
142
143			Topic discussion
144
145
146
147			10. Fees
148			The proposed rules do not affect fees.
149			Draft or review Proposal|Fee
150				The proposed rules…					The proposed fees…

151				Do not affect fees				TRUE		Does not apply													TRUE
152				Would establish new fees						Require DAS approval
153				Would increase existing fees						Are exempt from DAS approval ORS 291.55(2)(d)
154				Would decrease existing fees						Are exempt from DAS approval ORS 291.55(2)(m)
155				Invoicing system
156				No invoicing system involved						HazWaste Invoicing
157				Develop new						SWIFT
158				Access database						TRAACS													TRUE
159				Access template						UST Invoice.new
160				CHRIS						WQSIS
161				Add missing option here						Add missing option here
162			Topic discussion
163			There is an existing database and invoicing processes.
164
165
166			11. Regulated party
167											Involved						Previously unregulated
168				Business							TRUE						TRUE
169				Manufacturing							TRUE						TRUE
170				City/county/state							TRUE						TRUE
171				Individuals
172				Enter custom regulated party here
173				Enter custom regulated party here
174
175			Topic discussion
176			No additional discussion
177
178
179			12. Support for proposal
180				Group				Degree of support					Riskometer
181				EQC				somewhat supportive					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
182				EMT				unknown or neutral					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
183				other DEQ programs				unknown or neutral					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
184				program management				somewhat supportive					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
185				regional staff				unknown or neutral					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
186				regulated community				unknown or neutral					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
187				business and industry				unknown or neutral					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
188				environmental groups				unknown or neutral					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
189				public				unknown or neutral					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
190				state legislators				unknown or neutral					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
191				federal environmental regulators				somewhat supportive					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
192				other state and federal agencies				unknown or neutral					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
193				tribal nations				does not apply					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
194				local governments				unknown or neutral					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
195
196
197										Average			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
198
199
200			Topic discussion

201			No additional discussion
202
203			Process improvement
204
205
206			Public involvement
207
208			"The Legislative Assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that whenever possible the public be involved in the development of public policy by agencies and in the drafting of rules. The Legislative Assembly encourages agencies to seek public input to the maximum extent possible before giving notice of intent to adopt a rule. The agency may appoint an advisory committee that will represent the interests of persons likely to be affected by the rule, or use any other means of obtaining public views that will assist the agency in drafting the rule."
209			1. Advisory committee involvement
210			Guide					Bold topics are part of the advisory committee charter.
211				No plans to convene a committee				TRUE		Program					Environmental
212				Use a standing committee						Technology					Fiscal
213				Reconvene a committee						Timing					Legal
214				Convene a new committee						Policy					Political
215				Estimated number of meetings				0		Estimated days between meetings												0
216			Topic discussion
217			No additional discussion
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232			2. Information meetings and hearings																	ORS 183.333
233
234				Does not apply							Public notice without hearing
235				Portland area information meeting				TRUE			Public notice with hearing												TRUE
236				Regional information meeting							Re-notice
237				Estimate number of meetings				1		Estimate number of hearings													1
238			Topic discussion
239
240
241
242			Process improvement
243
244
245			Considerations
246
247			1. Program considerations
248					Complexity rating			potential for minor complexity					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
249			Subject program
250			The adoption of the area source NESHAP for boilers and the expansion of the gasoline dispensing facility rules to facilities that dispense gasoline into non-road vehicles and non-road engines could result in a significant number of new permittees and invoices. To minimize the number of new permittees and invoices, this rulemaking will propose that the current permit threshold for boilers be extended to boilers affected by the NESHAP. In addition, the affected gasoline dispensing facilities aren’t likely to have throughputs that would trigger permitting.
251
252			Other DEQ programs
253			Large numbers of businesses that dispense gasoline into non-road vehicles and non-road engines are potentially affected by the amended gasoline dispensing facility NESHAP. Many of these businesses have not previously been subject to air quality regulations. Initially, there may be compliance issues with these businesses, placing a burden on DEQ's Office of Compliance and Enforcement. Compliance rates should improve and therefore the burden on OCE should reduce over time. Incorporating federal changes to the gasoline dispensing facility NESHAP will result in expansion to facilities that dispense gasoline into non-road vehicles and non-road engines. This will require the UST Program to incorporate the NESHAP requirements into additional inspections. DEQ is implementing the gasoline dispensing facility NESHAP in a joint effort of the Air Quality Division and the Underground Storage Tank Program. The UST program has incorporated the NESHAP requirements into their current inspection program. This leveraging of UST Program resources has allowed the Air Quality Division to reduce implementation costs and establish two lower cost General ACDP fee classes for gasoline dispensing facilities. The generated revenue pays for the NESHAP portion of the UST Program inspection. However, affected businesses aren’t likely to have throughputs that would trigger control requirements or permitting. Therefore, the increase in workload on the UST Program is not expected to be significant. Revenue generated by permitting additional businesses will be used to pay for this increased workload.
254
255
256			Include description in:				Committee charter			Message Map		Y	Proposal
257			Topic discussion
258			No additional discussion
259
260			2. Technology considerations
261
262					Complexity rating			potential for minor complexity					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
263			Describe this consideration
264			Existing UST and AQ databases will support implementation of this rulemaking.
265
266			Include description in:				Committee charter			Message Map			Proposal
267			Topic discussion
268			No additional discussion
269
270			3. Timing considerations
271
272					Criticality rating			moderate criticality					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
273			Describe this consideration
274			DEQ's 2010-2012 Performance Partnership Agreement with EPA stipulates that DEQ adopt NESHAPs and NSPSs and request delegation at least every two years. States are required to submit a plan that meets the requirements of the amended emission guidelines for commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators by one year after promulgation of the emission guidelines. EPA expects to publish the amended emission guidelines in May of this year. Therefore, state plans will be due in May of 2013. If a state does not submit an approvable plan, EPA is required to develop a Federal plan for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators located in that state within 2 years after promulgation of the emission guidelines.
275			• Existing gold mine ore processing and production facilities are required to comply with the new NESHAP by February 17, 2014. • Existing gasoline dispensing facilities that dispense gasoline into the fuel tank of "non-road vehicles" or "non-road engines" are required to comply with the amended gasoline dispensing facility NESHAP by January 24, 2014. • Existing commercial, institutional, and industrial boilers are required to be tune-up by March 21, 2013. • Owners of larger commercial, institutional, and industrial boilers are required to have an energy assessment performed by March 21, 2014. • Existing coal- and oil-fired electric utility boilers are required to comply with the new utility NESHAP by April 16, 2015.
276			Rule changes are necessary now in order to delay implementation of the NESHAP and NSPS standards for stationary engines. Air Quality managers have decided to delay implementation of these standards because of potential workload increases. Air Quality managers want a comprehensive implementation plan and to know how many facilities would be affected before proceeding. Oregon's current rules require DEQ to implement federal standards for currently permitted facilities when they are adopted by EPA, not when they are adopted by the EQC. Oregon's rules also require facilities affected by new NSPSs to obtain a permit when an NSPS is adopted by EPA, not when it is adopted by the EQC. On January 5, 2010, EPA promulgated the Prepared Feeds NESHAP. The NESHAP contained a requirement that facilities, with an average daily feed production level exceeding 50 tons per day, capture and route emissions to a cyclone designed to reduce particulate emissions by 95 percent. The compliance date for this requirement was January 5, 2012. On December 23, 2011, EPA promulgated amendments to the NESHAP that removed the 95 % control requirement for cyclones at existing facilities and retained the compliance date of January 5, 2012. This rulemaking would adopt the revised NESHAP. In the meantime, affected facilities are out of compliance with the version of the NESHAP previously adopted by the EQC. After the rules are adopted, DEQ will revise the prepared feed general ACDP and reassign affected facilities to the revised permit.
277
278			Include description in:				Committee charter			Message Map		Y	Proposal
279			Topic discussion
280			No additional discussion
281
282			4. Policy considerations
283
284					Complexity rating			does not apply					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
285			Describe this consideration
286
287			Include description in:				Committee charter			Message Map			Proposal
288			Topic discussion
289
290
291			5. Environmental considerations
292
293					Complexity rating			unknown					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
294
295			The proposed rule			has no direct correlation to the environment.
296			Describe this consideration
297			EPA has identified gasoline dispensing facilities, gold mine ore processing and production operations, and boilers as emitters of one or more of the 33 hazardous air pollutants that pose the greatest risk to public health in urban areas. Many of these hazardous air pollutants are also of particular concern in Oregon. For instance, gasoline vapors contain benzene, a known cancer-causing chemical. Because benzene concentrations in many Oregon communities are significantly above levels protective of human health, reducing benzene is a priority for DEQ. Boilers and gold mine ore processing and production operations emit mercury which can impair neurological development and cause neurological damage, and is a toxic of concern in Oregon.
298
299			Include description in:				Committee charter			Message Map		Y	Proposal
300			Topic discussion

301			No additional discussion
302
303			6. Fiscal considerations
304
305					Complexity rating			does not apply					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
306
307				Fiscal impact on:				Impact					Riskometer
308				regulated community				moderate cost increase					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
309				small business (50 emp or less)				moderate cost increase					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
310				business and industry				moderate cost increase					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
311				local governments				no fiscal impacts					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
312				other state or federal agencies				no fiscal impacts					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
313				public				no fiscal impacts					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
314				DEQ				no fiscal impacts					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
315				other				unknown					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
316
317
318								Fiscal impact average					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
319
320			Describe this consideration
321			No additional discription at this time
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329			Include description in:				Committee charter			Message Map			Proposal
330			Topic discussion
331			No additional discussion
332
333			7. Legal considerations
334
335					Complexity rating			potential for moderate complexity					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
336			Describe this consideration
337			No additional description at this time
338
339			Include description in:				Committee charter			Message Map			Proposal
340			Topic discussion
341			No additional discussion
342
343			8. Political considerations
344
345					Controversy rating			potential for moderate controversy					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
346			Describe this consideration
347			Large numbers of businesses that dispense gasoline into non-road vehicles and non-road engines are potentially affected by the gasoline dispensing facility NESHAP. Many of these businesses have not previously been subject to air quality regulations, are opposed to permitting and fees, and may contact their legislators. However, these businesses aren’t likely to have throughputs that would not trigger the more significant control requirements or permitting. In a 2009 mailing, DEQ informed businesses that dispense gasoline into non-road vehicles and non-road engines that they were exempt from the gasoline dispensing NESHAP, knowing that in the future it would likely have to inform these same businesses that they are subject to the NESHAP.
348
349			Include description in:				Committee charter			Message Map			Proposal
350			Topic discussion

351			No additional discussion
352
353			9. Implementation considerations
354
355					Complexity rating			potential for minor complexity					1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
356			Describe this consideration
357			No additional description at this time
358
359			Include description in:				Committee charter			Message Map			Proposal
360			Topic discussion
361			No additional discussion
362
363			Process improvement
364
365
366
367