NESHAP-NSPSblueprint V1.12.5

	C	D	E	F	K	L	M	N	O	P	Q	R	S	T	U	V
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. This is a PERMANENT rule proposal that involves land use rules and DEQ's State Implementation Plan.
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, licence, 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 below.
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	1. Proposed rules basics


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	No additional discussion
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, licence, certification or registration requirements.
130		Air quality					New	Expanded		Reduced
131		Air quality				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	TRUE	HazWaste Invoicing
157		Develop new		SWIFT
158		Access database		TRAACS
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			Y					Y
169		Manufacturing			Y					Y
170		City/county/state			Y					Y
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	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.
251
252	Other DEQ programs
253	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

Considerations

	C	D	E	G	I	L	M	N	O	P	Q	R	S	T	U	V
1
2	DEQ Rulemaking					Tuesday, September 30, 2025
3	Resources
4		Update Oregon rules to address federal air quality regulations
5
6	Table of Content		Overview
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20	Project accounting and rulemaking record
21
22	The agency rules group has reserved the following for this proposal
23	Has reserved the following for this proposal:
24		Time accounting code for work related to rulemaking
25		Project number for expenditures related to this rulemaking
26		RM Identifier for email Subject line
27		Rule design team email group
28		Advisory Committee email group
29		Public comment email box
30		Electronic record
31
32		Email folder
33		Email archives
34	Physical record	Physical record		Pre filing
35				Post filing
36
37	Core team
38
39	Lead DA		Wendy Wiles		0 hours		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
40
41			The lead division administrator: • ensures the program manager and the team has adequate and appropriate resources • raises potential issues to the executive management team • advises the team on Considerations, Resources and Schedules as needed • reviews and approves the final release of the Proposal at: - Public notice - EQC
42
43	Lead manager		Loretta Pickerell		0 hours		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
44
45			The lead manager is a contributing member on the rule design team who: • ensures the team has adequate and appropriate resources • raises potential issues to the lead division administrator • reviews and advises the team on Considerations, Resources and Schedules • reviews and approves the final release of the Proposal at: - fee notification or approval requests - Public notice - EQC
46
47	Project lead		Mary Lou Perry		0 hours		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
48
49			The project lead is the expert on the rulemaking process and writing for the proposed rule. The project lead is responsible for: • Developing, maintaining and keeping the: - Blueprint and SharePoint site - Schedule • Engaging identified resources in collaboration activities • Writing all rulemaking materials using: - plain English - DEQ Style Guide • Ensuring the proposal has all required reviews and approvals before: - Releasing the blueprint beyond the rule design team - Publishing the proposal external to DEQ
50


51	Fiscal expert	Beth Woodrow		0 hours		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
52
53
54
55	Process assistant	Christie Nuttal		0 hours		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
56
57		Handles meeting logistics including iLinc and conference call-in numbers. Mailings, GovDelivery
58
59	Facilitator	Abby Boudouris		0 hours		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
60
61		Facilitates Oregon E-Cycles Registration Fee Advisory Committee meetings.
62
63	Rule contact	Mary Lou Perry		0 hours		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
64
65		Address	Mary Lou Perry		Phone	(503) 229-5731
66			811 SW 6th Ave
67			Portland, OR 97204-1390
68
69		Text
70
71
72
73
74
75	Advisors
76
77	DOJ	VROOMAN Gary L		0 hours		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
78
79
80
81	ARC	Maggie Vandehey		0 hours		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89	Section process improvement
90
91
92
93	Interested staff
94
95	Analyst	Jordan Palmeri		0 hours		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
96
97		Staff analyst for fee models.
98
99	Enter custom name			0 hours		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
100


101
102
103	Enter custom name			0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
104
105
106
107	Section process improvement
108
109
110
111	Regions and other divisions		(See sections below for the lab and MSD)
112
113	Eastern	Enter email		0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
114
115	rulemaking
116	implementation
117
118	Northwest	Enter email		0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
119
120	rulemaking
121	implementation
122
123	Western	Enter email		0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
124
125	rulemaking
126	implementation
127
128	Land Quality	Enter email		0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
129
130	rulemaking
131	implementation
132
133	Air Quality	Enter email		0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
134
135	rulemaking
136	implementation
137
138	Water Quality	Enter email		0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
139
140	rulemaking
141	implementation
142
143	Section process improvement
144
145
146
147	Financial services			The proposed rules do not involve financial services resources.
148
149	Budget	Jim Harris		0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
150


151			Review and approve statement of need and fiscal impact statement
152
153	Accounting		Richard Lawrence	0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
154
155			Review for ability to collect fees, changes to invoicing
156
157
158	Contracts		Debra Owen	0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
159
160
161
162	Section process improvement
163
164
165
166	Communications and Outreach			The proposed rules do not involve OCO.
167
168	Edits		Joanie Stevens-Schwenger	0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
169
170			Edit Proposal tab: • Fee section before DAS release • Notice sections before SOS release • All other sections before EQC release
171
172	Messaging		Brian White	0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
173
174			Reviews messaging indicated on Considerations tab. Reviews Announcement tab and display ad section of MeetingMecanics tab.
175
176	Media		Brian White	0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
177
178	rulemaking
179	implementation
180
181	Web services		Stacey Atwell	0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
182
183		rulemaking
184	implementation
185
186	Organization services			The proposed rules do not involve organizational services.
187
188	Health and safety		Todd Brown	0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
189
190		rulemaking
191	implementation
192
193	Human resources			0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
194
195		rulemaking
196	implementation
197
198	Policies and procedures			0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
199
200		rulemaking


201	implementation
202
203	Training		Jill Corona	0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
204
205		rulemaking
206	implementation
207
208	Facilities			0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
209
210		rulemaking
211	implementation
212
213	Section process improvement
214
215
216
217	Technical services			The proposed rules do not involve technical services.
218
219	Divisional			0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
220
221		rulemaking
222	implementation
223
224	IT		Rebecca Kirk	0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
225
226		rulemaking	DBA work to put new fee model calcuation into production.
227	implementation
228
229
230
231	BSD		Sohng Shin	0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
232
233		rulemaking	Change existing fee calculation model in database for new fees.
234	implementation
235
236
237	Section process improvement
238
239
240
241
242	Compliance and Enforcement			The proposed rules do not involve OCE.
243
244	OCE		Leah Koss	0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
245
246		rulemaking
247	implementation
248
249	Section process improvement
250


251
252
253	Laboratory		The proposed rules do not involve the laboratory.
254
255	Monitoring		0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
256
257		rulemaking
258	implementation
259
260	Analytical testing		0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
261
262		rulemaking
263	implementation
264
265	Quality assurance		0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
266
267		rulemaking
268	implementation
269
270
271
272
273	Intergovernmental		The proposed rules do not involve intergovernmental entities.
274
275	Tribal nations		0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
276
277		rulemaking
278	implementation
279
280	EPA		0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
281
282		rulemaking
283	implementation
284
285	LRAPA		0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
286
287		rulemaking
288	implementation
289
290
291	Municipalities		0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
292
293		rulemaking
294	implementation
295
296	Counties		0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
297
298		rulemaking
299	implementation
300


301	Special districts		0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
302
303		rulemaking
304	implementation
305
306
307	Other state agencies		0 hours	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
308
309		rulemaking
310	implementation
311
312	Section process improvement

Resources

	A	B	C	O
1			This worksheet is in PERMANENT NOTICE view.
2
3				Table of Content
4			Oregon Department of Environmental Quality	Overview
5			Oregon Department of Environmental Quality	Views
6			Permanent rule proposal for:	NOTICE
7			Update Oregon rules to address federal air quality regulations	Message box
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17			Overview
18
19	i		Rule caption
20			Update Oregon rules to address federal air quality regulations
21			Regulated parties
22
23			Summary of proposed rules
24
25			Brief history
26
27
28			Statement of need
29			What problem is DEQ trying to solve?
30
31			How would the proposed rule solve the problem?
32
33			How will DEQ know the problem has been solved?
34
35			What alternatives did DEQ consider?
36
37		Request for other options
38	i		During the public comment period, DEQ requests public comment on whether to consider other options for achieving the rule's substantive goals while reducing negative economic impact of the rule on business.
39
40			Considerations
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48			Enter your freeform title here
49
50


51
52
53			Federal relationship
54			Ä
55									ORS 183.332
56									OAR 340-011-0029
57			"It is the policy of this state that agencies shall seek to retain and promote the unique identity of Oregon by considering local conditions when an agency adopts policies and rules. However, since there are many federal laws and regulations that apply to activities that are also regulated by the state, it is also the policy of this state that agencies attempt to adopt rules that correspond with equivalent federal laws and rules..."
58
59			The proposal adopts the federal requirement verbatim or by reference.					FALSE	ORS 468A.327	DDL
60
61			Describe federal requirement
62
63
64		This rule proposal is different from or in addition to federal requirements. The following exemption from adopting rules that correspond with equivalent federal laws and rules applies to this proposal.
65			There is no corresponding federal regulation. ORS 183.332 (6)							DDL
66			Discuss HOW the proposal is different from or in addition to federal requirements.
67
68			Discuss WHY the proposal is different from or in addition to federal requirements.
69
70
71			Rules affected, authorities, supporting documents
72
73		Lead division					Program or activity
74			Land Quality				Oregon's product stewardship program
75
76			Chapter 340 action	Div	Rule	Title			SIP/Land use*
77	i		adopt	090	9999	Applicability				DDL
78	i		amend	090	9999	Definitions
79			adopt	090	9999	Target revenue processes
80			adopt	090	9999	Fee structure
81			amend	000	0000
82			repeal	000	0000
83			amend	000	0000
84				000	0000
85				000	0000
86				000	0000
87				000	0000
88				000	0000
89				000	0000
90				000	0000
91				000	0000
92				000	0000
93				000	0000
94				000	0000
95				000	0000
96				000	0000
97				000	0000
98				000	0000
99				000	0000
100				000	0000


101			000	0000
102			000	0000
103			000	0000
104			000	0000
105			000	0000
106			000	0000
107
108		* SIP means State Implementation Plan.
109		* Land use means the DEQ State Agency Coordination Program considers this rule, program or activity is a land use program.
110		Statute implemented					Legislation		Year
111		ORS 459A.315					HB 2626		2007
112
113	Statutory or other legal authority
114		ORS 468.020, 468.065, 459A.345
115	Other Authority
116
117					Relied on for fiscal statement				ORS 183.335(2)(b)(C)
118		Supporting document title			Relied on for fiscal statement	To view document
119
120
121
122
123		Fiscal impact statement
124
125		Fiscal and economic impact
126		The fiscal impact on large businesses and tribal nations would be similar to the impact described under 2 below.
127	Statement of Cost of Compliance
128		1. Impact on state agencies, units of local government and the public.							ORS 183.335(2)(b)(E)
129		The proposed rules do not impact state agencies, units of local governments or the public unless they are manufacturers of electronic devices covered under the E-Cycles program. Any registration fees passed onto consumers as cost increases in covered electronic devices would be negligible.
130		2. Cost of compliance on small businesses with 50 or fewer employees.						ORS 183.336(10)
131
132		a) Estimated number of small businesses and types of businesses and industries with small businesses subject to proposed rule.
133
134		b) Projected reporting, recordkeeping and other administrative activities, including costs of professional services, required for small businesses to comply with the proposed rule.
135
136		c) Projected equipment, supplies, labor and increased administration required for small businesses to comply with the proposed rule.
137
138		d) Describe how DEQ involved small businesses in developing this proposed rule.
139		Housing Cost
140		DEQ determined the proposed rulemaking will have no effect on the development cost of a 6,000-square-foot parcel and construction of a 1,200-square-foot detached single family dwelling on that parcel. The proposed fee affects only manufacturers of electronic devices sold in or into Oregon.
141
142		Fees	The proposed rules do not affect fees
143
144
145		ORS 459A.315 (2)	is the Environmental Quality Commission authority to adopt the proposed fees.
146		1. Reason for proposing fee change
147		costs exceed estimate
148		Please explain.
149
150		2. Reason for proposing fee change


151	change in fee payer mix
152	Provide trend information.
153
154	3. Reason for proposing fee change
155
156
157	text
158	text
159	4. Reason for proposing fee change
160
161
162	text
163	text
164	Brief description of proposed fee
165
166	Fee proposal alternatives considered
167
168	Affected parties
169
170	Affected party involvement in fee setting process
171
172	(For more information, see http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/ecycle/rulemaking.htm, web page.)
173	All Oregon regulated electronics manufacturers, 157 registered for 2012, will be invited to comment during the public hearing process.
174	Summary of impacts
175	Even under the current fee structure, a manufacturer’s fee may change from year to year if its market share changes. In order to measure the impact of the proposed fee change on manufacturers, DEQ calculated each manufacturer’s fee under the proposed fee structure and target revenue using 2011 manufacturer and market share data and compared that fee to the 2011 fee under the current fee structure. The result is that fees are increased by $20,000 for nine Tier 1 manufacturers, reduced $2,500 for five Tier 2 manufacturers, reduced $3,000 for fifteen Tier 3 manufacturers, and increased $64 for nine Tier 4 manufacturers. Thirteen manufacturers in Tier 5 keep the same fee of $200. About 120 manufacturers in Tier 6 would see an increase of $160.
176	Fee payer agreement with fee change			Link to documents supporting the proposed fee
177	expect support
178	Current fee structure
179	How long will current fee sustain program?
180	Current fee is not sustaining the program. Based on the first two years of revenue, the Legislative Adopted Budget assumed annual revenue of $360,000, but receipts have declined each year and 2011 revenue was only $287,000. The 2011-2013 LAB expenditure budget, including agency indirect, was $687,000, but wage increases have increased costs to $720,000, or $360,000 a year. In addition, the solid waste disposal fee must be reimbursed to the extent possible for funds borrowed to support E-Cycles program operations and database development. It is not certain what future market share distributions will be; it is possible revenue could go back up or continue to decline under the existing schedule. The uncertainty is a major issue for the program.
181
182	Program costs covered by fees			$360,000		100%	*
183	Program costs covered by General Fund			$0		0%
184	Fee last changed			October 1, 2007
185			* Plus additional $193,000 from database development in 2011-2013.
186	Proposed fee structure
187	How long will proposed fee sustain program?
188
189	Expected change in revenue (+/-)			$75,000		21%	*
190	Min GF required by statue/rule to fund program			$0		100%
191	Proposed fee allows General Fund replacement			$0		100%
192	Expected effective date			June 26, 2012
193			* Stated as a percentage of Legislatively Adopted Budget estimated revenue. It is a 29% increase over the four year average (of $338,337) and a 52% increase over the reduced amount generated in 2011 ($287,000).
194				Number of	Impact on revenue		Total revenue
195				transactions	(+/-)		(+/-)
196		Current biennium		170	$75,000		$722,000
197		Next biennium		340	$150,000		$870,000
198	Fee Schedule
199	In both the current and proposed fee structures, DEQ determines the market share for each registered manufacturer and assigns each to the appropriate tier schedule based on that market share. The proposed fee structure changes the existing market share tiers by adding two tiers and revising the market share percentages in all but the lowest tier. In addition, instead of establishing a set fee/tier, under the proposed model, DEQ will determine the fee for each tier listed below as follows:
200


201			Market Share Tiers		Manufacture's Market Shares
202			Tier 1		5% or greater
203			Tier 2		1% to < 5%
204			Tier 3		0.1% to < 1%
205			Tier 4		0.03% to < 0.1%
206			Tier 5		0.01% to < 0.03%
207			Tier 6		< 0.01%
208
209		To determine the fees for each tier, the individual market shares for the manufacturers in each tier are totaled. This total market share of each tier is multiplied by the total target revenue, which is $435,000 for 2012-2013, as described in the "Proposed Fee Structure, How long will proposed fee sustain program?" section above. Then, each tier's total revenue amount is divided by the number of manufacturers in that tier to obtain the fee for each manufacturer in that tier. After this first calculation, any Tier for which the calculated fee is less than the $200 minimum, the fee is set to $200. The total target revenue is reduced by the total amount paid by the minimum fee payers each year. This is $26,000 paid by Tier 5 & 6 using the 2011 market share sample fee model calculations.
210		Once the Tier fees are determined, any amount of the individual manufacturers fees over the $40,000 cap are added to the lower tier’s fees. If this addition raises any fees in the next tier over the cap, this new overage is again added to the fees of the manufacturers in the lower tiers. This process continues until all fees are at the cap or below.
211
212		Land use evaluation
213
214		“It is the Commission's policy to coordinate the Department's programs, rules and actions that affect land use with local acknowledged plans to the fullest degree possible.”					ORS 197.180
215							OAR 340-018
216							OAR 660-030-0005
217		The proposed rules identified under the 'Chapter 340 Action' section above do not affect existing rules, programs or activities that are considered land use programs in the DEQ State Agency Coordination (SAC) Program.						SAC
218		OAR 340-018-0030 does not include programs or actions that relate to the proposed rules.
219								DDL
220								DDL
221		Existing statewide goal compliance and local plan compatibility procedures adequately cover the proposed rules.						DDL
222		Please explain						Input
223		To determine whether the rules involve programs or actions that are considered a land-use program, DEQ reviewed the statewide planning goals for specific references. Though not considered a land-use program, section III, subsection 2 of the SAC document identifies the following statewide goal that relates to DEQ's authority:
224		Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality						DDL
225
226		DEQ reasonably expects the program, rules or actions to have:
227						FALSE
228
229						FALSE
230
231		If the proposed rules have been determined a land use program above, but are not subject to existing land use compliance and compatibility procedures, explain the new procedures the Department will use to ensure compliance and compatibility.
232
233		Implementation
234
235
236		Public involvement
237
238		Workgroups and advisory committees
239		Committee charter
240		include section here that describes key public involvement dates.
241
242		Committee members		Affiliation
243
244
245
246
247
248
249	>
250


251
252		Committee recommendation
253
254
255		The EQC requested the following involvement with this rulemaking.
256		Facilitated hearing		Information item on agenda	In the Director's Dialog
257		December 12, 2012
258
259		Public Notice
260
261		Notice posted on DEQ webpage
262
263				http://www.deq.state.or.us/regulations/proposedrules.htm
264		Emailed notice to:
265		GovDelivery list of interested parties
266		Stakeholders
267		Email notice to key legislators				ORS 183.335
268		Jackie Dingfelder, Chair, Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee
269	>
270
271
272		Mailed notice by U.S. Postal Service
273
274		Sent notice to EPA
275
276		Notice published in SOS Bulletin		April 1, 2012
277
278		Public comment period closed		June 26, 2012
279
280		Summary of comments and DEQ responses
281
282
283		Comment summary	1
284		Response
285
286		Comment summary	2
287		Response
288
289		Comment summary	3
290		Response
291
292		Comment summary	4
293		Response
294
295		Comment summary	5
296		Response
297
298		Comment summary	6
299		Response
300


301	Comment summary	7
302	Response
303
304	Comment summary	8
305	Response
306
307	Comment summary	9
308	Response
309
310	Comment summary	10
311	Response
312
313	Comment summary	11
314	Response
315
316	Comment summary	12
317	Response
318
319	Comment summary	13
320	Response
321
322	Comment summary	14
323	Response
324
325	Comment summary	15
326	Response
327
328	Comment summary	16
329	Response
330
331	Comment summary	17
332	Response
333
334	Comment summary	18
335	Response
336
337	Comment summary	19
338	Response
339
340	Comment summary	20
341	Response
342
343	Comment summary	21
344	Response
345
346	Comment summary	22
347	Response
348
349	Comment summary	23
350	Response


351
352	Comment summary	24
353	Response
354
355	Comment summary	25
356	Response
357
358	Comment summary	26
359	Response
360
361	Comment summary	27
362	Response
363
364	Comment summary	28
365	Response
366
367	Comment summary	29
368	Response
369
370	Comment summary	30
371	Response
372
373	Comment summary	31
374	Response
375
376	Comment summary	32
377	Response
378
379	Commenters
380
381	Commenter ID	1
382	=IF(L369>KDClosePubComment, "DEQ received comment after the public record closed and regulations prohibit considering it in the final recommendation.","")
383
384
385
386	Commenter ID	2
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397	UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Proposal

	B	C	D	I	J	K
1					GoToAHG
2	Schedule tasks		To restore cells in columns I and J to default, enter =AH followed by the current cell column and row.
3	Paced		Task complete	locked	~~DEQ closed~~
4
5
6	Task		Owner	Start	End
7	Overview of key dates			11/17/11	8/10/12	T
8						Y
9	Select target EQC date		RDT	6/21/12	6/21/12
10	State Implementation Plan not involved		PE	3/15/12	3/15/12	S
11	Fees not involved	>	RDT,RG	2/13/12	8/10/12	F
12	Submit/publish notice in SOS Bulletin	>	RG	3/15/12	4/1/12	N
13	Hold first public hearing		RDT	4/16/12	4/16/12	H
14	Hold last public hearing		RDT	4/16/12	4/16/12	H
15	Close public comment		RG	4/19/12	4/19/12	N
16	Submit/attend EQC action meeting	>	PE,LM	5/11/12	6/21/12	E
17	Effective			6/26/12	6/26/12
18
19	Concept			6/21/11	11/17/11	T
20						Y
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46	Start rulemaking			11/18/11	3/15/12	T
47						Y
48
49
50


51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66	No advisory committee convened	11/18/11	8/10/12	T
67				Y
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100


101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150


151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163	State Implementation Plan	1/13/12	8/10/12	T
164				Y
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174	Fees not involved	1/13/12	8/10/12	T
175				Y
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200


201
202
203	Public notice	11/17/11	4/19/12	T
204				Y
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250


251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292	Public hearings, comment, response	T
293		Y
294
295
296
297
298
299
300


301
302
303	EQC preparation	T
304		Y
305
306
307
308	Post EQC	T
309		Y


101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150


101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150