Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

September 15, 2013

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

 Incorporate Lane Regional Air Protection Agency Rules

For Permit Streamlining Into

Oregon’s State Implementation Plan

Short summary 

DEQ proposes amendments to Oregon Administrative Rule 340-200-0040 and Oregon’s State Implementation Plan to incorporate Lane Regional Air Protection Agency regulations for permit streamlining. The rule changes have been adopted by the LRAPA Board of Directors. LRAPA’s board amended LRAPA regulations to bring them in line with state rules and to better coordinate with state and federal requirements. The changes to LRAPA’s regulations:

•  Are identical to the changes in Chapter 340 Oregon Administrative Rules that EQC adopted in 2001, 2007 and 2008. In 2001 and 2007, EQC adopted DEQ rulemakings titled SPPIT 1 and SPPIT 2, respectively. These rulemakings streamlined and improved permitting processes. In 2008, EQC adopted DEQ rules to clarify an agriculture exemption from the rules.

•  Are identical to state and federal National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).

•  Include minor corrections and adjustments adopted by LRAPA’s Board in January 2010 to the regulations previously adopted by LRAPA in October 2008.

Brief history

LRAPA, in consultation with DEQ and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for ensuring that Lane County communities comply with federal air quality health standards, including enacting plans to restore healthy air quality in any area violating standards. LRAPA conducts air monitoring, permitting and compliance, inspection and enforcement, and regulates open burning and asbestos abatement throughout Lane County. It also has a woodstove advisory program, an open burning advisory and conducts special projects focused on air quality. The agency is funded from local dues from Lane County and the cities of Lane County, industrial and other permitting fees, and LRAPA coordinates with DEQ to obtain EPA funding and state general funds.

The permit streamlining rules explained in this document were adopted by the LRAPA Board on October 14, 2008 and January 12, 2010. The Environmental Quality Commission and DEQ have oversight authority to ensure LRAPA meets Clean Air Act requirements. The State Implementation Plan is the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan as adopted by EQC under OAR 340-200-0040 and approved by EPA. EQC approves and directs DEQ to submit all LRAPA rules to EPA as SIP Amendments. Though this is not the case here, an exception to this requirement allows the DEQ to approve any LRAPA rules that are verbatim restatements of rules that the EQC has already approved.

Regulated parties

The regulated parties are permitted sources identified in LRAPA’s Title 37 – Air Contaminant Discharge Permits as well as sources subject to Title V Operating Permit requirements.

DEQ is proposing significant changes to its permitting rules in an effort to maximize efficiencies in the program, while maintaining the existing level of environmental protection.

Request for other options

During the public comment period, DEQ requested 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.

Lead division            Program or activity

Air Quality  Program Operations section

Chapter 340 action

Statutory authority

ORS 468.020, 468A.020, 468.065, 468A.135

Other authority

 LRAPA Title 13, 14

Statute implemented  Legislation  

ORS 468A.020, 468A.025   SB235, 2007

Documents relied on for rulemaking  ORS 183.335(2)(b)(C)

In proposing changes to align its rules with state and federal requirements, LRAPA relied primarily upon the rules implemented by ODEQ as part of the two phases of streamlining (SPPIT I and II), and changes to allow DEQ to implement CAA requirements for agriculture.

Summary: Since the expected fee reductions are nearly equivalent to (or greater than) the FTE (full time equivalent) reductions, the proposed rule changes can be implemented with reasonable comfort that there will not be significant changes in revenue as related to workload.

Analysis:

1.  Actual historical long-term average ACDP fees: For the past 6 years the annual average actual ACDP fees collected by the Agency are $402,191 per year.

2.  Title V fees collected for emissions generated during the 2007 calendar year are assumed to be the same as the 2006 calendar year and increased by 8% to account for the second year of the 3-year phase-in of the 24% increase approved by rule. 2007 Title V fees collected are therefore estimated to be approximately $480,833. Nearly all Title V facilities pay on permitted emissions rather than actual emissions emitted during the calendar year and therefore can be assumed to be relatively constant.

3.  The projected fees, post-rule streamlining, are estimated to be approximately $370,320 per year (excluding CPI increases).

4.  FTE savings expected under the streamlining are 8% based upon ODEQ’s analysis.

5.  LRAPA budget assigns 10.42 FTE to the ACDP and Title V program.

6.  FTE savings are therefore estimated to be 10.42 FTE x 8% = 0.83 (or 0.5 to 1.0 FTE).

7.  The average cost associated with the ACDP and Title V programs is budgeted to be $87,220 per FTE with an additional 12% overhead cost to bring the total cost to $97,690 per FTE. Therefore the 0.5 FTE savings would be approximately $49,000.

8.  The pre and post –streamlining can then be compared as follows:

ACDP and Title V Fees Pre-Streamlining = $402,191 + $480,833 = $883,024 per year

ACDP and Title V Fees Post-Streamlining = $370,320 + $480,833 = $851,153 per year

Pre-Streamlining minus Post-Streamlining = $883,024 – 851,153 = $31,871 per year

9.  Since the FTE savings expected under the streamlining rules ($49,000 per year) is greater than the fee reductions expected under the streamlining rules ($31,871 per year or greater), the fee changes and workload changes can be classified as “neutral” or “beneficial”.

Additional Fee Analysis

The following fee examples were used in developing the fee structure as it is proposed in this rule package. They illustrate the potential economic impact for two source categories. More analysis on the overall permit fee and workload expected under the proposed rule changes can be found in Attachment B – Fee and Workload Analysis

Example 1: Stationary Asphaltic Concrete Paving Plant:

This type of facility would be Category 34a under the existing fee table. In a ten-year period a typical facility would pay:

10- annual compliance determination fees @ $2,870 each

2 - renewal fees @ $1,318 each

1 - modification fee @ $1,318 each

Total: $32,654

This type of facility would be assigned to a General ACDP-High Cost (Fee Class Three) under the New Table One and would pay:

1-Assignment to General ACDP @ $1,200

10- annual fees @$1,872

Total: $19,920

Example 2: Portable Rock Crusher:

This type of facility would be Category 42b under the existing fee table. In a ten-year period a typical facility would pay:

10- annual compliance determination fees @ $1,525 each

2 - renewal fees @ $1,803 each

1 - modification fee @ $1,803 each

Total: $20,659

This type of facility would be assigned to a General ACDP-Medium Cost (Fee Class Two) under the New Table One and would pay:

1-assignement to General ACDP fee @ $1,200

10- annual fees @$1,296

Total: $14,160

Fiscal and Economic Impact

The proposed changes will result in simplification and streamlining, updating and alignment with state and federal requirements, while maintaining equivalent environmental protection and stringency. Rule simplification and streamlining will likely result in efficiencies and avoidance of additional permitting costs for small sources.

EPA determined that there would be no significant impact on small businesses when it exempted HFE-7300 from the definition of Volatile Organic Compounds. LRAPA’s adoption of this exemption would likely benefit businesses by reducing regulatory burden and allowing expanded use of a commercially valuable compound.

Statement of Cost of Compliance  

   Impacts on general public

LRAPA’s public notice procedures are being changed by these proposed rule revisions so major new sources and major modifications to existing sources may require a preliminary informational meeting before the permit is drafted. This will increase the up-front time required for the public, to prepare for and participate in a public meeting. An expected benefit from this procedure is better permits that require less time for review and comment since issues were raised and addressed before permit drafting. However, since the proposed public notice procedures increase public involvement for sources that are potentially environmentally significant, public involvement for permitting smaller facilities and changes to existing facilities that are not environmentally significant will be reduced.

An example of decreased workload is the proposal to increase General Permits, which require one public notice for a General Permit source category of approximately ten or more sources. Comments from the public on one General Permit would then have the affect of commenting on all of the individual permits that would be issued if a General Permit was not issued to sources in that category. Overall, this tiered public involvement process should result in time savings for the public, as well as, business and LRAPA.

Impact on other government entities other than DEQ

a.  Local governments: Local governments that hold air quality permits may be affected by the rule revisions in the same manner as small or large businesses. Under the proposed public participation procedures, proposed major source permits will be subject to a public involvement period before LRAPA begins processing the permit. LRAPA expects the public may raise land use issues at this point. Such issues will be referred to the local planning jurisdiction for resolution, which may increase the burden on the local government entity.

Another fiscal impact this proposed rulemaking may have on local government is requiring submittal of excess emission reports within fifteen days of their occurrence rather than semi-annually. This requirement could impose a slight additional cost to county or local government facilities with air permits if they experience excess emissions. However, LRAPA expects this impact to be negligible because excess emissions reported within the required 15 days would no longer need to be included on semi-annual reports. Potentially affected facilities could include county –owned cogeneration facilities and school boilers.

b.  State agencies: A fiscal impact this proposed rulemaking may have on state agencies is requiring submittal of excess emission reports within fifteen days of their occurrence rather than semi-annually. This requirement could impose a slight additional cost to state-owned facilities with air permits if they experience excess emissions. However, LRAPA expects this impact to be negligible because excess emissions reported within the required 15 days would no longer need to be included on semi-annual reports. Potentially affected facilities could include university power generators.

Part of the rule changes allow for portable sources to obtain one permit to operate in all areas of the state including Lane County. The agency (LRAPA or the Department) responsible for writing the permit and collecting the fees for these sources will be the agency where the portable source’s headquarters are located. This will likely reduce the fees collected by both LRAPA and the Department

Impact on DEQ ORS 183.335

See “Impacts on general public” above.

Impact on large businesses (all businesses that are not small businesses below)

LRAPA anticipates that elimination of redundant requirements and clarification of rule language may have beneficial fiscal effects on large businesses. The proposed revisions would result in fewer permit conditions for kraft pulp mills in cases where multiple permit conditions set similar limits for the same emission sources and pollutants.

A fiscal impact this proposed rulemaking may have on large businesses is requiring submittal of excess emission reports within fifteen days of their occurrence rather than semi-annually. This requirement could impose a slight additional cost to large facilities with air permits if they experience excess emissions. However, LRAPA expects the fiscal impact to be negligible because excess emissions reported within the required 15 days would no longer need to be included on semi-annual reports.

Many large businesses will require Standard ACDPs. However, since the type of permit required is based on the amount of emissions and not the number of employees, some large businesses may be subject to General and Simple ACDPs as outlined for small business.

Fees: Most large businesses will continue to be subject to either the Title V permit program (Title V fees are not affected by the proposed changes) or Standard ACDPs. Standard ACDP holders will be charged $7,680/year instead of the range of fees in the existing rules (approximately $1000 to $21,000/year). Other ACDP fees include Initial Permitting and Special Activity fees. Special Activity fees are currently charged for such things as permit modification and review of modeling analysis. These proposed Special Activity fees are similar in magnitude and nature as the existing rules. Overall LRAPA anticipates these proposed fee changes will be revenue neutral, although individual businesses may pay more or less then current fees.

Reduced Time: The proposed changes will reduce the amount of time required and the cost to maintain a permit by reducing the time it takes to issue and renew permits and the need for permit modifications. This is primarily due to the use of generic Plant Site Emission Limits (PSELs) in place of source-specific ones, and the use of general permits for many source categories. Changing the trigger level for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) from the Significant Emission Rate (SER) to 100 or 250 tons per year will reduce the time consumed by triggering PSD when modeling indicates that no standards will be violated. An air quality analysis for increases in the PSEL above the SER will still require an air quality analysis even if PSD is not triggered. Reduced permit processing time will enable businesses to better meet market-timing needs.

Triggering Applicable Requirements: The proposed changes could cause some sources to trigger or avoid triggering various applicable requirements. For example changes to unassigned emissions could cause a few sources to trigger New Source Review sooner, as compared to the current rules. Also, the proposed process to assess impacts due to ozone precursors potentially could require sources between 30 and 100 kilometers from a nonattainment or maintenance area to evaluate their impact on the area and mitigate the impact if it is significant (there are currently no ozone nonattainment or maintenance areas in Lane County). Procedures for combining and splitting sources could cause some sources to trigger or avoid triggering Title V or New Source Review rules.

Monitoring and Reporting Costs: The proposed changes could increase or decrease monitoring and reporting costs. For example the rolling 12 month PSEL limit in the permits will make it necessary to report compliance for 12 numbers in annual reports in place of one number for the calendar year. However, elimination of the short term PSEL (hourly or daily) will reduce the burden of monitoring and reporting compliance with these short term limits.

Emission Reduction Credits: The proposed changes could increase the value of certain emission reduction credits. For example emission reductions from shutdowns are proposed to be used just like over control reductions to offset emission increases for sources going through New Source Review. Banking can be used to extend the life of a shutdown credit just the same as other actual emission reductions. Under the current rules, emission reductions due to shutdowns may only be used as offsets during the two years following the reduction and may not be banked.

Impact on small businesses (those with 50 or fewer employees) ORS 183.336

Documents relied on for fiscal and economic impact

In proposing changes to align its rules with state and federal requirements, LRAPA relied primarily upon the rules implemented by ODEQ as part of the two phases of streamlining (SPPIT I and II) and EPA comments.

Advisory committee

[LRAPA-CREATED OPTION 3]

The LRAPA Advisory Committee was used for this rulemaking because of the extensive revisions and updates. Since approximately 1994, there have been only minor updates to the LRAPA ACDP rules. The recommendations from the LRAPA Advisory Committee – Industrial Rules Subcommittee (Industrial Rules Subcommittee) to the LRAPA Board of Directors (Board) that the industrial permitting rules proposed by LRAPA staff be adopted with some minor changes (see fourth bullet below). The evaluation of the proposed rules by the Industrial Rules Subcommittee was requested by the Board of Directors at their October 2007 meeting.

The Industrial Rules Subcommittee would like to thank George Davis from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the LRAPA staff for helping the Subcommittee with information and materials.

The committee reviewed several aspects of the proposed rule changes and documented its recommendation in the following documents approved minutes dated Feb. 20, 2008.

1.  Rules Stringency Analysis –Evaluates the 24 different proposed rule sections against five separate criteria. [See ‘Attachment A- Rule Summary and Stringency Analysis’ in the LRAPA Board October 14, 2008 Agenda Item 6 - Adoption of Proposed Industrial Permitting Rules (Including Attachments ‘A’ – ‘J’) in the ‘Documents relied on for fiscal and economic impact’ above]

2.  New Source Review Stringency Analysis –Supports and expands on Item 9 of the Rule Stringency Analysis. [ See ‘Attachment C- New Source Review Analysis’ in the LRAPA Board October 14, 2008 Agenda Item 6 - Adoption of Proposed Industrial Permitting Rules (Including Attachments ‘A’ – ‘J’) in the ‘Documents relied on for fiscal and economic impact’ above ]

3.  Fee and Workload Analysis –Supports and provides further detail on the expected fee and workload changes expected under the proposed rule changes. [See ‘Attachment B- Fee and Workload Analysis’ in the LRAPA Board October 14, 2008 Agenda Item 6 - Adoption of Proposed Industrial Permitting Rules (Including Attachments ‘A’ – ‘J’) in the ‘Documents relied on for fiscal and economic impact’ above]

Housing cost

To comply with ORS 183.534, DEQ determined the proposed rules would 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 overall fee changes are neutral for all permittees including those that manufacture construction materials for such parcels.

"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..."

Relationship to federal requirements

[OPTION 3– LRAPA-created option]

DEQ determined this rule proposal is “in addition to federal requirements” as required under ORS 468A.327(1)(a) and OAR 340-011-0029(1)(a).

Industrial Streamlining Rules’ adopted by LRAPA October 2008:

The proposed rules incorporate science applicable to Oregon, incorporate technological advances, protect public health, protect environment, address administrative issues, and economic concerns. These proposed changes will bring LRAPA’s rules in line with state rules. This rulemaking also proposes to adopt changes LRAPA air quality regulations to better coordinate with and meet state and federal requirements. These changes we are now proposing are the same changes the DEQ made in 2001 for SPPIT 1 and in 2007 for SPPIT 2. These state and federal requirements include the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). LRAPA initiated many of the proposed rule changes to streamline the permitting program and simplify compliance requirements.

The proposed rule changes incorporate no new federal requirements. The majority of the proposed rules would streamline and update rules by better coordinating with state rules and procedures with long-standing federal requirements that have been successfully adopted and implemented in Oregon’s air quality permitting programs. These federal requirements are not specific to issues of concern in Oregon.

In adopting the VOC exemption for HFE 7300, there is no indication that EPA or DEQ specifically considered data or information unique to Oregon or Lane County.

The primary goal of the proposed rulemaking is to streamline permitting and compliance by clarifying, simplifying and updating regulatory requirements. Clarifications will occur through consolidating and standardizing definitions, adopting general permits, adopting generic PSELs, improving the Major New Source Review requirements, aligning sulfur dioxide standards with federal requirements, updating the incinerator rules, simplifying emission standards for board product manufacturing, simplifying the Kraft Pulp Mill rules and consolidating the excess emissions requirements for notification, reporting and the emergency defense.

The proposed rulemaking could benefit facilities located in Lane County as a result of the removal of redundant permit conditions. The proposal to exempt HFE-7300 from the definition of Volatile Organic Compounds may also reduce regulatory burden by lifting the requirement to track and limit use of this chemical. Businesses could benefit from the opportunity to substitute HFE-7300 for substances that deplete the earth’s protective ozone layer and substances with high global warming potentials.

Revisions to make Excess Emissions rules consistent with state and federal requirements can bring greater certainty to facilities and LRAPA by eliminating discrepancies between the LRAPA, state and federal program. Better alignment will result in fewer compliance issues during federal oversight of LRAPA’s permitting and inspection program.

Industrial Streamlining Corrections Adopted January 2010 by LRAPA:

The proposed rulemaking is not different or in addition to applicable federal requirements. These are corrections to the Industrial Streamlining Rule Changes that the LRAPA Board of Directors voted to adopt at their October 14, 2008 meeting. 11 of the 18 changes are to make typographical corrections in rule citations and references to other rules citations. Two (2) changes involve adding the definitions of “Unassigned Emissions” and “Title I modification” to Title 12 that were intended to be included in the original streamlining. One (1) correction aligns the opacity limitation language for crematory units in the general permit with the rules. The rest of the changes allow LRAPA to keep small sources on the lowest cost permits by removing de minimis production/throughput thresholds for several source categories and allowing more expanded criteria for sources to obtain a Simple permit under the low fee category.

What alternatives did DEQ consider if any?

DEQ did not consider any alternatives to the propose rules. In order to be efficient and take advantage of the tremendous work done at the state level to create sensible rules for the unique and well-established stationary source permitting program in Oregon, DEQ and LRAPA chose to be consistent with the revisions specified by DEQ for their ‘SPPIT I’ and ‘SPPIT II’.

Land use

“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, OAR 660-030

Land-use considerations

To determine whether the proposed rules involve programs or actions that are considered a land-use action, DEQ considered:

▪  Statewide planning goals for specific references. Section III, subsection 2 of the DEQ State Agency Coordination Program} document identifies the following statewide goal relating to DEQ's authority:

 Goal  Title

 5    Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources

 6    Air, Water and Land Resources Quality

 11    Public Facilities and Services

 16    Estuarial resources

 19    Ocean Resources

▪  OAR 340-018-0030 for EQC rules on land-use coordination. Division 18 requires DEQ to determine whether proposed rules will significantly affect land use. If yes, how will DEQ:

◦  Comply with statewide land-use goals, and

◦  Ensure compatibility with acknowledged comprehensive plans, which DEQ most commonly achieves by requiring a Land Use Compatibility Statement.

▪  DEQ’s mandate to protect public health and safety and the environment.

▪  Whether DEQ is the primary authority that is responsible for land-use programs or actions in the proposed rules.

▪  Present or future land uses identified in acknowledged comprehensive plans.

Determination

DEQ determined that the following proposed rules listed under the Chapter 340 Action section above are existing rules that affect programs or activities that the DEQ State Agency Coordination Program considers a land-use program.

OAR 340-200-0400  State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan

OAR 340-018-0030 State Agency Coordination Program

DEQ’s statewide goal compliance and local plan compatibility procedures adequately cover the proposed rules. 1: 340-018-0040(1) - compliance with statewide planning goals achieved by ensuring compatibility with acknowledged comprehensive plans. 2: 340-018-0050(2)(a) - ensuring compatibility with acknowledged comprehensive plans may be accomplished through a Land Use Compatibility Statement.

Stakeholder and public involvement

 Advisory committee

DEQ did not convene an advisory committee. This is an LRAPA rulemaking.

LRAPA convened the LRAPA Advisory Committee – Industrial Rules Subcommittee (Industrial Rules Subcommittee) on Dec. 17, 2007. The LRAPA Advisory Committee is a 12-member committee and was used for this rulemaking because of the extensive revisions and updates. Since approximately 1994, there have been very few changes to the LRAPA ACDP rules. The recommendations from the LRAPA Advisory Committee – Industrial Rules Subcommittee (Industrial Rules Subcommittee) to the LRAPA Board of Directors (Board) that the industrial permitting rules proposed by LRAPA staff be adopted with some minor changes. The evaluation of the proposed rules by the Industrial Rules Subcommittee was requested by the LRAPA Board of Directors at their October 2007 meeting.

The 5-member subcommittee included representatives from large industry and the general public. The committee met 6 times over 5 months. In additional to the recommendations described under the Statement of Fiscal and Economic Impact section above, the committee also evaluated the overall rule stringency and the New Source Review (NSR) stringency.

Roster

The Industrial Rules Subcommittee would like to thank George Davis from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the LRAPA staff for helping the Subcommittee with information and materials.

The committee reviewed several aspects of the proposed rule changes and documented its recommendation in the following documents approved minutes dated Feb. 20, 2008.

1.  Rules Stringency Analysis –Evaluates the 24 different proposed rule sections against five separate criteria. [See ‘Attachment A- Rule Summary and Stringency Analysis’ in the LRAPA Board October 14, 2008 Agenda Item 6 - Adoption of Proposed Industrial Permitting Rules (Including Attachments ‘A’ – ‘J’) in the ‘Documents relied on for fiscal and economic impact’ above]

2.  New Source Review Stringency Analysis –Supports and expands on Item 9 of the Rule Stringency Analysis. [ See ‘Attachment C- New Source Review Analysis’ in the LRAPA Board October 14, 2008 Agenda Item 6 - Adoption of Proposed Industrial Permitting Rules (Including Attachments ‘A’ – ‘J’) in the ‘Documents relied on for fiscal and economic impact’ above ]

3.  Fee and Workload Analysis –Supports and provides further detail on the expected fee and workload changes expected under the proposed rule changes. [See ‘Attachment B- Fee and Workload Analysis’ in the LRAPA Board October 14, 2008 Agenda Item 6 - Adoption of Proposed Industrial Permitting Rules (Including Attachments ‘A’ – ‘J’) in the ‘Documents relied on for fiscal and economic impact’ above]

 EQC prior involvement

DEQ shares general rulemaking information with EQC through the annual DEQ Rulemaking Plan review and monthly status report. [OPTION 1] DEQ did not present additional information specific to this proposed rule revision beyond the annual rulemaking plan and the monthly rulemaking report. [OPTION 2] DEQ shared information about this rulemaking with the EQC [2a] at a facilitated hearing on Enter date using style guide format – mmm dd, yyyy, EXAMPLE: Jan. 14, 2013, [2b] through an information item on the mmm dd, yyyy EQC agenda, [2c] and in the Director's Dialogue mmm dd, yyyy.

Public notice

The October 2013 Oregon Bulletin will publish the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with Hearing for this rulemaking. DEQ also:

•  Posted notice on DEQ’s webpage http://www.deq.state.or.us/regulations/proposedrules.htm on mmm dd, yyyy.

•  E-mailed notice on mmm dd, yyyy to:

•  Approximately #### interested parties through GovDelivery on mmm dd, yyyy.

•  #### stakeholders on the Enter other mailing lists here.

•  The following key legislators required under ORS 183.335:

◦  Enter name, title, committee here.

◦  Enter name, title, committee here.

◦  Enter name, title, committee here.

•  Members of the advisory committee.

•  Mailed the notice by U.S. Postal Service to ## interested parties on mmm dd, yyyy.

•  Sent notice to EPA on mmm dd, yyyy. 

•  Enter other notices here on mmm dd, yyyy.

Public hearings

LRAPA acted as DEQ’s hearings officer on behalf of the Environmental Quality Commission for public comment on the rule amendments. DEQ’s authorization is included in the letter to LRAPA in the Stringency Review and Authorization section of this document.

The table(s) below includes information about how to participate in the public hearings.

Before taking public comment and according to Oregon Administrative Rule 137-001-0030, the presiding officer will provide a brief summary of the content of the notice given under Oregon Revised Statute 183.335 and respond to any questions about the rulemaking.

DEQ will add the names, addresses and affiliations of all hearing attendees to the interested parties list for this rule if provided on a registration form or the attendee list. DEQ will consider all oral and written comments received at the hearings listed below before finalizing the proposed rules. All comments will be summarized and DEQ will respond to comments on the Environmental Quality Commission staff report.

Close of public comment period

The comment period will close on October 18, 2013 at 5:00 p.m.

JROYS, 2013-08-13T12:19:00Z
Is this a standard comment? This seems more like updating permitting rules to reflect actions already taken by LRAPA in the past. At the very least, the significant changes are limited to LRAPA, not DEQ rules as a whole, and the LRAPA rules are effectively adopting previously adopted DEQ rules?

JROYS, 2013-08-13T12:20:00Z
Is this a term of art?

JROYS, 2013-08-13T12:28:00Z
Is this spelled out anywhere?