Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

December 13, 2013

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Incorporate Lane Regional Air Protection Agency Rules for

PM2.5 and Greenhouse Gases

into State Implementation Plan

Short summary 

DEQ proposes to incorporate Lane Regional Air Protection Agency regulations for air quality permits into Oregon’s State Implementation Plan in Oregon Administrative Rule 340-200-0040. The rules were adopted by the LRAPA Board of Directors in an effort to bring LRAPA in line with state rules and better coordinate with state and federal requirements.

The LRAPA rules contain:  

•  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s thresholds for New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and greenhouse gases

•  New and amended federal New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, such as standards for auto body surface coating and paint stripping, and 1.  permitting requirements necessary to implement those standards.

2.  Registration as an alternative to permitting for certain auto body shops and dry cleaners

3.  Exemptions to permitting for emergency-use and small electrical power generating units

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.

LRAPA’s permitting rules provided at the end of this document were adopted by the LRAPA Board of Directors on April 24, 2011 and have been in effect in Lane County since their adoption. 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. The EQC’s role is to review LRAPA rules to determine if they are in compliance with state law and the Clean Air Act, approve those rules if they comply, and submit approved rules to EPA for federal approval as State Implementation Plan 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.

Typically, DEQ submits LRAPA rules to the EQC for incorporation into the State Implementation Plan upon adoption by the LRAPA Board. However, in this case, DEQ determined that the public notice process held jointly by DEQ and LRAPA several years ago did not meet requirements for State Implementation Plan rules, which are above and beyond requirements for normal rulemaking. Performing rulemaking is resource intensive and DEQ was unable to perform the additional public notice requirements until now.

Regulated parties

This rulemaking regulates emissions of PM2.5 and greenhouse gases at all stationary sources emitting more than the ‘de minimis’ level of these pollutants. This rulemaking also regulates motor vehicle and mobile equipment surface coating and metal fabrication facilities subject to new and modified National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. The regulated parties include businesses in LRAPA’s jurisdiction that are subject to the Air Contaminant Discharge Permit requirements and Title V Operating Permit requirements

Insert PDF of signed letter

What problem is DEQ trying to solve?

LRAPA’s permitting rules are already in effect in Lane County, but the rules have not been incorporated into the State Implementation Plan. In order for LRAPA and the state to maintain compliance with the Clean Air Act, the EQC must review LRAPA’s rules and, if the EQC concludes that the rules comply with state law and the Clean Air Act, approve the rules and submit them to the EPA for approval and incorporation, as appropriate, into the federally-approved State Implementation Plan.

LRAPA’s rules help ensure that sources comply with federal greenhouse permitting requirements and help LRAPA retain approval to implement the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V operating permit programs. LRAPA’s rules adopted by reference new NESHAPs applicable to non-major or area sources including: aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous foundries; chemical manufacturing; ferroalloy production; metal fabrication and finishing; paint stripping and miscellaneous surface coating operations; and plating and polishing operations. If LRAPA had not adopted the rules, it could lose federal approval to implement these programs and face sanctions.

How would the proposed rule solve the problem?

The LRAPA rules are effectively equivalent to DEQ rules and provide for LRAPA to better coordinate with and meet state and federal requirements.

How will DEQ know the problem has been solved?

If EQC adopts the rules, DEQ will submit the rules to EPA to update the federally-approved State Implementation Plan including a request for federal delegation of certain rule aspects, where appropriate. DEQ will know the goals of this rulemaking have been addressed when EPA reviews and approves the delegation request and changes to the State Implementation Plan.

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.

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  State Implementation Plan

Chapter 340 action

Statutory authority

ORS 468.020, 468.065, 468A.135

Other authority

 LRAPA Title 13 General Duties and Powers of Board and Director

LRAPA Title 14 Rules of Practice and Procedure

Statute implemented  Legislation  

ORS 468 and 468A

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

Fee Analysis

This rulemaking does not establish or revise fees. If this rulemaking were adopted, the fees in effect in Lane County would be submitted to EPA for incorporation into Oregon’s State Implementation Plan. The fees described below are the amounts used in LRAPA’s 2011 rulemaking, where LRAPA aligned its fee structure with DEQ’s structure for Air Contaminant Discharge Permits.

Fiscal and Economic Impact

Fiscal and Economic Impact

LRAPA’s rule adoption resulted in …. The rules have been in effect in Lane County since their adoption in 2011. DEQ, in consultation with LRAPA, evaluated the rules and determined LRAPA’s original analysis of fiscal and economic impacts is reasonable and still correct in light of events that have occurred since LRAPA’s rule adoption several years ago.

Statement of Cost of Compliance  

   Impacts on general public

New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration: DEQ does not anticipate any direct, negative fiscal or economic impacts from LRAPA’s rules on the general public. However, indirect fiscal or economic impacts to the public can occur through increased prices for services or products as a result of costs associated with additional control or process equipment that may be required if a source triggers the requirements. DEQ expects any such price increases to be small and lacks available information upon which it could accurately estimate potential increases.

EPA adopted standards for PM_2.5 based on their link to serious health problems ranging from increased symptoms, hospital admissions and emergency room visits to premature death for people with heart and lung disease. The rules could create positive, direct economic benefits by reducing health care costs because the amount of PM_2.5 emissions allowed from new or expanding large businesses will be reduced.

Global warming may create public health problems that can have negative economic impacts. The rules could create positive, direct economic benefits by reducing health care costs because the amount of greenhouse gas emissions allowed from new or expanding large businesses will be reduced. However, DEQ is unable to estimate those impacts because it lacks available information to project the complicated connection between reductions in those pollutants and the costs of health care.

Permitting updates:  The proposed adoption of the new federal area source NESHAPs would not indirectly impact the general public because any negative fiscal and economic impacts occurred when the EPA adopted the rules, and because the rules applied in Oregon upon EPA’s adoption.  The requirement that sources affected by a new federal area source NESHAP obtain an permit could indirectly impact the general public if the associated permitting fees are passed on in the form of higher prices for goods and services.

Impact on other government entities other than DEQ

a.  Local governments:

New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration: LRAPA’s rules have a negative fiscal and economic impact on local government agencies that build new sources and or modify existing sources and trigger New Source Review or Prevention of Significant Deterioration. The costs are similar to those of large businesses. Currently, three county and local government agencies are subject to air permitting regulations in Lane County. New facilities that would be large sources of PM_2.5 and greenhouse gases would also be subject to the rules.

Permitting updates: The fiscal and economic impacts on large businesses were expected to be the same as those estimated for small businesses.

b.  State agencies    

New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration: State and federal government agencies would incur the same fiscal and economic impacts as local government agencies mentioned above. Currently there are two state and no federal government agencies subject to air permitting regulations in Lane County.

Permitting updates: The fiscal and economic impacts on large businesses were expected to be the same as those estimated for small businesses.

Impact on DEQ ORS 183.335

New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration: Workload for DEQ will not increase as a result of LRAPA incorporating PM_2.5 and greenhouse gases into permits. DEQ does not review nor coordinate in the issuance of LRAPA permits.

Permitting updates: There is no impact on DEQ for the implementation of the LRAPA permitting rules in Lane County.

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

New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration: Nineteen large businesses in Lane County are required to hold federal Title V Operating Permits and 101 large businesses hold Air Contaminant Discharge Permits. These permit holders are subject to the PM_2.5 and greenhouse gas portions of the LRAPA rules. Additionally, proposed new facilities in Lane County that would be large sources of PM_2.5 and greenhouse gases would also be subject to the rules. The fiscal and economic impacts on large businesses were expected to be the same as those estimated for small businesses.

Small Scale Renewable Energy Sources: DEQ anticipates that there will be a positive economic impact for one or more small scale renewable energy sources because offsets are not available for sources that are located in remote parts of the nonattainment area. This benefit results from House Bill 2952 (2009), and is unchanged by this rulemaking. Getting offsets elsewhere in the nonattainment area also benefits air quality since the offsets will come from near where the highest ambient concentrations are located.

Permitting updates: The fiscal and economic impacts on large businesses were expected to be the same as those estimated for small businesses.

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

New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration: The fiscal and economic impact of LRAPA’s rulemaking is primarily due to federal requirements, although a portion of the impact is caused by incorporating the federal requirements into LRAPA’s unique program for New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration. LRAPA’s rules have a negative fiscal and economic impact on approximately 100 small businesses. LRAPA’s rules have a negative fiscal and economic impact on these sources because they are required to make an initial estimate of PM_2.5 and greenhouse gas emissions at time of permit renewal or modification so LRAPA can incorporate emission levels into permits. These businesses have the option of assuming that PM_2.5 emissions are the same as PM₁₀ emissions (already included in their permits), eliminating any additional costs for reporting, recordkeeping or other administrative activities. Greenhouse gas emissions can be estimated using a process similar to their existing greenhouse gas reporting requirements.

Additional costs could be incurred if the business had to add control equipment to meet control technology requirements. Businesses are also required to perform computer modeling to ensure that the health standards are met and air quality in wilderness areas is not degraded. Most of the costs are the result of federal requirements and do not change as a result of adding PM_2.5 and greenhouse gases to the list of regulated pollutants. Additionally, NSR and PSD is a case-by-case analysis, and because the type of pollution controls and computer modeling varies for each case, DEQ lacks available information to accurately estimate those costs. However, DEQ acknowledges that the cost impact of NSR/PSD is typically significant. The application fee alone for this type of permit in Lane County was $46,922 at the time of LRAPA’s rule adoption in 2011.

Small Scale Renewable Energy Sources: DEQ anticipates that there will be no fiscal and economic impact as a result of the proposed rules.

Permitting updates:

•  Area Source NESHAPs: LRAPA’s adoption of area source NESHAPs by reference has no negative fiscal and economic impacts because any negative fiscal and economic impacts occurred when EPA adopted the rules, and because the rules applied in Lane County upon EPA’s adoption. LRAPA’s rules are substantively identical to their federal counterparts.

A.  Area Source NESHAP Permitting: LRAPA adopted permitting requirements for facilities subject to area source NESHAPs. Sources that trigger the permitting requirement obtain a Standard ACDP and pay permitting fees. Standard ACDP permitting fees would have a negative fiscal and economic impact on affected businesses, many of which are small businesses. To mitigate the fiscal and economic impact on affected businesses, many of which are small businesses, LRAPA’s rules added the new area source NESHAPs to the list of business categories eligible to obtain a Simple or General permits, which are less costly. General ACDPs in Lane County currently cost between $134/year to $2,092/year, Simple ACDPs cost between $2,145/year and $4,290/year, and Standard ACDPs cost $8,580/year.

•  General ACDP Attachments: LRAPA’s rule adoption allows business subject to multiple area source NESHAPs or multiple General permits to obtain one General permit and one or more General permit Attachments in lieu of a second permit. Affected businesses are charged the full annual fee for one General permit and a reduced annual fee for each General permit Attachment. The General permit attachment costs less than having to get multiple General permits or a single, more complicated Simple permit that covers all of the relevant NESHAPs. Allowing a business to be assigned to one General ACDP and one or more General ACDP Attachments would positively impact small businesses because it would allow some businesses to avoid the requirement to obtain multiple general permits or a more costly Simple ACDP.

•  Registration: LRAPA’s rule adoption allows LRAPA to use registration as an alternative to permitting. This is available to businesses that participate in an environmental certification program. Registered businesses pay an annual registration fee that is equal to or less than the corresponding annual permitting fee. Registration helps ensure that businesses comply with the new area source NESHAPs and encourage them to adopt sustainable practices to achieve greater environmental benefits. The registration fee pays LRAPA’s cost for developing and implementing the registration program and ensuring compliance with the applicable standards. Registration has a positive fiscal and economic impact because the registration fee will be equal to or less than the corresponding permitting fee and registrations carry fewer administrative reporting requirements compared to permitting. Registration: Registration could positively impact the general public because registration applies to businesses that would otherwise be required to obtain a permit and the registration fee will be equal to or less than the corresponding permitting fee.

 Fees for the LRAPA adopted rules that included permit requirements for area sources subject to NESHAPs for General permits and General permit attachments as follows (actual fees paid in 2012):

Documents relied on for fiscal and economic impact

Advisory committee

DEQ did not appoint an advisory committee. LRAPA followed appropriate requirements for rulemaking when it adopted its rules.

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.

To comply with ORS 183.534, LRAPA determined the proposed rules may have an 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 possible impact appears to be minimal. LRAPA cannot quantify the impact at this time because the information available to it does not indicate whether the costs would be passed on to consumers and any such estimate would be speculative.

A negative impact could occur if permitting fees are passed through by permit holders providing products and services for such development and construction. The possible impact appears to be minimal. LRAPA cannot quantify this impact at this time because the available information does not indicate whether the permit fees would be passed on to consumers and any such estimate would be speculative.

Federal relationship                      http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/468a.html

"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..."

The federal relationship is identified by way of each major component of this LRAPA rule package titled “PM2.5 and GHG Rule Changes”. The three (3) major components of the rule package are identified in the following table with the corresponding DEQ rule item.

Relationship to federal requirements

1.  PM_2.5 and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (NSR/PSD) permitting thresholds:

LRAPA 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). The proposed rulemaking is different from because it modifies LRAPA’s existing permitting rules which are different than federal rules. LRAPA’s permitting program has been structured in a different way than the federal program since it originated in 1982, but is considered equivalent by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Both programs require preconstruction approval (NSR/PSD) for new major air pollution sources or existing sources making modifications that will increase their emissions above a baseline level by a defined amount known as a “Significant Emission Rate.” The primary difference between LRAPA’s existing rules and the federal rules is how the baseline emission level, or netting basis, is established. The netting basis is the emission level in a defined baseline year, adjusted by any required decreases and approved increases of emissions.

Under LRAPA’s program, the netting basis is based on actual emissions from a set time period, often the year 1977 or 1978, and is adjusted accordingly based on subsequent changes at the facility. If emissions increase above the netting basis by the Significant Emission Rate for a pollutant, the source triggers NSR/PSD.

Under the federal program NSR/PSD is also triggered by an increase over a Significant Emission Rate, however the concept of baseline and netting basis is different. Instead of having a fixed baseline period, the federal program typically requires a review of the highest actual emissions at a source over any two year period in the previous ten years. Following that review, an annual highest emission level is established and that level is used as the baseline for determining if emissions will increase by more than a Significant Emission Rate.

The proposed rule does not create new differences in the major source preconstruction program from the federal program. It makes changes to LRAPA’s rules to maintain equivalency with the federal program. The proposed rule incorporates two new federally regulated pollutants (greenhouse gases and fine particulates) into LRAPA’s existing program which is, and has been different from the federal program since its inception.

Another change is the proposed rule to establish a Significant Impact Level (SIL), used to determine if additional air quality analysis is required during preconstruction approval. EPA’s recently adopted SILs for PM_2.5 were developed by scaling the existing PM₁₀ SILs using a PM_2.5-to-PM₁₀ National Ambient Air Quality Standard ratio.

LRAPA adopted the following SILs for PM_2.5 in a temporary rule at the August 23, 2010 board meeting based on the EPA proposed SILs at that time.

Since EPA did not adopt the option expected, LRAPA is proposing adoption of EPA’s Class I SILs to replace the SILs adopted in the temporary rule.

LRAPA’s proposed Class II and Class III SILs are lower than EPA’s values because LRAPA established lower levels in the early 1990’s for PM10 due DEQ’s establishment of the SIL statewide to address significant air quality problems in the Medford area. Air quality in this area has improved over time but it is still an area of concern. The lower SILs have been maintained as part of LRAPA’s State Implementation Plan to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate. Despite the lower PM10 SILs, LRAPA currently has one area in the Lane County that does not meet ambient air quality standards for PM2.5.

EPA’s Class II and III SILs for PM2.5 are higher than LRAPA’s existing SILs for PM10. Since PM2.5 emissions consist of smaller particles and are considered a subset of PM10 emissions, LRAPA is proposing that the PM2.5 SIL be set at a level equal to LRAPA’s current PM10 SIL.

The proposed rules also change how small scale local energy projects are evaluated under LRAPA’s rules based on recent changes to Oregon’s statutes resulting from House Bill 2952. EPA requires states to have minor source construction approval programs, in addition to the major source program described above, but gives flexibility in how to do this. LRAPA’s existing minor source construction approval program in effect applies major source NSR/PSD requirements to any source with emissions over the Significant Emission Rate. This is above and beyond what is required by the federal rules. HB 2952 revised how minor source construction approval works for small scale local energy projects in Lane County providing LRAPA with greater flexibility on how to implement the program. The changes in the proposed rule still meet EPA’s general requirement to have a construction approval program for minor sources and do not change the stringency of the rule.

If the proposal differs from, or is in addition to, applicable federal requirements, explain the reasons for the difference or addition (including as appropriate, the public health, environmental, scientific, economic, technological, administrative or other reasons).

LRAPA’s proposed rules maintain inherent differences between LRAPA’s existing permitting program rules and the federal rules for the purpose of administrative consistency with the exception of the SILs which are more stringent for Class II and Class III for environmental and administrative reasons. See discussion above in response to Question 1. Adopting the federal program for some pollutants while maintaining the Oregon program for other pollutants could cause confusion and it would be resource intensive to administer two different programs in the state. Also converting the entire program to match the federal program would be a major undertaking, requiring significant resources and technical challenges. In addition to maintaining administrative consistency there are a number of other benefits to the LRAPA program as described below.

The Oregon (and LRAPA’s) NSR/PSD program was used as one of the models to support the development of the federal NSR reform rules. In particular, Oregon’s and LRAPA’s Plant Site Emission Limit was a model for the federal Plantwide Applicability Limit (PAL). The federal PAL is set by adding the Significant Emission Rate to the highest actual emissions over any two year period in the previous ten years.

The foundation for calculating net emission increases or decreases for determining applicability of the NSR/PSD program in the LRAPA rules is the Plant Site Emission Limit established for each source. PSELs manage airshed capacity and provide the basis for:

1) assuring reasonable further progress towards attainment of ambient standards;

2) assuring compliance with ambient standards and PSD increments (the maximum concentration increase that is allowed to occur above a baseline concentration for a specific pollutant);

3) administering the emissions trading program; and

4) tracking PSD increment consumption (the cumulative impact of emissions growth in areas that meet air quality standards).

It is also important to note that any increase in actual emissions above the PSEL requires the source to apply for, and LRAPA to approve, a revision to the PSEL in the LRAPA air quality construction permit. The PSEL rules are consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act as they allow increases in actual emissions only if such increases would not exceed applicable emission limitations, or cause ambient air quality standards, PSD increments or reasonable further progress to be violated. The LRAPA rules, therefore, have a more clearly established baseline than in the EPA rules.

Because the PSEL is typically based on actual emissions in the 1978 baseline year, the LRAPA approach is equivalent to how EPA determines whether there is a net emissions increase. Furthermore, LRAPA accumulates all emissions increases and decreases from physical changes or changes in operation since the baseline year or last major source permit, whichever is more recent, rather than just during a “contemporaneous” time period. This aspect of LRAPA’s program is similar to the federal PAL. Both provide a net environmental benefit and flexibility because they create an incentive for sources to voluntarily reduce emissions in order to avoid triggering NSR/PSD. The PSEL and PAL both have provisions to be reduced if emission reductions at the sources occur and make the caps excessively high. The PSEL and PAL also eliminate the possibility of a gradual increase of emissions over time by piecemeal projects not triggering NSR/PSD. Under the federal rules where a PAL is not chosen, an increase or decrease in actual emissions is contemporaneous. The increases from previous changes at the facility are only looked at if they occurred with 10 years of the date of a proposed new change.

In Lane County all emissions units that contribute to the emissions increase above the SER are required to install retrofit Best Available Control Technology. BACT, an emission limitation based on the maximum degree of emission reduction by the most stringent technology available for controlling emissions, is required unless it can be demonstrated that it is not feasible for energy, environmental, or economic reasons. Under the federal program, the BACT requirement applies to each individual new or modified affected emissions unit and pollutant emitting activity at which a net emissions increase would occur. Individual BACT determinations are performed for each pollutant subject to a PSD review emitted from the same emission unit. Consequently, the BACT determination must separately address, for each regulated pollutant with a significant emissions increase at the source, air pollution controls for each emissions unit or pollutant emitting activity subject to review.

The LRAPA program, although substantially different from EPA’s regulations, provides a workable program which is equivalent to EPA’s and will accomplish the Clean Air Act goal of preventing significant deterioration of air quality.

Small Scale Local Energy Project

HB 2952 (2009) requires these changes to the rules in order to match Oregon’s revised statutes. 

What alternatives did DEQ consider if any?

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Prevention of Significant Deterioration

LRAPA considered not taking delegation of the NSR/PSD program for GHGs. The result of this alternative would be confusion in terms of administering, issuing, enforcing and complying with these requirements since NSR/PSD permits would be issued both by EPA and LRAPA. Depending on the pollutant, the NSR/PSD programs are implemented differently. It would require additional coordination and staffing to ensure LRAPA and EPA approved permits within a similar timeframe, otherwise construction could be delayed. This alternative was not pursued because it would make the NSR/PSD program very disconnected and would make administration of the program impractical.

There are at least two steps in EPA’s Tailoring Rule that phase-in applicability for PSD and title V permits for the largest emitters of GHGs. For the first step, beginning on January 2, 2011, PSD or title V requirements will apply to sources’ GHG emissions only if the sources are subject to PSD or title V anyway due to their non-GHG pollutants. Therefore, EPA will not require sources or modifications to evaluate whether they are subject to PSD or title V requirements solely on account of their GHG emissions. The second step of the Tailoring Rule, beginning on July 1, 2011, will phase in additional large sources of GHG emissions. New sources as well as existing sources not already subject to title V that emit, or have the potential to emit, at least 100,000 tons per year CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) will become subject to the PSD and title V requirements. In addition, sources that emit or have the potential to emit at least 100,000 tons per year CO2e and that undertake a modification that increases net emissions of GHGs by at least 75,000 tons per year CO2e will also be subject to PSD requirements.

LRAPA and DEQ considered implementing the second step of the phase-in to begin on January 2 rather than July 1, 2011; however permitting resources would not be available to meet the earlier deadline and the GHG PSD rules will not be adopted until April, 2011.

LRAPA is also considering and requests comments on three other options DEQ is considering as described in the Alternative Rule Options document. In particular, DEQ is contemplating and would like comment on adopting EPA’s method for establishing when PSD is triggered for greenhouse gas emissions.

PM_2.5 Significant Impact Levels

LRAPA considered EPA’s proposed options for SILs for Class II and Class III areas. However, EPA’s Class II and III SILs for PM_2.5 are higher than LRAPA’s PM₁₀ SIL since PM_2.5 emissions consist of smaller particles and are considered a subset of PM₁₀ emissions. Also adopting higher SILs for PM_2.5 would not be consistent with the need to bring Oakridge (and Klamath Falls) into attainment, or meeting the ambient air quality standards for PM_2.5.

Small Scale Local Energy Project: LRAPA did not consider alternatives to this proposal because it the proposal is consistent with changes directed by legislature.

2.  Permitting Rule Updates:

For the most part, this rulemaking proposes to adopt federal air quality requirements by reference. This rulemaking does not add new substantive requirements that are different or in addition to federal requirements contained in 40 CFR Part 63.

What alternatives did DEQ consider if any?

No alternatives to the federal air quality requirements so as to maintain consistency with the state (DEQ) and federal (EPA) corresponding requirements.

“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 018-0010

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

Land-use considerations are identified by way of each major component of this LRAPA rule package titled “PM2.5 and GHG Rule Changes”. The three (3) major components of the rule package are identified in the following table with the corresponding DEQ rule item.

1.  PM_2.5 and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (NSR/PSD) permitting thresholds

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

DEQ’s statewide goal compliance and local plan compatibility procedures adequately cover the proposed rules. In LRAPA’s Rules and Regulations, new regulated pollutants will be added to those that are required to be permitted but the requirements for the permitting of these activities and the review of their land use impacts remain unchanged.

2.  Permitting Rule Updates

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

DEQ’s statewide goal compliance and local plan compatibility procedures adequately cover the proposed rules. LRAPA will implement these rules through their ACDP and Title V permitting programs. Currently cities and counties must provide a Land Use Compatibility Statement approval before LRAPA issues these permits or approves a Notice of Construction.

Stakeholder and public involvement

 Advisory committee

DEQ did not appoint an advisory committee. LRAPA followed appropriate requirements for rulemaking when it adopted its rules.

 EQC prior involvement

DEQ shares general rulemaking information with EQC through the annual DEQ Rulemaking Plan review and monthly status report. DEQ did not present additional information specific to this proposed rule revision beyond the annual rulemaking plan and the monthly rulemaking report.

Public notice

The January 2014 Oregon Bulletin will publish the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with Hearing.

DEQ also:

•  Posted notice on DEQ’s webpage http://www.oregon.gov/deq/RulesandRegulations/Pages/2013/LRAPAOB.aspx on Dec. 13, 2013.

•  E-mailed notice on Dec. 13, 2013 to:

•  Interested parties through GovDelivery

•  Interested parties and stakeholders provided to DEQ by LRAPA

•  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 LRAPA’s advisory committee

•  Mailed the notice by U.S. Postal Service to ## interested parties on December 13, 2013.

•  Sent notice to EPA on mmm dd, yyyy. 

•  Published legal advertisement in the following newspapers on Dec. 13, 2013:

◦  Oregonian

◦  Register Guard

◦  Beacon

◦  Cottage Grove Sentinel

Public hearings

One public hearing will be held. DEQ authorized LRAPA to act as DEQ’s hearings officer on behalf of the Environmental Quality Commission for public comment on the rule amendments. The table below includes information about how to participate in the public hearing. DEQ’s authorization is indicated in the letter to LRAPA in the Stringency Review and Authorization section of this document.

Before taking public comment and according to Oregon Administrative Rule 137-001-0030, the staff presenter will summarize 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 Jan. 16, 2014 at 5:00 p.m.

The primary goals of LRAPA’s rulemaking were to adopt federal permitting PM2.5 thresholds for New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration, greenhouse gas rules New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration, federal emission standards, registration as an alternative to permitting for auto body shops and dry cleaners certified through an approved environmental compliance certification program; exemption for emergency generators and small electric power generating units to reduce the regulatory burden on these sources; corrections to rule citations and additions and changes to the definitions of terms

LRAPA’s rulemaking also adopted General Permit Attachments and Fees Adopting new and amended federal NSPS and NESHAP standards align LRAPA’s rules with DEQ’s and EPA’s so that LRAPA can keep federal delegation and implement these regulations. This benefits industry through quicker approval of applicability determination requests and alternative compliance demonstration requests. The public will also benefit from improved air quality resulting from LRAPA’s implementation of these regulations. General ACDP adoption is currently done through the public notice process.

With the adoption of numerous area source NESHAPs, it is difficult to include all requirements that apply to a category of businesses into a single general ACDP. It would also be burdensome to issue a single business multiple permits. This rulemaking would allow a business to be assigned to one general ACDP and one or more general ACDP attachments.

Affected businesses would be charged the full annual fee for one general ACDP and a reduced annual fee for each general ACDP attachment. Each general ACDP attachment would be a streamlined version of the corresponding General ACDP, with most of the general conditions removed. The rules would include a reduced fee for these attachments, which would fund LRAPA’s oversight of the standards contained in the attachments. The rules would allow LRAPA to charge businesses the full annual fee for one General ACDP and a reduced annual fee for each permit attachment rather than issuing a business multiple General ACDPs and collecting multiple permit fees.

Registration as an alternative to permitting for auto body shops and dry cleaners certified through an approved environmental compliance certification program as a way to reduce LRAPA’s and DEQ’s administrative burden and recognize small businesses that commit to exemplary environmental practices. s proposing registration and registration fees as an alternative to permitting and permit fees for auto body shops and dry cleaners certified through an approved environmental compliance certification program. These businesses must meet standards above minimum regulatory requirements and are exempt from permitting if they complete and maintain certification. The annual registration fees would fund LRAPA’s cost for developing and implementing the registration program and ensuring compliance with applicable standards.

Exempting emergency-use and small electrical power generating units EPA’s standards for new electric power generating units that were adopted by the LRAPA board on January 12, 2010 trigger permitting of sources with emergency generators or extremely small engines. he rules would provide an exemption for emergency generators and small electric power generating units to reduce the regulatory burden on these sources

ACurtis, 2013-11-12T14:59:00Z
copy from ind stream

ACurtis, 2013-11-12T14:59:00Z
Andrea added. Is this accurate?

ACurtis, 2013-11-12T14:59:00Z
copied from ind stream

ACurtis, 2013-11-12T14:59:00Z
COPY FROM IND STREAM.

ACurtis, 2013-11-12T14:59:00Z
COPIED FROM IND STREAM

JROYS, 2013-11-12T14:59:00Z
These seem to conflict

JROYS, 2013-11-12T14:59:00Z
What is the logic behind “DEQ aniticpates” in earlier paragraphs and “LRAPA anticipates” here

JROYS, 2013-11-12T14:59:00Z
ditto

ACurtis, 2013-11-12T14:59:00Z
need to verify whether this correct

ACurtis, 2013-11-12T14:59:00Z
copied from ind stream

Max Hueftle, 2013-11-12T14:59:00Z
Propose using old format for this section. Tough to make fit new format

Max Hueftle, 2013-11-12T14:59:00Z
Propose using old format for this section. Tough to make fit new format

ACurtis, 2013-11-12T14:59:00Z
See template