Jerry

This was a monster to review. Must have been challenging to makes all these revisions Jerry

When you have questions about my comments, don’t hesitate to give me a call at x6412

On a scale of 1-10, this one gets a 9.9!

Nice job.

Below are my comments on your individual rule documents.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Hearing

* HAVE WE CHECKED WITH SOS TO MAKE SURE THESE NEW NUMBERS FOR ADOPTED RULES ARE AVAILABLE??

* in final form this doc has to show addresses for each hearing.

* should provide the name of hearing officer if known

*238-0050 shown as amended, but I don’t see any changes in the rule language?

* 340-232 (repealed) needs to be inserted numerically, otherwise good job listing all the many rules in numerical order!

*just a minor suggested edit in the rule summary

Land Use Evaluation Statement

* just one suggested edit

Rulemaking Announcement (Public Notice)

* second paragraph under “background”, I highlighted a comma I don’t think is necessary

*under “Objective of this rulemaking” we are required to indicate how DEQ will know that this objective has been obtained. I suggested possible wording.

* under “how to comment” hearing should be plural: “hearings specified below”

* listed public hearing need to include addresses of course

*have you listed the correct citations for statutes in the right margin? What about 468A.310?

Relationship to Federal Requirements

Jerry, I think you did an excellent job of describing why the new regulations go beyond federal regulations in this document. A great example for future rule writers. Thanks

* one suggested edit

* a couple clarification comments

Fiscal Statement

Jerry-I am suggesting several changes in the FIS.

1) The rulemaking addresses several different areas in the “overview section”: municipal waste combustors, mercury rule, general permits, mercury rule, gasoline dispensing facilities, other federal AQ regulations. In this “overview section” just provide an overview-save the impact numbers for those later sections (I have made specific comments in the document).

2) In the sections where the impact is described (small business, large business, local governments etc.), it seems that DEQ only feels two of the areas within the rulemaking (gasoline dispensing facilities, and general permits) evidently have any impact. That is fine, but I think as a reader it would be clearer if the impacts of both of these are broken out and clearly indicated each time. And if there is no impact from the general permits to local governments – it still helps the reader if that is stated. See my mark up. Again, these are suggestions you can take or leave.

Finally, in the last section, last page the FIS indicates that DEQ will convene a Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee. That committee should occur before the rule goes out for public comment – which means this statement should be past tense - DEQ also convened a Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee for this rulemaking.

Additional information on Proposed Rules

* the public will appreciate this document!

Attachment G-1, Div 216

* looks good

Attachment G-1, tables 1 and 2

Jerry – I looked thru Div 216 at all the numerous references to tables 1 and 2. I see no problem with the references to table 1. With table 2 many of the reference refer to table 2 in 216-0020 –when in fact table 2 is not in anyway listed or addressed in 216-0020 (whereas table 1 is clearly included in the language of 216-0020).

For a couple of reasons, I would highly recommend that you mention Table 2 in 216-0020. If appropriate you might modify the first sentence in 216-0020 to read: This division applies to all sources referred to in Table 1 and Table 2. I haven’t bothered checking with DOJ, but currently there are lots of references in Div 16 that refer to Table 2, but currently there is no relationship yet between table 2 and 216-0020. Please change this.

Attachment G-2, Div 232, 242, 244,

*244-250 needs a section 3

Attachment G-2a, tables 4 and 5

* looks good

Attachment G-3, Div 230

*340-230-0330(a)(A) – the “A” is the wrong font size – how’s that for nit picky?

* It appears that section 4 was skipped in developing this rule.

* holly crap do you think 230-340 is long enough!!

* it appears in 230-350(#1)(little L), page 32 – the “A” and “B” should actually be “a” and “b”.

Attachment G-4, Div 238, 244

* 238-0050 indicated as amended, but no redline shown?

* 340-244-0030(6) – seems the (b) and (A) are the same information? This looks intentional, let’s talk about this - Larry

* 340-244-0220(5)(ggggg) is missing.

Attachment G-5, Div 228,

* 340-228-0601(2) (a) and (A) are listed for the same text. This looks intentional, let’s talk about this - Larry

* 228-0625(8)f - you have a duplication of “f” in the structure. The second one should be “e” , I think

Attachment G-5a, Tables 1 and 2

* looks good

* just for clarification you might want to put the rule number in the table, where the table is referenced. For table 1 that would be 340-228-0631; for table 2 that would be 340-228-0627.

Attachment G-5a, Equations 1-5

* looks good

* just for clarification you might want to reference the rule number below the title of the equation, so readers would know where in rule the equation is mentioned?

For equations #1, 2, 3, 4 that would be 340-228-0625

For equation #5 that would be 340-228-0619

NESHAP and NSPST tables

No comments