Message

All:

Thank you all for your careful review and helpful comments! Please review the attached “final draft” and let me know if you have further comments, questions, or concerns by 5 pm Monday the 14^th at the absolute latest, so that I can make changes and fax the finished product to the Secretary of State by the end of the day on the 15^th.

Many changes were the result of similar comments from various reviewers. In those cases, I tried to capture the gist of the comments so the change may not reflect your edit exactly as you wrote it. Here’s a summary of the general changes and I’ve also addressed a couple of specific issues below to the relevant editor…

General additions/modifications to the last draft:

Brian White of OCO (at Kerri’s suggestion) reviewed the Announcement for clarity and suggested I insert “Enforcement” to the caption so it now reads “Clarification of Proposed Orders in Contested Enforcement Cases” – I think this is much better and have incorporated it throughout.

Because the Div. 11 changes will be submitted as a SIP revision after the rules are adopted, I recently learned that there’s some SIP-specific language that has to be included in the notice documents. You’ll see the same sentence repeated throughout re: revision to the SIP as a requirement of the CAA. Also note the revised language to Div. 200 has been added to the proposed rules.

After working with Elle K. on posting these documents on the web, I re-lettered the attachments in order to add the Notice of Hearing document to the Announcement. That way people can click on its title in the Announcement on the webpage and be able to access the notice as well.

Les:

After checking with Larry McAllister, we do need to include the deleted language, as well as the full text of each rule, so you will see a much longer Proposed Rule Changes document. Also, Les – did you confirm that my citations re: statutory authority are correct? I have never been entirely sure that those were the correct (and only) statutes.

Kerri:

According to Larry M, the smaller type on the 2^nd page of the Land Use Evaluation Statement should stay on the form (which makes sense, because if we deleted it, the “c” above would refer to nothing.

Larry K:

I think Larry M. was going to call you to discuss, but our feeling after re-considering the Land Use document is that we should check “yes”, with the note you described, because if we check “no”, we need to apply the criteria in Section 2.c., and it doesn’t make sense to do so. The point is that enforcement rules indirectly affect land use programs in the SAC program, so my feeling is that we could say either yes or no, as long as we have an explanatory note, but checking “yes” avoided the 2.c. analysis which doesn’t really apply to this rulemaking. Let me know if this doesn’t resolve the issue for you.

Larry M:

Still need to hear back from you on whether 340-011-0008 is available. Also, is the effective date (Jan. 06) of the model rules correct? I confirmed, the spaces between titles and numbers of rules are as they are on the SOS website.

Thanks again everyone!

Sarah Greenley

Environmental Law Specialist

Department of Environmental Quality

Office of Compliance and Enforcement

503.229.6927