From: KNUDSEN Larry

Sent: Thu Sep 03 13:34:02 2009

To: MCALLISTER Larry

Subject: RE: Concurrence review of CWSRF Permanent rulemaking

Importance: Normal

Yes, I'm ok with this. I'll get you the paper work.

-----Original Message-----

From: MCALLISTER Larry

Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 6:16 PM

To: KNUDSEN Larry

Subject: RE: Concurrence review of CWSRF Permanent rulemaking

Options: print and sign and mail/fax/pdf , scan email to me.

Print your name and date electronically in the concurrence doc and email to me

I just need something to indicate that you reviewed the doc. Should I assume you were ok with the docs and have no comments?

Larry M.

From: KNUDSEN Larry

Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 4:25 PM

To: MCALLISTER Larry

Subject: RE: Concurrence review of CWSRF Permanent rulemaking

Larry, Do you need me to print and sign the concurrence form and send you a pdf, or can I just provide an email that says I concur? LK

-----Original Message-----

From: MCALLISTER Larry

Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 6:01 PM

To: BELYEA David; KNUDSEN Larry; VERNON Pat

Cc: JOHNDOHL Judy

Subject: Concurrence review of CWSRF Permanent rulemaking

Hi,

The public comment period for this CWSRF Permanent rulemaking (to update the temporary stimulus rules) closed on 8/24. Three public hearings took place – Medford, Bend and Portland. Only one person attended in total. We received three comments (ACWA, City of Coburg and Clackamas County WES).

Note: DEQ’s response to the City of Coburg is not yet included in this package. The City’s comments were submitted during the public forum at last week’s Commission meeting. That comment and DEQ’s response will be incorporated into the package this next week. No changes were made to the proposed rule language as a result of public comments.

The rulemaking schedule calls for just this one review of the EQC package. I ask that your provide your comments (and your sign off on the attached concurrence review form) by the end of the day Tuesday, 9/8.

You have all reviewed a number of the documents within the package - those that went out for public comment (proposed rules, relationship to federal requirements, the land use evaluation statement, and the FIS –all PDFs). You are welcome to review those documents again but, the staff report, the presiding officer’s report and the response to comments (Word docs) are the new documents in need of your review. The attached Concurrence Review form highlights the perspective I ask that each of you take when reviewing these docs.

Thank you in advance for your time. Call me with any questions.

Larry

X6412

<<ConcurrenceReviewFinalRmkgPckg.doc>> <<EQCStaffReportRuleAdoption.docx>> <<AttachBPublicCommentResponseSummary.docx>> <<AttachCPresidingOfficerReport.docx>> <<AttachDRelationship to Federal Requirements.pdf>> <<AttachEFIS.pdf>> <<AttachFLandUseEvalStmt.pdf>> <<AttachAProposedrules.pdf>>

*****CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*****

This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have received this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by reply e-mail, keep the contents confidential, and immediately delete the message and any attachments from your system.

************************************

*****CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*****

This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have received this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by reply e-mail, keep the contents confidential, and immediately delete the message and any attachments from your system.

************************************